Your eyes don't deceive you

Rumors have been popping up this week like a Whac-a-Mole game stuck on Espresso Drinkers mode. The Scoop feels compelled to set the record straight by smashing the restaurant-related falsehoods among them. Consider, for instance, these double whoppers making the rounds.

Planet Hollywood DID NOT buy Buca di Beppo at a yard sale. A price of $9.7 million for an 88-unit chain is completely major-market, though the deal includes a barely used bowling ball and a crock pot still in its original box. Nor is it true that Bruce Willis’ colander will become a standard part of Buca’s wall décor.

Similarly, Brinker IS NOT trying to sell Romano’s Macaroni Grill on CraigsList.

The Food and Drug Administration DID NOT use a dartboard to pick a suspect for the salmonella outbreak. The agency wielded cutting-edge epidemiology to determine that the culprit was not a tomato, as it maintained for several weeks, even when another agency was citing peppers as a possibility. That same caliber of detective work later pinpointed a pepper as the likely perp. Oops—make that two types of peppers. And maybe throw in a tomato, too. In an unrelated development, the FDA announced that its dart team beat the CDC’s squad by hitting two bull’s eyes, a jalapeno and a Scotch bonnet.

Hardee’s newest menu item IS NOT the Whole Steer on a Bun. It’s actually called the Half-Slab Slider.

Ben Bernanke HAS NOT turned to Ronald McDonald for advice on jump-starting American business. It was apparently an instance of wishful thinking.

Emeril Lagasse’s head IS NOT being added to Mount Rushmore. Authorities have yet to choose between the visages of Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay.

Nelson Peltz HAS NOT been cast for Hellboy III.

Web watchdogs can definitely bite

The Wall Street Journal outed several chains this weekend for switching to smaller beer glasses without adjusting prices or otherwise letting on. You’d think that’d trigger a fit of spin-doctoring from the likes of Hooters, GameWorks, Damon’s and Romano’s Macaroni Grill, but they wisely offered nothing more than the few qualifiers and no-comment that were included in the article. Even then, they came within a maraschino cherry stem of being sentenced to eternal avoidance by the modern-day equivalent of vigilantes: Web habitués who share a fanatical cause. In the era of the keyboard-empowered consumer, reckless indeed is the consumer brand that tries to pull one over on patrons, especially when it comes to value.

The situation is nearly a perfect homily as to why. The Journal, after all, was merely a messenger, relaying the lynch-mob talk that the chains and other beer-serving establishments had frothed up by switching from true pint glasses, capable of holding roughly 16 ounces of brew, to variations with a thicker glass bottom that leaves room for only 14 ounces. The motivation is obvious: With grain prices driving up the cost of beer, cagy operators are holding the price of their standard tap serving while slyly providing less beer.

As the article noted, consumers are catching on, and fast. Seven months months ago, a college researcher with a blog called Beervana started what he dubbed The Honest Pint Project, whereby he’d push for a full 16-ounce tap beer by publishing the names of drinking establishments in his native Portland, Ore., that offer a serving of at least that volume.

The parent of the Honest Pint Project, identified in the Journal article as Jeff Alworth, has raised his ambitions since then. “I will support a statutory change if it comes to that—and maybe it should,” he wrote in a blog installment posted today.

Yet Alworth sounds like an aggravated PTA member compared with the hops panthers who offered their comments, suggestions and assessments on beeradvocate.com. “So if there’s a beer bar on this site that has recently adopted this practice, can we call them out?,” asks a poster identified as guzzle211, who joked that he was already lighting a torch.

“What would it take to get legislation passed with regard to this? How did they do it in other countries?,” asks Josquin.

It goes without saying that establishments switching to what a Journal source dubbed “falsies” shouldn’t try to deceive patrons about the change (for the record: GameWorks said a mistake in glassware was made at a single unit, only franchised Hooters units offered the smaller glasses, Damon’s does not deny the change, and Romano’s had no comment). Risking the alienation of longstanding customers over two ounces of tap beer is crazy enough. Amplify that by the speed of gripe on the internet and there’s no doubt about the glass being half-empty.