Santander wrote:
Quote:
Well, yeah. Of course not. But it's sort of essential to the story the writer wrote, no? Given the comparison established, the only thing we know is that Smoque has stayed open two years, and that that other one restaurant closed after one year, with several years between the two openings and closings. This is by no means a criticism of Smoque, which I adore and wish will stay around forever. It's a criticism of the piece. For a story about how careful planning pays off, I would have liked to learn what payoff there's been beyond staying open. After all, plenty of restaurants not nearly as apparently successful as Smoque still manage to survive. Has all that Smoque planning - not to mention a half-million dollar loan (compared to that other joint's $17,000 loan) - paid dividends or merely the rent (as it were)? Like I said, I'm simply curious, since it's a huge missing piece of an otherwise incomplete story. Why establish the success/fail dialectic if the story itself fails to define success?
I read it like Vitesse - interesting but flawed article, not challenging or illuminating enough to be a useful guide.
Hi, I'm the author of the story in the NY Times and read these boards frequently, so I thought I'd answer a couple of your comments. My regular job is as a correspondent for the Business Day section, where I write about the airline industry. I went to cooking school in Paris, and have studied here since then, so I like to write for Dining when I can. We don't have any food writers outside New York, so I'm always on the look out for interesting ideas.
Since the story was written for Dining, and not for Bizday, we left out some of the information that several people commented on (under the rationale that it was a food story first, and a business story second.) I disagree that the information about profits is a "huge piece of an otherwise incomplete story," since the story was meant to be about the overall subject of people who get into the restaurant business without a food background. But as a business writer, I am sensitive to the criticism.
I did read the Smoque business plan, and Barry Sorkin asked me not to make any of its details public. But I saw the numbers of people they expected to serve in the first three years, and as I wrote, Smoque is serving thousands more per year. Barry also said that they were profitable after a year, and continue to be, but would not give me specific figures (it's hard to put that in context, anyway, without giving readers more data from the business plan.) With those profits, they've invested in a second smoker, expanded capacity of their original smoker, and are adding a catering kitchen. Clearly, some of you would have liked to have seen that info included, and I'll make sure they hear that feedback.
Not to hijack the board, but if anybody wants to contact me directly, you can find a link to my email here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.htmlThanks for reading the story!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
One of the things I noticed that I hadn't seen prior was how much more controlled the seating is by the management - and I think it's working well, to the advantage of most customers. Accompanying the pulled pork was a large order of mac and cheese (comes as two small / regular containers), the slaw, and peach cobbler. The cobbler is a weak item on the menu, IMO - too much of a "straight from the can" taste to the peaches. The staff - behind the counter as well as in front - does an excellent job.
