Business and Brand

The Michelin Guide

Course 1 · Chapter 8 · Business, Brand and Controversy

The red guide is a product of a company that sells tyres. This chapter asks how the guide earns its place in that business, how it has widened its range with the Green Star and the Keys, what is known about tourist boards paying for local editions, what a former inspector wrote in 2004, and how online reviews have changed its position. The aim is to separate what is documented from what is alleged. Names, dates and figures are from general knowledge and flagged "check". Allegations are described as allegations.

Why a Tyre Company Publishes a Guide

The original idea

In 1900 the guide was meant to encourage motoring, and so tyre wear (Chapter 2). A tale says that the brothers realised people would value it only if it was not given away free (Chapter 1, check).

Today's role

The guide is now best understood as a brand-builder and a publishing and travel business. It gives the company a famous name linked to quality, and it now sells through books, an app and a website, along with hotel and travel services (check).

What is not public

The company does not publish the guide's accounts, the number of inspectors or the cost of the inspections in detail, so claims about its profit or loss are mostly estimates (check).

A conflict of interest? The company that owns the guide earns money from tyres, not from restaurants. That is an argument for independence, since it does not depend on restaurants' fees. Against it, the guide exists to serve the brand, and the brand may profit from the guide's growth into new markets and new products. Both statements are true and neither shows bias on its own.

New Awards: Green Star and Keys

Award (check each)What it is
Green StarIntroduced in 2020 for restaurants judged to be leaders in sustainable practice, such as sourcing, reducing waste and using local produce. It is separate from the star scale, so a restaurant with no stars can hold one.
Michelin KeysIntroduced for hotels in 2024, on a scale of one to three keys, to give hotels a rating of the same kind as the restaurant stars (check).
Other labelsSpecial prizes for service, sommeliers and young chefs have been added in recent years (check).

These additions respond to criticism that the stars reward waste and luxury (Chapter 5), and they extend the brand to hotels and travel. Both of these facts can be true together. Critics ask how a sustainability award can be inspected fairly, since the criteria are less easy to measure than a plate of food, and whether it can be separated from marketing.

Money, Partners and Allegations

  • Tourist boards. In several countries and regions, press reports have said that a tourist body or government agency paid the company to produce a local guide (check). The company has said that it takes such funding but that it does not influence which restaurants are chosen or how they are rated (check).
  • The question to ask. A payment for producing a guide is not the same as a payment for a rating, but critics say that it gives the funder a reason to want a good result. The evidence is a matter for the reports and the documents, and I have not tried to settle it.
  • A former inspector. In 2004 a former inspector, Pascal Rémy, published a book, L'Inspecteur se met à table, claiming that the guide had too few inspectors and that some restaurants were rarely visited. He was dismissed by the company, which disputed his account (check). The book is a source to read critically: it is a single insider's claim, and the company's reply is part of the record.
  • The guide's defence. The company says that its inspectors are anonymous, pay their bills and visit more than once, and that the stars are decided collectively (Chapter 3).
  • Legal cases. Where chefs have taken the guide to court, as in Chapter 5, the courts have so far treated the ratings as opinion (check).

The Online Challenge

  • Reviews by the crowd. Websites and apps with millions of diners' reviews give ratings for far more restaurants than the guide can visit, and update them daily (check).
  • The guide's reply. It moved online, with a website and app that include its selections, booking links and some editorial pieces (check).
  • Different strengths. The guide offers a small number of professional, anonymous judgements; the sites offer many opinions with errors and manipulation. Studies of fake reviews on public platforms show a real problem (check).
  • The influence of social media. A photogenic dish can matter as much as a rating, which may change what chefs aim for (Chapter 5).
A British comparison The Good Food Guide, newspaper critics and review websites all compete in Britain. A useful exercise for an Edinburgh reader is to look at one restaurant's coverage in the red guide, a newspaper review and the crowd reviews, and ask who has the best chance of being right and what each might gain from their verdict. Scotland's national tourist body, VisitScotland, runs its own quality schemes for visitor attractions and accommodation, which gives another comparison with the Keys (check).
Check the details This chapter touches on allegations about a living company and living people. Keep to documented facts and attributions ("reported", "said", "disputed"). Dates of new awards and the details of the 2004 book should be checked against the guide's announcements and the press of the time. Do not state any payment as fact unless a document says so.

Exercises

Exercise 1

List the arguments that the guide's tyre-company ownership makes it more independent, and the arguments that it makes it less so.

→ Solution
Exercise 2

Take a claim about the guide from a former insider or a critic and show how you would assess it, using the source, the evidence and the guide's reply.

→ Solution
Exercise 3

Compare the red guide with a crowd-review site: three strengths and three weaknesses of each.

→ Solution

Quick Reference

  • Ownership: a tyre company; independence of restaurants, but a brand motive
  • New awards: Green Star 2020, Keys for hotels 2024 (check)
  • Allegations: tourist-board funding; a former inspector's 2004 book (disputed)
  • Rivals: crowd reviews, newspaper critics, other guides