New York restaurateurs are faced with a new challenge, writes their most famous city newspaper. They are visited by unusual characters who order food and while they are eating, mutter something and look back here and there to take in the surroundings. Everyone wears t-shirts. A few days later, people rushed into the facility in huge numbers, took selfies with the owner and staff and told them that they had gone "viral".
Of course, it's about food vloggers, but new generations. What their predecessors before covid recorded with their phones and posted on the networks, they record with the help of Google glasses. The only thing that gives them away is the led light that lights up when the camera is active, which is a sign that it is recording. Provided the busy waiter is even paying attention.
Opinions about this practice are divided. For some, it is endearing and useful because it brings in new customers, whatever the criticism, it is enough that they have been noticed. Others are very unhappy and say they don't want anyone filming them without their consent. That kind of advertising doesn't work for them either, because it attracts a crowd that isn't really interested in their food or cocktails, but wants to scratch a few views when they hang proof that they've been to a place that's trendy this week. And such people know how to drive away regular customers, those from whom such restaurants live.
It's even worse when a vlogger drags an unwitting restaurateur into a political conversation and then publishes it, often making someone's life hell. The problem is that things are getting out of control faster and faster. In the USA, a citizen is allowed to film in public places, including state counters, it is considered a right derived from the First Amendment of the US Constitution. On the other hand, the privacy of personal possessions is inviolable. Restaurants are somewhere in the middle - they are public places, but on private property. At the very least, the recording would have to be announced, much louder than the light on the glasses.
The argument for this type of recording is authenticity. The vlogger shows us the experience from the first person, everyone in the restaurant is spontaneous because they don't feel like they are being filmed and we could believe him whether the service was good or not. Unlike shooting with a phone, this is less theatrical and less aggressive. Criticism is democratized because every visitor is a potential influencer; depending on the quality of his review, good or bad, the algorithm can push him to unimagined heights.
The arguments against it are that restaurateurs have the feeling that they are under constant pressure from the public and that their every spoken word and gesture is measured and evaluated. This makes work more stressful, thus making it difficult to provide good service. One bad moment can devalue their years of hard work, and with so many hidden cameras and intentions, the chances of such moments being recorded are huge. Forever.
Finally, there are visitor ratings, only now enhanced with an accompanying video, so they seem more authentic. And when everything has to get stars, likes and comments, the ability to simply experience something is lost. Lunch becomes content. The restaurant becomes the scenery. Guests become each other's audience. Life becomes a reality, that is, a staged version of itself.
New York's coffee shops are seriously considering fighting for camera-free bars, just as they fought for the banning of cigarettes. It will not be easy because the consensus around the cameras is closer to the fact that we have the right to information. Whether it's a video of the serving or our service evaluation that we give like and unlike. The only thing left is for them to put on the glasses themselves and start filming vloggers, rate their tips and crushes.
