When I arrived in New York City fresh out of graduate school in 1977, the city’s food scene couldn’t have been more different than it is today. Even calling it a scene would have been absurd: the farmers-market movement had barely begun, few liquor stores sold anything like an international selection of wines, and only a handful of restaurants had names widely recognizable to the general public—and those were mainly French. Indeed, during the late 1970s, fine dining at such places as Lutece and La Grenouille was generally acknowledged to be the exclusive province of businessmen with expense accounts and the idle rich. There would be no published Zagat guide for six more years, and the only chef whose name my friends and I recognized was Chef Boyardee.
Most of the verbiage devoted to food in local newspapers concerned easy-to-make recipes, human interest stories, food travel writing, kitchen advice to housewives, and the occasional piece that sought to get you interested in wine. Every Friday, there would be a restaurant review in The New York Times. The Times restaurant critic was Craig Claiborne, who did the job intermittently during a tenure of nearly three decades. He was also the food editor, the recipe developer, and the author—along with longtime collaborator Pierre Franey—of cookbooks that bore the Times imprint. Claiborne was born in Sunflower, Mississippi, where he grew up in a boardinghouse run by his mother. Upon moving to New York after two stints in the Navy and a cooking-school education in Switzerland, he began his career inauspiciously as a receptionist at Gourmet magazine. In 1957, he became the food editor at the Times, thought to be the first male to hold that position, in a section that was officially known as “Food Fashions Family Furnishings” but colloquially referred to as the Women’s Section. In that capacity, he’s generally credited with being the inventor of the modern restaurant review.
Prior to Claiborne’s tenure at the Times, reviews in newspapers and elsewhere had often been looked upon suspiciously by the dining public, seen more as a reflection of a publication’s advertising aspirations than a straightforward analysis of a restaurant’s virtues. Published regularly from 1935 through the mid-1950s, the Duncan Hines guides, known as Adventures in Good Eating, had been something of a national standard. They were at least partly the work of Hines, a traveling salesman of printing paper and ink, who undertook to tell other travelers where to eat, using prose that verged on puffery. Of the Oregon Caves Chateau in Oregon Caves, Oregon, the guide reads, in its 1944 edition, “Without the hospitality of the Sabins, this place would still be nice indeed. When you add their personalities, it makes it ‘tops.’ The Chateau is lovely, and unusual.” This is the totality of the review, and quite typical. One can only imagine how the hosts had fawned over the reviewer.
Hines’s guide incorporated recommendations from other travelers, so that you had no idea who wrote each individual entry. Other contemporary dining guides were also many-hands productions. Early in the 1970s, Forbes Magazine’s Restaurant Guide established itself as a major reference for New York diners. Though it was carefully superintended by Malcolm Forbes himself, the actual writing was the work of the magazine’s staff, and displayed no consistency of perspective. One of its stranger features is an almost dyspeptic distaste for dining. In the introduction, Forbes describes his experience of compiling the volume as “more ulcerous than enjoyable.”

sietsema is a bona fide critic and truly a are gem in a field increasingly crowded by jaded and angrily anonymous shills and pikers nyc should be proud to have a scholar and a historian amongst us in these very interesting times
#1 Posted by elvis parsley, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 09:54 PM
Great article! I don't think I'd ever read the history of food reviewing before. I agree about the importance of anonymity, although critics like John Kessler of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have said how difficult it is to maintain now. It's part of why I blog under a pseudonym.
Cecilia
aka "the Random Oenophile"
http://random-oenophile.blogspot.com
#2 Posted by Cecilia Dominic, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 10:26 PM
I blog at Epicurette in New York, and I agree with a lot of what you stated here. I mourn the lessening of the scholarly approach to food, and was beside myself when Gourmet went down. As a writer, a foodie, and a woman in media, Ruth Reichl is my hero. I do want to point out though, for those of us who haven't broken into the world of professional criticism, why should one be banned from sharing a personal experience (though not a professional one) of a restaurant, when one hasn't dined there more then once? Without the lovely budget working for a major publication affords, who can go to these places more then once in this economy? Most of the "Major Restaurants" I've talked about on my blog I've visited during restaurant week, not exactly a "normal night" for the establishment. But if I'm up front about the fact that it was during that period that I visited, and that I haven't been back, does that make my writing invalid? Or is it an experience that's valuable to people like me, the 20 something broke foodies who will also visit during Restaurant Week? And there is something to be said about the unique perspective of an individual blogger. When choosing a blog to listen to, a reader can be much more picky about finding a voice that speaks to their age group, gender, or food preferences. A vegan reader is not going to find a lot of help in the NY Times review, but they can find a blog that speaks to their specific needs. I personally strive to research my topics, and provide scholarly perspective alongside my own personal musings, and I know that's not every blog out there. But then, that's not what every blog reader is looking for. http://epicuretteinnewyork.blogspot.com/
#3 Posted by Heather, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 10:49 PM
Mr. Sietsema undermines his credibility in presenting an overview of restaurant reviewing by not referencing the seminal role that Seymour Britchky played in developing this genre. Britchky reviewed for New York Magazine and later wrote restaurant reviews for his own publication. To this day, his wit, knowledge, insight, and originality is unmatched.
#4 Posted by william edington, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 04:35 PM
Robert Sietsema is a treasure to the New York food writing scene, with a unique talent (and opportunity) to cover both high end Manhattan restaurants and Flushing dumpling shops. The historical element of this essay is fantastic, and I learned a great deal from it. I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the discussion about the internet, though. While Curbed (and Grub Street, at least since Ozersky left) are more or less gossip rags of the food world, I'm a bit uncomfortable with you're lumping together of the entire food internet into one mass. I suppose this was a useful device for the essay, but I think you know as well as anyone that it's hardly true. For example, a site like Serious Eats manages to have quality writers taking serious critical views of a lot more restaurants than the Times can cover. Or, what about a site like Midtown Lunch, which covers things that even the recently-egalitarian Times would never think about? (Which is fine; I don't think we need Sam Sifton reviewing doner carts, though I'm glad somebody is.) Even the lumping together of Yelp and Chowhound rubs me the wrong way. Chowhound forum commenters (and Serious Eats forum commenters) take a lot of effort to inform themselves, and can, as a group, provide a pretty solid level of criticism. Since you started out as the anti-Times critic, and have pretty much made a career of taking a serious critical approach to places that the "real" critics never touch, it would have been nice if you'd addressed the huge range of places that the internet can cover that the Times never will. It's been great over the last few years watching Bruni and now Sifton at least make the occasional foray into Brownstone Brooklyn, but the Times is still basically covering expensive Manhattan food. I can't complain about that, really; they're interested in the best of the best. But the best of the internet sites have managed to expand serious criticism into places that the papers never would.
Anyway, aside from that, this was a great article. Thanks!
#5 Posted by justin, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 09:06 PM
Same story in another continent (just different names and places) ...
The only thing I want to add is that there are bloggers who do bring historical context and more than "hasty instinctive opinions" ~ bundling bloggers together is the same as saying that the writing in all magazines and newspapers is of the same quality ...
EVOLUTION! Time will tell ... @frombecca
#6 Posted by Rebecca @ InsideCuisine,com, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 05:25 AM
"As with many things on the Web, this profusion of voices is often touted as a wondrous blow for democracy, a long-overdue rising up of the masses against the elitist overlords of the culinary realm."
Really? Like where? Are you familiar with the term "to link?" How about quotes? Do you know about them? If given, perhaps the context in which the multiplication of voices is praised might show a view a little more nuanced than masses vs. lordships. By the way, were their any changes overdue in the system Claiborne founded? You're little writer's trick allows you to avoid asking that.
"I'’m all for everyone having his or her say..." you say. Shocker: I don't think you are. If you were you would engage the arguments of those who think that the web is giving more people their say, instead of this entirely lame linkless reference to ideological screeds you've read thousands of times, so many thousands that quoting one is just too absurd for you.
I know, I know this is "print piece."
#7 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 09:24 AM
Ugh. Dear CJR: A comment system in which I cannot preview and edit (saving myself from typos and other errors a professional writer would like to avoid) and in which it is impossible to link to an individual comment is not a 21st century comment system. Thank you.
#8 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 09:37 AM
It's quite an interesting article but to make your point I don't think you have researched the subject fully. There are a lot of "food bloggers" who haven't acted in the way you describe. To the contrary there are some who may have endeavoured to be even been more transparent than a local critic who is often recognized. (Michael Bauer, our longtime local critic in the Bay Area is allegedly recognized just about every where and is allegedly friends with several restaurateurs). Although I have all but given up blogging and haven't written a restaurant review for years now, I always aimed for transparency and honesty. I tried, where possible, in the end, at least 3 anonymous visits all on my own dime before I would write a review. In one instance I had to visit a place 5 times before I was sure the review was fair. Would a critic have gone that far? I suspect they would have felt their h=job was done at three. Because, it's a job. One thing a paid critic can never, ever hope to understand is how it feels to invest so much of your own hard-earned cash into the hobby of dining out. So maybe that makes critics more objective about what for everyone else is a subjective experience.
#9 Posted by Sam Breach, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 11:13 AM
A wonderful article! I frequently use sites like Chowhound for restaurant reviews when I'm traveling or trying a new place in my own town, but pawing through the tedious, bombastic, and absolutely ridiculous rantings of "everyday people" is extremely tiresome.
Ultimately, nonprofessional critics are nothing more than complainers. In the end, a professional review by a professional CRITIC is the only way to suss out constructive, intelligent information I can actually use.
#10 Posted by MKG, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 12:29 PM
Interesting piece but glaring omission of Jonathan
Gold of the LA Weekly - first restaurant critic to receive a Pulitzer for his consistently amazing, spot-on, poetic reviews.
#11 Posted by Rayni Joan, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 01:29 PM
As usual my friend and former teacher Jay Rosen responds with an astute critical eye. Yes, Sietsema has been an important pioneer in New York's intrepid foodie scene since before the internet, but I suspect his piece is partly sour grapes over some loss of primacy due to so many competing voices. Clearly many of his pieces in recent years are inspired by the legwork of some of those he criticizes.
The main difference between a professional critic and an amateur is pay. There are otherwise seasoned professionals who have their weaknesses in knowledge and taste--I learned years ago, for instance, never to trust Mimi Sheraton on Asian food. Most food writing, like most writing, is mediocre regardless of medium, but there are some food blogs that are a treasure either because of a compelling voice, a strong research component, or both. I have one friend who started as a blogger and now writes in addition for numerous publications including the "paper of record." He puts innumerable hours into finding the off the beaten path places that would otherwise remain unknown outside their neighborhoods.
Bloggers also have the luxury of doing quirky takes on food that don't conform to the constraints of print publication.
http://petercherches.blogspot.com
#12 Posted by Peter Cherches, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 03:36 PM
This is an interesting article about trends in food criticism, past and present. As the Director of Community and Managing Editor at Foodbuzz, I'm particularly interested in Sietsema's thoughts on food bloggers, both amateur and professional.
Sietsema is correct--there are well over the 2,000 food blogs quoted in this article. Foodbuzz alone partners with over 3,000 food blogs and close to 11,000 bloggers upload their posts to Foodbuzz. That number is growing dramatically: 20-40 food bloggers apply for our Featured Publisher program everyday.
Overall, I'm impressed by the level of integrity, transparency, and commitment that food bloggers have for food and restaurant reviews. We encourage bloggers to make a sincere effort to produce the best possible reviews, and that means taking some cues from professional critics: anonymity, visiting a restaurant more than once, and paying for all meals out of pocket. In fact, by virtue of being a small, amateur blogger with no expense account, many food bloggers have always taken this approach to food and restaurant criticism on their blogs.
#13 Posted by Ryan Stern, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 04:53 PM
Much of what is said so well here applies to the state of travel writing as well. Readers used to look to professional writers/travelers for considered opinions on travel experiences. Today, "This place sucks," on social media sites suffice. Consequently, if you love great travel writing you need to go back to your bookshelf and take down your Jan Morris or Freya Stark. Social media has eradicated the world of literate travel writing.
#14 Posted by Gretchen Kelly, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 05:31 PM
'Really? Like where? Are you familiar with the term "to link?"'
If you're reading this piece online and conversant with blogging, you're probably familiar with the Army of Davids type claims commonly made in favor of blogging as opposed to MSM work. This isn't a law article; "the sky is blue" assertions don't need a footnote.
Also, what's really lame is criticizing someone who is lamenting the loss of professional standards, and then blaming the website for not ensuring that you spell-check before you hit the button labeled "Post."
#15 Posted by PG, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 06:59 PM
In regard to the state of travel writing comment, sure, there are the classic essayists and memoirists to turn to, but for practical information message boards have, IMO, eclipsed traditional guide books as a source of reliable hotel and restaurant information. For hotels most guides list a handful of overlapping choices and don't update frequently, while on Tripadvisor I can get current information from a critical mass of users and weigh the options. For food when I travel, the wisdom of the very astute Chowhound community is a lot more useful than that of some backpacking Aussie whose job is to review attractions, hotels, restaurants and logistics. You don't go to Freya Stark or Jan Morris for a restaurant in Phnom Penh or a hotel in Cusco.
#16 Posted by Peter Cherches, CJR on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 07:25 PM
Why do some people feel the need to be so nasty?
If you've got an argument to make, make it, but do so without snarling.
Jay Rosen lashed into Sietsema for failing to link to a source that would demonstrate an idea ("this profusion of voices is often touted as a wondrous blow for democracy") that is very familiar (to say the least) to anyone who's ever been within earshot of a conversation about blogging and old-school journalism -- let alone the readership of CJR. What an odd attack.
#17 Posted by Robert [not Sietsema], CJR on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 04:39 PM
The fact is that there are legions of more qualified writers in the blogosphere on nearly every topic, as compared to their counterparts in paid media. Folks who end up as critics in magazines and newspapers often started as generalists anyhow, so it would seem that the only difference between them and bloggers is the seasoning of working in a real newsroom (pardon the pun). But what value is this compared to the avid enthusiast who brings both a passion and deep knowledge to the work that professional journalists often lack. Yes, you do have to more carefully weigh what is said by whom, but there are countless examples of trustworthy critics online outside of mainstream media. It's just a matter of finding them. To presume otherwise is chauvinistic.
#18 Posted by Garbanzo, CJR on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 09:59 PM
Robert - In suggesting that small ethnic places in New York's so-called outer boroughs were overlooked by 99 percent of critics you are ignoring the legwork and popularity of Milton Glaser and Jerome Snyder, original co-writers of New York Magazine's Underground Gourmet. Their first Underground Gourmet guide, a class in food guide writing and design, was published in 1967.
You also fail to bring up the name of Daily News restaurant critic Arthur Schwartz, who reviewed ethnic and outer-restaurants with respect and enthusiasm (but not fawning sentimentality) long before Ruth Reichl moved back to New York from Los Angeles.
#19 Posted by youngandfoodish, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 04:57 AM
As a foodblogger who moved to professional journalism, I have mixed emotions about this piece. I really can't argue that standards among foodbloggers generally are lower than professional critics. That's true both of the quality of writing, and the ethical standards.
I was aware of those standards when I started my blog a decade or so ago, and from the beginning I made clear that I was not a "critic." My theory was that because I wasn't being paid to review a restaurant, I would not return to a place at which I had a bad meal. As it's generally not fair to review a restaurant negatively with only one visit, I almost always wrote about restaurants positively.
I don't see anything wrong with that approach, but it's not meeting the same needs as a true restaurant critic. Nor are those needs met by "user generated" sites like yelp or urbanspoon. Those sites are prone to "astroturfing" by restaurants, for one thing. And while it's certainly easier to write critically about food than, say, art or architecture, there's still some value to a review from an experienced palate. Finally, the most effective critics are those to whose opinions you become accustomed, and whose tastes mirror yours. You need to read someone regularly to obtain that.
With regard to linking, it's really inexcusable to omit links to the blogs mentioned above. No, there's no reason to "link" to support for a statement that's clearly true, but when you reference a specific website, why not include the url?
#20 Posted by Robert, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 09:01 AM
Certainly the role of the professional food critic has changed, largely due to the dominance of the Internet. But cost-cutting at newspapers has had just as profound of an effect, particularly in smaller markets. Two years ago, the mid-size East Coast daily where I worked decided to cut its budget for professional food reviews and photography, replacing that with staff- and freelance-written reviews of 'bargain meals', for which the writer would also take their own photos. Obviously this will make seasoned critics cringe. But it became a necessity.
While these kinds of reviews will never be as professional and polished as their predecessors, they on the other hand offer a little more accessibility to the average middle-class reader who can afford a meal at the neighborhood burger joint, but not the four-star French restaurant with $35 entrees. And in this economy, newspapers aren't doing themselves any favors by alienating readers.
I'm a food blogger (http://funwithcarbs.com), but I wouldn't call myself a professional critic by any means. I'm a trained journalist with a decent knowledge of food, and a desire to learn much more. In the 'old regime' of newspaper food writing, I probably never would have gotten the opportunity to become a celebrated critic. And while much of the Internet is cluttered with unintelligible rants and raves, it also gives someone like me the chance to express my views and opinions. For that, I'm grateful.
#21 Posted by FunWithCarbs, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 12:04 PM
wonder what he'd say re zagat?
#22 Posted by billsj, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 12:31 PM
While this was a very interesting article, I too was troubled by what seems like the author's condescending attitude toward the food-critic "masses."
Some amateur restaurant reviewers produce honest, ethical reviews that provide value for readers. I'd like to think that any reader intelligent enough to appreciate an intelligent review can separate the wheat from the chaff. Readers learn which sources can be trusted.
#23 Posted by Liz, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 01:52 PM
Oh, stop complaining and just enjoy the article – sort of like what we should do when we dine out. I find that most blog reviewers live in superlative land: either mighty praise or fierce criticism [sometimes for a minor fault]; not often is there a reasoned, balanced approach. And spare me from the precious blogs that recount a bite-by-bite recap of their meal! Mr Sietsema takes a Eustace Tilley attitude toward the rest of the country and the article should be more accurately titled New York criticism. I recommend the approach taken by the Chicago Guide: a collection of well-vetted, experienced diners who guard their anonymity; they visit several times, alone & with others, and pay their own way. They know about food, cooking and restaurants. After a few visits they can comment upon kitchen and service variability and the difference in treatment [if any] when one becomes known as a regular. I believe that this system is the best of all approaches.
#24 Posted by Whine Lover, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 11:42 PM
Couldn't agree more that having anyone capable of tying shoelaces weigh in as a "restaurant reviewer" is not a magnificent argument for the Internet as an agent of participatory democracy. But Jeez, what weird things were happening to the restaurant reviewer's craft even before the deluge of blogs and cyber-prattlers. For a couple of decades mainstream print reviewers have been performing smarmy, self-conscious interpretive dances around the food instead of describing and appraising representative dishes. It just gets worse. Nowadays when I pick up a newspaper or magazine wanting to know what the food at Eatery X is like, I find myself wading through fatuities like "How cool is that?" or descriptions of the other patrons' hairstyles.
#25 Posted by Anne Mendelson, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:34 PM
I agree with Ms Mendelson. Food writers have succumbed to ‘post-modern’ journalism where the writer [whether reviewing a restaurant, covering a war zone or interviewing the President] is as – or more – important that the subject. Please fade into the background and tell me about the restaurant, its food and the service. Save attempts at witticism for conversation. Thank you -
#26 Posted by Whine Lover, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:21 PM
In the words of Gene Spafford, “Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”.
#27 Posted by The more things change...., CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 05:02 PM
If the author wanted to make a case about the decline of serious reviewing, he missed an opportunity. See this post by Chez Geek about being "Yelpmailed" by Yelp and its Elite band of reviewers.
http://chezgeek.com/2010/02/09/yelpmailed/
#28 Posted by Dianne Jacob, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 08:14 PM
I'm a restaurant critic at a small local paper. Our paper's policy is to maintain anonymity.
I agree with the comments about Reichl-as-hero. In fact when I read Garlic and Sapphires I briefly gave up being a critic--I was so intimidated by her knowledge and writing skills.
I'm back at it now. One thing that I don't see in the article is the distinction between reviewing in a place like New York City and a small town. There's a different range of restaurants, and a different sensibility among the readership.
I've eaten and cooked all over the world, but reviewing at a small paper in a small town requires a certain delicacy of style in writing. They don't want to be reminded that the restaurants here aren't as good or as diverse as those in LA, San Diego, New York, Chicago, or Miami. But they are interested to know when the local places happen to reach for those.
And, anonymity is important for small town reviewers for the simple matter of personal safety.
#29 Posted by Restaurant Critic, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 10:00 AM
Whine Lover's comment about "superlative land" is interesting, and possibly true--but perhaps because bloggers aren't writing on assignment and may tend to edit out the middling. That's the case with my blog (where restaurant reviews are only one component)--I'll write about a place worth bringing people's attention to, and I'll write about a disappointment at a much-hyped place, but I don't review every new restaurant I go to. Bloggers won't replace paid critics, but I don't think paid critics should dismiss food bloggers, an extremely varied bunch, out of hand.
Garbanzo's comment that many food critics started out as generalists is worth considering. Based on this bio, should we have trusted Frank Bruni in 2004?
"Frank Bruni was named restaurant critic for The New York Times in April 2004.
Before that, Mr. Bruni had been the Rome bureau chief from July 2002 until March 2004, a post he took after working as a reporter in the Washington D.C. bureau from December 1998 until May 2002. While in Washington, he was among the journalists assigned to Capitol Hill and Congress until August 1999, when he was assigned full-time to cover the presidential campaign of Gov. George W. Bush. He then covered the White House for the first eight months of the Bush administration, and subsequently spent seven months as the Washington-based staff writer for The New York Times Sunday Magazine."
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/dining/bruni-bio.html
#30 Posted by Peter Cherches, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 04:47 PM
This is an interesting history without much of a point. You pick one food blogger, reviled by most bloggers, and use her as an argument for why food blogging is unethical. And you lump committed food bloggers in with Yelp and other group comment-based sites. Besides which, you mention budget a few times but never really address how newspaper cost-cutting affects the restaurant review world. Overall pretty shallow.
#31 Posted by Rachel, CJR on Tue 16 Mar 2010 at 02:41 PM
As I am just about ready to publish my first restaurant review on my blog (sigh!) I found this article helpful and fortunately found myself adhering to the Clairborne standards. It is true that eating does not qualify you to review a meal. Expertize both as far as restaurants and as far as hands on cooking are crucial in the making of a fair assessment. I'll give it my best shot!
www.frenchpressmemos.blogspot.com
#32 Posted by Andra @ FrenchPressMemos.blogspot.com, CJR on Tue 23 Mar 2010 at 01:21 PM
I agree with Mr Edington above; first, there is Seymour Britchky, then comes everone else.
#33 Posted by Randy Julian, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 01:18 PM
I personally love the above article. A lot of beginners do end up taking some noticeable notes while in the restaurant! So, if you must take some sort of notes just jot them down on your phone!
My thoughts:
If you wanting to develop your name or profile in the restaurant review industry, or just wanting to leave a review for your favorite restaurant.
I highly recommend making a free profile at: http://tinyurl.com/26okadh
Also, here is another hint if your wanting to eventually some day make money review restaurants! Do a lot of QUALITY(positive or negative)reviews! And get become one of the top reviewers. Put this on your resume, blog, twitter, and etc. This will build your credibility!
Thanks for the great restaurant review article!
-Adam D. "I get paid to eat!"
P.S. In this world of clutter and noise, you must make your own credibility. Just a simple blog won't do it. You need to create a free profile: http://tinyurl.com/26okadh , become a top reviewer, post this title on your blog, resume, twitter, facebook, and etc. You also need to create interesting enough content for people to follow! And develop a e-newsletter!
"Don't just strike while the iron is hot; Make the iron hot from striking" -Zig Ziglar.
#34 Posted by Adam D, CJR on Thu 8 Jul 2010 at 02:10 PM
The food and beverage industry has really changed throughout the years. With the evolution of the internet you can not create brands that are widespread. Seafood Restaurant are branding themselves and doing well. Although the competition is much higher.
#35 Posted by Ronnie, CJR on Thu 29 Sep 2011 at 09:57 AM