廚師朱利奧?比奧斯卡還記得那“壓死駱駝的最后一根稻草”。2013年4月，他到一家米其林星級餐廳吃生日大餐，那家餐廳侍應用了大量形容詞詳細解釋一道很復雜的菜品所使用的原料（用比奧斯卡的話說是“唱菜名”）。然后那名侍應從口袋里掏出一個香水瓶，完成了這道菜品的最后一道工序——噴點雪莉酒的香氣。

比奧斯卡在西班牙巴倫西亞省的小鎮(zhèn)豐塔納爾斯德爾薩福林斯（FontanarsdelsAlforins）擁有一家家族餐廳。就在“香水事件”不久后，比奧斯卡決定摘掉自家餐廳于2009年獲得的米其林星。比奧斯卡很快意識到，雖然他不喜歡噴香水的菜，但那并不是促使他摘掉米其林星的根本原因（他說：“那不是主要原因，但那也是個原因?！保┎贿^，他也毫不掩飾自己對米其林評分系統(tǒng)的贊賞，因為正是它讓他的餐廳出了名。

比奧斯卡表示，他這樣做的原因是為了逃避米其林星帶來的“不可承受之重”。米其林評級包含一個“品鑒菜單”和一系列復雜的菜品，而且它會給顧客帶來非常特定的預期。米其林星雖然是一項榮譽，但也是個“禁箍咒”，讓他無法創(chuàng)新。

他表示：“我發(fā)現(xiàn)這種菜品和這種工作方式讓我感到不舒服，于是我決定跳出去做些簡單的東西。”

比奧斯卡要求米其林摘掉他的星星，同時取消他的“品鑒菜單”。不過由于溝通問題，米其林在2014年的推薦指南里并沒有及時刪去比奧斯卡的餐廳，所以直到2015年的指南推出，比奧斯卡才算是自由了。

比奧斯卡表示：“去年一整年，我都在向人們解釋，我們不再是米其林星級餐廳了，也沒有一份‘品鑒菜單’?！?/p>

當然，比奧斯卡的決定看起來很奇怪。一顆米其林星是很多餐館老板畢生的追求，它帶來的市場力量是非常大的。西班牙美食評論家朱麗亞?佩雷茲?洛薩諾指出：“毫不夸張地說，米其林星相當于把你放在了美食地圖上?！?/p>

比奧斯卡并不是唯一一個拒絕米其林評級的人。今年年初，比利時‘t Huis van Lede餐廳的大廚弗雷德里克?杜格也摘掉了他的星星，理由是他想自由地做炸雞，而不必被人們指手劃腳地說“這不是一道米星林星級水平的菜”。

比奧斯卡和杜格的決定，一定程度上折射出在一些快速變革的行業(yè)中，一些評級機構所遭受的尷尬。米其林指南在過去就被認為是一個問題，它迫使西餐大廚們不得不走高端法系大菜模式，不過現(xiàn)在問題主要來自食客方面。盡管米其林餐廳已經(jīng)接受了法國菜近年來的激烈轉型（比如你可以看看最近剛獲得米其林三星的DiverXo餐廳的“朋克風”官網(wǎng)），但是很多看《米其林指南》的消費者還是期待享受一頓傳統(tǒng)大餐。

佩雷茲?洛薩諾表示：“米其林正在失去它的傳統(tǒng)特性……但很多顧客仍然有那樣的預期?！?/p>

來自澳洲的大廚斯凱伊?金杰爾對這一點有切身體會。2011年，也就是她在倫敦的Petersham Nurseries Café西餐廳開業(yè)7年后，米其林給她那老舊而別致的小餐廳頒發(fā)了一顆米其林星。不過她的餐廳的硬件并不怎么樣，房子是間溫室，地面是原生態(tài)的土地，桌子也不大穩(wěn)當。

《米其林指南》的讀者們開始蜂擁而入。這家餐廳簡單的季節(jié)性菜肴給人很深的印象，但是硬件卻差強人意。

金杰爾對澳大利亞《好周末》（Good Weekend）雜志表示：“人們對一家米其林餐廳是有一定預期的，但是我們的桌子上沒有桌布，服務也不是很正式。如果人們習慣了在Marcus Wareing（倫敦伯克利酒店的一家兩星餐廳）吃飯，那他們來到這里時就會覺得很失望?！?/p>

她還把米其林星稱為一個“詛咒”，并表示：“如果我能再開一家餐廳的話，我祈禱我們不要獲得一顆星?！?/p>

《米其林指南》沒有回應記者的采訪請求。

金杰爾從餐廳的官網(wǎng)上摘下了這顆星星，不久之后，這家餐廳也歇業(yè)了。（她最近又在倫敦開了一家餐廳，這次有桌布，目前尚未獲得米其林星。）

即便對那些不覺得被米其林星束縛住的餐廳來說，一顆米其林星也意味著它要不斷付出努力和投資。學術研究表明，失去一顆米其林星會導致餐廳的銷售額下降最高達50%，而得到米其林星的餐廳則覺得有必要對服務和裝修進行投資，為了這樣做，他們往往就得提價。

哈佛商學院（Harvard Business School）商業(yè)管理教授蓋里?匹薩諾表示：“大家普遍認為，要想保住顧客群，就得保住米其林星。如果你失去了這顆星，更糟糕的事都有可能發(fā)生。這是個惡性循環(huán)?！?/p>

米其林星還往往不會帶來利潤。在發(fā)表于《康奈爾酒店與餐飲管理季刊》（Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly）的《星星背后：簡單診斷歐洲的米其林餐廳》一文中，作者們發(fā)現(xiàn)，近半數(shù)米其林推薦的“樣板餐廳”都是不盈利的。

很多米其林餐廳其實都是在賠本賺吆喝，它的名聲使大廚能夠賺取很高的私人烹飪費，還有些米其林餐廳則做起了低成本的配套食品和低價餐廳。在最近的一次采訪中，DiverXo餐廳的大衛(wèi)?穆諾茲對我表示，2015年將是他的公司成立8年來第一次實現(xiàn)收支平衡，而這僅僅是由于它旗下的街頭快餐連鎖業(yè)務StreetXo的擴張。

朱利諾?比奧斯卡在自家餐廳的隔壁也開了一家低價餐廳，他表示：“高端法系餐廳如果沒有其它收入，很少能夠達到盈利。我們沒做到，我認為也不會有任何人能做到?！?/p>

大廚們會繼續(xù)為了米其林餐廳而努力。不過通過高調退回米其林星，比奧斯卡或許已經(jīng)找到了最佳的定位。

哈佛大學的匹薩諾表示：“一旦你放棄了它，它就不會被剝奪。就像如果你辭職了，也就不會再被解雇一樣。這樣做在市場上是有價值的。你可以說：‘我放棄了我的米其林星’。這樣顧客會認為你本來有一顆星星，同時你也不必忍受評論者們的吹毛求疵。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：樸成奎

Chef Julio Biosca remembers the last straw clearly. In April 2013, he was out for his birthday dinner at a Michelin-star restaurant and the waiter was doing his adjective-heavy best at enumerating the ingredients of a complicated dish (“singing the dish,” in Biosca’s words). Then the waiter reached into his pocket and pulled out a perfume atomizer to add the final ingredient: aroma of Jerez.

Not long after the perfume incident, Biosca decided to return the Michelin star his family’s restaurant—Casa Julio, in FontanarsdelsAlforins, outside of Valencia, Spain—had received in 2009. He is quick to note that, while he doesn’t like the style of cuisine that uses perfumes, it didn’t lead him to drop his Michelin star (“It wasn’t the major thing, but it was a thing,” he says). And he is eager to express his admiration for the Michelin star system, which put him on the map.

Rather, Biosca says, he wanted to get out from under the weight of the star. He felt that he’d been awarded it for a certain culinary project, which included a tasting menu and complicated dishes, and the award gave customers very specific expectations. The star was an honor but also a straitjacket, one that meant he couldn’t innovate.

“When I saw that I didn’t feel comfortable with this kind of food and this way of working, I decided to step aside to do something simple,” he said.

Biosca asked Michelin to remove his star and, in December 2013, discontinued his tasting menu. Because of a communications snafu, however, Michelin didn’t get the request in time for the 2014 guide, so it was with the November announcement of the 2015 guide that Julio Biosca was free.

“For the last year, I’ve been explaining to people that we were no longer that restaurant and didn’t have a tasting menu,” Biosca said.

Biosca’s decision is odd, of course. A Michelin star is the life goal of many restaurateurs, and the distinction has immense marketing power. “Michelin puts you on the gastronomic map, literally,” says Spanish food critic Julia Pérez Lozano.

But Biosca is not alone in turning his back on the system. Earlier this year, Chef Frederick Dhooge of ‘t Huis van Lede in Belgium turned in his star because he wanted the freedom to cook fried chicken without being told it wasn’t a star-worthy dish.

Biosca and Dhooge’s decisions signal the difficult position of rating agencies in rapidly evolving industries. The Michelin guide was considered a problem in the past, forcing chefs into the French high-end mold, but now the issue is the diners. While Michelin has accepted the radical makeover haute cuisine has undergone in recent years (just visit the punk rock website for recently minted 3-star DiverXo), many consumers who use the guide expect it to prize a traditional style.

“Michelin is losing its traditional identity … but a lot of customers still expect that,” says Pérez Lozano.

Australian chef Skye Gyngell learned that first hand. In 2011, seven years after she opened London’s Petersham Nurseries Café, Michelin awarded a star to the shabby-chic eatery where customers sat at wobbly tables in a dirt-floor greenhouse.

Michelin customers—and their complaints—started to pour in. The simple, seasonal dishes impressed; the setting did not.

“People have certain expectations of a Michelin restaurant, but we don’t have cloths on the tables, our service isn’t very formal. You know, if they’re used to eating at Marcus Wareing [a two-star restaurant in London’s Berkeley hotel], then they feel let down when they come here,” Gyngell told Australia’s Good Weekend magazine.

She also called the star a “curse” and said, “If I ever have another restaurant, I pray we don’t get a star.”

The Michelin guide did not respond to a request for comment.

Gyngell took the star off the restaurant’s website and, not long after, quit. (She recently opened another London restaurant, with tablecloths. No star yet.)

Even for those who don’t feel straitjacketed by the rating, a Michelin star implies a treadmill of work and investment. Academic studies have found that losing a star can cut sales by as much as 50%, and that restaurants awarded Michelin stars feel the need to invest in service and décor and increase prices to do so.

“The thinking is you have to keep the star to keep your client base. And then the worse thing that could happen is you could lose your star. It’s a vicious cycle,” says Gary Pisano, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.

It’s often an unprofitable one, too. In “Behind the stars: a concise typology of Michelin restaurants in Europe,” published by the Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, the authors found that nearly half their sample restaurants were not profitable.

For many Michelin star restaurateurs, the restaurant is a loss leader whose fame allows the chef to charge high speaking or private cooking fees; others start lines of premade food or lower priced restaurants. In a recent interview, David Mu?oz of DiverXo told me that 2015 would be the first breakeven year in his company’s eight-year existence, and then only because of the expansion of his street-food chain, StreetXo.

“Few haute cuisine restaurants without any other kind of income are profitable,” says Julio Biosca, who has a lower priced restaurant next to his eatery. “We couldn’t have been, and I don’t think anyone can.”

Chefs will continue to strive for Michelin stars. But in handing back his star and letting everyone know he did, Biosca may have figured out the best position.

“Once you give it up, it can no longer be taken away. It’s like if you quit, you can no longer be fired,” says Harvard’s Pisano. “There’s value to that in the marketplace. You say, ‘I gave up my star,’ and you let the customers assume you would have a star. And then you’re not subject to the vagaries of the reviewers.”