'American Alpine Cooking' developed by Richard Chamberlain, chef at Little Nell Hotel in Aspen
by Rick Telberg
Executive Editor
Nation's Restaurant News
Oct 8, 1990
Richard Chamberlain, executive chef at the Little Nell luxury hotel in Aspen, Colo., is winning a name for himself by cleverly proving necessity is the mother of invention.
Beset by impassable snow-bound mountain roads at the height of the ski town's busiest season, Chamberlain resorted to canning and smoking his own foods to ensure a ready supply. In addition, he was forced to tailor recipes to the 7,908-foot altitude and driven to local sources for fresh foods.
The result is a menu that, in a stroke of marketing savvy, Chamberlain has dubbed "American Alpine Cooking." The phrase has already been embraced by admiring reports from Harper's Bazaar to Cable News Network.
"I realized early on that there were some similarities between the Alps and the Rocky Mountains. I had to deal with recipes at high altitudes and with running out of things like salmon on busy weekends," he said. "It seemed like a good hook."
Chamberlain, although only 31 years old, is no novice when it comes to marketing high-profile operations.
He had already established a name for himself as one of the nation's better-known Southwestern chefs after a long career at the Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles and in Dallas at the Mansion on Turtle Creek, Agnew's, Ratcliff's and San Simeon before getting the job to help develop the foodservice concept at the Little Nell Hotel.
"They wanted a sort of Mediterranean theme here," Chamberlain said of the 100-seat restaurant. But with polished wood and smooth, lacquered surfaces, the room is more a blend of post-modern and Western motifs. "There's nothing Mediterranean about it," he noted.
The exclusive 92-room hotel opened in December 1989 and is now headed into its second season. At a price of about $35 million, it cost about $340,000 per room to build. It is owned by the Aspen Skiing Co., which holds a virtual monopoly on the local ski runs. In fact, the backdoor of the hotel opens to the ski lift to Aspen mountain.
Chamberlain equipped the kitchen with four fryers, two griddles and two stoves. Because of local air-pollution regulations in environmentally conscious Aspen, he can use only one grill. But his pride and joy is an electric smoker. "It cost only $3,500 but saves a ton of money," he said.
By smoking his own salmon, he can cut the cost from almost $20 a pound to under $10. At maybe 25 pounds a week, that adds up to a savings of maybe $250 weekly. On just salmon.
But Chamberlain also uses the smoker for items not generally available. For instance, white sturgeon is smoked with rosemary for an uncommon spiciness. Pork loin picks up a sweetness from the smoke of peach wood.
"We face tremendous supply problems here," Chamberlain said. "It can take four or five days to get through some of these roads."
So Chamberlain's menu features smoked meats, fish and game. And he substitutes nuts and herbs for more perishable items. At the same time, the menu is strongly anchored with American staples like corn and wild rice.
This summer Chamberlain turned out a menu with an appetizer of fried rabbit topped with pecans, served on top of a spicy yam salad with a buttermilk-lime dressing drizzled on top. A smoked trout dish was served with a salad of green apple and pistachio nuts, with a vinaigrette flavored with mint and Reisling wine. And walnuts played a critical supporting role in a salad with pheasant and warm, sweet huckleberry dressing.
Entrees included an oven-roasted salmon with a potato crust spiced with basil and sauced on the side with a warm tomato chutney. A grilled veal chop was served with a relish of white beans and bacon and plated with fennel-flavored coleslaw. A rack of lamb was braised with garlic, accompanied by a polenta flavored with sour cream and plated with hazelnut-accented au jus.
There was hardly anything native about the coconut shortbread and peach ice cream for dessert. But it came with a berry compote made from local sources.
Checks average about $38 per person in the dining room, a 20-percent-to-25-percent discount from tickets at local competitors. The subsidized prices reflect the hotel's aggressive marketing philosophy and is no small irritation to independent restaurant owners in town.
But Chamberlain said, "We're not just selling a restaurant. We're selling a hotel."
As the ski season approaches and the massive publicity machine of the ski industry kicks into gear, you may be hearing more about Chamberlain and the Little Nell.
But he may already be thinking about next summer.
He wants to start making his own cheese. "I'm looking for a nice cave," he said. "I'd like to make a really nice goat ricotta."
Ricotta? He must be thinking of the Italian Alps.
COPYRIGHT 1990 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Friday, October 08, 1999
Friday, September 10, 1999
Consumers demand action on nutrition, pollution
by Rick Telberg
from Nation's Restaurant News
In today's battle for customers, foodservice operators must fight for more than warm bodies to fill empty seats. Smart restaurateurs are seeking to win hearts and minds as well.
One of the surest ways to consumers' hearts, these days, is not necessarily through their wallets with cut-rate prices, but through their consciences with a new brand of ethical sensitivity to food safety, nutrition, the environment and the hungry homeless.
Clearly, most business decisions are made for business reasons. But it is also undeniable that more chefs and restaurateurs than ever before are displaying a new moral fervor. The phenomenon has been described in this space as the New Righteousness.
"Whether the public is in the throes of pesticide paranoia or cholesterolphobia -- the only certainty is that priorities change, and the food industry must be ready with very quick reflexes," according to a recent issue of The Lempert Report, a monthly newsletter published by Consumer Insight Inc., a Montclair, N.J., business think tank presided over by marketing guru Phil Lempert.
In its latest survey of 5,000 "food-involved" consumers, The Lempert Report set out to plumb consumers' commitment to the environment and their knowledge of nutrition.
Despite the flood of media attention to food safety and nutrition and despite signs that consumers are growing increasingly skeptical of the reports, a full 85 percent told the Lempert researchers that they want more such information. "A clear indication," said the authors, "the health kick of the 1980s has not lost its muscle."
To get the information, consumers trust professional nutritionists the most, more even than their own physicians. With that kind of credibility, foodservice operations might do well to consider nutritionists as both a source of information on the market and an authority the market would respect.
But consumers are divided in regard to their feelings about the media. Almost two-thirds trust the news reports of television, magazines and newspapers. But advertising in the same media ranked at the bottom for credibility, prompting the Lempert authors to warn, "Some important marketing questions need to be addressed."
Nevertheless, consumers are changing. Ninety percent of the Lempert respondents said that they have reduced their fat consumption in the last six months, and 80 percent said they were reading labels more carefully.
Despite the fact that restaurants have been shifting their menus for years toward "lighter" fare to appeal to the diet-conscious, 62 percent are cooking more often at home to eat more healthfully. "Which does not mean," the report quickly adds, "that efforts to bring more healthful meal choices to the restaurant table are for nought. Clearly, there is great interest in these foods and plenty of profit to be made by offering them."
Fresh vegetables, fresh fish, and low-fat or low-calorie items top the lists of diet-conscious consumers, according to the Lempert report.
For instance, at sit-down restaurants 69 percent of consumers look for and eat fresh vegetables, 58 percent seek out fresh fish and 52 percent are attracted to low-fat items.
Diners on the run are far less concerned about health issues than are full-service patrons, but the figures are nevertheless significant. At fast-food restaurants, 29 percent said they choose low-fat items, 23 percent choose fresh vegetables, 19 percent take low-calorie items and 17 percent look for low-sodium labels. For takeout foods, low-fat scored 27 percent, fresh vegetables scored 24 percent and low-calorie and low-sodium tied at about 18 percent.
Clearly, there are additional opportunities for foodservice operators to bow to consumers' nutritional demands.
On the environmental front, consumers appear livid about plastic-foam plates and cups. In the Lempert survey, fast-food foam containers ranked with disposable diapers and plastic garbage bags on consumers' hate lists.
Again and again, consumers say they want advocates and will reward them. In the Lempert study a sizable majority said products that were overpackaged and foods without nutritive value should be banned by supermarket managers.
Foodservice operators have tremendous opportunities in reacting immediately to consumer wants and needs and at the same time personalizing the effort at the point of service.
Consumers are demanding--and rewarding--a sense of social responsibility on the part of foodservice operators.
It is not an opportunity -- nor a trust -- to be squandered.
COPYRIGHT 1990 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
from Nation's Restaurant News
In today's battle for customers, foodservice operators must fight for more than warm bodies to fill empty seats. Smart restaurateurs are seeking to win hearts and minds as well.
One of the surest ways to consumers' hearts, these days, is not necessarily through their wallets with cut-rate prices, but through their consciences with a new brand of ethical sensitivity to food safety, nutrition, the environment and the hungry homeless.
Clearly, most business decisions are made for business reasons. But it is also undeniable that more chefs and restaurateurs than ever before are displaying a new moral fervor. The phenomenon has been described in this space as the New Righteousness.
"Whether the public is in the throes of pesticide paranoia or cholesterolphobia -- the only certainty is that priorities change, and the food industry must be ready with very quick reflexes," according to a recent issue of The Lempert Report, a monthly newsletter published by Consumer Insight Inc., a Montclair, N.J., business think tank presided over by marketing guru Phil Lempert.
In its latest survey of 5,000 "food-involved" consumers, The Lempert Report set out to plumb consumers' commitment to the environment and their knowledge of nutrition.
Despite the flood of media attention to food safety and nutrition and despite signs that consumers are growing increasingly skeptical of the reports, a full 85 percent told the Lempert researchers that they want more such information. "A clear indication," said the authors, "the health kick of the 1980s has not lost its muscle."
To get the information, consumers trust professional nutritionists the most, more even than their own physicians. With that kind of credibility, foodservice operations might do well to consider nutritionists as both a source of information on the market and an authority the market would respect.
But consumers are divided in regard to their feelings about the media. Almost two-thirds trust the news reports of television, magazines and newspapers. But advertising in the same media ranked at the bottom for credibility, prompting the Lempert authors to warn, "Some important marketing questions need to be addressed."
Nevertheless, consumers are changing. Ninety percent of the Lempert respondents said that they have reduced their fat consumption in the last six months, and 80 percent said they were reading labels more carefully.
Despite the fact that restaurants have been shifting their menus for years toward "lighter" fare to appeal to the diet-conscious, 62 percent are cooking more often at home to eat more healthfully. "Which does not mean," the report quickly adds, "that efforts to bring more healthful meal choices to the restaurant table are for nought. Clearly, there is great interest in these foods and plenty of profit to be made by offering them."
Fresh vegetables, fresh fish, and low-fat or low-calorie items top the lists of diet-conscious consumers, according to the Lempert report.
For instance, at sit-down restaurants 69 percent of consumers look for and eat fresh vegetables, 58 percent seek out fresh fish and 52 percent are attracted to low-fat items.
Diners on the run are far less concerned about health issues than are full-service patrons, but the figures are nevertheless significant. At fast-food restaurants, 29 percent said they choose low-fat items, 23 percent choose fresh vegetables, 19 percent take low-calorie items and 17 percent look for low-sodium labels. For takeout foods, low-fat scored 27 percent, fresh vegetables scored 24 percent and low-calorie and low-sodium tied at about 18 percent.
Clearly, there are additional opportunities for foodservice operators to bow to consumers' nutritional demands.
On the environmental front, consumers appear livid about plastic-foam plates and cups. In the Lempert survey, fast-food foam containers ranked with disposable diapers and plastic garbage bags on consumers' hate lists.
Again and again, consumers say they want advocates and will reward them. In the Lempert study a sizable majority said products that were overpackaged and foods without nutritive value should be banned by supermarket managers.
Foodservice operators have tremendous opportunities in reacting immediately to consumer wants and needs and at the same time personalizing the effort at the point of service.
Consumers are demanding--and rewarding--a sense of social responsibility on the part of foodservice operators.
It is not an opportunity -- nor a trust -- to be squandered.
COPYRIGHT 1990 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)