Critics cornered
Restaurant-goers criticising the critics? Sounds unusual, but that is what happened when Harden's Restaurant Guides conducted a recent survey.
The guide, which relies on members of the public for its feedback, asked its restaurant-going reporters to review the newspaper reviewers. Some 4,000 responses evaluating the likes of Michael Winner and AA Gill have thrown up some interesting results.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the controversial Gill and Winner, both of the Sunday Times, were judged to be the most entertaining of the restaurant critics. But they did not gain votes for reliability. Indeed, Michael Winner came out as least reliable - and also least liked.
Most reliable of the reviewers were Nicholas Lander of the Financial Times and David Fingleton of the Spectator. Lander was also judged, with Ken Livingstone in London Evening Standard's ES magazine, to be the most likeable of the reviewers. These three gentlemen all tend to write about the restaurants rather than themselves.
When it came to the critic who is most read, it's AA Gill again - he certainly has the gift of putting the cat among the pigeons - but his influence is reduced by the fact he's not judged especially reliable. Fay Maschler of London's Evening Standard, however, is in third position as a reliable reviewer, but some thought her style about as exciting as a school report.
Reviews may not weald the influence reviewers may think, either. About two-thirds of those who regularly try new places read reviews at least weekly. But only about one-third of these readers admit to being often influenced by what they read. Reviews languished towards the bottom of the league of deciding influences, together with "having attractive premises" and guide-books.
Personal recommendation was cited about six times more often than favourable newspaper reviews as the most important influence when deciding whether to check out a new restaurant. Next in the pecking order was "posting an interesting menu" (cited in about one-quarter as many cases as personal recommendation).
The critics' survey was completed in conjunction with the survey for Harden's London Restaurants 2000, to be published at the end of September. Respondents (who together consume some 700,000 meals out in the capital each year) were asked which reviewers they read, and to assess their reliability, entertainment value and likeability. n
Richard Harden is co-editor of Harden's London Restaurants
TABLE:
Critics most mentioned in the Harden's survey
Rank Name Publication No of Mentions
1 AA Gill Sunday Times 921
2 Fay Maschler Evening Standard 808
3 Michael Winner Sunday Times 547
4 Jonathan Meades The Times 386
5 Matthew Fort Guardian 115
6 Ken Livingstone Evening Standard 73
7 Nicholas Lander Financial Times 48
8 India Knight Observer/Sunday Times 46
9 David Fingleton Spectator 45
10 Charles Campion Evening Standard 37
