 |
|
|---|
|
|||||
| |||||
|
|||||
|
What
Does This All Mean? Restaurants As of 6
October, 2008 by Paul S. Felix As a complement to my
quarterly hotel/casino rating analysis, I’ve decided to do a similar job on the
information on various food establishments in A few notes are due,
however, just to head off most questions, complaints, and/or criticism(s). In
no special order of importance or relevance: 1. With the hotel/casino properties, a running update is
done every three months and changes to any properties ratings can be tracked
and traced over time. With that tool, trends can be seen in a property’s
performance, whether those changes are seasonal or whether some internal
operation at the property has caused an improvement or decline in their performance. The
numbers here take into account all the changes that have occurred over nearly a
five year period and should be considered a solid map of each restaurant’s
performance abilities. Here, this restaurant analysis will be a
one-time-only action. The work needed to gather and arrange this analysis
has proven to be much greater than that involved with the hotel ratings, so the
writer begs off doing another one. 2. The list of restaurants included here is not intended
to be, nor should it be construed to be, comprehensive. The eateries shown were
selected using one primary criterion: did they gather enough rating “votes” to
justify giving them mention? If they did not, they didn’t make the list,
period. “Best Kept Secrets” may still be very well kept indeed, if they are not
on this list. Without ratings, they don’t show in the pool drawn from. If
the reader knows of some restaurant he/she feels should have been included, it
is recommended that they go to the website from which these ratings were drawn and
leave a rating. For those who wish to do so, data was gathered from the “I Eat
Vegas” website (ieatvegas.com). No direct link is provided here for a variety
of reasons. 3. Some of the information included in this list may be
out of date. A good example is Binion’s Steakhouse. This place has undergone
some notable changes in the last few years. The actual relevance of the data to
the current operation, as opposed to its previous operation, is difficult to
determine as ratings from both periods are included in the information used. Some
of the restaurants listed had their last rating entry over a year prior to this
report, so it is impossible to tell if their performance in the intervening
time has altered for good or ill, or whether they are even still in business. Also,
some of the newest places in town might not be listed, either because the list
from which this information is gathered did not yet include them or because
they had not yet received enough ratings to qualify for inclusion. If a
specific restaurant is in fact no longer operating, treat the information shown
as a control factor; if an active establishment cannot perform at least as well
as one that went out of business, they have serious problems to address. 4. Very few specific indications are given about where
certain restaurants are located. In limited cases, such as the “Steak House
Circus” (indicating it is the Steak House at Circus Circus), such a name has
been provided for clarification purposes only to avoid possible confusion with
one of several other properties of the same or very similar name located
elsewhere (most of which didn’t qualify for inclusion). Those familiar with 5. The categories provided are not of the writer’s
making, but were originated by the webmasters. After reading this analysis, any
questions concerning the categories themselves should be directed to them. 6. The information here is gleaned from a very broad
demographic base. No effort has been made to divide these restaurants into discrete
categories such as buffets only or fast-food only, etc. Whether a restaurant is
high end or a lowly hole-in-the-wall makes little difference. If it has been
rated enough times to justify inclusion it is listed. Age
and income of visitors, restaurant cuisine and/or theme, décor, location and a
host of other potential sub-divisions were not considered; everything has been
lumped together into a single melting pot. This can actually have a positive
outcome. Should a buffet (sometimes strongly looked down upon) score noticeably
better than a true gourmet restaurant, that fact should be noted, not ignored.
There are doubtless reasons for this phenomenon of which the customer should be
aware. 7. The greenish color at the beginning of a category
indicates the category winner. The reddish one indicates the bottom feeder. The
bluish one near the middle indicates the first property that meets or beats the
average score in the category. This property then becomes the performance
benchmark; the rule by which all others are measured. In
Rate and Trust, there are no coloration marks, nor indications of an “average”.
This is because these two categories don’t need them. In Rate, the raw average
is actually 61. That would position Emeril’s (at #12) as the “average” performer
in the category. This makes no sense because the huge number of reviews for the
#1 thru #6 properties so hugely skews the average that it becomes meaningless
from this perspective. Truth to tell, House of Blues would come closest to the
real “average” for the category, but it was felt best to just ignore it here. In
Trust, those numbers are not comparative to each other as are those for the other
categories. This area explores how much veracity can be given to the other
category scores for that one property, and the impression a reader might get
after viewing them. As they are not being compared to anything but themselves,
there is no “average”. ___________________________________________________________________________ For anyone who has not been
exposed to my format in the Hotel Analyses, some explanation has been provided
at the beginning of each category giving a brief of what information it is
supposed to address and how the reader might interpret that information. RATE This category can be considered a broad-based
indicator of “popularity”. How popular are they?
WINNERS: This column
shows the top 1/3rd performers of the restaurants listed. Whether or
not visitors thought well of them, is not a factor here, just the fact that
they got votes. Notice that 12 of the 15 top performers are on the Strip and
two of the other three are downtown (Hugo’s Cellar at Four Queens and Carson
St. Café at Golden Nugget). The only true non-Strip restaurant listed is Ports
O’ Call at Gold Coast, next to By
the way, make note of Circus’ position on the chart. At #6, this is the highest
score they post in the entire review. In fact, they score at rock-bottom last
in seven of the categories. Why they are so popular is a small mystery,
unless their other good Family score counts. No other property in these ratings
scores that badly, that consistently. That’s kind of scary, if you ask me. AVERAGE: These are the mid-grade performers; neither hot nor cold. Some of the
specific reasons they do not score better or worse might be revealed by examining
the specific category ratings. If a restaurant scores well in one category
(say, Food) but very poorly in another (say, Value) it might be construed that
the fare is good but visitors feel it a bit over-priced. They might or might go
back (check Revisit) for that reason. One has to do a little thinking to find
possible reasons for this ho-hum outcome. LOSERS: These properties generally do not rate well for more than one reason.
Checking the individual category scores can often show poor performance in
several areas, culminating with a very low Revisit score. Some work must be
done in determining what the root causes may be. Suffice it to say, anyone
patronizing any of these restaurants is flirting with trouble in one form or
another. There is some surprise (usually unpleasant) waiting in the wings for
the unwary patron. Do your homework before going there. OVERALL (Scale is 1 to 10): This category
represents a restaurant’s at-a-glance performance. It is a composite of all the
category information as well as the popularity (Rate) information above. It
gives insight into the top performers regardless of specific venue or category
performance. Use it as a highlight or quick reference. Who’s
the best of the best?
WINNERS: These properties ended up with the best composite scores of all the
restaurants included in this analysis. This “whole picture” can almost be used
as a stand-alone measuring stick. If one eats at every one of these places,
there is small likelihood of disappointment, at least in one’s general
impression. The small fractions of a percentage by which these places are
separated are actually more important than they may seem at first blush.
Consider that this is a composite score factoring in almost everything raters
said about them below. From Ambiance and Food quality to Service and price,
even 1/100th of a percentage point can separate the good from the
bad and the ugly. AVERAGE: Again, these are the mid-range joints, the ones that didn’t perform well
enough to justify high praise and not badly enough to earn real criticism. In
Winners, the high/low difference was 50/100ths of a point. Here it’s only 25/100ths;
a much narrower margin. These are the sort of restaurants where one can
generally be satisfied with some portion of the experience but dissatisfied
with others. The exact combination of pro/con will probably be different for
each place. The overall effect, however, will probably be one of lukewarm
ambivalence. LOSERS: These restaurants are where disaster may await. Visitors were roundly
and broadly unimpressed (even overtly disappointed). Whether it’s a result of
poor food, poor service, price problems, décor fiascos, access hassles, patrons
were not happy campers. Again, a careful check of specific category scores can
yield enlightening info. AMBIANCE (Scale is 1 to 10) This category
attempts to express the general atmosphere within the restaurant. If the place
is “themed”, how does that atmosphere or ambiance support or conflict with that
theme? If there is no specific theme, how does its ambiance complement,
contrast, or even clash with enjoyment of the meal? It could include anything
from lighting, carpets, speaker-broadcast elevator music vs. live musicians, tables
and curtains, tiles, art work and even the view out the wind(s) might be involved.
It’s a sublimation of the look and the feel of the place, separate from the
food, service and price. Does it feel good to be here?
WINNERS: If atmosphere is an important factor to your dining experience, then
this category should get your attention. These properties were selected by
other visitors as the best. Whatever their “theme” they’ve done a very good job
at making the dining experience consistent, comfortable and even entertaining.
One must, however, take the restaurant’s theme/cuisine into account before
blindly jumping in. For example: if you don’t like heights then Top of the
World and Eiffel Tower might not be places you want to go, no matter how well
they do with their décor or atmosphere. Whereas, if you are a classic “Parrot
Head” then the Jimmy Buffet inspired Margaritaville at Flamingo might do you
well. It is, after all, a matter of taste (in more than one way). AVERAGE: These are the places that come across as rather blah, in the opinions
of visitors. There’s nothing to write home about regarding any of them. Their
décor, and atmosphere don’t inspire much of anything; it’s just there, a part
of the place. LOSERS: With these restaurants, something is seriously amiss. Either their
décor doesn’t well match a “theme/cuisine” or there are other problems. Perhaps
they’re dirty, worn out, smelly, etc. There’s a major problem of some kind. If
you are the type whose gastric integrity suffers when a piece of art on the
wall clashes with the carpet, think twice about going to these places. SERVICE (Scale is 1 to 10) This category
goes directly to the heart of how one was treated by everyone from the Maître’d’,
to the wait staff, bus staff, and onwards. A waiter spilling a glass of water
or improperly opening a bottle of wine at another table may or may not be
germane to this category, but slow service, incorrect orders, pushy or impolite
staff, etc., are. How
were you treated?
WINNERS: Not many people go to a restaurant expecting to be insulted by the
waiter. Nor do they go to be treated as if their presence is an imposition on
the staff’s valuable time. The properties in this column have been rated as the
best in the way they treat you the customer. Notice the dearth of buffets in
this column. These are more generally places where people go to be pampered by
having someone who actually takes their order and serves them the meal, pours
their drinks, and generally cares about whether the patron feels good about
coming in. Whether these places are “best kept secret” grills and cafes or true
gourmet havens makes little difference. Visitors were impressed with the
treatment they got and told us about it. AVERAGE: This can be viewed as the “no frills zone”. You go, the staff does
their thing, you get fed and you’re on your way; no muss or fuss, no fanfare or
drama. LOSERS: These places have a problem. Whether service is slow, snobby, or staff
is just overworked, these places just don’t seem to sit well with all the other
people who have already gone there and left you a note on their experience. If
you go, don’t expect much because you probably won’t get much. FOOD
(Scale is 1 to 10) This category speaks solely
to the food itself. Taste is the primary consideration though other information
can be included. Was it right? Was it good?
WINNERS: All other considerations aside, it doesn’t matter how good the wait
staff, how comfortable the atmosphere, how well priced the meal; if the food
isn’t any good the rest can go hang. These places got the most attention for
how well their food is. AVERAGE: You go in, you
sit down, you order, you eat, you pay, you leave; nothing special. It’s
generally filling and there are no real overt objections. Like Service, it’s
sort of another “no frill zone” where there’s generally nothing notable either
direction. LOSERS: Warning!
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Though these places might not truly earn the
appellation of Ptomaine Palaces, their fare is not considered very good for one
reason or another. Food quality isn’t always the answer; over- or under-cooked
food and bad recipes aren’t always the real problem. Sometimes very limited
selection can degrade a rating. One would have to read the actual written commentary
from some of these places to understand just exactly why their ratings came in
so low, but short of that I can only counsel extreme caution before eating at
any of them. VALUE
(Scale is 1 to 10) This category
addresses whether or not one feels the experience (primarily food, but ambiance
and service can be included) were worth the money spent. When viewing this
category, one must keep in mind the “quality” of the specific restaurant. A
high rating for Hugo’s Cellar should not be construed as unduly comparable to a
high rating for ESPN Zone or House of Blues. As indicated earlier, the
demographic base addressed must be generally understood before a true picture
can manifest. People who are used to dropping $400 to $500 a meal at one place
might think that spending half that amount at a different place is a real
bargain, whereas someone who thinks $50 a head for a meal is pretty stiff would
run screaming from a place that charges that much just for an appetizer. It’s
relative. Was it worth what you paid?
WINNERS: Getting one’s money worth is of vital importance in any business
transaction. If you feel ripped off, you certainly won’t feel you had a
positive experience. When that feeling is connected with food, you can get
really peeved. This one category alone can determine whether or not a customer
will ever return for another try. Poor food is tolerable, if it’s cheap.
Expensive food can be justifiable if it’s good enough. But bad food at a high
price is just not something anyone is willing put up with more than once. Most
of the picture for each restaurant can be impacted here. Ambiance, service,
popularity, food quality, etc., can have effects of various degrees on whether
or not a customer feels they are happy with the bill. But that final decision
ultimately comes down to the bill itself. The properties in this column are
those that have been determined to provide the best value for what was
received. AVERAGE: These properties sit in the middle of the pack. They seem to charge a reasonable
price for what they offer, but to some degree or another they just don’t seem
to really get anyone’s attention. LOSERS: With these places, customers have indicated in droves that they are not
happy with what they spent here and don’t appreciate being charged so much for
whatever was received, however much or little it was. You can certainly go
there, but be prepared to feel like you’ve paid too much. ACCESS
(Scale is 1 to 10) This category relates
to how easy the place is to find and get into. Is it inconveniently located?
Does it require reservations? Are its hours of operation odd or very limited?
If one has to call for reservations 6 months in advance, wait in line for 4
hours, or can only eat during a three hour time period, the Access rating can
be very low. If it’s easy to get in over a broad time period with little to no
waiting, then the Access rating should be fairly high. An example of this
difference can be seen by comparing the Margaritaville at Flamingo vs. Top of
the World at Stratosphere. Access is very different, as it should be. Is
it convenient to get to and get in to?
WINNERS: Location isn’t the only aspect of this category. Certainly where a
property is can make a huge difference on how many customers it gets and
whether those people feel the trip worth the effort. For tourists staying on
the Strip, going to AVERAGE: These are a mixed bag and, unfortunately, we cannot detail how
different each might be from the other despite the similar ratings. One must be
careful to do some research in advance and plan a trip to them, not trust to
spontaneous impulses. LOSERS: These guys have major trouble. Many of them may suffer from multiple
problems. Let’s look at one example: FAMILY
(Scale is 1 to 100) This category
indicates the percentage of visitors who answered “Yes” to whether a property
is family or kid friendly. Would parents be comfortable taking their children
there, or is there something about the place that might not be appropriate for
kids? Two examples come immediately to mind. One is whether there might be some
“adult” form of entertainment (like topless waitresses), or whether the place
is just so swanky and requires such a high level of “sophistication” by the
patrons that children just wouldn’t be able to handle it. If one is looking for
a place to take the kids, the list as given works admirably. If one wants to
avoid children during a meal, I might suggest you read the chart backwards,
from bottom to top to locate the places that are least likely to have children
underfoot. Is
the place “kid friendly”?
|