The Palmerston (Lounged)

[louisiana]

The Palmerston Wrote:

-----------------------------

Will, that's a very excellent response to many issues. Congratulations.

[louisiana]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> louisiana Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "you can't be a critic until someone is willing

> to

> > pay for your services and you can claim to have

> a

> > mandate."

> ...

> > I write as someone who was paid in the distant

> > past to write about wine and fortified wine

> from

> > particular parts of Europe

>

> Louisiana, I write as someone on the other side of

> the equation and it seems that things may have

> changed considerably in recent years. It can be

> nigh on impossible to get a broadsheet wine writer

> onto a lavish press trip

Quite. There's a lot of competition for all kinds of jollies.

- but even if you do,

> there's no guarantee that they'll write about the

> wine at the end of it, or that if they do, that

> it'll be a positive review.

You're having me on. ;-)

>

> Perhaps I was doing it wrong, but if I'd known I

> could have slipped Jancis or Tim Atkin a couple of

> cases of australian plonk in return for a good

> write up, I would have had some very happy

> clients. These days, it's bloggers who tend to

> get targeted for press trips - altogether an

> easier sell.

>

> Edited to say, not posting to be argumentative,

> just that I think some journos can be given the

> benefit of the doubt not to have been paid off.

Indeed, some are not paid off, but many, many receive some kinds of benefits in kind (e.g. accommodation or flights or additional paid-for articles in Food from ***** that are just reprints; or guaranteed op-ed pieces in the ***) and these benefits are not generally declared to the public. And some will employ others to write for them (at a much lower rate, of course). Ahem.

The best pieces, of course, are those written by those who have no axe to grind, and they also are by far the most fun to write. When you've written a piece about something you love, that has maybe even cost you money, and the subject ends up using it as their primary publicity internationally, because that love rings through what you have written...

However...

I was in Turkey a few weeks back, near Antalya, where a ghastly new hotel was opening - ?100m on the launch? - to which both regular journalists and bloggers were invited. Money literally rained down (in dollar bills). No expense was spared on caviar flown in from the FSU (or the Beijing Olympics-style fireworks). Now, some journalists wrote about it. And some didn't. And bloggers likewise. Some took a post-modern stance. My point is that none of the opinions are really trustworthy, whether or not the writer concerned is in the pay of a publication. Because everyone involved benefited greatly, privately, beyond their salary or not-salary. To the tune of ?100m I believe. That's a lot of money for PR.

The food and drink trade is in no way unusual or exceptional in this respect. Pharma journals are filled with articles that promote particular treatments that have been ghost-written by... people like yours truly. Paid for by 'A' or 'B' pharma company (in Italy, Spain, France, the UK ...) This is a scandal, because it affects the drug treatments you and me receive from our GPs. I admit that when times have been tough, I have accepted money to do this kind of thing. I was chosen not because I have any particular high-level knowledge of pharma, but because I can write a piece for a range of national and international publications that requires zero editing, and I have some understanding of science and biochemistry, and I can also write/translate/edit text between a number of European languages. I'm not proud of it, and I have not done it for over a decade. I could go on: medicine, business, politics...

And I have been in the room (in another country) when a very senior journalist received a one-hour call at home from a senior judge about a very important national issue that he really shouldn't have.... There are known metro stops in some capitals where documents get bought and sold to journalists, that shouldn't be. All of this stuff is kind of corrupt. Things go on behind the scenes that I think many people would be outraged by. And rightly.

In some parts of southern Europe, some so-called journalists have on their business cards *both* PR *and* journalist. I always despised that approach, but maybe it would be more honest.

[pk]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?100m on the launch? - to which both regular journalists

> and bloggers were invited.

so how many people did they invite? by my sums if they invited e.g. 1,000 journos/bloggers then that'd be ?100,000 a head!

[HonaloochieB]

andyjg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My first point about paying for a couple of drinks

> on a card was more anecdotal than critical - I had

> no issue with the place as a result, hence I

> returned at a later date to eat there. The

> barman's frankness just amused me.

And my point was that for a chap to use a debit card to pay for a 'couple of drinks' in a pub is poor form.

Cash is still readily available, makes for a swift transaction and doesn't inconvenience others, who may be gagging for a pint.

Fair enough in paying for a meal, but two drinks?

>

> At the end of the day HonaloochieB, my feeling

> after I left the place, when I'd eaten there, was

> that I'd been overcharged for what I'd got. And

> that's an impression that other people would

> appear to have too. Likewise, others including

> yourself clearly like it. There's no reason to be

> passive-aggressive about it; I'm not being cheap,

> neither am I unable to appreciate a good meal (I

> didn't go for a three quid kebab by choice) - I'm

> happy to pay for quality but, when I went there,

> my feeling was that I'd been charged more than

> what it was worth.

Look back on your post Andy, it seemed to me that you were charged an awful lot for salad and chips, I was just pointing out an alternative, at the time my ox tongue may have been in my pig's cheek, so rest assured it was puree an artichoke.

I hope I can buy you a pint in there one day, I'll be the one with the cash.

[lenk]

> And I have been in the room (in another country)

> when a very senior journalist received a one-hour

> call at home from a senior judge about a very

> important national issue that he really shouldn't

> have.... There are known metro stops in some

> capitals where documents get bought and sold to

> journalists, that shouldn't be. All of this stuff

> is kind of corrupt. Things go on behind the scenes

> that I think many people would be outraged by. And

> rightly.

As a PR myself, I find there's very little that lunch at The Salt Yard and 2 bottles of wine won't get you in terms of coverage ; )

[TJ]

Which is fine as they are industry professionals and as i said, get paid to do their job and therefore have a mandate.

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "you can't be a critic until someone is willing to

> pay for your services and you can claim to have a

> mandate."

>

> There a quite a few people who are not paid to

> write about a subject who nevertheless have very

> worthwhile opinions. For example, on the subject

> of wine, producers, specialist distributors,

> dealers, and collectors. I have always valued

> reports from specialists of their visits to

> vineyards, or about new producers, or tastings

> conducted, and have always listened to opinions

> from subject-matter specialists on particular

> niche areas. If the person has a particular

> expertise and interest, then they are worth

> listening to in my books, whether anyone pays them

> to write about those opinions or not.

>

> Unfortunately, much of mainstream wine writing in

> the generalist UK press is directed at supporting

> a particular market segment (cheap exports of

> plonk to UK supermarkets). Plonk reviews are paid

> for, but they are often not worth the paper they

> are written on (particularly when some element of

> the payment is in kind, by the

> producer/distributor concerned: free cases of wine

> at Christmas; weekends away at the vineyard with

> spouse; or even grand national tours of wineries,

> all-expenses paid).

>

> I write as someone who was paid in the distant

> past to write about wine and fortified wine from

> particular parts of Europe (including in UK

> broadsheets), and who has in the past been served

> free meals and drinks by restaurateurs and other

> traders seeking published kind words about their

> products. I've just been doing up the house, and

> OMG I have here a case of slides that include a

> box of bizarre pix from an Australian outfit that

> invited me along to an eight-person presentation

> dinner of Oz food and drink. It went on for six

> hours. Entertaining, but why they invited me I

> shall never know. And recently some old not-bad

> Spanish distillate in some truly naff bottles

> emerged while I was doing up the kitchen: six

> flasks were flown across Europe at vast expense on

> Christmas Eve one year, in a desperate attempt by

> the producers to get some reviews from any old

> hacks (including two political journalists).

> Thankfully, all of that is a long way behind me

> now, and I'm about to throw away the evidence :-S

[Rubby Chuckers]

sazzle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have been 3 or 4 times and always wondered why I went back each time.

Perhaps because the food is actually of a really good standard (albeit a bit pricey)?

[greenkin]

I am a food journalist (I don't have a blog) and have worked in the restaurant industry for over 10 years so I've always been interested in what goes on locally food wise. Unfortunately I no longer go to the Palmeston or Franklins either. I agree that both restaurants put ED on the map, but they did that a long time ago and now they must stop resting on their laurels and get up to standard with the rest of London. The Palmeston was great when it opened, but the last time I went the food was average bordering on very disappointing, which is fine if you're not paying ?18 plus for a main but not otherwise. They gave us a sticky table next to the loos and were very stroppy when we asked if we could move. As for Franklins, they pack you in (and that table that's basically in the corridor is really taking the mick), it's expensive and just as average. I had a rock hard quail once that literally bounced off my plate! Go to Michelin starred Arbutus in Soho instead, (amongst many others) for the same price and see the difference. I'm all for supporting local restaurants, but they've got to keep on their toes.

[Mick Mac]

Greenkin

I'm not a food journalist and have been to Arbutus and was as disapointed as you appear to have been with Franklins, I have been to Franklins quite a few times and have only been disappointed once. Its a local favourite and bearing in mind the poor quality of any recent new openings in ED we are very lucky to have Franklins.

Having a Michelin star restaurant in ED in an unreasonable expectation. A few more to Franklins' standard would be great. Perhaps you could have a go?

[charliecharlie]

not quite sure what the obsession with the Vale is Louisiana... but I have never been there and I certainly done work there,

I don't understand what you are referring to...

???????????????????????????????????

[lenk]

greenkin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am a food journalist (I don't have a blog) and

> have worked in the restaurant industry for over 10

> years so I've always been interested in what goes

> on locally food wise. Unfortunately I no longer go

> to the Palmeston or Franklins either. I agree that

> both restaurants put ED on the map, but they did

> that a long time ago and now they must stop

> resting on their laurels and get up to standard

> with the rest of London. The Palmeston was great

> when it opened, but the last time I went the food

> was average bordering on very disappointing, which

> is fine if you're not paying ?18 plus for a main

> but not otherwise. They gave us a sticky table

> next to the loos and were very stroppy when we

> asked if we could move. As for Franklins, they

> pack you in (and that table that's basically in

> the corridor is really taking the mick), it's

> expensive and just as average. I had a rock hard

> quail once that literally bounced off my plate! Go

> to Michelin starred Arbutus in Soho instead,

> (amongst many others) for the same price and see

> the difference. I'm all for supporting local

> restaurants, but they've got to keep on their

> toes.

No, I'M a food journalist, etc.

ED isn't in danger of getting a michelin starred restaurant anytime soon (as much as it would appease the Waitrose lot) - I think both of these establishments are placed firmly in the 'gastropub' category wheras Arbitus is something different entirely. You're paying more as they're on your doorstep too, surely..?

[ito1]

I know it's too much to compare The Palmerston & Arbutus on quality, one has a michelin star and the Palmerston has a few gastropub awards... Pricewise, however, they are on top of each other - Arbutus is a pound more at ?15.50 for the lunch menu and I know I definitely didn't feel the need for a side order (I'm not sure they even had any, although maybe my stomach just wasn't looking for one). In my humble opinion Arbutus is one of the best restaurants, and best value lunches, in London and I'm afraid to say I left my only Palmerston dining experience feeling as if I'd paid too much for something distinctly average for the price...

[lenk]

Obviously somewhere like St John also wins hands-down... but it's in Farringdon.

The Palmerston / Franklins are hardly 'destination' eateries, are they? Unlike Arbitus / St John etc

[*Bob*]

When the first 'Gastropubs' (shite phrase, but let's go with it) appeared (The Eagle and their like) everybody pissed their pants because shock! here was somewhere which was willing to serve-up good food in an informal environment for a price which was affordable enough for you to bop on down there on a Sunday without having to think too hard about how much it cost.

They're everywhere now, and London is all the better for it, but in a number of them, the prices have crept up without a matching what's on offer. You compare some of them to 'proper' restaurants (with their crisp table linen, wine waiters who actually know something useful, professional waiting staff) and it's all a bit confusing, even before you've tasted what's on the plate. There's a place for both of course, but it has to make sense and feel right.

Basically the food is decent, but when a pound or two more per course gets you to Arbutus, Moro, Chez Bruce.. I kind-of feel some of them have lost their raison d'etre. Of course whilst there are bums on seats that's enough of a raison.

'Destination' restaurants like CB started as neighbourhood restaurants that just got better, as opposed to neighbourhood restaurants doing well on a combination of ok food, prior good-feeling and unwillingness of local punters to travel somewhere else.

[Jeremy]

OK, I was willing to put up with the Arbutus comparisons, as a meal with house wine probably only costs about ?10 more. But Chez Bruce... come off it.

[FoodStories]

I think it probably makes more sense to compare the Palmerston to other gastropub style places which do the same style of food at similar prices but just a lot better, e.g. The Harwood Arms In Fulham, The Prince of Wales in Putney, The Establishment in Parson's Green, The Fox in Shoreditch or The Eagle on Farringdon Road.

[*Bob*]

Last time I went: Chez Bruce: 3 course lunch ?25. 3 course dinner ?29.

Come off what, Jeremy?

[*Bob*]

Suppose I ought to have checked.

Current: lunch ?30, Dinner ?40. You turn your back for a year or so, and oh, I dunno.

Still, it's possible to come out of dinner having paid not much over ?100.

[CheeseAndBiscuits]

It's a bit more now I'm afraid Bob - ?40 for a 3-course dinner.

http://www.chezbruce.co.uk/data/recent_menu.pdf

I agree with your point though - many gastropubs seem to be stuck in a kind of no-mans land between attempting to charge "proper" restaurant prices but not being able to provide the associated service. And at the risk of being accused of plugging my blog (first paragraph):

http://cheesenbiscuits.blogspot.com/2007/07/top-5-gastropubs-in-london-that-ive.html

[Jeremy]

Chez Bruce is ?40 for 3 courses. The cheapest wine is maybe ?25.

3 average courses and a side at the Palmerston would be maybe ?30. The cheapest wine is around ?15. Service charge is less.

They are not the same price... not really even close.

[*Bob*]

Not now, I'll admit.

Consistently serving up a very high standard of food has allowed them to put the prices up - something for P'ston to aim for?

[*Bob*]

Actually I don't want to steer this back to more P'ston-bashing. I'm not anti, I'm neutral, based on my last visit. And neutral is disappointing when you're expecting a treat. I'll certainly be visiting again so we shall see.

[Jeremy]

To be honest I remember going for lunch at C.B. about 3.5 years ago and the cost then was still ?29. Still very good value though.

[lenk]

The Eagle averages around ?10-15 for mains AND you can go in there and just chug beer all night if you don't feel like eating. =WIN

[Asset]

gawd, listen to you lot: lunch here, dinner there. I'm lucky if I can get out to pizza express twice a year.