Being a food writer or a food critic definitely sounds like a dream job, and honestly, it does come with its perks. If it wasn’t enjoyable, I wouldn’t have dedicated so many years to it. However, there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the profession really entails. Let’s clear up some common misconceptions about Food Critics and what we actually do.
Busting the Myth: Food Critics Don’t Get Free Meals Everywhere
One of the biggest assumptions is that food critics dine for free wherever they go. In reality, for any restaurant that I review for publications like Minnesota Monthly, I personally pay for the meals. The publication then reimburses these expenses, and I operate within a set budget. The principle is simple: if it’s a review, I pay.
Of course, there are exceptions. Occasionally, I might attend media previews of menus or accept invitations to try new dishes or special events at restaurants. These instances are different. Transparency is key here. Whenever I write about or post on social media about an experience where the meal was complimentary or “comped,” I always disclose that I was “invited” or that the meal was free. Phrases like “Thanks for having me” are my way of indicating an invitation. While not every critic follows this practice, for me, it’s about maintaining honesty with my audience.
Personal Investment: Critics Spend Their Own Money Dining Out
It’s a common misconception that food critics live a completely free culinary lifestyle. The truth is, like anyone who loves dining out, I invest a significant amount of my own money exploring restaurants. My motivation isn’t to leverage my position for free meals. I don’t approach restaurants with a proposition of coverage in exchange for complimentary food. While some influencers might operate this way, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach, it’s not how I work. Restaurants also have every right to decline such offers.
My focus is on building a broad understanding of the dining scene. Even though I might only formally review around a dozen restaurants annually, I’m constantly visiting various establishments to discover places I can recommend in my articles, which often feature curated lists of dining options. This ongoing exploration is personally funded and driven by a genuine passion for food and restaurants.
The End of Anonymity for Restaurant Reviewers
The age of the completely anonymous food critic is largely over, especially in the digital era. With the prevalence of the internet and social media, maintaining complete anonymity is incredibly challenging. For someone like me, who has a long-standing presence on television and radio, it would be practically impossible.
In the past, I used to make reservations under my wife’s maiden name to try and dine incognito. However, it didn’t take long for restaurants that were potential review subjects to recognize me. That being said, it’s also important to remember that food critics aren’t always celebrities. I’m still able to gauge when I’m receiving differential treatment compared to other diners. I pay attention to these nuances because my reviews are meant to reflect the typical customer experience. My aim is to tell readers what they can realistically expect when they visit a restaurant.
The Declining Number of Full-Time Food Critics
The landscape of food criticism has changed significantly. Full-time staff critic positions are becoming increasingly rare. For instance, my role with Minnesota Monthly is on a freelance basis. Even at major publications, like the Star Tribune, the restaurant critic position is also part-time. While some publications like MSP Mag and the Pioneer Press feature occasional reviews, the majority of food writing today is broader food journalism. This includes reporting on food trends, new restaurant openings, and offering experiential commentary, rather than traditional, in-depth reviews.
The economics of food criticism play a significant role in this shift. Maintaining a dedicated restaurant review section is expensive. Consider the costs associated with a full-time salary, plus the dining expenses required for weekly or bi-weekly reviews. It’s estimated that in the past, when Rick Nelson was a full-time critic for the Star Tribune, his annual food expenses for reviews could reach upwards of $30,000. And this was with a strict policy of not accepting any complimentary meals.
The “Three-Visit” Review Myth
Another misconception is that food critics make multiple visits to a restaurant before writing a review – often cited as three visits. In reality, as a freelancer, neither time nor budget allows for such extensive repeat visits. Typically, I visit a restaurant once for a review. Furthermore, if my initial experience is overwhelmingly negative, I often choose not to review the establishment at all. Writing a scathing review based on a single visit feels unfair, especially without experiencing the restaurant on multiple occasions.
However, this doesn’t mean I avoid pointing out shortcomings. In my reviews, I will certainly critique aspects that I find lacking or problematic, but the decision to publish a full review is usually reserved for restaurants that offer a generally positive or noteworthy dining experience, even if there are areas for improvement.
Finding the Right Tone in Restaurant Reviews
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of writing a restaurant review is striking the right tone. My primary goal is to provide useful information for the reader. I consider factors like location and value. For example, I wouldn’t want to recommend that someone drive a long distance for a restaurant that’s merely “okay.” Many restaurants are perfectly enjoyable and valuable for locals, but not necessarily destination-worthy.
Conveying this nuance – acknowledging a restaurant’s merits without over-hyping it or being overly critical of a place that serves its local community well – is delicate. I’ve even considered using a rating system based on how far I would personally travel to dine at a particular restaurant. It’s a complex balancing act. Living in a suburban area and being willing to drive for good food means my perspective needs to be relatable to a broad audience, including those in urban centers with abundant local options. The question becomes: is a new restaurant worth choosing over well-established, excellent local options? That’s the kind of discernment I aim to provide in my reviews.
Your Questions About Food Criticism?
What aspects of being a food critic are you curious about? Post your questions in the comments below!
