There is a certain study in modern marketing and restaurants with Chipotle. Customers not only get a burrito that weighs four pounds, they get the feeling of enfrachisement on their meal - the sense that they created this meal, that is is OF them, they feel a personal investment in something as simple as a burrito.
Or, they just want a damn burrito and are too lazy to find one that tastes better. (I don't like Chipotle that much but still find myself an occasional customer)
Regardless, the concept works. Chipotle offers a safe list of ingredients with similar flavor profiles and merely allows the customer to layer them, with the perception that they've created something delicious. This concept has made Chipotle one of the fastest growing chains in the world and is making the company mega bucks. So they've decided to branch out.
Enter Shop House, an asian spin on the Chipotle concept from the same creative team, with the pilot store on Connecticut Avenue just a few feet north of Dupont Circle in DC.
Shop House feels very familiar. You choose either a bowl or a Banh Mi (sandwich), then select your base (rice or noodle options), meat, veggie, sauce, and "texture" toppings. Instead of the big troughs at Chipotle, ingredients are in bowls, but you get the idea. The steak was spicy, with a more mild chicken, while the tofu option look exactly like the Tofu Scramble at the Whole Foods breakfast bar. I didn't try the meatballs, something about meatballs from a bowl at Shop House just seemed odd. These meats were piled on your choice of jasmine rice, brown rice, or cold noodles (in addition to the aforementioned Banh Mi). Next came the veggies with options like Chinese broccoli, long beans, eggplant, and charred corn. They seem to have realized people frequently triple dip the toppings at Chipotle and have clamped down on the veggies, more than one costs you a buck more.
Next comes the sauces - Red curry (hot, and I'm not kidding, it was hot), green curry, or a fruit "vinaigrette" that had tropical flavors. There was no "Safe" sauce choice in a traditional brown sauce. You then have an option of topping with papaya slaw or pickled vegetables. Finally you have a choice in textures, from toasted rice to fried garlic. Each bowl was topped with a sprig of Thai Basil.
On paper, I should have freaking loved this place. I love ethnic foods, spicy foods, foods with big flavors. But herein lies the problem - as I said, Chipotle's ingredients all use the same flavor profile, so it's almost impossible to make a "bad" combination. Shop House strays from that safety. Spicy Steak with charred corn, vinaigrette, papaya slaw, and fried garlic? No thanks. I got the MtB the chicken with chinese broccoli, vinaigrette, papaya slaw and toasted rice... what should have been a safe combination tasted... off. These ingredients are exclusively Thai, Mandarin, Vietnamese, etc. They are all of the above, with different flavor profiles and an odd juxtaposition of spices. All in the same bowl, it tastes... unpleasant.
Maybe they should have "recommended" bowls of good combinations. Or have one ethnicity with common spicing.
Or maybe they should just stick to burritos.
(Note: to be fair, this is a concept restaurant, not a perfected formula. Given the success of Chipotle, I would imagine they will fix these issues over time, especially since at 6:45 last night there was literally no line - I must not be the only one to notice.)
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
The Great American Campout
Ok I'm not going to lie, this post has absolutely nothing to do with life concierge'ing. You've been warned.
If you have followed my various blogging projects for awhile, you know that I'm not a big fan of protests as they are commonly executed. A bunch of people get together, waste a bunch of time, inconvenience the people they're trying to convince, and generally leave behind a giant mess. Their messages are muddled, their tactics inefficient. Maybe that's why they spend so much time chilling in parks. I was unemployed for four months within the last year, I didn't go to the park. I looked for jobs. I looked online, I looked offline, I went to interviews, I networked. I don't remember going to a single park to find a job or make a political point. And now I'm employed. Just saying.
So I don't understand the Occupy (insert city name) movement. A bunch of unemployed or underemployed people get together in the middle of a city and "occupy" (stand around and hold badly designed signs while obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic) a space in order to protest "the rich" and "big corporations."
Feel free to mentally insert any one of many snarky comments here about finding a job with one of those corporations rather than protesting them if you wish.
I say this as a person who does not now, nor have I ever, been employed by a corporation in my post-college career. In fact, 90% of my career has been spent in not-for-profit industries. But those corporations being protested FUND the non profits that I work for. Without corporate donors, this guy would be unemployed, and would then be unable to write this blog that is read by all of 4 people. Oh, and whenever a disaster struck, Americans (and people around the world) would have to rely on the American government for assistance. Yes, the same people it took four days to get water to the Superdome. Just saying, we tend to put those corporate dollars to good work.
And I'm a bit confused over all this fuss about "profits." This is hard to say without sounding condescending, but I feel like maybe the Occupiers just don't understand. Corporations don't make profits to pile the money in a big room to look at it and go HEY LOOK WHAT WE DID. It is true that businesses are saving more now than before due to economic uncertainty, but their goal isn't to hoard money and go running through the streets saying I HAVE IT AND YOU DON'T. Nope, they take that money, and they distribute it. They distribute it to executives, to workers through salaries, stock options, bonuses and 401k retirement plans. They distribute it to stock holders who have invested in their companies as a legitimate means to grow their dollars (legitimate investing being a paramount requirement for any modern economy). And then those people take that money, and they invest in OTHER companies, so that they may be successful. So that they may HIRE people, and then pay those people, and that those people may go out and buy goods and services, which means even more companies can HIRE people. They take that money and they donate it to my employer so that we may help people. You can't have an economy without companies. Sorry folks, just doesn't work that way.
And I'm also unsure about why they are targeting "the rich." Most business owners, stock holders, investors, pay huge sums of taxes that could otherwise be used to hire people, while working their asses off - all while risking their own worth if their businesses should fail. They pay their government first, their employees second, and themselves last. If you make more than $68,000 a year, you are in the top quartile of American wage earners. Rich just isn't what it used to be.
What is obvious is that these protesters are angry, frustrated, upset. So are the rest of us. What is less obvious is just who they are mad at and what they want done about it. It seems they are frustrated about the same things I am - economic turmoil and uncertainty, and an unwillingness of our "leaders" to do anything to fix it. But their anger seems misdirected. "Wall Street" (corporate businesses) and "the Rich" (small business owners) aren't responsible for this quagmire, they are merely facing the same constraints as the rest of us, and have reacted accordingly. If we had real economic leadership who was willing to face hard choices (I'm looking at both sides of the aisle here), the money would flow, the economy would right, and these protesters could get a job (though they may have to leave their park to look). I guess protesting a faceless "corporation" is easier, or at least easier to justify against their misguided understanding of a free economy and left-wing political ideology, than demanding more of their elected leadership and being disappointed at those results.
Hopefully they will recognize this soon and leave the park. Leave it clean. And leave it before tonight's rush hour.
If you have followed my various blogging projects for awhile, you know that I'm not a big fan of protests as they are commonly executed. A bunch of people get together, waste a bunch of time, inconvenience the people they're trying to convince, and generally leave behind a giant mess. Their messages are muddled, their tactics inefficient. Maybe that's why they spend so much time chilling in parks. I was unemployed for four months within the last year, I didn't go to the park. I looked for jobs. I looked online, I looked offline, I went to interviews, I networked. I don't remember going to a single park to find a job or make a political point. And now I'm employed. Just saying.
So I don't understand the Occupy (insert city name) movement. A bunch of unemployed or underemployed people get together in the middle of a city and "occupy" (stand around and hold badly designed signs while obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic) a space in order to protest "the rich" and "big corporations."
Feel free to mentally insert any one of many snarky comments here about finding a job with one of those corporations rather than protesting them if you wish.
I say this as a person who does not now, nor have I ever, been employed by a corporation in my post-college career. In fact, 90% of my career has been spent in not-for-profit industries. But those corporations being protested FUND the non profits that I work for. Without corporate donors, this guy would be unemployed, and would then be unable to write this blog that is read by all of 4 people. Oh, and whenever a disaster struck, Americans (and people around the world) would have to rely on the American government for assistance. Yes, the same people it took four days to get water to the Superdome. Just saying, we tend to put those corporate dollars to good work.
And I'm a bit confused over all this fuss about "profits." This is hard to say without sounding condescending, but I feel like maybe the Occupiers just don't understand. Corporations don't make profits to pile the money in a big room to look at it and go HEY LOOK WHAT WE DID. It is true that businesses are saving more now than before due to economic uncertainty, but their goal isn't to hoard money and go running through the streets saying I HAVE IT AND YOU DON'T. Nope, they take that money, and they distribute it. They distribute it to executives, to workers through salaries, stock options, bonuses and 401k retirement plans. They distribute it to stock holders who have invested in their companies as a legitimate means to grow their dollars (legitimate investing being a paramount requirement for any modern economy). And then those people take that money, and they invest in OTHER companies, so that they may be successful. So that they may HIRE people, and then pay those people, and that those people may go out and buy goods and services, which means even more companies can HIRE people. They take that money and they donate it to my employer so that we may help people. You can't have an economy without companies. Sorry folks, just doesn't work that way.
And I'm also unsure about why they are targeting "the rich." Most business owners, stock holders, investors, pay huge sums of taxes that could otherwise be used to hire people, while working their asses off - all while risking their own worth if their businesses should fail. They pay their government first, their employees second, and themselves last. If you make more than $68,000 a year, you are in the top quartile of American wage earners. Rich just isn't what it used to be.
What is obvious is that these protesters are angry, frustrated, upset. So are the rest of us. What is less obvious is just who they are mad at and what they want done about it. It seems they are frustrated about the same things I am - economic turmoil and uncertainty, and an unwillingness of our "leaders" to do anything to fix it. But their anger seems misdirected. "Wall Street" (corporate businesses) and "the Rich" (small business owners) aren't responsible for this quagmire, they are merely facing the same constraints as the rest of us, and have reacted accordingly. If we had real economic leadership who was willing to face hard choices (I'm looking at both sides of the aisle here), the money would flow, the economy would right, and these protesters could get a job (though they may have to leave their park to look). I guess protesting a faceless "corporation" is easier, or at least easier to justify against their misguided understanding of a free economy and left-wing political ideology, than demanding more of their elected leadership and being disappointed at those results.
Hopefully they will recognize this soon and leave the park. Leave it clean. And leave it before tonight's rush hour.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Breakfast Wars
When I was in college, I worked at a mid-market motel in Iowa. This one, an AmericInn, was similar to its counterparts - Marriott Courtyard, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn, etc that cater to business travelers and families on a budget. These hotels are all the same. Same fake-homey lobby, same in-room coffee pots in too-small bathrooms, and they all offer some sort of complimentary breakfast.
When I worked at the AmericInn, we had donuts (cut in half), cereal, juice, bagels. It was a big day when they got a waffle iron that the guests could run themselves. But at some point, breakfast became the differentiating factor between these brands which has caused a sort of breakfast arms race. After all, since everything else about these properties is identical, if one offered a hot breakfast over the others, the game was over.
So soon we saw not only waffles, but pancakes, eggs, pre-bagged breakfasts for those on the run, cooked breakfast burritos. Then someone thought, well hey, since we've gone as far as we can go without hiring a chef, lets make the room nicer, so it's now as if you're sitting in a full service restaurant while eating your complimentary huevos rancheros that the front desk clerked microwaved in the backroom. BUT NOT SO FAST, why NOT hire a chef?
So I'm at a Marriott Courtyard in Baltimore this week (don't stay there. or in Baltimore for that matter). I waltz over to the breakfast counter, where I do see, yes, a COOK making eggs and omelets to order behind the counter. Then there is a tap tap on my shoulder, and I turn around to an angry looking young woman. "Excuse me sir, you have to wait to be seated." Yes, you had to check in to the MAITRE 'D to be SEATED in order to get your MADE TO ORDER breakfast.
Dude, all I wanted is my muffin. Next step in the hotel wars? Rip out the breakfast nook and put in a bar. That is a change I can get behind.
When I worked at the AmericInn, we had donuts (cut in half), cereal, juice, bagels. It was a big day when they got a waffle iron that the guests could run themselves. But at some point, breakfast became the differentiating factor between these brands which has caused a sort of breakfast arms race. After all, since everything else about these properties is identical, if one offered a hot breakfast over the others, the game was over.
So soon we saw not only waffles, but pancakes, eggs, pre-bagged breakfasts for those on the run, cooked breakfast burritos. Then someone thought, well hey, since we've gone as far as we can go without hiring a chef, lets make the room nicer, so it's now as if you're sitting in a full service restaurant while eating your complimentary huevos rancheros that the front desk clerked microwaved in the backroom. BUT NOT SO FAST, why NOT hire a chef?
So I'm at a Marriott Courtyard in Baltimore this week (don't stay there. or in Baltimore for that matter). I waltz over to the breakfast counter, where I do see, yes, a COOK making eggs and omelets to order behind the counter. Then there is a tap tap on my shoulder, and I turn around to an angry looking young woman. "Excuse me sir, you have to wait to be seated." Yes, you had to check in to the MAITRE 'D to be SEATED in order to get your MADE TO ORDER breakfast.
Dude, all I wanted is my muffin. Next step in the hotel wars? Rip out the breakfast nook and put in a bar. That is a change I can get behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
