Jamie Oliver now has an excuse for the failure of his restaurant chain – we’re all classist or summat. At least, that’s one way of reading this rather chippy complaint here:
Jamie Oliver says restaurants would still be open if they were ‘posh’, in latest reason for chain’s collapse
It’s possible of course. The English have been said to be classist more than once in the past.
Jamie Oliver has been criticised for blaming the collapse of his culinary empire on the fact his restaurants weren’t “posh” enough. The chef, 44, has previously blamed Brexit, rental costs and a rise in minimum wage for the losses that led to the fall of 22 Italian eateries.
Oliver paid £4million from his own pocket to prop-up his chain – but it wasn’t enough to save 1,000 jobs – that he claims would have remained in tact if he avoided “mid-market dining”. “If I’d have spent 13 years opening posh restaurants, I could assure you they’d all be open today,” the cook book author told You magazine. “You know, Britain has always been very good at nourishing the rich. My obsession – just because I knew it was my audience – was mid-market dining. It was so badly represented.”
There is another possible explanation. That there simply isn’t a market for mid-market dining, or not one of sufficient size. Say, and just as an example, there’s cheap and cheerful on a budget, there’s posh for birthdays and serious dates, but then the British just don’t want to pay the mark up on food for any other type of restaurant?
This could be true, no?
However, there is one other thing here. How many chains of 22 posh restaurants are there? Thus our estimation of the likelihood of Jamie’s success at that is what?