Experts vs. the public in the evaluation of restaurants: A business ecosystem approach

Abstract

To address the inconclusive findings in the literature regarding the relative effects of experts and of the public in evaluating market actors, this study examines the roles of the Michelin Guide (i.e., experts) and TripAdvisor (i.e., the public) in assessing restaurants. While a dichotomous stance based on the superiority of one over the other is commonly found in the existing literature, this study takes a business ecosystem approach to shed light on the distinct yet complementary roles played by experts and by the public within the overall system. Their relative impacts are compared in multiple areas such as quality ratings, price, and closure of restaurants. Data on 866 restaurants in France, Germany, and the UK collected from the Michelin Guide Main Cities of Europe 2018 edition and TripAdvisor’s website (accessed in 2019) are analyzed. Two contrasting phenomena are found: First, quality rating and price are positively associated with expert reviews, but negatively related with public reviews. Second, restaurant closure is strongly impacted by public reviews, whereas expert reviews exert a relatively weaker influence in this area. These findings indicate that experts and the public have complementary roles and support the value of taking an ecosystem approach to the changing environment in the restaurant business, given that the reputation of restaurants is indeed anchored on experts but business sustainability relies on public opinion.