Wall Street Journal: Beef over Chef Sponsorship?

By JULIETTE ROSSANT Recently, The Wall Street Journal interviewed me for an article entitled "The Sponsored Chef." I didn't make it in, but that is not why I want to raise a bit of beef with The Wall Street Journal: with all due respect to the paper and the author, I happen to disagree rather entirely with the article's premise -- that when chefs get some kind of bargain from a supplier, they are supposed to inform their customers. The article opens with a stab at current Cooking Under Fire co-star and co-judge, Ming Tsai. Apparently, Ming served a "Miso Risotto with Shrimp Mousse and Roulade of Seared Monkfish" whose shrimp was frozen and not fresh. Worse, The Journal contends, he got the shrimp "below cost" from a TV sponsor in return for featuring the shrimp on 2-3 episodes. Yes, can you believe it! "Famous cooks are increasingly accepting money and freebies from food-industry trade groups and manufacturers in return for promoting their products." There is even a table of chefs, menu items, and sponsors, and the chef list includes Rick Bayless, David Burke, Rick Tramonto, and Charlie Trotter. Maybe I'm missing something here, but a chef is judged first and foremost by the quality of food served. The Journal presents a remark by Ming as a slip: "For me, frozen is a tastier shrimp. Fresh is not as fresh as frozen, I think." In fact, Ming is speaking as an expert: of course, there are times when flash-frozen seafood can arrive at the market or the kitchen in better condition -- "fresher" -- than "fresh" seafood which may have suffered during transportation. Moreover, if Ming or any chef can get away with frozen shrimp instead of fresh and I the customer cannot distinguish the difference, then he must be a pretty damned good chef and more power to him! Furhter, if Ming wants to serve shrimp for breakfast, lunch, and dinner because his sponsor has dumped so much cheap shrimp on him, he's going to have get very creative with that shrimp to keep any regular customers (the bedrock of successful fine dining) not only happy but interested. It really doesn't matter whether the ingredients are expensive, cheap, or free. The action isn't in some slight of hand by a magician-chef; the action is always on the plate where customers must be satisfied. False advertising or lying is a different matter, but non-disclosure by a chef and non-detection by a diner is fair game. I remember a lovely, long morning at the home of Joachim Splichal, when he described his career to me up to the first few years of Patina. Joachim had lost his first restaurant Max Au Triangle and was determined to make Patina succeed -- so he turned to potatoes. He made everything he could from potatoes. He made so much from potatoes that he became famous for his potato inventions. Thanks to that inexpensive ingredient -- and the amazing creativity added by the chef -- Patina paid back investors in less than two years (quite a feat in the restaurant business), and Joachim packed in stars and other fine diners. Would it have made any difference whether those potatoes were cheap or even free? No -- because the crucial ingredient is a chef's skill. Sure, one hopes to make finer food from finer ingredients -- fresh shrimp over frozen -- but if a chef can make a lesser ingredient please a customer...? As for mentioning whether a chef has some deal with a supplier, if an American consumer of the 21st Century cannot put two and two together to realize that a chef who is mentioning a maker's name with an ingredient has very likely got some deal going, then they are too dimwitted to be eating at a fine dining restaurant. Again, as long as the chef is not lying and manages to wow me, more power to him or her. Where The Wall Street Journal really fell down is chef sponsorship for non-food, non-kitchen products: Emeril Lagasse for Crest, Nobu Matsuhisa for Callaway golf clubs, Mario Batali for plastic wrap. Again, the consumer must exercise some modicum of brainpower. What does Emeril know about toothpaste? Does Mario have a chemical engineering degree in plastics? And does Nobu really care what golf club he uses, as long as he get enough time on the green (which a good golfclub endorsement should guarantee) -- would you? The Rick Bayless-Burger King affair is extraneous to this story, because there was nothing hidden about his deal with the devil. Rick fell into hot oil becuase he was promoting junk food, plain and simple -- and a different issue in chef sponsorship. After reading the whole article, the only question remaining for me was: so, what is The Wall Street Journal's beef with chef sponsorship? (Click here to read the full WSJ article.) There was a sizzling story to be told, which played out last January for the Naked Chef, Jamie Oliver and over beans, not beef. According to The Guardian, Heinz paid £15,000 (some $28,500) to have beans on toast included on the menu of his restaurant Fifteen -- at £7 ($13). "'Best Baked Bean Bruschetta' was described as a 'signature dish' of one of Oliver's trainees and was served with olive oil, cherry tomatoes, red chillies and parmesan on ciabatta," said The Guardian. "Now Oliver has revealed the dish was a publicity stunt created after Heinz paid him £15,000 to include baked beans on the menu." Thanks to a little unannounced publicity gimmick by Heinz marketing, and, according the Jamie, "next thing I know, we've got giant baked beans running across the restaurant and paparazzi outside shouting Oliver's a wanker!" In this case, the sponsor spoiled the goods by spilling the beans on an overpriced dish. My criticism, though strong, is well intended, and I am sure The Journal will continue its excellent Food coverage. Previous articles: Adam Sandler's Secret Spice: Thomas Keller Buzz-Buzz-Splash, Super Chef Chef Branding: B&G Foods Exposes Emeril? --> back to superchefblog