Uncategorized

Does Michelin matter anymore?

September 2018

 

Michelin image.jpg

“The Michelin Guide has been around for an astonishing 118 years. But, has it run its course?”


The Michelin Guide returns later today, but it’s not been the best year for the guide. With chefs giving stars back and politely requesting inspectors don’t enter their premises, it begs the question: does Michelin matter for chefs or consumers anymore?

Before we get to that rather big question, here’s a quick run through of what’s been going on.

 

A recent guide to the Guide

Last September, Le Suquet restaurant in southern France was the first restaurant in history to have itself removed from the Michelin Guide. It had held an incredible three Michelin stars for 18 years, but chef Sebastien Bras said enough is enough, and requested to be removed. He found the pressure of retaining stars was too great and held him and his team back from serving the food they really wanted to.

More recently, The Checkers in Montgomery, Powys, also handed back their one star, which it’s held since 2011. Their reasoning was to “put family first” after “years juggling the kids with working split shifts and late hours”.

And then there’s Marco Pierre White – the original rock star chef who continues to own the news. The enigmatic chef told an Asian lifestyle website “I don’t need Michelin and they don’t need me”. He’s stated that the Michelin Guide does not have permission to visit and inspect his new Singapore restaurant, The English House.

 

Why are chefs turning their backs?

So, it’s been a tumultuous year for the Guide, which for so long has been considered the pinnacle of restaurant reviews worldwide. It’s famed for high standards, incredible expectations and brutal honesty. And therein lies the problem.

Getting a star is still an exciting achievement for any restaurant and head chef. But retaining it becomes as big a part of the job as pleasing customers. An inspection can happen at any time, meaning all-year round, a restaurant has to tick the many boxes that Michelin is looking out for.

Not knowing when a restaurant could be reviewed makes trying out something new an even more terrifying ordeal. What if the inspectors arrive on the day a new menu is introduced, and it’s just not quite right? The star’s gone.

So, it’s best to just stick with what you do.

 

Does the Guide take everything into account?

The judging criteria used by inspectors is a mystery to most. In a recent tweet, Michelin said that it’s the food on the plate that’s judged, which is why street food vendors have an equal chance of winning a star.

In a way, this is great news. The food is what matters most and great food deserves praise, wherever it’s from and however it’s served. But, speak to any chef and you can be sure that it’s not all they care about. Food is experiential, more so than ever. The décor, the feel, the atmosphere, the restaurant as a whole, they all play into the dining experience, not just the food.

If the Guide is purely critiquing the food, is that really enough? Because food today is much more than just what’s on the plate, however pretty the plate may be.

 

The cost of creativity

Chefs are inherently creative individuals. They want to cook and create the perfect menu that represents them, their tastes and their culture. Holding back a creative person is like locking a cheetah in a cage. It doesn’t want to be there, it’s not going to be happy, and the moment it gets out, you know it’s going to run.

The constant pressure of inspection causes even longer hours and even greater expectations in an industry that’s already full of long hours and great expectations. And these hours and expectations often occur at the detriment of profit, with margins often said to be lower at Michelin-focussed restaurants.

But, is that why chefs and consumers are turning their backs on the Guide? Or is it because the world of reviews has changed?

 

Reviews beyond the Guide

The Michelin Guide has been around for an astonishing 118 years. But today, there’s a world of reviews beyond the guide.

Bloggers, journalists, TV critics and review aggregator websites such as TripAdvisor have changed the face of reviewing. The Guide sits at the top, but for the average customer, why would they listen to a Guide that’s criteria for success is a secret, when they could just see genuine peer-reviews?

Restaurant A has a star, but the last 20 people that visited had a dreadful experience. Meanwhile, Restaurant B is star-less, but has page after page of flawless reviews. Where would you eat tomorrow?

We live in a society where everyone is now a critic, and everyone has a platform to share comments, pictures and reviews. This happens every day, not just once a year, making the Guide essentially behind the times as soon as it’s released.

 

Who is the Guide really for?

This begs the question, who is the Guide really for? Is it for chefs or for consumers?

Consumers undoubtedly want to enjoy the best cuisine and cooking possible and the idea of eating at a Michelin-starred restaurant still has a great appeal. It has pulling power, but it’s no longer the only factor a consumer looks at.

For chefs, winning a star is still one of the highest culinary accolades out there. It can change a career in a heartbeat. But, as we’ve seen, retaining a star is often a step too far for many creative chefs. It limits them and stifles creativity; two things that a lot of chefs won’t enjoy very much.

At the end of the day, the Michelin Guide isn’t perfect. But, it still matters a great deal to chefs and consumers alike. As Adam Coghlan, Eater London Editor, puts it: “Like driving a car on a treadmill, Michelin appear to be moving forward all the time, but really, they’re standing still. The thing is — they’re still driving the car.

One thing’s for sure. We’ll still be watching to see the updated list, because today it still is the pinnacle. The question is, how long will that last? And will we see any restaurants ask for their star to be removed in the same week the Guide’s released?

 

Insights & Trends

Why it’s time to stop selling products and start solving kitchen problems 

April 2026

By Fiona Hamilton, director of strategic growth 

As the conflict in the Middle East continues to disrupt supply, food inflation remains high, and consumers spend more cautiously, pressure is increasing on foodservice buyers.  

The impact is clear: less time, tighter margins, and little appetite for just another product pitch. 

Buyers need solutions that work in the reality of a busy kitchen. And that shifts the role of marketing and how we sell. For those that want to win, it becomes less about pushing products harder and much more about showing how you solve real operational challenges. 

The brands cutting through are starting with the problem – labour, consistency, cost, speed, additional profit potential – and showing where their products can help. 

Get that right and buyers don’t just see your product. They see it working in their world. Which is much more likely to result in a ‘yes’. 

How to reframe your narrative: 

Start with your USP – but make it relevant
Differentiation still matters, but only if it connects to a real need. Don’t just ask what makes you different; ask why that difference matters in a busy kitchen. If it doesn’t save time, reduce stress, improve consistency or drive profit, it’s not your strongest story. 

Prove there’s demand
Buyers are risk-averse so demonstrate that your product is already resonating with consumers. Use strong social proof to build immediate trust and credibility. That could be usage data (“9 out of 10 consumers would choose X”), or compelling consumer testimonials. 

Highlight your operational edge
Focus on tangible improvements your solution delivers in practice: faster service, simpler prep, lower costs, or improved labour efficiency. The clearer the day-to-day advantage, the stronger your proposition. 

Quantify the commercial impact
Show how your offer improves performance where it matters most – margin, throughput, or meal-time spend. Wherever possible, give numbers to it to turn interest into a clear business case. 

Speak your buyers’ language
Lose the brand jargon. Step into their world – whether that’s the kitchen or boardroom. Talk covers, wastage, labour constraints and service pressure. When buyers feel understood, they’re far more likely to engage. 

At its core, this approach is about reducing risk. The more proof you provide, the easier it is for buyers to make a decision. Then the faster your sales team can move. 

Create your selling story 

If you need help shaping your brand narrative, let’s talk.

Insights & Trends

What the foodservice industry really wants from suppliers – and why this is a credibility moment

January 2026

By Anita Murray, CEO, William Murray PR & Marketing 

Foodservice has always been a demanding environment. But it is rare for the industry to be under this level of sustained, multi-directional pressure.

Rising input costs have become a permanent feature of pricing conversations. Labour shortages continue to reshape menus, skills and service models. Sustainability expectations are accelerating faster than the systems and data needed to support them. At the same time, availability remains fragile and trust across the supply chain is being tested.

In response to these pressures, we’ll shortly be publishing new research exploring what foodservice operators actually want from suppliers – and why so much supplier marketing and PR is failing to build credibility, partnership and growth in this environment.

Against a tough backdrop, suppliers are investing heavily in innovation, sustainability programmes and brand marketing. Yet many are frustrated that this effort isn’t translating into stronger relationships, influence or long-term partnerships, despite significant investment in marketing and communications.

That gap, between effort and impact, is what prompted our research.

Over the past few months, we’ve spoken in depth with chefs, caterers, wholesalers, procurement specialists, sustainability leads, trade bodies and industry media. We explored: what helps supplier communication land credibly when operators are under this much pressure?

The answers were strikingly consistent.

Operators are not asking for louder messaging or more product launches. They want transparency over pricing, supply and sustainability. They want proof rather than promises. They want relevance to real kitchen and commercial pressures. And they value suppliers who help them lead conversations and remove complexity, rather than add to it.

Too often, they experience the opposite: generic product-led messaging, corporate sustainability narratives disconnected from operational reality, and “innovation” that feels abstract or impractical. As one editor put it bluntly, suppliers need to deliver a simple, value-led message: “Why do I need this product in my operation?”

What’s emerging is what I would describe as a credibility moment for foodservice suppliers.

Many businesses are doing good work – investing responsibly, improving quality, innovating with purpose. But that work is frequently undermined by how it is communicated through marketing and PR. Overclaiming, vague commitments and polished narratives create distance at a time when relevance and proof matter more than ever.

Our forthcoming report sets out what operators, wholesalers and media actually want from suppliers in 2026 – and how marketing and PR leaders can respond. It explores why credibility is built through operational reality, honest sustainability communication and evidence-led insight, rather than volume or visibility.

Want to receive the report first? Sign up to the William Murray newsletter to receive the full report when it’s released, alongside practical insight on how marketing and communications can build trust, influence and long-term relevance, by aligning more closely with operational reality.