Do Critics Still Matter?

Twenty years ago, a restaurant critic showing up at your restaurant had you popping a Xanax over a glass of wine. Before the age of social media, influencers, and online ratings, a glowing review from a major publication like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the San Francisco Chronicle could fill your books for three months straight — or leave you bleeding until the landlord locked the doors or the operating account had run dry. These days, that feels like a bit of a stretch, but still, those days weren’t that long ago. 

So the question stands: In an era of Google stars, OpenTable and Yelp Restaurant ratings, and viral TikToks — when everyone has an opinion about what you do and how you do it, and they share it publicly — do critics still matter? Let’s look briefly at how restaurant criticism has evolved over time.

There was a time, not long ago, when a handful of people controlled the restaurant world. Craig Claiborne pretty much invented the modern star system at the New York Times in the ’60s, and a single positive review from him could turn any French bistro into a sacred site overnight. Mimi Sheraton carried the torch through the ’70s and ’80s, and chefs dreaded her sarcasm the way most of us dread a tax audit. Ruth Reichl showed up in wigs and disguises in the ’90s, but she wasn’t there to play nice — she crowned Jean-Georges and Thomas Keller as culinary royalty while still destroying others. At New York Magazine, Gael Greene was part restaurant reviewer and part gossip columnist. In the 2000s Frank Bruni showed up on the scene, ushering in the celebrity-chef era. A three-star review could crown a king; a zero-star could sink a 5 million dollar opening right at its inception. Outside Manhattan, Jonathan Gold in L.A. and Phil Vettel in Chicago carried the same kind of weight. Gold did what no other critic did and gave street and ethnic food a much deserved mainstream spotlight. Vettel’s stars determined whether downtown diners took you seriously or passed altogether.