Democratization in the Gastronomic Market: From Michelin Stars to

Titre de l’article:
Democratization in the Gastronomic Market: From Michelin Stars to Michelin “Bibs”
Auteurs
Christian Barrère
[email protected]
Professeur (section 5)
Centre de recherché OMI (Organisations, Marchés et Institutions) – E.A. 2065
Bâtiment Recherche
57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger
51096 Reims cedex
Quentin Bonnard
[email protected]
Doctorant (section 5)
Centre de recherché OMI (Organisations, Marchés et Institutions) – E.A. 2065
Bâtiment Recherche
57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger
51096 Reims cedex
Véronique Chossat
[email protected]
Maître de conferences (section 5)
Centre de recherché OMI (Organisations, Marchés et Institutions) – E.A. 2065
Bâtiment Recherche
57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger
51096 Reims cedex
Titre du colloque :
4èmes Journées de recherches en sciences sociales (AgroCampus-Ouest), Rennes, 9-10
décembre 2010.
1
Résumé, mots-clés et JEL codes
Tastes
Quality
Gastronomy
Luxury
Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)
C19; C88, L1, Z1
This paper aims to analyze the democratization in force in gastronomy. From the demand side
there are a rising number of consumers subjected to emerging constraints (time, dietetics,
travels…) and desires (search of new taste experiences…). To fit more closely to this new
scheme of demand famous chefs behave increasingly as cultural industries producers
multiplying outlets by opening sandwich shops, middle range restaurants… Numerous
renowned chefs have besides given back their Michelin stars that begin to be supplanted by
new quality signals more in line with the middle range dynamic (e.g. Michelin launched “bibs
gourmands”
, meaning inspectors’ favorites for good values).
Does democratization signifies a loss in quality or simply another way to produce
gastronomy?
To study this mutation we establish a comparison in the situations of Paris in 1960 and
in 2010. We present a statistical analysis founded on the Multiple Correspondence Analysis
(MCA). Thanks to this statistical method, we study the relations between the level of comfort
(Forks & Spoons) of the selected gastronomic restaurants, the quality of their cooking (Stars
and Bibs) and the prices they practiced, in 1960 and in 2010. We thus compare the two
situations to establish the profiles of restaurants in the Parisian gastronomy. Our analysis
shows strong mutations: from three to four types of establishments between 1960 and 2010;
and seems to testify the crisis of the elitist model of gastronomy. Extra-ordinary ways of
cooking do not remain the unique symbol of luxury and taste. The increasing number of
establishments in the lowest categories of comfort and quality and the emergence for instance
of the “bib gourmand” pictogram in the last 1990s show this trend. In other words creativity
mixed with ordinary foodstuffs and setting attracts a wider less rich clientele, looking for new
codes like pure and healthy products, less sophisticated settings...
2
Democratization in the Gastronomic Market: From Michelin Stars to Michelin “Bibs”
By Christian Barrère*, Quentin Bonnard* and Véronique Chossat*
First draft
4èmes Journées de recherche en sciences sociales
AgroCampus-Ouest – Rennes, 9 et 10 décembre 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade one can observe a mutation in the hierarchy of gastronomic models.
During the 19th and 20th centuries the gastronomic preeminent model in France and therefore
in the world was the one of grands restaurants deriving itself from the aristocratic then the
elitist model of luxury. Chefs, like Carême, Point and Dumaine, were very well-known and
rich gastronomes came from all the countries to stay in palaces or road-side auberges to
experiment classic preparations. Time goes by and even if chefs have changed, great chefs are
still famous. The top chefs mutated into superstars having TV programs, interviews in
newspapers and magazines, and going to art exhibitions as invited creators (remember Ferran
Adria at the Kassel Dokumenta). This old model went on attracting consumers and a new
generation of chefs. The Nouvelle Cuisine movement developed in this direction. These
establishments are very expensive and deal with the extra-ordinary. Nevertheless, if some
made a lot of money, export their restaurants all over the world (Joël Robuchon owns 13
restaurants with a total of 18 Michelin stars and Paul Bocuse 17) and built profitable groups
(as the Ducasse group), others encountered difficulties to maintain a financial equilibrium.
Then the old model has been affected. In France since 2000 some chefs (among whom Alain
Senderens, who had 3 stars for his Lucas-Carton) gave back their Michelin stars. Some others
developed “second line” restaurants, cheaper and less sophisticated ones.
An increasing number of gastronomic restaurants do not practice the elitist way of cooking
and on the contrary tend to go back to the roots of gastronomy. Thus the extra-ordinary ways
of cooking, of receiving clients … became through time polymorphous. An emerging
category of gastronomes helped by visionary top chefs tend to show that eating lobsters or
caviar is not the unique way to propose luxury food amenities. Consuming “real vegetable”
coming from the garden of the restaurant, even if it is less charged than caviar, spending time
to eat but not too much money, here is another luxury. Slow Food, Fooding and other
movements looking for a return to commensalism, healthy preparations, old products,
authenticity and cheap bills joined this movement.
*
OMI, Université de Reims, France. [email protected];
[email protected] (corresponding author).
[email protected];
3
This evolution, apparently linked to the consecration of creativity and to the
“democratization” of luxury, allows the cohabitation or competition of different forms of
gastronomy. Hence this movement enlarges significantly the turnover of the gastronomic
segments by increasing the number of restaurants considered as potentially gastronomic.
Guidebooks gave support to this evolution. It is necessary for them to accompany the
consumers‟ desires to justify every year copies selling in the context of an increasing contest
between experts and new kinds of evaluation (consumers‟ guidebooks, Internet forums and so
on). This is particularly the case for the Michelin guidebook.
The aim of this paper is precisely to propose an assessment of the changes thanks to the study
of the French Parisian gastronomy. In a first time we consider the history of gastronomic
models to develop some hypotheses on the present changes. The second point is dedicated to
a statistic analysis of these empirical changes and the third one uses MCA (Multiple
Correspondence Analysis) to define the new segmentation of the Parisian gastronomic
market. Some concluding remarks end the paper.
2. THE MODELS OF LUXURY APPLIED TO GASTRONOMY
Even if Greeks and Romans have known gastronomy, modern gastronomy is founded on an
aristocratic model, connected to Court culture and mainly developed in the 17th and 18th Royal
and Imperial Courts. The Louis XIV‟s Grand Siècle society played an exceptional role in the
building, the normalization and the export of this model. It constituted the basis of a
gastronomic heritage (type of dishes, recipes, modes of presentation, crockery, ornamentation
of the table...). In a second time, it evolved towards an elitist model when social mutations set
in the first place new social groups. With the development of market societies and the growth
of wealth, gastronomy became a mass concern. Nevertheless the “mass-consumption”, the
“commodification” and the “democratization” of gastronomy have been made in relation to
this elitist model: the reference point remained the grand restaurant (in the second half of the
20th century, the Michelin starred restaurant) and the old aristocratic heritage. From ten years
this model has been encountering more and more difficulties. Besides these internal problems,
some external factors intervene: new types of cooking, new values, new culinary heritages
play a growing role in the globalized world.
2.1 The elitist model
A gastronomic service is simultaneously an economic and a cultural good, for production and
for consumption, according to the definition of D. Throsby (2001: 4): “one which has
involved human creativity in its making, which conveys symbolic meaning (or multiple
meanings) and which is identifiable, at least in principle, as embodying some intellectual
property”. The study of the evolution of fashion (Spencer, 1854, Veblen, 1899, Simmel, 1904,
Lipovetsky, 1987, Barrère and Santagata, 2005) and of gastronomy (Chossat, 2001, Parkhurst
Ferguson, 2004) shows that the social status of demands for taste goods and the social
conditions of access to their luxury segment are governed by the paradigms of taste and
4
luxury. These paradigms organize all the questions and answers concerning a given society, at
a certain point, to define the status of taste, and, within it, the status of luxury goods: what is
good taste and bad taste, who defines taste – in the fashion area one uses the image of les
arbitres des élégances -, which goods belong to the luxury field, when and how to use luxury
goods, what is ordinary and extra-ordinary, is luxury important or marginal? A taste and
luxury paradigm is encapsulated in a paradigm of society, that is to say the framework
according to which society, at a given historical time, represents itself - or at least according
to which the dominating consensus represents it: what are the positions of the different
groups, their rights and their powers, what are their relations, what are the relations between
individuals and society... A highlighting example of the role of these paradigms and of the
conventional character of the definition of quality and luxury is the case of the wild sturgeons
of the French rivers Gironde and Adour. In the 19th century, the bosses of the fish boats got
rid of them as nonnoble fish, unsuitable for selling, by giving them to their employees; the
employees ate the fish, but after having given to the pigs the eggs they had previously
extirpated. Today these eggs constitute the caviar of Aquitaine, which is as expansive as the
Iranian one is.
The aristocratic paradigm of society conceived society as a set of two close subsets, elite and
people. The social elite separated from the common people, radically distinct from it - the first
one having blue blood while the second one has only red blood - would exist. The
corresponding paradigm of aristocratic luxury revolved around the idea that good taste was
specific to the elite and thus that luxury goods should be reserved to it. Aristocracy was often
designated as les gens de qualité or les gens de goût whereas the mob, the vulgar people could
not appreciate luxury goods requiring education: “it would be as to throw pearls before
swine”. So, tastes – mainly "good taste" and "bad taste" were structured as a system.
The vocabulary of aristocratic luxury expressed this relation: Haute Couture, Grande Cuisine
or Haute Cuisine, Grands Vins. Goods for aristocratic taste and goods for popular taste were
thus completely disjoined; luxury goods and ordinary goods were radically separated. The
aristocratic paradigm led the consumers to self-selection: they get into lines according to the
type of demand that their social status authorized them to do.
The aristocratic taste will take its traditional form with the culture of the Court, very well
described by Norbert Elias (1973). We connect his interpretation to the concept of épistémè
developed by Michel Foucault (1966). He defined an épistémè as a cultural field which,
simultaneously, allows and limits the ways of thinking over the world and the society. He
showed that, according to the periods, one cannot think the relations between human beings,
men and women, or between humanity and nature in the same way. More precisely the
archéologie du savoir (archaeology of knowledge) makes it possible to locate fractures within
the development of thinking and to characterize different and relatively coherent ideological
bases.
5
The aristocratic good is the exception compared to the current good, the extraordinary one
compared to the ordinary good, the marginal one compared to the good of mass. It is a
“higher” good which marks the absolute superiority of aristocracy. The distinction is
primarily marked by the expensive character of the good, the luxury and the scarcity of the
raw materials; in the case of clothing: velvet, satins, gibes, embroidery, fur.., in that of food:
fine wines, "noble" game - wild boar or stag but not rabbit -, meat... Even on extraordinary
occasions popular consumption was different from aristocratic consumption: the celebrations
of aristocracy were not the same as the village ones, balls and dances were different, the
popular banquet painted by Breughel is different from the paintings of the Court banquets.
In the early 19th century Carême (1783-1833) realized “the reconfiguration of the aristocratic
cuisine of the Ancien Régime into the elite and assertively national cuisine of the nineteenth
century” (Parkhurst Ferguson, 2004: 10). As Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) he wrote not only
for aristocracy but mainly for the bourgeois audience of urban connoisseurs. He cut with the
extravagance of the Court cuisine but kept his inspiration on the old heritage of the
aristocratic cuisine. Then bourgeois cuisine became a rationalized and euphemized form of
the aristocratic one. This situation may be illustrated by the Veblen (1899) analysis of the
leisure class: new groups, business and financial bourgeoisie, artistic and intellectual elites
joined the Old aristocracy. Then, an economic model of elitist luxury appeared.
2.2 The development of the market paradigm of luxury and the adaptation of the elitist model
The market paradigm of luxury is encapsulated in the paradigm of the democratic and market
society. In the Western World Constitutions proclaim that all the individuals are equal. The
social segmentation is modified: only a small elite is pointed out, the jet set, quantitatively
very restricted and defined at the international level; the dominant classes become discreet;
the ways of life of the rest of the population get closer, inequalities are dissimulated behind
formal similarities and the very strong distinctions of the latest become less marked within
mass society. The democratic paradigm of luxury says that almost everyone can consume
luxury, whether it derives from mass production or not. Everyone is entitled to luxury, even if
it is in different quantities and qualities. If the diversity of tastes remains strong in some
fields, in particular in those which require a significant cultural heritage like arts, the
opposition between the aristocratic taste, good taste, and the popular taste, seen as the absence
of taste, even as bad taste, tends to disappear. Taste became everybody‟s matter.
The identification of luxury with sumptuary consumption for the social distinction made by
Veblen is now out of date. The demand for luxury goods at the market and industrial age of
mass luxury cannot be only derived from distinction processes. Such an interpretation
underrates the semiotic component of luxury goods. At a time when all the individuals aspire
to luxury, and when the majority of them have an access to it, regularly or occasionally,
luxury has multiple and complex significances, more than the dichotomy between the area of
the necessary and the area of the superfluity, rational needs and artificial ones. Luxury is also
connected to heritage logic. Ordinary consumption disappears as time goes by, especially
6
since modern society has been developing the obsolescence of goods and the acceleration of
social rhythms. By contrast, luxury resists to time and provides markers for personal identity.
The "needs for luxury" become quite as important as the "basic" needs. This explains that,
contrary to appearances, and even if they keep an image of scarcity, luxury goods are
produced in great quantity. The three million of Louis Vuitton bags or the three hundred
million of Champagne bottles just show how luxury markets have become mass markets.
Several fields encounter such deep mutations. Gastronomy providing taste goods is one of
them.
Then, as we will see later, the mass demand for gastronomy is particularly strong. In France,
from the sixties it is growing (cf. table 1, infra) in spite of a very important growth of relative
prices of gastronomic services1. Nevertheless the dominant model of restaurant remains
founded on elitist gastronomy. Gastronomic restaurants, as those selected by the Michelin
guide, constitute a segmented system: their set has a pyramidal form. At the top is the elitist
niche, composed of starred restaurants; after different segments defined by decreasing prices
and “quality” (cf. infra). Until the end of the 20th century the competition between restaurants
implied the race to Michelin stars and strong investments in order to belong to elitist luxury.
The dominant business model was the model of the grand restaurant with its Michelin stars,
its famous chef and the remaining characteristics of the old aristocratic model: extra-ordinary
products, sophisticated dishes, importance of the setting, service, expansive cooking.
2.3 The difficulties of the elitist model and the present changes
Four main changes lead to a crisis of the old elitist model and modify the prevalent
segmentation.
A strong rise of costs derives from a Baumol effect (Baumol and Bowen, 1966): production
costs are higher and higher and it is quite impossible to get productivity gains (for cuisine and
restaurant staffs for instance). As a consequence a very huge increase of prices - whatever the
period concerned is (including war period or not) -, is observed, in constant euro: between +
131.8% and + 170.1% from 1950 to 2000 (the meal average price was 12.28 in 1934 and
10.31 in 19382). Moreover the prices which grow the most during the period are those of the
most gastronomic services („carte‟ instead of menu and upper prices instead of lower) and the
growth movement accelerates after 2000.
Race to extra-ordinary and costly luxury tends to be substituted by race to creativity. The
famous chef appears now as an artist and a creator and not mainly as a supplier of costly
goods. As in the main areas of art and luxury craft the competition takes the way of novelty
1
The Michelin guidebook provides information on the price of a meal in the selected restaurants: prices for the
menu, or à la carte, and for each one minimum and maximum price. In constant euro, the average price of a
« low » menu in the restaurants selected by the Michelin guide in Ile de France (the Parisian area) was 10,6 in
1950, 24,7 in 2000 and 34,2 in 2005 ; for the « high » menu we have respectively 16,2, 41 and 49,3, for the
« low » carte 17, 43,7 and 51,6 ; for the « high » carte 22,7, 61,3 and 75,4.
2
In 1934 and 1938 the Michelin guide only gives a price for a meal, without distinguishing à la carte and menu
price.
7
and creativity. In the gastronomic world the dominant convention of the seventies, the French
Nouvelle Cuisine gives place to the new convention of the Cuisine Creative. Creativity is
inspired by culinary heritage and by cultural atmosphere; the famous chef Alain Senderens
declares: "I send my young cooks to museum, to concert, I give them books to read. Sooner or
later, appears a sensibility" (Senderens et Paris, 2007: 35). Pierre Hermé is called “the Picasso
of pastry”3. As the demand for gastronomy includes more and more semiotic characteristics
and less and less nutritive ones this movement is strengthened in the context of an intellectual
capitalism (Grandstrand, 2000).
New values are growing. Sophistication is questioned by the craze for nature and natural
products. For instance, vegetables used to be considered in France as common food but,
today, they become a basis for valuated dishes; in his famous restaurant L‟Arpège (Paris)
Alain Passard presents vegetables served with meat. Ecological values are in opposition to
wasting and influence upon cooking.
The globalization process mixes cultures and heritages. Culinary heritages can be used out of
their original area, products, sauces, spices and way of cooking are everywhere at
everybody‟s disposal, transport costs are strongly diminishing. Consumers are interested in
new experiments; they seek to meet new culinary heritages. Multiculturalism grows, world
fusion cuisine is spreading.
Are these changes able to modify the organization of the gastronomic market? To give an
answer we have now to observe the empirical data.
3. DESCRIPTIVE EVIDENCES OF THE DEMOCRATIZATION PROCESS
The original dataset is taken from the French Michelin guidebook which is the most ancient
and influential French one. It includes all the establishments (restaurants and public restaurant
in hotels) located in Paris and selected by the Guide Rouge Michelin between 1934 and 2010.
The point of departure, say 1934, represents the beginning of the evaluation of the quality of
cooking through the Michelin stars. Before, the Michelin guidebook was just a restaurants and
hotels yearbook for the French country mainly used by commercial sellers4.
Obviously there is a selection bias, due to the source of information, but we can expect
the data to be representative of the market, especially for considering long term moves.
Actually the Michelin remains the reference for the French gastronomic market. No other
guidebook provides so rich information about the supply and its characteristics: number of
selected establishments (currently 10,000 against 3,000 to 4,000 for other guidebooks), prices,
3
See "Gastronomie : l'art et la manière", Label France n°46, Edition du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, 2ème
trimestre 2002.
4
The years between 1939 and 1949 are excluded from the dataset because of the war period and its
consequences concerning food (ration cards) and also restaurants. In addition, the Michelin guidebook was not
published for several years during this period.
8
food amenities, etc. In addition the main Michelin selection principles have not been modified
during 1934 and 2010. There are always three stars levels and six comfort levels for instance.
For each selected establishment, name and location are known, the quality of cooking
(awarded by stars from zero to three) too. Plus, the Michelin guidebook rates the comfort, that
is to say, the setting of the establishment, and defines six categories: from “simple comfort”,
to “luxury”5. The Michelin guidebook provides also information on the price of a meal, either
for the menu, or à la carte, but recently both. Prices have been transformed in constant euros
(reference: 2009 euros).
3.1 The extension of the market
There were 193 restaurants selected in Paris in 1934, 324 in 1950, 438 in 1990, 513 in 2000
and 493 in 2010. Between 1934 and 2010 the increase exceeds 155% and between 1950 and
2010 it goes beyond 52%. See Figure 1 for details.
Figure 1. Number of Michelin selected establishments 1950-2010
The Parisian gastronomic market depicted by the Michelin Guidebook is principally made of
restaurants.
Explanations are numerous. When the gastronomic guidebook selection was launched, say at
the beginning of the 1930s, Paris objectively counted fewer gastronomic establishments than
now. The extension of the number of selected establishments follows the development of the
catering market and more generally the extension of macro data of demand. Since the end of
the WW2, the French population increased significantly from 40 to 64 million. Hence living
standards improved considerably6. Tourism evolved too. For instance, in Paris the Eiffel
5
Setting is evaluated as follows and in an increasing order of comfort: “simple comfort” (no Fork and Spoon),
“quite comfortable” (one Fork and Spoon), “comfortable” (two Forks and Spoons), “very comfortable” (three
Forks and Spoons), “top class comfort” (four Forks and Spoons) and “luxury” (five Forks and Spoons). Forks
and Spoons (F&S) are attributed to restaurants. We strictly reproduce here the Michelin classification.
6
For instance the GNP per capita in 1950 France was $ 5270 and $ 20.808 (in constant 1990 $).
9
tower visits have been multiplied by six between 1950 and 2000. The expansion of catering
supply follows the one of the potential demand. More tourists imply more restaurants.
3.2 The segmentation of the market
Inside the population of Michelin selected establishments the selection boundaries have
evolved. Since the 2000s there are more and more standard comfort restaurants compared to
the highest comfort ones. Tables 1 and 2 show this structure and evolutions are synthesized in
the Figures 2-A to 2-E.
Table 1. Segmentation through the setting of establishments in the Michelin guidebook
1950
1960
1990
2000
0 F&S
-
-
-
-
2010
-
1 F&S
74
73
75
182
237
2 F&S
97
139
189
174
130
3 F&S
95
92
80
73
64
4 F&S
48
39
69
63
42
5 F&S
10
16
25
21
20
Total
324
359
438
513
493
Considering comfort three segments seem compose the market: (1) 0 F&S7 and 1 F&S, (2)
2 F&S and 3 F&S, (3) 4 F&S and 5 F&S. The highest segment (i.e. 4 F&S and 5 F&S) is the
window of gastronomic luxury. The number of restaurants is not the key factor of this
segment but very high prices, superstar chefs… The evolution of elitist establishments is very
erratic.
Table 2. Segmentation of the Michelin selected Parisian establishments
1950
1960
1990
2000
2010
0+1 F&S
74
73
75
182
237
2+3 F&S
192
231
269
247
194
4+5 F&S
58
55
94
84
62
Figure 2-A to 2-E8
2-A
2-B
2-C
7
0 F&S is not represented in Paris whereas it is used in other French regions like Alsace, Rhône-Alpes or
Champagne-Ardenne and in other issues of the Michelin guidebook (New York…).
8
Here the acronym “F&S” is replaced by “F” in order to remain readable.
10
2-D
2-E
The two first segments 0+1 F&S (2010/1950: + 220%) and 2+3 F&S represent in 2010 both
87% of the Parisian selected establishments, respectively 48% for the lowest and 39% for
2+3 F&S. It was however not the case in the earliest issues of the Michelin. For instance in
1950 0+1 F&S represented only 23% whereas the 2+3 F&S segment was about 60%. Things
evolved significantly between 1990 and 2000 with an increase of 1 F&S higher than 142%
whereas the global raise is about 17%. This evolution can be analysed as a reorganization of
segments within the population of the Parisian selected establishments.
In the same set of ideas at the end of the 1990s the “Bib gourmand9” pictogram
has been
launched. In fact it derives from the “R” existing before and meaning “simple meal” which
signification was quite similar. However more than an embodiment of a kind of gastronomy,
this evolution shows a real change in the consumption and production behaviours. For
instance, in 1950 and 1960 there was no Parisian establishment with “R”, only 3 in 1990.
Table 3 shows the extreme increase of this kind of “democratic” gastronomy since 2000.
Table 3. Michelin’s “Bibs gourmands”
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
BIB GOURMAND
36
39
40
40
40
40
39
47
49
58
65
- rest. being in 1 F&S
25
27
30
28
30
30
28
37
38
50
54
- rest. being in 2 F&S
11
12
10
12
10
10
11
10
11
8
11
Total Restaurants
469
462
440
442
440
440
432
463
453
462
493
- rest. being in 1 F&S
179
182
164
174
164
164
162
192
188
227
237
- rest. being in 2 F&S
170
166
136
147
136
136
134
133
129
129
130
% BIB in the selection
7.7%
8.4%
9.1%
9.0%
9.1%
9.1%
9.0%
10.2%
10.8%
12.6%
13.2%
- % BIB within 1 F&S
14.0%
14.8%
18.3%
16.1%
18.3%
18.3%
17.3%
19.3%
20.2%
22.0%
22.8%
- % BIB within 2 F&S
6.5%
7.2%
7.4%
8.2%
7.4%
7.4%
8.2%
7.5%
8.5%
6.2%
8.5%
The place of this population is increasing in the selection, from 7.7% of the Parisian selected
establishments to 13.2% in 2010. This shows a general trend in the diverse issues of the
Michelin Red Guide. In London in 2009 the “Bibs gourmands” represent more than 10% of
the selected establishments; in Lyon (France) they represent 12.9%, etc. It is a new award
linked to the necessity to enlighten not the top of the hierarchy but a growing part of the cooks
responding to an increasing potential demand looking for “democratization”. This movement
expresses an alteration of the Michelin‟s philosophy. Number of top chefs deserted the luxury
segment and middle comfort one to offer more “standard” food amenities. Some famous
examples come to mind like Alain Senderens (Lucas Carton, Paris), Olivier Rollinger (Les
9
In reference to the Michelin Bibendum which is since the beginnings the mascot of the Michelin firm.
11
Maisons de Bricourt, Cancale), Philippe Gaertner (Alsace), Hervé Paulus (Alsace). This
movement initiated in France spreads out of the French boundaries to touch notably Italian
famous chefs, like Ezio Santin (Milano) and Gualtiero Marchesi (Lombardia) both awarded
by three Michelin stars.
Top selection implies important costs: from luxurious surroundings to prestigious wine list
and numerous employees. On the one hand costs are very heavy and on the other hand chefs
get only possibilities of diversification (Chossat, 2009). Lower segments are much more
profitable than the top one.
Facts show a “democratization” trend but these movements in the deluxe gastronomy have to
be analyzed in order to establish the profiles of chefs in the Parisian gastronomy and to know
whether these profiles have changed. The next section presents a data analysis founded on the
Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA).
4. THE NEW SEGMENTATION OF THE GASTRONOMIC MARKET
4.1 Empirical specification and data
The dataset used covers the gastronomic restaurants10 scrutinized in the Michelin Guidebook
in 1960 and in 2010 for Paris.
Concerning the Parisian restaurants in 1960, our database gives information on:
- The quality of their comfort is translated into a number of Forks and Spoons (F&S).
It can be quite comfortable (1 F&S: ), comfortable (2 F&S: ), very comfortable (3
F&S:
), top class comfortable (4 F&S:
) or luxury in the traditional style (5
F&S:
);
- The most comfortable restaurants are announced by Red F&S. When an establishment
gets Red F&S instead of black ones, it means that it is especially pleasant (i.e. a 3 Red
F&S has a better environment than a 3 black F&S but less than a 4 black F&S);
- The quality of their cooking11, which is symbolized by the Michelin gastronomic
awards. It may be 1 star: (very good cuisine in its category), 2 stars:
(excellent
cuisine, worth a detour), 3 stars:
(exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey),
or since 1997 with Bib Gourmand: (inspectors’ favorites for good values);
- Their price expressed in 4 categories.
Thus we have 4 variables representing 17 modalities for each of the 281 Parisian restaurants
selected in 1960.
10
The Michelin Guide identifies two types of establishments: restaurants and hotels with public restaurants.
Here, we treat only gastronomic services and not lodging. The strength of the second category is too low and
thus, the statistical analysis is imbalanced.
11
More precisely, Michelin stars would be based on five criteria: “the quality of the products, the mastery of
flavor and cooking, the "personality" of the cuisine, the value for the money, the consistency between visits”
(www.michelinguide.com/ratings.html).
12
As time goes by the Michelin Guide refined information on selected establishments.
Consequently, in 2010, we have the same indications as in 1960, as well as additional
information like:
- Localization of the considered gastronomic restaurant (District of Paris);
- Type of cooking which can be “Au goût du jour”, Classical, Creative, Traditional,
Regional, or Foreign;
- Reputation of the Chef;
- If the restaurant proposes a Notable wine list;
- If the restaurant proposes a Service of Valet Parking;
- If the restaurant offers a menu for a price lower than 19 €;
- If the restaurant offers a menu for a price lower than 30 €.
Thus we have 16 variables representing 59 modalities for each of the 425 Parisian restaurants
selected in 2010.
Table 4. Definitions and descriptive statistics of the variables (Paris 1960)
Variable Definition
Mean Std. Dev
Quality of the setting of the restaurant i mesured by the Michelin F&S
2,189
0,978
Re d.F & Si
More pleasant comfort of the restaurant I =1, other =0
0,014
0,118

CUISINEi
Quality of the cooking of the restaurant I mesured by the Michelin Awards
0,431
0,683

PRICE i
Price of a meal in the restaurant i, without drink
2,751
0,880
COMFORTi


Table 5. Definitions and descriptive statistics of the variables (Paris 2010)
Variable
Definition
Mean Std. Dev
Quality of the setting of the restaurant I mesured by the Michelin F&S
1,664
0,932
Re d.F & Si
More pleasant comfort of the restaurant i =1, other =0
0,068
0,252

CUISINEi
Quality of the cooking of the restaurant i measured by the Michelin Awards
0,532
0,953

PRICE i
Price of a meal in the restaurant i, without drink
1,544
0,814
COMFORTi


LOCALISATIONi
Localization of restaurant i in one of the 20 Parisian districts
AGDJi
Restaurant serving “Au goût du jour” cuisine =1, other =0
0,275
0,447

CLASSICALi
Restaurant serving French Classical cuisine =1, other =0
0,038
0,190

CREATIVE i
Restaurant serving Creative cuisine =1, other =0
0,054
0,226

TRADITIONALi
Restaurant serving French Traditional cuisine =1, other =0
0,376
0,485

REGIONALi
Restaurant serving Regional cuisine =1, other =0
0,209
0,407

FOREIGN i
Restaurant serving Foreign cuisine =1, other =0
0,047
0,212
CHEFi
Famous Chef (named in the Michelin Guide) =1; other =0
0,158
0,364

WINESi
Notable wine list =1; other =0
0,155
0,362

VPi
Restaurant proposing a valet parking service =1; other =0
0,245
0,430

MENU19i
Restaurants offering a menu for a price lower than 19 € =1; other =0
0,068
0,252

MENU30i
Restaurants offering a menu for a price lower than 30 € =1; other =0
0,320
0,466



Our dataset is constituted with qualitative and multivariate data. With regard to 281
restaurants in 1960, and 425 in 2010, our file contains a measurement of the quality of the
comfort of the establishment divided in 5 classes (1 F&S, 2 F&S, 3 F&S, 4 F&S, 5 F&S); a
supplementary measure of the quality of comfort according to 2 classes (red F&S, black
13
F&S); a measurement of the quality of the cooking divided in 5 classes (0 star, “bib
gourmand”, 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars); and a measurement of the prices charged by the selected
establishments, also regarded as qualitative, because this last, initially quantitative, was
transformed into qualitative variable, according to 4 classes (< 15 €, 15-25 €, 25-35 €, > 35 €
for 1960, in euro constant 2009, and < 50 €, 50-100 €, 100-150 €, > 150 € for 2010).
These four variables had been initially studied in a univariate analyze, in order to see for each
one if the categories had similar observed frequencies, or if some were rare and which was the
number of categories for each variables. Then, it was also necessary to study the relations
between these variables two by two, which is done classically using the statistics of the Chisquare, with the related test. We realized in particular that our four variables were very
dependent.
The Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) is a data analysis technique for nominal or
categorical data, used to detect and represent underlying structures in a dataset. MCA is an
extension of simple correspondence analysis (CA). It is applicable to a large set of variables.
We can trace the principles of this method to Guttman (1941), but also to Burt (1950) or
Hayashi (1956). Other types of extension of the correspondence analysis have been proposed
by Benzécri (1973), Escoffier-Cordier (1965) and Masson (1974) which draws on the work of
Carroll (1968), Horst (1961) and Kettenring (1971). Instead of analyzing the contingency
table (or cross-tabulation), as CA does, MCA analyzes an indicator matrix. That is an
Individuals x Variables matrix, where the rows represent individuals and the columns the
categories of the variables. Analyzing the indicator matrix allows the representation of
individuals as points in geometric space. Associations between variables are uncovered by
calculating the Chi-square distance between different categories of the variables and between
the individuals. These associations are then represented graphically as “maps”, which eases
the interpretation of the structures in the data. Oppositions between rows and columns are
then maximized, in order to uncover the underlying dimensions best able to describe the
central oppositions in the data. As in factor analysis or principal component analysis, the first
axis is the most important dimension, the second axis the second most important, and so on.
The number of axes to be retained for analysis is determined by calculating modified
eigenvalues.
In the social sciences, MCA is arguably best known for its application by Pierre Bourdieu. He
argued that there was an internal link between his vision of the social as spatial and relational,
captured by the notion of field, and the geometric properties of MCA.
For us, with this method, we will study the relations between the levels of comfort of the
selected restaurants in Paris, the quality of their cooking and the practiced prices, in 1960 and
in 2010 to compare the two situations.
4.2 Results and discussion
14
Concerning the situation of Paris in 1960 the MCA gives a first eigenvalue whose explanatory
power is only 0.5561. Thus we can estimate that it is interesting to search for other
eigenvalue. The graph of eigenvalues (Appendix 1) shows here that two dimensions appear
clearly. Graphically, we will represent the situation of the statistical units by two modified
eigenvalues. For each qualitative variable the categories are placed in the center of gravity of
the units which correspond to it.
Figure 3. MCA of the Parisian gastronomy in 1960
The bond is done by the position of the categories. We start initially by reading the correlation
ratios of the synthesis variables with the original variables (Appendix 2) in order to
concentrate the study on the more structuring variables. In this precise case, we can see that
the comfort (0.6958) and the cooking (0.6596) acts on the first synthesis variable and for the
second synthesis variable, we have the price (0.5170), the comfort (0.4944), and the cooking
(0.4613).
The Figure 3 shows that three groups take shape in the Parisian gastronomic landscape in
1960:
- the restaurants with 4 and 5 F&S, 2 or 3 stars, the most pleasant settings (red F&S),
and the highest bills (> 35 €).
- the 3 F&S restaurants with one star, black F&S and significant bills (> 35 € or
between 25 and 35 €).
- the 1 and 2 F&S restaurants without award (no star), with black F&S and the lowest
bills (< 15 € for the 1 F&S, and between 15 and 25 € for the 2 F&S).
Concerning the Parisian gastronomy in 2010, the eigenvalue is 0.7769 (Appendix 3). That is
to say on average the relation is relatively very strong between the synthesis variable and the
original variables, relations which we can decompose thanks to the correlation ratios
(Appendix 4) which are respectively 0.89 (price), 0.84 (comfort), 0.81 (cooking) and 0.57 (red
F&S).
The averages of the categories are for example for the 5 F&S group -4.52, for the 3 stars
group -4.15 and -3.89 for the prices > 150 € group; and for the 1 F&S group 0.34, for the Bib
15
group 0.41 and 0.37 for the prices < 50 € group. Thus we observe that typical profiles emerge
from our statistical analysis. We represent graphically the whole of these averages, in order to
formally identify them.
Figure 4. MCA of the Parisian gastronomy in 2010
We obtain a graph by variable in the MCA (Figure 4). Let us see how we can connect them.
The graph top on the left corresponds to the comfort variable. Each of the five horizontal lines
represents one of the categories of the variable. On each line we see features which
correspond to the values taken by the synthesis variable, only for the statistical units which
belong to the concerned category. The average of these values is calculated and the square
bearing the name of the category is positioned with the site of this average. The strong
separation of these mean squares indicates a strong correlation ratio between the synthesis
variable and the variable considered, and therefore a strong connection.
On the graph top on the left, we thus see that the restaurants having 5 F&S, 4 F&S, and 3
F&S correspond to negative values of the variable of synthesis. At the same time, the graph of
the bottom on the left, which relates to the cuisine variable, shows that the restaurants
obtaining 3 stars, 2 stars and 1 star also have negative values. In parallel, in the graph top on
the right, the category placed at this position is that of Red F&S. Lastly, in the graph of
bottom on the right, the localized categories at this place are those whose restaurants which
propose bills for a price > 150 € or between 100 and 150 €. The variable of synthesis is thus
used to establish the link between the four original variables.
In short we note that four groups arise here:
- the restaurants with 4 and 5 F&S, 2 or 3 stars, the most pleasant settings (red F&S),
and the highest bills (> 150 €).
- the 3 F&S restaurants have one star and vigorous bills (100-150 €).
- the 2 F&S restaurants without award (no star) have black F&S and charge for their
services for an amount of 50-100 €.
- the 1 F&S restaurants have Bib Gourmand, black F&S, and propose the lowest bills
(< 50 €).
16
Then, if we refine the MCA on the Parisian gastronomy in 2010 with the study of few others
variables to complete the analysis, we obtain a first value of synthesis whose capacity of
synthesis is 0.3003. The fall of the eigenvalues (Appendix 5) shows here that two dimensions
arise, and the following graph shows us more detailed profiles of the Parisian restaurants.
Figure 5. Refined MCA of the Parisian gastronomy in 2010
The establishments having 4-5 F&S, have red F&S, 2-3 stars and prices > 150 €. These
restaurants serve a traditional cooking, or a „creative cuisine‟, have a reputed Chef, propose a
notable wine list and provide a service of valets to park their customers‟ cars. The restaurants
with 3 F&S have 1 star and practice prices between 100 and 150 €. They serve a traditional
cooking, or a „creative cuisine‟, or a “Au gout du jour” cuisine, have a notorious Chef,
propose a notable wine list and a service of valet parking. These starred restaurants are
localized in the beautiful and tourist districts of Paris like the 8th, 16th, 6th, 7th, 17th and 1st
Parisian districts.
The establishments having 2 F&S have black F&S, no star and prices between 50-100 €. They
supply a “Au gout du jour” cuisine.
The establishments having 1 F&S have black F&S, Bib Gourmand and prices lower than 50 €.
They offer a traditional French cuisine, or a regional French cuisine, or a foreign cuisine.
They also propose menus with less than 30 € or menus for a price lower than 19 €. They are
located in the more popular districts of the capital, that is to say we can find them in the 11th,
14th, 15th, 3rd, 9th, et 18th districts.
Thus, we had, in 1960, a Parisian gastronomy segmented according to three profiles (the 4-5
F&S having 2-3 stars, the most pleasant settings, and proposing the highest bills; the 3 F&S
having one star and significant or intermediate bills; the 1-2 F&S, without award, and
proposing the lowest bills). However, it would seem that the situation of the French capital
17
changed in 2010, since we identify there, henceforth, four profiles of selected Michelin (the 45 F&S having 2-3 stars, the most pleasant executives, and the highest bills; the 3 F&S with
one star and relatively high bills; the 2 F&S deprived of gastronomical awards; the 1 F&S
which have Bib and propose the lowest bills). The segmentation in the Parisian gastronomy
thus changed by the appearance of a new category “low-cost”, which takes an active part in
the “democratization” and the “mass-consumption” of the French Grande Cuisine.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Observed statistic data joined to the MCA for the Parisian gastronomy in 1960 and 2010 seem
to testify the crisis of the elitist model of gastronomy. Extra-ordinary ways of cooking do not
remain the unique symbol of luxury and taste. An alteration in the gastronomic model appears
between 1960 and 2010. The increasing number of establishments in the lowest categories of
comfort and quality and the emergence for instance of the “Bib Gourmand” pictogram in the
last 1990s show this trend. In other words creativity mixed with ordinary foodstuffs and
setting attracts a wider less rich clientele, looking for new codes like pure and healthy
products, less sophisticated settings and so on.
Paris is not the only city concerned by this evolution. We can extend this analysis to New
York for instance. In 2010 the Michelin guidebook has selected 661 restaurants in the “Big
Apple”. Among these establishments, 55 are starred (they are 64 in Paris). The segments
0+1 F&S and 2+3 F&S represent respectively 54% and 44% of the New York selected
establishments. The luxury one (4+5 F&S) weighs only 2%. These figures mean that the New
York cuisine is very “democratic” and maybe much more than Paris. In New York there are
numerous simple comfort restaurants (0 F&S). Michelin besides created a new award: “Small
Plates”: . It exists only in the two Michelin Guides of the United States (New York City and
San Francisco). It offers a selection of establishments chosen for the originality of their Carte,
their mood and service. The emergence of this category reflects the growing popularity of
such restaurants that provide gastronomic quality at reasonable prices, and tends to illustrate
the “massification” of the gastronomic field.
The MCA for the 2010 New York gastronomy12 shows that six groups take shape in the
American city gastronomic landscape:
- the restaurants with 5 F&S have 3 stars, the most pleasant settings (red F&S), and
the highest bills (> 75 $).
- the restaurants with 4 F&S have 2 stars, the most pleasant settings (red F&S), and
the highest bills (> 75 $).
- the 3 F&S restaurants have one star, the most pleasant settings (red F&S), and the
highest bills (> 75 $).
12
The MCA concerning New York in 2010 gives a first eigenvalue whose explanatory power is 0.5753. The
comfort (0.7888) and the cooking (0.7224) acts on the first synthesis variable and for the second synthesis
variable, we have the comfort (0.9081), the cooking (0.9043), and the price (0.2115) (see Appendix 6).
18
- the 2 F&S restaurants have no star, black F&S and significant bills (between 50 and
75 $).
- the 1 F&S restaurants have Bib Gourmand, black F&S, and offer cheaper bills
(between 25 and 50 $).
- the 0 F&S restaurants have Small Plates, black F&S and the lowest bills (< 25 $).
Six different segments are very well-identified in the 2010 New York gastronomy, so more
than in Paris. Thus “democratization” does not touch only the French capital but seems to be
international. Globalization and the role of emerging countries in providing a significant
demand for gastronomy constitute interesting avenues to follow up in order to understand the
reasons of such “democratization”.
19
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Eigenvalues of MCA (Paris 1960)
Appendix 2. Correlation ratio of synthesis with the
original varaibles (Paris 1960)
Correlation
Comfort
Red.F&S
Cuisine
Price
Appendix 3. Eigenvalues of MCA (Paris 2010)
RS1
0.6957873
0.4072885
0.6595458
0.4616887
Appendix 4. Correlation ratio of synthesis with the
original varaibles (Paris 2010)
Correlation
Comfort
Red.F&S
Cuisine
Price
Appendix 5. Eigenvalues of MCA (Paris 2010
refined)
RS2
0.49443420
0.03808225
0.46129034
0.51704115
RS1
0.8430002
0.5705358
0.8064503
0.8875954
Appendix 6. Correlation ratio of synthesis with the
original varaibles (New York 2010)
Correlation
Comfort
Red.F&S
Cuisine
Price
RS1
0.7887462
0.1693316
0.7224228
0.6205503
RS2
0.90810295
0.01804585
0.90432621
0.21154485
20
REFERENCES
Barrère, C., Santagata, W. (2005) La mode, une économie de la créativité et du patrimoine à
l'heure du marché, La Documentation française, Paris.
Baumol, W. and W. Bowen (1966) Performing Arts. The Economic Dilemma, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Benzécri, J.-P. (1973) L'Analyse des Données. Tome 1: La Taxinomie. Tome 2: L'Analyse
des Correspondances, Dunod, Paris.
Burt, C. (1950), “The factorial analysis of qualitative data”, British Journal of Statist.
Psychol. 3 (3), 166-185.
Carroll, J. D. (1968) “Generalization of canonical correlation to three or more sets of
variables”, Proc. Amer. Psychological Assoc., 227-228.
Chossat, V. (2001) Les processus de sélection sur un marché, le cas de la grande cuisine,
Thèse pour le doctorat en sciences économiques, Reims, France.
Chossat, V. (2009) “Questioning the author‟s right protection for gastronomic creations:
Opportunities versus possibilities of implementation”, Creative Industries Journal, 2(2),
129-142.
Elias, N. (1973) La civilisation des mœurs. Calmann-Lévy, édition Presses Pocket, Paris.
Escoffier-Cordier, B. (1965) L'Analyse des correspondances. Thèse, Faculté des Sciences de
Rennes; published in Cahiers du Bureau Universitaire de Recherche Opérationnelle,
1969, n°13.
Foucault, M. (1966) Les Mots et les Choses, une archéologie des sciences humaines,
Gallimard, Paris.
Grandstand, O. (2000) The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property. Towards
Intellectual Capitalism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Guttman, L. (1941) “The quantification of a class of attributes: a theory and method of scale
construction”, in The Prediction of Personal Adjustment, Committee on Social
Adjustment, Ed., (Social Science Council, New York), 319-348.
Hayashi, C. (1956) “Theory and examples of quantification”, Proc. of the Institute of Statist.
Math. 4 (2), 19-30.
Horst, P. (1961) “Relation among m sets of measures”, Psychometrika, 26, 129-149.
Kettenring, R. J. (1971) “Canonical analysis of several sets of variables”, Biometrika, 58 (3),
433-450.
Lipovetsky, G. (1987) L’empire de l’éphémère. Gallimard. Paris
Masson, M. (1974), “Analyse non linéaire de données”, Cahiers de Recherche de l’Académie
des Sciences, 278 (11 Mars), Paris.
Parkhurst Ferguson, P. (2004) Accounting for taste: the triumph of French cuisine; The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Senderens, A., Paris T. (2007), "La créativité sans les étoiles. De Lucas Carton à Senderens",
Le Journal de l'Ecole de Paris, n°63, janvier/février, 31-36.
Simmel, G. (1904) Fashion, American Journal of Sociology, 62: 61-76.
Spencer, H. (1854) “On Manners and Fashion, Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects”,
Westminster Review, re-ed. 1966, London, Dent/Everyman.
Throsby, D. (2001) Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press.
Veblen, T. (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: MacMillan.
21