Comment on The "Check, Please" Effect

the other night i ate in Bhabi's kitchen, and the owner said he refused to allow Check Please to tape there until he had expanded. interesting.
Bhabi's is the bomb, by the way.

Posted by ParkerS at May 20, 2004 04:16 PM

I agree. Restaurants have one of the worst success rates of any business around. Plus, success is not always a good or bad thing. With success comes questions of scale- can the restauranteur continue to produce excellent dining experiences to double, triple the number of customers going into the future? Or will they lose that special something in the process of growth?

If I were a restaurant owner, I would think I would welcome the opportunity for success, and have considered the possibilies when I got into the business. Really, this article seems pretty selfish minded- if you really love a restaurant, why not help the owner out, not horde it to yourself?

Posted by Apod at May 21, 2004 12:49 PM

I experienced the "Check Please" effect first-hand a few months ago. After seeing Noon-o-Kabab mentioned on the show, I went there that night with some friends. Had to wait an hour for a table, and the staff seemed pretty frazzled but they were still friendly and the food was still fantastic. I've gone back a couple times since and it hasn't been quite so crazy...

I'm sure it's difficult for restaurants to deal with the initial onslaught, but probably well worth putting up with for a couple weeks in terms of growing one's long-term clientele.

Posted by Benjy at May 21, 2004 04:06 PM

I totally agree with you. Given the choice (not an option in most instances) of too many patrons or too few, which would you choose? Of course, Check, Please! has virtually "made" the truly awful, Thai Pastry, the only bad Thai food I've ever had in the city.

Posted by foo d at May 22, 2004 04:45 AM

Strike Check, Please! re: Thai Pastry, in my last comment. I meant, instead, periodicals such as Chicago magazine and the Trib.

Posted by foo d at May 22, 2004 04:49 AM

Truely, these are the comments of someone that doesn't *own* a restaurant. With the rare exception of plaything restaurants backed by personal fortunes, doesn't every eatery want more traffic and table turnover? Sure there's a headache of crowded seating and long waits for a while, but doesn't everyone gravitate to places that are full, rather than empty? As "Kitchen Confidential" points out, places that have low turnover, are likely to have unfresh food. Ick!

Posted by Mike at May 24, 2004 04:48 PM

It nice to see the pot calling the kettle black... for years we've watch the "Chicago Magazine Effect" kill smaller restaurants who expanded to cover the added load, and then couldn't handle it when the load went away again.

Because the fast crowd moves on.

Want an example... consider the late Tonkatsu.

Posted by RheS at June 2, 2004 06:16 AM