Letters

01 January 2000
Letters

Don't give up on hotel grading yet

I read with disbelief today that the Wales and Scottish Tourist Boards (WTB and STB) cannot agree with the English Tourist Board (ETB), the AA and RAC on a uniform grading system for hotels and guesthouses.

The British Tourist Authority (BTA) is in the business of marketing the whole of Great Britain and, much as some people may find it hard to swallow, both Wales and Scotland are part of Great Britain and they would benefit from any efforts made on their behalf by the BTA.

If the Welsh and Scots cannot come to an arrangement with the other grading bodies, then the tourism market will get the same confusing information that has been the main complaint for years.

This is the best scenario that I can foresee. The worst, and most likely, outcome of their refusal to co-operate is that they will be ignored.

I exhort the WTB and the STB to get round the table with the other grading authorities and hammer out proposals that you can agree on, and then get on with making Great Britain a great place to visit.

MARY ANN GILCHRIST

Carlton House,

Llanwrtyd Wells, Powys.

Go back and finish the job

The Crown classification system has been in existence some 10 years, during which time this offering has confused customer and caterer without mercy. Changed, patched up, amended, marketed and remarketed, it still appeals to few at the sharp end of our industry.

So, to add insult to injury, not content with fudge, our stalwart leaders at the tourist boards have added "chaos" to their recipe.

How could anyone believe that after two years of meetings the English Tourist Board (ETB) is trying to sell a system that is not accepted by Scotland, while Wales remains sitting on the fence. Clearly the product is not yet complete, it is not made, it is not in existence - so how could you purport to sell it?

If ETB chairman David Quarmby opened a supermarket without a fruit-and-vegetable or meat counter, it would not be complete and it would not work.

The RAC and AA do themselves no justice by diluting their contribution to our industry by association. Do they really think small hoteliers will continue to back them individually with their marketing pound when what they have to offer is "harmonised"?

As with hotels, it is the differences that appeal, and competition and choice that motivate.

What a mess.

MARTIN CUMMINGS

Amberley Castle, West Sussex.

A hollow achievement

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read David Quarmby's complacent comments about the outcome of the discussions on a unified grading system and the need to "focus on what we have achieved rather than our differences".

But let's follow his advice and consider what has been achieved.

Two years ago, we had a facilities-only crown grading scheme which was beginning to be recognised by the public despite the minimal resources which had been devoted to promoting it and the confusion which the English Tourist Board (ETB) created by including a quality-grading option.

On top of that, we also had a widely recognised quality-grading alternative in the AA and RAC star schemes.

There was a genuine choice of schemes, enabling one to make sensible commercial decisions as to which was most appropriate for one's own business.

Unfortunately, owing to a misinterpretation of an inadequate piece of market research, somebody in the ETB decided that it was necessary to make their quality grading compulsory. Nobody made any attempt to canvass opinion among those hoteliers who had opted for a facilities-only grading.

The result, inevitably, was complete confusion. It became very difficult to explain to the customer what the differences between the schemes were (although the rule of thumb that, to convert crowns to stars, you simply deduct one - eg, three crowns equals two stars - worked most of the time).

Now we are told that the benefits we were promised of an overall unified system will not actually materialise because Scotland will be different. So what have we achieved?

  • No facilities-only grading option anywhere in the UK

  • At least two (possibly three) quality-grading schemes in different parts of the country

  • A need to redefine the criteria for star-grading to try to avoid too many problems as crowns are converted to stars

  • Three years of further confusion before the new scheme becomes fully operational.

It is hard to imagine a more complete shambles.

There are only two sensible ways out of this mess. Either the ETB should go back to a facilities-only grading scheme and let the AA and RAC offer the quality-grading alternative on a UK-wide basis, or the ETB should get out of the grading business altogether.

PAUL SAWBRIDGE

Managing Director,

Leisureplex, Leyland, Lancashire.

The objective is to be objective

In the self-serving tone that has become the hallmark of Michael Gottlieb's contribution to your Viewpoint page, he last week summoned up the "courage" to be a critic of the critics.

He railed against the fact that, in the course of their work, restaurant critics may get to know and sometimes like and admire some individuals in the catering business. This, he says, is bound to affect their objectivity.

This is the same Michael Gottlieb who last summer rang me at home to ask if I would give him advice over his plans for the future of his Smollensky's Balloon restaurants.

In what was, I now realise, his "cool" as opposed to "warm" approach to critics, he said that he might, of course, pay no attention to what I had to say.

I fobbed him off, saying that I was busy writing the Evening Standard Restaurant Guide (in which Smollensky's Balloons make no appearance), as it seemed to me that for a critic to get involved as a consultant to a particular restaurateur could certainly give rise to problems with objectivity.

FAY MASCHLER

Restaurant critic,

London's Evening Standard, London W8.

Critics must be seen to be right

Michael Gottlieb appears to want to kill off all restaurant critics. We may be a pain but we are also doing a job, which is often not as much fun as it is perceived to be.

There are very few places that are perfect in every sense. A critic looks for the best, but has a duty to point out the not-so-good, or in some cases the downright bad.

Unlike most critics, I took up my pen after 15 years as restaurateur/publican, which may have made me a better critic. But it may have made me worse, since I knew what I was looking for.

I was not simply looking for good food, I was also looking at the organisation, as well as service, atmosphere and that difficult-to-define factor - value for money.

If customer reaction is anything to go by, I was a reasonably successful critic. Inevitably I became known to some restaurateurs, and there was sometimes a degree of friendship which developed through professional contact. But I did not always support the efforts of my "friends" and was always prepared to criticise if I thought it was justified.

I always visited unannounced or, if booking, used an unknown name. So, even if the restaurateur knew me, or his staff had my photo in place of a dart board, they could only provide what they had available.

If restaurateurs knew me, I was more than happy to chat, and it strikes me that Michael Gottlieb would probably upset many with his stand-offish attitude.

After all, when a critic visits a restaurant, he or she is first and foremost a paying customer.

Part of a critic's job is to be in touch, and new restaurants are what readers really want to know about. I appreciate the problems of opening a new operation. But I could tell whether the problems were fundamental, or simply teething.

The point is that, when the doors open, the full price is charged. I have never yet seen a restaurant offer discounts to its customers simply because the operation is new.

It is the restaurateur's job to see things are right from the moment they start charging. I found that I did many restaurants a favour by a positive early review which allowed the restaurant to gain instant recognition.

From reading Mr Gottlieb's articles in the past, I know he is a good operator and a good businessman. So how on earth does he expect a critic to eat four meals in a restaurant before pen is put to paper?

Restaurant articles simply offer an opinion which is accepted by the public for what is: an opinion based on a single visit.

The worth of a restaurant critic is judged on whether the readers agree with his opinions. To be successful, a critic has got to get it right.

TIM RANDALL

London W4.

The Caterer Breakfast Briefing Email

Start the working day with The Caterer’s free breakfast briefing email

Sign Up and manage your preferences below

Check mark icon
Thank you

You have successfully signed up for the Caterer Breakfast Briefing Email and will hear from us soon!

Jacobs Media is honoured to be the recipient of the 2020 Queen's Award for Enterprise.

The highest official awards for UK businesses since being established by royal warrant in 1965. Read more.

close

Ad Blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an adblocker and – although we support freedom of choice – we would like to ask you to enable ads on our site. They are an important revenue source which supports free access of our website's content, especially during the COVID-19 crisis.

trade tracker pixel tracking