Does Where You Eat Make You More Exciting?

Bon Appétit , in an attempt to appeal to a broader, younger, and theoretically "hipper" audience, has recently revamped its logo. Taunting came in full force, via Grub Street, who concluded, "[t]he truth is that Bon Appétit will never be any hipper or friskier than it is, because no magazine about upscale entertaining can ever speak to people that don’t have big houses and plenty of time on their hands."

Adam Roberts, the Amateur Gourmet, took offense at Ozersky's ultimate message, that "Bon Appétit is for people who eat in," and that eating in is just nearly not as exciting than eating out. He concedes that, despite the fact that there will rarely, if ever, be celebrities dining next to him at his kitchen table, that cooking at home is by far more rewarding. He goes on to describe the contrast between dining in and dining out:

Home cooked food at its best is infinitely more intimate, infinitely more loving than anything you can get at a restaurant and that's as it should be: at the end of the day restaurants are businesses, they want your money. A home cook, on the other hand, just wants to make you happy.

And that's why the recipe blogs I read, which comprise 90% of the food blogs out there, feel so sunny and warm and why the restaurant industry blogs that I read often feel so hostile and snarky. These are two worlds: the world of eating in, and the world of eating out.

Josh at Grub Street quickly penned a response to clarify, and to defend the home cook. "Far from considering 'people who eat in' boring, we actively envy them. We'd much rather chatter with loved ones over a steaming cassoulet than stand at the sink eating last night's porchetta out of a baggie." That said, he does think that Bon Appétit has to keep up with the "very fast-moving food scene" in order to stay competitive.

We think both gentlemen have valid points, and that good food coverage should straddle both worlds, especially in New York where dining out is, for many, a daily event. Then again, not all New Yorkers are willing, able, or interested in eating out all the time. Just look at Cathy of Not Eating Out in New York. So what do you think? Do food magazines/press/blogs have to appeal to both ends of the spectrum to succeed among younger readers? Is eating out always more exciting than eating in?