jmcquown > wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 6:23 PM, Andrew Tillinghast wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:29 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Watch it. The lady is a real nut case. The husband takes the tips
>>>> and she fires people every week.
>>>
>>>> My guess: Now that this has hit the air, they will have a slight
>>>> surge in business from curiosity seekers, then it will shut down.
>>>
>>> How long is it between filming the show
>>> and airing it? I'd guess they might be
>>> closed already.
>>
>> Still open. Read their facebook page. they are still screaming and
>> crying!The comments are hilarious.
>> https://www.facebook.com/amysbakingco?fref=ts
>>
> It now says on Facebook:
>
> Other Side of Amys Baking Company Controversy in Scottsdale To Soon Be Told
>
> SCOTTSDALE, AZ. MAY 15, 2013 -- Amys Baking Company will host a Grand
> Re-Opening on Tuesday night, May 21, following unflattering portrayals on
> national television.
>
> Customers will be able to decide who is correct: a famous celebrity chef
> or the marketplace that has supported the small, locally-owned business for six years.
>
> When re-opened, a portion of proceeds will benefit a charity organized to
> bring awareness to cyber bullying.
>
> Seating is limited. Reservations may be made by emailing <I snipped>
>
> Diners will also have the opportunity to meet, and judge for themselves
> the character of owners Amy and Samy Bouzaglo, who have devoted their
> lives to and earn their living from their small restaurant. The Bouzaglos
> have been married for 10 years, after Sammy emigrated from Israel.
>
> The owners will likely be holding a press conference before the Grand
> Re-Opening and answer falsehoods depicted on a reality television show,
> including assertions that the restaurant confiscates tips from servers.
>
> In fact, wait staff is paid $8-$14 per hour, two and half to nearly five
> times the standard hourly wage for servers.
>
> Questions will also be answered about what happened to their Facebook page.
>
> Amys Baking Company was recently featured on the hit PBS show €œCheck
> Please€ and has received A+ reports from CBS 5 for kitchen preparedness.
>
> €œWe are very upset by what has taken place, apologize about the acrimony
> that has ensued but now must fight back to save our business. We hope and
> believe much good can result from what has transpired. We ask the public
> to keep an open mind as we begin to tell our side of the story,€ Samy Bouzaglo said.
>
> Jill

They will be closed by the end of the year. They don't say why or who
called for help from Ramsey.

Greg

George Leppla > wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 9:06 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> In fact, wait staff is paid $8-$14 per hour, two and half to nearly five
>> times the standard hourly wage for servers.
>
> While that is true, when servers are paid the server rate, they keep
> their tips. In a good restaurant, that can easily come to more than $200 a night.
>
> Fact is that these people are creeps.
>
> George L

Sounds like a job for IRS.

Greg

Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 6:20 PM, gloria p wrote:
>
>> Or sometimes the landlord sees a little success as a cash cow and jacks
>> up the rent enough in the following year to cause financial failure.
>>
>
> That is exactly what happened in a small bakery in a small touristy town
> near here. There had been a sort of general store that never did well.
> Then it was a bakery and did not do well. A woman took it over, started
> making better products, put put some tables and umbrellas to make it look
> more inviting. Other people driving by saw the people enjoying their
> coffee/ tea and snacks so they stopped. She started getting regular. The
> landlord saw how well she was doing and jacked up the rent. She closed. Pity.

We had a very good restaurant close due to rent increase. I was looking
forward to returning, and many of us are now sad. They hoped to find a new
location, but the layout of the bar/restaurant was very inviting. Many or
most restaurants are living on the edge of profitability.

Greg

Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 6:45 PM, gloria p wrote:
>
>>> If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't see
>>> anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
>>> under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a mere
>>> pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But, if
>>> someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I think
>>> not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and was
>>> happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
>>> staff actually paid. We may never know.
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I strongly disagree, NB. Regardless of what thy are being paid, prices
>> are set by the owner of the business to reflect operating costs+profit.
>> The server, not the owner, is providing the service to the customer
>> and tips are reflective of quality of service.
>
> It is difficult to say when minimum wages vary so much from place to
> place. Minimum wage here in Ontario is $10.25/hr, $8.90 for people
> serving liquor. I know the latter is a lot less in some US states.
>
>
>>
>> The fact that 100+ employees have quit or been fired in a year says
>> something about the ownership/management. Having watched some of the
>> video clips, I wouldn't work for either of them, much less BOTH. It
>> looked like a lot of creepy abuse, attention-seeking and power issues.
>
>
> Again... hard to say. My son managed a microbrewery restaurant for a few
> years and he had a high staff turnover. Most of them were fired for
> incompetence, failing to show up for shifts or for theft.

Most servers get a lot less than minimum here, but with their tips, they
must meet minimum, or the owners must make up the difference. Our state
law.

Greg

"gregz" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 6:45 PM, gloria p wrote:
>>
>>>> If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't see
>>>> anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
>>>> under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a mere
>>>> pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But, if
>>>> someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I think
>>>> not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and was
>>>> happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
>>>> staff actually paid. We may never know.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree, NB. Regardless of what thy are being paid, prices
>>> are set by the owner of the business to reflect operating costs+profit.
>>> The server, not the owner, is providing the service to the customer
>>> and tips are reflective of quality of service.
>>
>> It is difficult to say when minimum wages vary so much from place to
>> place. Minimum wage here in Ontario is $10.25/hr, $8.90 for people
>> serving liquor. I know the latter is a lot less in some US states.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that 100+ employees have quit or been fired in a year says
>>> something about the ownership/management. Having watched some of the
>>> video clips, I wouldn't work for either of them, much less BOTH. It
>>> looked like a lot of creepy abuse, attention-seeking and power issues.
>>
>>
>> Again... hard to say. My son managed a microbrewery restaurant for a few
>> years and he had a high staff turnover. Most of them were fired for
>> incompetence, failing to show up for shifts or for theft.
>
> Most servers get a lot less than minimum here, but with their tips, they
> must meet minimum, or the owners must make up the difference. Our state
> law.

That's very sad. People deserve a living wage!

On 17 May 2013 17:08:53 GMT, notbob > wrote:


>
>If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't see
>anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
>under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a mere
>pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But, if
>someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I think
>not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and was
>happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
>staff actually paid. We may never know.
>
>nb

We had a place in town that paid the staff a decent wage. On the menu
there was a note that the staff is paid and no tip was required. Good
food and good service.

On 5/16/2013 7:21 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

> On 5/16/2013 12:30 AM, sf wrote:
>
>> I read their FB page, but it was dumb... filled with troll posts and
>> other incomprehensible yelling - nothing seems real. It's more like a
>> fake FB page with fake posts.
>
> I finally saw some of the footage (on The Chew, maybe). Wow, they
> were off the wall, to put it nicely. Afterwards one of them (I can
> guess which one) posted a diatribe, then recanted the next day saying
> they were hacked.
>
The online posts had the same rage and instability that they displayed
on TV so I doubt they were hacked. Or if they were, who cares, it
seemed just like them.

> Whatever the truth, they came across as totally ridiculous on that
> show, just from the bit I've seen.
>
> nancy
>


--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:02:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>
>You're not giving us a lot of information here. A tenant usually rents a
>building and that looks after the renovations that need to be done in
>order to comply with local laws related to that sort of business. We
>don't know what sort of arrangement the landlord and the tenant had. I
>have seen old gas stations heavily renovated and converted to
>restaurants, but I don't think that most rental agreements would require
>the landlord to look after the conversions. The landlord is renting the
>space and the building and I think that in most cases it is up to the
>tenant to make it conform for their business

Very true. You can rent just he building "as is" or you can built to
suit and charge accordingly.

About 10 years ago we had a new tenant, a start up business, in our
building. The town building inspector went into a rant about the
landlord screwing the tenant because of some renovations that had to
be done to put her into compliance. He shut up when I told he she was
getting the first three months rent free and the next three at half
the regular rate.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:52:30 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:29:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 2013-05-17, jmcquown > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Oh, it's okay. They're paying me plenty!" She didn't, because they
> >> >> don't.
> >> >
> >> > She looked pretty flustered on the show. Understandable, for a kid
> >> > her age amidst all that sturm/drang. On a reddit page, she claims she
> >> > was being paid $8 hr:
> >> >
> >> > <http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1eegnm/former_waitress_katy_cipriano_from_amys_baking/>
> >> >
> >> > Is it the real Katy? (shrug)
> >> >
> >> > If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't see
> >> > anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
> >> > under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a mere
> >> > pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But, if
> >> > someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I think
> >> > not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and was
> >> > happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
> >> > staff actually paid. We may never know.
> >>
> >> Huh? Servers here usually get paid more than minimum wage PLUS tips!
> >>
> > Just another person who think servers are scum and don't deserve a
> > living wage.
>
> Me? No! I think it is pathetic that in some states they can get away with
> paying almost nothing.

Not talking about you, Julie.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 01:53:15 +0000 (UTC), gregz >
wrote:

> Most servers get a lot less than minimum here, but with their tips, they
> must meet minimum, or the owners must make up the difference. Our state
> law.

Thanks, I didn't know. Not that it makes anything better, just that
the employer can't totally treat the staff like "human waste".

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:58:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> We had a place in town that paid the staff a decent wage. On the menu
> there was a note that the staff is paid and no tip was required. Good
> food and good service.

Good for them!!! All tips we given entirely based on quality of
service - as they should be.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:02:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 17/05/2013 1:01 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > I honestly don't know what has to be disclosed when it comes to
> > renting a restaurant property. I know we had a fantastic restaurant
> > just a couple of blocks away from us that closed very suddenly after
> > being open for only a week or two. It turned out there was some sort
> > of a drainage problem in the kitchen area (I don't remember if city
> > inspectors were involved or not). It was a matter of who was
> > responsible. The landlord said the tenant was responsible and the
> > tenant said it was the landlord..
>
>
> You're not giving us a lot of information here. A tenant usually rents a
> building and that looks after the renovations that need to be done in
> order to comply with local laws related to that sort of business. We
> don't know what sort of arrangement the landlord and the tenant had. I
> have seen old gas stations heavily renovated and converted to
> restaurants, but I don't think that most rental agreements would require
> the landlord to look after the conversions. The landlord is renting the
> space and the building and I think that in most cases it is up to the
> tenant to make it conform for their business

I didn't claim to know the details and the rental agreements here
might not be like they are where you are.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I am reminded of a my friend<?> Cheap Bob, who was boasting about a deal
> he got on a house in the middle of nowhere. He was proud of having paid
> only $68,000 for a house worth $95,000. We tried to explain to him
> that it had been on the market for 5 years and that if, after 5 years on
> the market it was only worth $68,000, that is what is was worth.

Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
You can put in a million dollars worth of upgrades, but if some else
is only willing to pay $400,000 for your little project - then that's
what it's worth.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 5/17/2013 1:08 PM, notbob wrote:

> If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't see
> anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
> under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a mere
> pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But, if
> someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I think
> not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and was
> happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
> staff actually paid. We may never know.

Even if the wait staff get paid enough to not need the tips, the owners
shouldn't get it. Their prices seem high enough to support wait staff
being paid a decent salary sans tips as long as the owners really do pay
them well. But for sure the customers shouldn't be duped into paying a
tip that the owner keeps on top of the high prices.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:52:30 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:29:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On 2013-05-17, jmcquown > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Oh, it's okay. They're paying me plenty!" She didn't, because
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> don't.
>> >> >
>> >> > She looked pretty flustered on the show. Understandable, for a kid
>> >> > her age amidst all that sturm/drang. On a reddit page, she claims
>> >> > she
>> >> > was being paid $8 hr:
>> >> >
>> >> > <http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1eegnm/former_waitress_katy_cipriano_from_amys_baking/>
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it the real Katy? (shrug)
>> >> >
>> >> > If she was being paid hourly at a rate above the min wage, I don't
>> >> > see
>> >> > anything wrong with not getting tips. Most ppl know waitstaff fall
>> >> > under draconian wage law exceptions that allow them to be paid a
>> >> > mere
>> >> > pittance of a real wage, knowing they can make it up in tips. But,
>> >> > if
>> >> > someone is making min wage, are they entitled to tips, also? I
>> >> > think
>> >> > not. I've worked in a resto kitchen for min wage and no tips and
>> >> > was
>> >> > happy to get it. The real question is, what, in fact, were the wait
>> >> > staff actually paid. We may never know.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? Servers here usually get paid more than minimum wage PLUS tips!
>> >>
>> > Just another person who think servers are scum and don't deserve a
>> > living wage.
>>
>> Me? No! I think it is pathetic that in some states they can get away
>> with
>> paying almost nothing.
>
> Not talking about you, Julie.

Oh! Sorry. Misunderstood.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
>
> Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
> You can put in a million dollars worth of upgrades, but if some else
> is only willing to pay $400,000 for your little project - then that's
> what it's worth.

Sort of like how the grocery stores tell you that you saved ____. Well, not
really because chances are that I wouldn't have bought a lot of those items
had they not been on sale for that price. Yesterday the clerk was astounded
because I got just over $40 of items for the food bank for $19.18. Well,
don't be astounded! Read your own ads! I would have purchased none of
those items at regular price.

I don't see how some stores make any money on me. Particularly QFC! Their
prices are so high, I rarely shop there. There is one within walking
distance of my mom's house so if I am there and need something, I will buy
it there. But mostly what I buy is single serve sodas. That's still enough
to earn me their freebie and discount coupons. I don't even redeem most of
the discount ones because even with that discount, I can usually get the
food (or whatever) for less elsewhere. But I for sure redeem all of the
freebies. Even if we can't use them, someone else can.

On 5/17/2013 10:29 AM, George Leppla wrote:

> On 5/17/2013 9:06 AM, jmcquown wrote:

>> In fact, wait staff is paid $8-$14 per hour, two and half to nearly five
>> times the standard hourly wage for servers.
>
> While that is true, when servers are paid the server rate, they keep
> their tips. In a good restaurant, that can easily come to more than
> $200 a night.
>
> Fact is that these people are creeps.
>
> George L

Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum
wage with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent
place. I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when
salary was only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to
make any money at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on
good days. Weekends even better.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 5/17/2013 9:39 PM, gregz wrote:
> jmcquown > wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 6:23 PM, Andrew Tillinghast wrote:
>>> On May 12, 3:29 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Watch it. The lady is a real nut case. The husband takes the tips
>>>>> and she fires people every week.
>>>>
>>>>> My guess: Now that this has hit the air, they will have a slight
>>>>> surge in business from curiosity seekers, then it will shut down.
>>>>
>>>> How long is it between filming the show
>>>> and airing it? I'd guess they might be
>>>> closed already.
>>>
>>> Still open. Read their facebook page. they are still screaming and
>>> crying!The comments are hilarious.
>>> https://www.facebook.com/amysbakingco?fref=ts
>>>
>> It now says on Facebook:
>>
>> Other Side of Amys Baking Company Controversy in Scottsdale To Soon Be Told
>>
>> SCOTTSDALE, AZ. MAY 15, 2013 -- Amys Baking Company will host a Grand
>> Re-Opening on Tuesday night, May 21, following unflattering portrayals on
>> national television.
>>
>> Customers will be able to decide who is correct: a famous celebrity chef
>> or the marketplace that has supported the small, locally-owned business for six years.
>>
>> When re-opened, a portion of proceeds will benefit a charity organized to
>> bring awareness to cyber bullying.
>>
>> Seating is limited. Reservations may be made by emailing <I snipped>
>>
>> Diners will also have the opportunity to meet, and judge for themselves
>> the character of owners Amy and Samy Bouzaglo, who have devoted their
>> lives to and earn their living from their small restaurant. The Bouzaglos
>> have been married for 10 years, after Sammy emigrated from Israel.
>>
>> The owners will likely be holding a press conference before the Grand
>> Re-Opening and answer falsehoods depicted on a reality television show,
>> including assertions that the restaurant confiscates tips from servers.
>>
>> In fact, wait staff is paid $8-$14 per hour, two and half to nearly five
>> times the standard hourly wage for servers.
>>
>> Questions will also be answered about what happened to their Facebook page.
>>
>> Amys Baking Company was recently featured on the hit PBS show €œCheck
>> Please€ and has received A+ reports from CBS 5 for kitchen preparedness.
>>
>> €œWe are very upset by what has taken place, apologize about the acrimony
>> that has ensued but now must fight back to save our business. We hope and
>> believe much good can result from what has transpired. We ask the public
>> to keep an open mind as we begin to tell our side of the story,€ Samy Bouzaglo said.
>>
>> Jill
>
> They will be closed by the end of the year. They don't say why or who
> called for help from Ramsey.
>
> Greg
>

Yes they did. They asked him to come themselves. To tell the public
their food was good to shut up the cyber bullies.


--
CAPSLOCK€“Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 5/17/2013 10:29 AM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2013 9:06 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>> In fact, wait staff is paid $8-$14 per hour, two and half to nearly five
>>> times the standard hourly wage for servers.
>>
>> While that is true, when servers are paid the server rate, they keep
>> their tips. In a good restaurant, that can easily come to more than
>> $200 a night.
>>
>> Fact is that these people are creeps.
>>
>> George L
>
> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum wage
> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent place.
> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary was
> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any money
> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
> Weekends even better.

They do because they can't find another job.

On 5/17/2013 11:26 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 7:21 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> were off the wall, to put it nicely. Afterwards one of them (I can
>> guess which one) posted a diatribe, then recanted the next day saying
>> they were hacked.
>>
> The online posts had the same rage and instability that they displayed
> on TV so I doubt they were hacked. Or if they were, who cares, it
> seemed just like them.

True. It sounded just like what I'd think she would write.

nancy

On 5/17/2013 10:31 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Very true. You can rent just he building "as is" or you can built to
> suit and charge accordingly.
>
> About 10 years ago we had a new tenant, a start up business, in our
> building. The town building inspector went into a rant about the
> landlord screwing the tenant because of some renovations that had to
> be done to put her into compliance. He shut up when I told he she was
> getting the first three months rent free and the next three at half
> the regular rate.
>

There can also e "occupancy riders" if the property is in a mall or
strip shopping center. Rent is $XX if total store occupancy is less
than 50%. Then it can jump to $XXX if 50% of the stores are rented...
then $YYY if 75% occupancy and $ZZZ if over 90% occupancy. Higher
occupancy rates means more traffic which makes the property more valuable.

George L

Time for me to play the "devil's advocate" here.
Interesting how no one has mentioned this yet but let me be the first.

I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@

Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
best behavior for the show?

But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
attention is still attention.

The network loved this. When they replay this show (probably right before
they start the new season), the cost of advertising will probably skyrocket
as many people that didn't see the episode will want to.

The negative attention to the restaurant will probably work in their favor
too. Negative attention is still better than no attention. Seriously....if
they were in my town, I'd make reservations to go there just to see what
it's like myself. I would@

I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant. They
are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this airing.
Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves" what
it's like.

G. :-D

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Time for me to play the "devil's advocate" here.
> Interesting how no one has mentioned this yet but let me be the first.
>
> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>
> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on
> your
> best behavior for the show?
>
> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
> attention is still attention.
>
> The network loved this. When they replay this show (probably right before
> they start the new season), the cost of advertising will probably
> skyrocket
> as many people that didn't see the episode will want to.
>
> The negative attention to the restaurant will probably work in their favor
> too. Negative attention is still better than no attention.
> Seriously....if
> they were in my town, I'd make reservations to go there just to see what
> it's like myself. I would@
>
> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant. They
> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this airing.
> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves" what
> it's like.

We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Time for me to play the "devil's advocate" here.
> Interesting how no one has mentioned this yet but let me be the first.
>
> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>
> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on
> your
> best behavior for the show?
>
> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
> attention is still attention.
>
> The network loved this. When they replay this show (probably right before
> they start the new season), the cost of advertising will probably
> skyrocket
> as many people that didn't see the episode will want to.
>
> The negative attention to the restaurant will probably work in their favor
> too. Negative attention is still better than no attention.
> Seriously....if
> they were in my town, I'd make reservations to go there just to see what
> it's like myself. I would@
>
> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant. They
> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this airing.
> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves" what
> it's like.
>
> G. :-D

I agree 100% re the T.V. show, and also 100% for the restaurant. The
restaurant was already getting bad reviews, so they had nothing to loose and
probably couldn't "un do" their bad reviews, given the nature of this
"reality" show. Might as well go for broke.

On 5/18/2013 12:59 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 9:39 PM, gregz wrote:
>> jmcquown > wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2013 6:23 PM, Andrew Tillinghast wrote:
>>>> On May 12, 3:29 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch it. The lady is a real nut case. The husband takes the tips
>>>>>> and she fires people every week.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess: Now that this has hit the air, they will have a slight
>>>>>> surge in business from curiosity seekers, then it will shut down.
>>>>>
>>>>> How long is it between filming the show
>>>>> and airing it? I'd guess they might be
>>>>> closed already.
>>>>
>>>> Still open. Read their facebook page. they are still screaming and
>>>> crying!The comments are hilarious.
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/amysbakingco?fref=ts
>>>>
>>> It now says on Facebook:
>>>
>>> Other Side of Amys Baking Company Controversy in Scottsdale To Soon
>>> Be Told
>>>
>>> SCOTTSDALE, AZ. MAY 15, 2013 -- Amys Baking Company will host a Grand
>>> Re-Opening on Tuesday night, May 21, following unflattering
>>> portrayals on
>>> national television.
>>>
>>> Customers will be able to decide who is correct: a famous celebrity chef
>>> or the marketplace that has supported the small, locally-owned
>>> business for six years.
>>>
(snipped)
>>> Jill
>>
>> They will be closed by the end of the year. They don't say why or who
>> called for help from Ramsey.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> Yes they did. They asked him to come themselves. To tell the public
> their food was good to shut up the cyber bullies.
>
Exactly! By then they had already turned into cyber bullies themselves.
And Ramsay was absolutely horrified by the food. They apparently
whined to FB, so their vindictive replies to negative posts were
removed. Someone has dug up the fact there is/was an indictment against
little miss priss for identity theft/fraud (before they were married)
and posted copies of the court documents. IMHO they're both scum. I
guess it's a good thing for us they've never heard of Usenet or RFC,
isn't it? LOLOL

Jill

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:21:38 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>
> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
> best behavior for the show?
>
> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
> attention is still attention.

What was that old Hollywood saying - "Say anything you want about me
as long as you spell my name right"?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-05-18 14:21:38 +0000, Gary said:

> Time for me to play the "devil's advocate" here.
> Interesting how no one has mentioned this yet but let me be the first.
>
> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>
> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
> best behavior for the show?
>
> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
> attention is still attention.

I'm not sure what advocacy you're claiming: Their bad attitude is
"acting" in an attempt to drive up a successful TV show's ratings and
their own restaurant's traffic? That would certainly be an interesting
approach.

> The network loved this. When they replay this show (probably right before
> they start the new season), the cost of advertising will probably skyrocket
> as many people that didn't see the episode will want to.

Sure. Reality TV has long since proven that idiots and nincompoops sell.

> The negative attention to the restaurant will probably work in their favor
> too. Negative attention is still better than no attention. Seriously....if
> they were in my town, I'd make reservations to go there just to see what
> it's like myself. I would@

We had a restaurant nearby that got "Ramsey'd" and decided after the
fact that they liked it better before he came, so their idiocy has
continued. The wife and I think it would be interesting to see how
goofy it is, but in the end, being brought a bucket of poorly prepared
food at market prices just didn't seem compelling enough. We've balked
three times and have concluded we don't like bad even if it's "weird".

> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant. They
> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this airing.
> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves" what
> it's like.

The "no one that's mentioned this" has mentioned this about 10 times
already in this thread. But it's certainly a screwy idea that people
might like to go to lousy places because bad food in hostile
environments is "funny". I have my doubts that this will keep them open
for too much longer.

On 2013-05-18 14:34:50 +0000, Pico Rico said:

> The restaurant was already getting bad reviews, so they had nothing to
> loose and probably couldn't "un do" their bad reviews, given the nature
> of this "reality" show. Might as well go for broke.

That's kind of the model for the show. Restaurants (and
owners/operators) get scathing reviews, and are losing money. Then
Ramsey fixes their problems, re-introduces them to their community, and
they are an unbridled success.

Usually the "going for broke" aspect isn't about showing the world you
don't care what your dining public thinks of your cooking. I don't
think that's a winning approach to marketing.

It certainly doesn't always take, but it's surprising how a little
education--with a committed restaurateur--can turn things around.
Frequently firing a lazy cook or trimming the menu down by a hundred
items.

Even better: *Convincing* them that fresh ingredients cooked to order
will be substantially more *profitable* than frozen foods micro'd.
Some think they are "saving money" this way and it almost makes sense
if you take the eating aspect out of the calculation.

On 2013-05-18 15:37:36 +0000, sf said:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:21:38 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>>
>> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
>> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
>> best behavior for the show?
>>
>> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
>> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
>> attention is still attention.
>
> What was that old Hollywood saying - "Say anything you want about me
> as long as you spell my name right"?

True: But name-recognition isn't "customer loyalty".

On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote

>> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant. They
>> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this
>> airing.
>> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves" what
>> it's like.
>
> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'

Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!

nancy
>

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Gary" > wrote
>
>>> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant.
>>> They
>>> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this
>>> airing.
>>> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves"
>>> what
>>> it's like.
>>
>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>
> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!

I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to explain
your remark. Do tell? )

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:12:34 -0700, gtr > wrote:

> On 2013-05-18 15:37:36 +0000, sf said:
>
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:21:38 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
> >>
> >> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
> >> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
> >> best behavior for the show?
> >>
> >> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
> >> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
> >> attention is still attention.
> >
> > What was that old Hollywood saying - "Say anything you want about me
> > as long as you spell my name right"?
>
> True: But name-recognition isn't "customer loyalty".

I don't think they are able to grasp that concept.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-05-18, Nancy Young > wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'

> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!

.....and who is "we"?

On 2013-05-18, jmcquown > wrote:

> Exactly! By then they had already turned into cyber bullies themselves.
> And Ramsay was absolutely horrified by the food. They apparently
> whined to FB, so their vindictive replies to negative posts were
> removed. Someone has dug up the fact there is/was an indictment against
> little miss priss for identity theft/fraud (before they were married)
> and posted copies of the court documents. IMHO they're both scum. I
> guess it's a good thing for us they've never heard of Usenet or RFC,
> isn't it? LOLOL

I'm guessing they've dug a hole waaay too deep. I doubt the negative
publicity they've received will ever turn positive enough to do them
any good. Some say ppl will now patronize their resto to see what
it's really like. I suspect there are those who will go there simply
to provoke them and film the incident for youtube. There's a very
real possibility they may be hounded/tormented out of business.

nb

On 18/05/2013 12:52 PM, sf wrote:

>>>
>>>> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>>>>
>>>> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
>>>> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
>>>> best behavior for the show?
>>>>
>>>> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
>>>> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
>>>> attention is still attention.
>>>
>>> What was that old Hollywood saying - "Say anything you want about me
>>> as long as you spell my name right"?
>>
>> True: But name-recognition isn't "customer loyalty".
>
> I don't think they are able to grasp that concept.
>


I make it a practice not to buy from entitled crooks and jerks. Let's be
honest about these products. It is not as if the celebrities actually
had anything to do with their design and manufacture. Someone just makes
them an offer to use their name and reputation to flog them. If I think
Martha Stewart I expect to see institutional sizes and the cooks to be
wear florescent jump suit and for Gordon Ramsey I envision an obnoxious
jerk hurling profane insults.

On 5/18/2013 12:22 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>
>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>
> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
> explain your remark. Do tell? )

It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
is much smaller.

The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.

I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
people.

So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
publicity is not working for them.

nancy

On 5/18/2013 12:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> is much smaller.
>
> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.



I'm thinking of taking a lawn chair, buying a hoagie or two and having
lunch in front of one of their stores. Maybe I'll take my shirt off and
get some sun while I am at it. <vbg>

FWIW... I don't give a rat's ass who they want to market to. What
bugged me is that they burned/destroyed unsold garments rather than
donate them to homeless shelters. Salvation Army, Goodwill... because
they didn't want the "wrong" people wearing their brand.

That sucks.

George L

On 5/18/2013 1:11 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, jmcquown > wrote:
>
>> Exactly! By then they had already turned into cyber bullies themselves.
>> And Ramsay was absolutely horrified by the food. They apparently
>> whined to FB, so their vindictive replies to negative posts were
>> removed. Someone has dug up the fact there is/was an indictment against
>> little miss priss for identity theft/fraud (before they were married)
>> and posted copies of the court documents. IMHO they're both scum. I
>> guess it's a good thing for us they've never heard of Usenet or RFC,
>> isn't it? LOLOL
>
> I'm guessing they've dug a hole waaay too deep. I doubt the negative
> publicity they've received will ever turn positive enough to do them
> any good. Some say ppl will now patronize their resto to see what
> it's really like. I suspect there are those who will go there simply
> to provoke them and film the incident for youtube. There's a very
> real possibility they may be hounded/tormented out of business.
>
> nb
>
From what I saw, they deserve to be driven out of business. I was
horrified by their behaviour. Not just when Ramsay was there. The
cameras were in place and wired to transmit without guys standing there
holding with cameras on their shoulders. IMO that portion of the
footage was real. Maybe they didn't understand that the minute it was
wired they'd start taping. <shrug>

Jill

On 2013-05-18, Dave Smith > wrote:

> wear florescent jump suit and for Gordon Ramsey I envision an obnoxious
> jerk hurling profane insults.

I find it amusing so many see GR as the villian. He goes in,
dispenses advice, spends thousands, all this on admitted losers
requesting his help. And throughout it all, it's the owner's who are
the real jerks. Arrogant, combative, dillusional, in denial, many
insufferable assholes badly in need to a good blast to the chops. Yet
GR is the jerk? I think the guy shows real restraint in the face of
infuriating hubris. No doubt cuz he'd be sued silly if he acted on a
normal persons response to such effrontery. My guess is he'd often
like to hurl more than "profane insults". Jes once I'd love to see GR
haul off and put some loudmouth loser's lights out.

nb

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 12:22 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>>
>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>
>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>
> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> is much smaller.
>
> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
> I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
> are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
> big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
> got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
> A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
> people.
>
> So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
> publicity is not working for them.

So it seems. I've never heard of anything like it!!! Hard to envisage
ruling out such a huge percentage of possible customers! I would be
surprised if we didn't have some shops with the similar views although I
haven't heard of them. Heh, only the young and beautiful eh??? I guess
that would rule me out too <g>

Thanks for explaining, Nancy!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/