Refer Exercise 13, p. 34. “Queuing for Restaurants?” by Mr Tim Aitken
Student response: Queuing for restaurants
One of the most pressing issues concerned with restaurant hospitality are booking services and how restaurateurs are refusing to take bookings. In The Daily, Queuing for restaurants (6/1/2013), Tim Aitken, with a rational tone, promotes the restaurateurs stance by representing them as the victim. Alternatively, Amanda Triton, in the letter let’s focus on service, and Mike Shapiro, the cartoonist, argue in a cynical tone that restaurateurs are the guilty party and that they are being bias and discriminate.
Aitken asserts his bias by declaring himself as a “partisan on behalf of the restaurant industry” thus allowing him to deflect any criticism directed towards him. By stating his credibility and his position, readers would feel sceptical about him due to his alignment with the restaurant industry. However, Aitken negates these scepticism because he, “like most patrons, [doesn’t] like queuing to go to a restaurant”, thus readers will begin to feel a sense of trust towards Aitken. Doing this allows Aitken to establish a link with the reader by illustrating that happens to be in the same position as the reader, even though he has a respected and high status as “a restaurant consultant”. (1)
Furthermore, in order to enhance his credibility and trust, Aitken utilises a barrage of statistics, such as “1990 a cup of coffee cost $2.65. In 2011 it costs $3.40” as well as information from the ATO, to help emit his reliability towards the reader. (2) The statistic is used to compare and contrast prices due to the influx of more restaurants portraying the struggling industry that many restaurants have to compete in. Many readers and patrons would be shocked at the poor profitability of most restaurants and feel guilt for their lack of understanding in the “inner working of… restaurants” therefore viewing the restaurateurs as victims instead of the guilty party.
In contrast to Tim Aitken, Amanda Triton accuses restaurants for their lack of hospitality portraying them as the perpetrator. Triton uses her personal experiences about the no-bookings policies, rather than a professional status like Aitken, in an attempt evoke frustration within the reader. By sharing a personal experience with the reader, readers would empathise with Triton due to their own personal experiences. (3) Triton also shares an experience that her friend has had in which she was “regulated to the footpaths”. Doing this allows Triton to attack restaurateurs for their lack of hospitality by neglecting would-be patrons. Due to the disregard to service and respect that they deserve, readers and patrons alike would be angered and frustrated. (4)
Similarly, the cartoonist, Mike Shapiro, shares similar views with Amanda Triton believing that nowadays restaurateurs have no sense of hospitality anymore. In the cartoon, Shapiro depicts a couple waiting to be seated in which the waiter comments in a satirical manner. The comment is used in reference to the no-bookings policy, in which it could be used to discriminate patrons. This would be used to shame restaurateurs for their bias actions and would encourage outrage and frustration from patrons and readers alike. (5)
Patrons and restaurateurs will have differing views regarding the no-booking policy. Some would have similar views with Amanda Triton and Mike Shapiro, who believe that restaurateurs are not providing patrons with enough hospitality and discriminating them. Alternatively, others would agree with Aitken that it is not the restaurants fault for their lack of hospitality but because the tough completion nowadays. Most readers would be persuaded by Aitken more due to his more credible argument fuelled by his professional status rather than Triton’s anecdotal experiences. (6)
(1) Some awkward phrasing and repetition. Try to pinpoint more concisely the author’s view and purpose. This paragraph could be conveyed in one or two more accurately-worded sentences.
(2) The word “barrage” is perhaps an overstatement. Also try to make a link between his trustworthiness established at the beginning with the statistics. Be more precise about the purpose and the point of the statistics. For example, “… influx of more restaurants portraying a struggling hospitality industry to evoke sympathy for the disadvantaged owners. Mr Aitken would also expect to arouse guilt in patrons who are harshly critical of restaurant owners.
(3) A repetitive sentence. Can you be more precise? How exactly does she depict her experience and why? For example, she conveys the depth of her frustration and anger in order to show the consequences of being treated disrespectfully.
(4) Yes. You are showing a link between the personal experience and the consequences for readers. “Doing this” is a typical meaningless phrase that can be deleted. Also the phrase, “to attack”: can you be more precise or perhaps use some more precise “attacking” terminology.
(5) Some awkward phrasing… “have no sense of hospitality anymore”, perhaps “lack a sense of hospitality”… “for their bias actions” , perhaps for their “policies that could become exclusive or discriminatory”.
(6) Perhaps also make reference to the fact that people’s response is likely to differ among stakeholders according to their own interest in the issue and their experiences.
QUEUING FOR RESTAURANTS: ANOTHER RESPONSE
The decision of many restaurateurs of Australia to refuse bookings has led to the outrage of many ‘fine-diners’ and has made many patrons ‘[feel] compelled to hit the key-board’. Tim Aitken writes to The Daily (06/02/13) titled ‘Queuing for restaurants?’ in reply to an article posted by John Smith that touched on the issue. Tim Aitken writes on behalf of restaurateurs and aims to convince diners that the policy is necessary for the survival of restaurants. The author adopts a courteous and candid voice to further enhance his arguments. While on the contrary Amanda Tritorn, a ‘fine-diner’ is scornful of the restaurateurs and aims to alienate those who refuse bookings. She writes a letter to The Daily (06/02/13) titled ‘Let’s focus on the service’
From his position as a restaurant consultant, Tim Aitken reassures readers that his opinion on the issue is well informed as he has first-hand knowledge. (1) His admission to his job as a consultant allows him to deflect any accusations of bias as he also acknowledges that he is not ‘partisan on behalf of the restaurant industry’ to further strengthen his credibility amongst readers. (2) He also ‘admits [that] he [does not] like queuing for restaurants either. This creates a sense of fellowship and also a sense of authenticity as he shows that he is able to relate to the feeling of most readers. (3) The writer is also able to create a sense of higher moral ground as he is able to comply with restaurants that are in dire situations where the policy must be implemented. (4)
Aitken uses statistics comparatively in his article to suggest that the ‘consequence’ of the no-bookings policy is not their fault. The author’s evidence channels our sympathy (5) as most ‘restaurants make… 5 per cent profit’ and ‘would be better off… putting the money into a deposit’. Such facts work to add more weight to Aitken’s article as they shock his readership into the realisation that the action of restaurants is justified. (6) This, in turn, is likely to position readers to feel guilt for finding issue that cannot be helped. In addition, Aitken compares the price of coffee to further exemplify the need for the policy. When the writer declares that restaurants had to decrease their profitability stating that ‘if coffee prices [rose] at the rate of inflation we would be paying $7.80’ readers are almost forced to feel guilt as they should be thankful for not having to pay double of what they are currently paying. It is also an appeal to the hip-pocket nerve as there would be other consequences like the increase of coffee prices and the like if they did not refuse bookings. (7)
In contrast Amanda Tritorn disregards the ‘time and money’ bluntly calling the people failing to show up ‘business’. (8) The writer accuses restaurateurs of becoming ‘business-like’ and aims to alienate restaurant owners from readers by accusing them of being money hungry. (9) Tritorn utilises an anecdote of her friends who were ‘queuing on rainy nights’ even though they were ‘the real deal’ to arouse the public’s anger (indignation?) because they deserve to be served with ‘hospitality, service and respect’. She uses hyperbole to exaggerate the faults of the restaurants and to further instigate (?) frustration stating that those who refuse bookings ‘refuse to look after us’.
Likewise, the cartoonist also reinforces Ms Tritorn’s depiction of restaurateurs and suggests that they are failing to fairly provide ‘hospitality, service and respect’. The image presents the receptionist’s comment that ‘there’s a fifteen minute wait for people we like, and forty five… for’ the man waiting in line. It is used to highlight the bias that occurs while queuing for restaurants and attempts to also elicit as sense of frustration. The man who is queuing in line is depicted to be a replica of the person dining in the restaurant to show the irony of the situation and to prove that their bias is unjustified. It shows that by having bookings there is no need to wait and so restaurants allowing bookings will avoid this unfair treatment.
The debate regarding the refusal of bookings by restaurants in Australia is reflected by the opinions of the two writers and the cartoonist. Most ‘fine-diners’, like Amanda Tritorn believe that restaurants should be aiming to appease their customers. The cartoonist reinforces the contention of Amanda and shows the issue with queuing at restaurants, while those in the restaurant industry believe that the policy is required to help the restaurants maximise the profitability. While Tritorn launches scathing attacks on the restaurant for being ‘businesslike’ while Aitken provides a measured and reasoned article that is likely to be better received by readers as it leaves little room for argument. (10) However, readers will respond well to the cartoonist as it allows his audience to relate to the image, as they will often feel as though they are being treated unfairly.
(1) Can you be more accurate? For example, what exactly is his opinion?
(2) Final phrase, “to strengthen” is one too many and the grammar becomes awkward. Try to avoid too many ideas/ comments in one sentence.
(3) He can relate personally to readers. Can you be more precise? For example, he can understand the frustration experienced by patrons who do not like waiting.
(4) The phrase, “in a dire situation” does not seem to fit with the sentence.
(5) Our sympathy must be “channelled” somewhere. For example, direct sympathy towards the patrons who are depicted as disadvantaged economically owing to a glut of restaurants. Can you be more precise about the comparative use of statistics – pinpoint the consequences and purpose.
(6) The following sentences are slightly repetitive. You could make the point more concisely and move on.
(7) Good analysis.
(8) This sentence is awkward and does not capture the author’s views adequately and thereby the focus of the paragraph. Try another topic sentence that pinpoints her concerns and/or technique.
(9) “money hungry” is colloquial. Avoid in a formal analysis. The patrons are depicted as exploitative; ruthless; commercially-oriented at the expense of service.
(10) The comment is too general. Perhaps, he “pragmatically seeks to justify the policy, counter criticism and encourage patrons to reflect on the difficult situation experienced by restaurant owners.”
For other annotated comments on Students Samples see “Why can we Hit our Kids”.