Industry Standard: It's called "the special" for a reason!

It's hard out here for a pimp.

Word, Ron.

G's to the bizz-ack, now ladies here we gizz-o.

That language makes her place of employ, to this reader, seem profit-driven, with a "chain-like" focus on the bottomline, which is not how I think of CLL at all.

Of course the Cafe Lou Lou is profit driven. I can't imagine why anyone would think they aren't. The "bottom line" is important to every business. No profit .. no business. That is true of chains or independents. You can be innovative, ethical, and produce good quality (most independents) or mediocre quality (most chains). But if a business does not focus on the bottom line, they will be gone.

As far as ethical problems went ... all were of local independents. All of the chains, including some of the biggest such as Brinker and Compass Group always paid within thirty days and always treated me and other vendors with reasonable respect.
A few, VERY few, of the local places did neither. Only way to get money owed was to get in their face. I have been lied to and been insulted by some. I want to stress that this was a very small minority. Of course these were very short term customers.

Did you even read my post?

Why in the heck should he do that? He obviously didn't read Marsha's article, either.

Also, I don't understand why he has to single out the Hos either...why can't the Bros be included?

Damn, I was just gonna jump on that myself but I was too slow on the trigger....Also, having been relegated to running "specials" at a few Chains over the years, I can honestly say that they are formulated in a test kitchen (or some other un-godly place) and are run simply to provide something "different" not "special" from their regular and often boring menu. IMHO

That language makes her place of employ, to this reader, seem profit-driven, with a "chain-like" focus on the bottomline, which is not how I think of CLL at all.

Of course the Cafe Lou Lou is profit driven. I can't imagine why anyone would think they aren't. The "bottom line" is important to every business. No profit .. no business.

Thanks for pointing that out, Steve. I was regretting not saying so earlier - of COURSE we want to make money! That's the goal of every single business everywhere.

We love being loved, but... love don't pay the bills, my friends. Now, a combination of being popular/successful AND thereby having the freedom to follow a creative muse? That's winning the lottery, restaurant-wise. And thanks to the many fans and patrons of Cafe Lou Lou, we currently have both.

Every morning at 6 AM when many of you are still sweetly slumbering, I blow air-kisses to our yesterday-guests when I total up how many of each dessert was sold the day before. Without the enthusiasm of our customers, even the most spectacular dishes would go unnoticed, unappreciated and un-sold.

Of course the Cafe Lou Lou is profit driven. I can't imagine why anyone would think they aren't. The "bottom line" is important to every business. No profit .. no business.

Well, yeah. Thanks.

My point, inelegantly stated, is that in an article in which the writer is attempting to differentiate a chain's approach from that of an independent restaurant, including that bit about selling the most soup did not help the writer make her case. To this reader, that info blurred the distinction.

Not a big deal. I'm a fan of CLL, of businesses both large and small, and of Marsha -- as I recall she helped with a care package for Robert S.
Nice person.

it reads a little like PR fluff. If a PR person from Texas Roadhouse wanted to write an insiders piece about the challenges and successes of running a chain, would you be as willing to pose it?

I'm not sure I follow. If Marsha proposed a piece about Cafe Lou Lou, where she works, I would be skeptical; I'd consider it, but I would hold it to a high standard (which I'm sure she could meet) for objectivity.

I don't see the issue here. The kind of chef-driven, on-the-spot "special" she's talking about is just not going to happen in a corporate setting. You may get a "special" on the menu, and it may be good, but it's an entirely separate category.

Sorry if I implied there is an "issue". I thought the article was well written and enjoyed it, but it showed a bias towards (well run) independent restaurants and against large chains. Given the background of the author, it's an expected bias. She made generalizations about both, and used very colorful wording to emphasize the good side of small, private restaurants. Just like a good PR person would. Some chains offer daily / weekly specials. Some local places don't.

I'm sure there are people who work for large chains who put as much love and attention into their food as do those who work in independently owned or chef owned places. I'm sure there are chefs in independently owned places who toil under the ever watchful eye of a bean counting financial backer.

I wasn't taking issue. I just hate generalizations and was wondering out loud if you would be as willing to show the other side (sides) of the coin or if these would be a series of "ain't independent restaurants great" pieces. I think it would be fascinating to get a variety of perspectives. Let's hear from all sides.

Again, just my 2 cents. I enjoyed the article and appreciate the author taking the time to write it. She did a great job.

My point, inelegantly stated, is that in an article in which the writer is attempting to differentiate a chain's approach from that of an independent restaurant, including that bit about selling the most soup did not help the writer make her case. To this reader, that info blurred the distinction.

Bill, thank you (btw, I don't think it was so inelegantly stated, I understood you perfectly well). That sort of observation can only help me be a better columnist - and I really did take it as a constructive criticism. I count on all of you that participate in this forum to help me sharpen my writing skills.

Group Hug!

I'm sure there are people who work for large chains who put as much love and attention into their food as do those who work in independently owned or chef owned places.

I disagree with your statement. What makes chains successful is consistency--the dishes taste the same every time you order them in every location. There are different kinds of chains. The best of them provide really good meals.

Independents are more heart and sould operations. Their individuality is what makes them great. That's why so many fail--they're not all good and not all well run.

I'm not above Texas Roadhouse, for instance, but there's nobody their pouring their imaginations into a new way to serve the baked sweet potato with brown sugar (I love baked sweet potatos). That's because TR is successful because someone put their heart and soul into it at one point and then replicated every other location.

Chains and Indies are different for those in the kitchen and those dining. Marsha's emphasis on the creativity inherent in the "special" is one way that at least many indies are different from corporate restaurants.

I just hate generalizations and was wondering out loud if you would be as willing to show the other side (sides) of the coin or if these would be a series of "ain't independent restaurants great" pieces. I think it would be fascinating to get a variety of perspectives. Let's hear from all sides.

Again, just my 2 cents. I enjoyed the article and appreciate the author taking the time to write it. She did a great job.

Thanks for the kudos, Chris. I want to be very careful that my column doesn't turn into ONLY a series of "ain't independent restaurants great" pieces. So I very much appreciate your honest feedback. To be honest, most of my writing will probably be from an indie restaurant employee perspective - but I'd love to see a column somewhere in local media that champions chain restaurants and touts their dishes and methodologies.

Bring it on!

Andrew, Robert, and everyone that pointed out that chain restaurants have specials - I take your point. I think you're willfully not seeing mine, though: no line cook at Longhorn Steakhouse or Carraba's is coming up with a special all by themselves on the spur of the moment through sheer creativity. Not that they couldn't do so - it's just that the corporate structure where they work would never allow it. The executive chef at a chain restaurant might do so, but only after much planning and clearing it with corporate higher-ups. It's not the same thing I was talking about at all - and although I should have put the caveat in that sometimes chains have off-menu offerings they call "specials", they are rarely "special" in any way, other than not being published on the regular menu.

Had you said that, I would have totally agreed; what you said, however, was, "Chain restaurants adhere religiously to their corporate-concept menus. You won't be offered a "special" at a nationwide chain restaurant."

My only point was that by resorting to overkill without explaining as you did later, your argument was significantly lessened.

Had you said that, I would have totally agreed; what you said, however, was, "Chain restaurants adhere religiously to their corporate-concept menus. You won't be offered a "special" at a nationwide chain restaurant."

My only point was that by resorting to overkill without explaining as you did later, your argument was significantly lessened.

You win that point! I think for me it was an issue of brevity. Now I see that I could have almost avoided the whole issue by typing "You won't be offered a truly special "special" at a nationwide chain restaurant."...and that would only have added two words to my word count.

Once again, thanks to you forumites for teaching me something.

I'm sure there are people who work for large chains who put as much love and attention into their food as do those who work in independently owned or chef owned places.

I disagree with your statement. What makes chains successful is consistency--the dishes taste the same every time you order them in every location. There are different kinds of chains. The best of them provide really good meals.

Independents are more heart and sould operations. Their individuality is what makes them great. That's why so many fail--they're not all good and not all well run.

I don't really want to re-hash this argument for the 1000th time, but if you don't think that there are very dedicated people who work hard every day to produce a top quality product, and who put as much care and attention into their work as possible, working for chain restaurants (or any corporation for that matter) then you are sadly mistaken.

SOME chains strive for a consistent and bland experience, and they poor food out of a boil bag. Some don't. A well run business that produces a good product is a well run business that produces a good product. Regardless of who ownes it.

But yes, you are much MORE likely to get a spur of the moment, I found a good deal on this item and made something tasty out of it and it's only available until it's gone special at a small, independent eatery than you are at a chain.

Though, according to my server, Bonefish does have daily specials based on whatever fresh item or items they get from their seafood supplier, or whatever is "in season". Yes, they have a "stock" of sauces, sides and flavors that limits them somewhat, but they are uniquely created specials none the less.

I think to imply that someone doesn't take time and care in creating and serving those is not giving credit to the hard working people of that particular company. Big and bad do not always go hand in hand.

I still maintain that the only fault large chain restaurants have is that they very successully serve their target audience. You really shouldn't criicize someone for very successfully accomplishing that which they set out to accomplish.

But anyway, back to Marsha's article. I am looking forward to many more, and would love to hear some of the more sorted "from the underbelly" stories from the daily grind of an independent eatery. It can't all be fun and games can it?

[Robin Garr]

Had you said that, I would have totally agreed; what you said, however, was, "Chain restaurants adhere religiously to their corporate-concept menus. You won't be offered a "special" at a nationwide chain restaurant."

My only point was that by resorting to overkill without explaining as you did later, your argument was significantly lessened.

Aren't we counting angels on the head of a pin, though? I think it would be very unusual for a large corporate chain (with the possible exception of a local mini-chain like Boombooz, or, in fairness, the Bonefish example that Chris just stated) granting kitchen staff the latitude to be creative and invent dishes. Generally, a chain-wide "special" made from a recipe sent down from the head shed and advertised on table tents provided by the same source might be technically a "special," but it's not the same thing.

[Robin Garr]

Though, according to my server, Bonefish does have daily specials based on whatever fresh item or items they get from their seafood supplier, or whatever is "in season". Yes, they have a "stock" of sauces, sides and flavors that limits them somewhat, but they are uniquely created specials none the less.

I have often opined that the properties under the Outback umbrella, specifically including Bonefish, Carrabba's and, in other cities, Fleming's and Roy's, are exceptional for chain operations. OSI is one of the very few major restaurant chains - and, in my opinion, one of the few large corporations in any business - that can look past the quarterly report and clearly understands the long-term value of customer satisfaction building loyalty.

SOME chains strive for a consistent and bland experience, and they poor food out of a boil bag. Some don't. A well run business that produces a good product is a well run business that produces a good product. Regardless of who ownes it.

Chris, what do you think is the aggregate number of chain restaurants in the Louisville Metro area that would be comparable to Bonefish Grill and have chef-created specials on a given night?