Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Occam's Razor would suggest "economic conditions" means poor sales. I was perfectly happy to leave it there, but because you insist on it, I will entertain the possibility that LA just doesn't have high enough high-dining (how Michelin defines it).
The interview I posted before suggests that people in LA are demanding a certain type of restaurant that is not up to Michelin's standards. That could be because "economic conditions" favor good, but not fancy.
I don't care if you don't want to leave it alone as I'm not the one who is making up what makes me feel good. So much spinning of comments where no spin is needed, putting words into people's mouths-why exactly?
I don't care if you don't want to leave it alone as I'm not the one who is making up what makes me feel good. So much spinning of comments where no spin is needed, putting words into people's mouths-why exactly?
I don't have a dog in the fight on whether LA is a great food city, but if I do, I lean towards the idea that it is.
However, I'm curious and I generally try to draw conclusions from the available evidence. So, I have Michelin guide saying that economic conditions was one reason. I have Michael Ellis saying that essentially three-star restaurants is not what the public demands, but that LA has great food. I have a chef at a two-star restaurant saying that the general explanation he heard is that LA is a casual city.Equire Magazine said that Michelin left LA because "sales were poor." It quoted Naret as saying that the people in LA are only interested in who is at the restaurant rather than what is being served there.
I don't need to spin. I just don't necessarily think we should take Naret's words at face value. Drawing from the evidence, I can say confidently that (1) the Michelin Guide did not have many stars for LA and was roundly criticized (fact), (2) Michelin Guide cited poor economic conditions and the media said sales were poor (fact), and (3) Naret took some parting words at LA for not being a city of foodies (fact). My interpretation is that the guide was not reflective of Los Angeles's character, so it sold poorly. Naret pulled the guide and then took a parting shot at LA because he's French.
I don't have a dog in the fight on whether LA is a great food city, but if I do, I lean towards the idea that it is.
However, I'm curious and I generally try to draw conclusions from the available evidence. So, I have Michelin guide saying that economic conditions was one reason. I have Michael Ellis saying that essentially three-star restaurants is not what the public demands, but that LA has great food. I have a chef at a two-star restaurant saying that the general explanation he heard is that LA is a casual city.Equire Magazine said that Michelin left LA because "sales were poor." It quoted Naret as saying that the people in LA are only interested in who is at the restaurant rather than what is being served there.
I don't need to spin. I just don't necessarily think we should take Naret's words at face value. Drawing from the evidence, I can say confidently that (1) the Michelin Guide did not have many stars for LA and was roundly criticized (fact), (2) Michelin Guide cited poor economic conditions and the media said sales were poor (fact), and (3) Naret took some parting words at LA for not being a city of foodies (fact). My interpretation is that the guide was not reflective of Los Angeles's character, so it sold poorly. Naret pulled the guide and then took a parting shot at LA because he's French.
Good analysis. For point #2, my guess is that the Guide did meet sales targets (#books sold), but the profits were on the lower end compared to the other books and when it came down to tightening their belts due to the recession, they chose the weakest ones to cut (LA, LV) temporarily. Had it been purely based on sales, they would have called it outright, like they did when cutting the Austrian guide
“Regarding the Austrian guide, it will stop being published because the sales of this guide, since it was first launched five years ago, have never been good enough.â€
Had it been purely based on sales, they would have called it outright, like they did when cutting the Austrian guide
“Regarding the Austrian guide, it will stop being published because the sales of this guide, since it was first launched five years ago, have never been good enough.”
Good analysis. For point #2, my guess is that the Guide did meet sales targets (#books sold), but the profits were on the lower end compared to the other books and when it came down to tightening their belts due to the recession, they chose the weakest ones to cut (LA, LV) temporarily. Had it been purely based on sales, they would have called it outright, like they did when cutting the Austrian guide
“Regarding the Austrian guide, it will stop being published because the sales of this guide, since it was first launched five years ago, have never been good enough.”
The decision likely isn't based purely on profit, though, because all the guides are made at a loss (projected $30 million a year loss by 2015). The whole thing was set up as a tire advertisement. However, perhaps the losses were higher in LA and Las Vegas. I see Michelin also moved its headquarters out of Paris for financial reasons.
I really do hope the guides come back, even if they find a way to combine some cities. So, an LA+LV guide or a SoCal guide or something. Michael Ellis has said he wants to bring back LA and add five more guides in the U.S. (Dallas, Boston, and others), so hopefully we'll see it. I like the idea of creating a guide with a single global standard, even if I disagree with that standard.
I still can't believe some people are arguing that they stopped selling a LA Michelin guide for reasons other than poor sales.
Folks, they would sell a Saskatoon guide if it made economic sense. They are a for-profit private entity. They exist to make money. There is no other conceivable reason besides economics.
I still can't believe some people are arguing that they stopped selling a LA Michelin guide for reasons other than poor sales.
Folks, they would sell a Saskatoon guide if it made economic sense. They are a for-profit private entity. They exist to make money. There is no other conceivable reason besides economics.
I mostly agree with that (in the sense that that's what I think the primary reason for cutting the guide was), but the Michelin guides themselves lose a lot of money and have never been a big money-maker.
I mostly agree with that (in the sense that that's what I think the primary reason for cutting the guide was), but the Michelin guides themselves lose a lot of money and have never been a big money-maker.
Yeah, but not the guides themselves, which lose a lot of money. It wasn't started as a money-maker, but as a way to generate advertising for the tire company (and maybe get people to drive to restaurants as a bonus). It's commendable that they don't accept free meals or anything of the sort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
