May 3, 2024

Paris Journal: A Quest to Make Gruff Service in France More Gracious

When the family tried to order food in halting French, the waiter rolled his eyes, Mr. Riberio said. Later, when a wrong dish was served, an argument ensued over whether it would be changed.

“In general, the French can be quite friendly and helpful,” said Mr. Riberio, whose family went on to have a pleasant stay. But the encounter “was a reminder of why they can also have a reputation for being rude,” he said.

In the City of Light, an eternal question is once again spurring debate: Is the stereotype of the brusque Frenchman justified, or do visitors just not understand the French?

The soul-searching is coming from an unlikely place: the Paris tourism board. It is ramping up a charm offensive to burnish the image of France — and Paris in particular — as a kinder place for tourists. Officials have been deluging cafes, hotels, shops and taxi ranks with 20,000 more pamphlets titled “Do You Speak Touriste?”, a manual on how to make travelers feel more welcome, after 35,000 copies handed out in July ran out.

The British, it advises, want to be called by their first names. The Japanese need to feel reassured. The Spanish mainly want people to be nice. (“I would agree with that,” Mr. Riberio said.) As for Americans, the guide notes, they are glued to their personal devices and want to eat as early as 6 p.m. — a frightful thought to a typical Parisien.

“The goal is to fight against a bad reputation, and improve the quality of the welcome in Paris,” said François Navarro, the communication director for the tourism board, the Comité Régional du Tourisme Paris Île-de-France. With 30 million tourists a year, Paris is one of the most visited cities in the world, he said. “But we can do more.”

How much more remains to be seen. Paul Kappe, an owner of the renowned Brasserie de l’Isle Saint-Louis, perched behind the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, gave a Gallic shrug when he saw the brochure.

“It starts with the assumption that the French are disagreeable,” said Mr. Kappe, a contemplative man who kept a watchful eye on the restaurant’s sunny terrace, full of waiters and patrons crammed behind tiny tables. “Well, that does have the ring of truth,” he said. “But it won’t stop a waiter from being unpleasant.”

He added, “Their mentality is, ‘Don’t bother me when I’m working.’ ”

The campaign holds special importance as France begins to overcome an economic malaise that has deepened a sense of moroseness in the country. This month, the French federation of hotels and restaurants reported a 10 percent fall in tourism this year compared with a year ago.

Perhaps more challenging is the growing competition that Paris faces, not only from rivals like London, New York and Barcelona, but also from upstart tourist destinations in the Asia-Pacific region. Last year, more than 20 percent of the world’s vacationers visited an Asian city; the region earned $324 billion in international tourism receipts — a full 30 percent of the global total, according to a United Nations World Tourism Organization report. By contrast, the United States earned $126 billion from tourism, while France earned $54 billion, less than China and Spain, the report said.

“There’s a huge economic battle going on between the world’s tourism capitals,” Mr. Navarro said. Just 15 years ago, he said, there were about 60 major destinations; today, there are about 600. “If we don’t improve our service, we will lose money.”

But is the effort really necessary? After all, countless visitors leave the French capital enchanted by their experience, having never lived the legend of snooty service.

“I can’t think of any time when I’ve been treated rudely,” said Paul Sanger, 74, an Atlanta native who said he had visited Paris more than 100 times over five decades. “A lot of Americans think the French are being rude because they can’t understand them. But a lot of it is a cultural thing.”

To many foreigners, Paris is easier to navigate than ever. Today, English has become the new French for an army of young Parisien waiters who switch between the languages with ease, and even pride, when they hear a foreign accent. And many of the 600,000 Parisiens employed in the tourism industry place a premium on politesse.

Still, “snobisme” is hardly a relic of the past, and even the French complain about a perceived lack of civility among some of their big-city brethren. A spate of mocking television ads by the newspaper Le Parisien a few years ago, showing Parisiens cutting in line and leaving poodle droppings on the sidewalk, provoked knowing laughs. And this is by no means the first time the government has encouraged a more polished image: in 1995, a “Bonjour” campaign urged people to be pleasant to tourists, echoing several similar efforts since World War II.

Of course, tourists can be uncouth, too. “A lot of Americans shout, or don’t say hello, and then they say the French treated them rudely,” said Karen Fawcett, the president of BonjourParis, a Web site that dispenses travel and cultural insights. “If you don’t have some cultural sensitivity, you are probably not going to be well received.”

Ms. Fawcett said her main tips for visitors were to be polite, keep their voices down and not assume they will be served immediately. “A simple ‘bonjour’ or a ‘s’il vous plaît’ will go a long way,” she said.

Mr. Kappe at the Brasserie de l’Isle Saint-Louis said waiters appreciated engaging with clients. But he scoffed at a recommendation in the pamphlet that waiters show more warmth by using their first name with Americans. “That’s just not done,” he said.

All of the brasserie’s servers were longtime professionals, dressed impeccably in white shirts and long black aprons. Their smiles were hardly effusive, but they poured wine with an expert turn of the wrist and counseled diners on the “plat du jour.” On the other hand, some deftly ignored patrons clamoring for a bill.

“In the United States,” Mr. Kappe observed, “waiters can be fired at any time and must work for tips, so they have to be nice. In France, you can’t just fire somebody if they’re not doing a good job. If you could, everyone would be friendly.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/world/europe/can-the-gruff-frenchman-become-the-gracious-frenchman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

High & Low Finance: Auditors Clash in H.P. Deal for Autonomy

But the eternal question asked whenever a fraud surfaces — “Where were the auditors?” — does have an answer in this case.

They were everywhere.

They were consulting. They were advising, according to one account, on strategies for “optimizing” revenue. They were investigating whether books were cooked, and they were signing off on audits approving the books that are now alleged to have been cooked. They were offering advice on executive pay. There are four major accounting firms, and each has some involvement.

Herewith a brief summary of the Autonomy dispute:

Hewlett-Packard, a computer maker that in recent years has gone from one stumble to another, bought Autonomy last year. The British company’s accounting had long been the subject of harsh criticism from some short-sellers, but H.P. evidently did not care. The $11 billion deal closed in October 2011.

Last week, H.P. said Autonomy had been cooking its books in a variety of ways. Mike Lynch, who founded Autonomy and was fired by H.P. this year, says the company’s books were fine. If the company has lost value, he says, it is because of H.P.’s mismanagement.

Autonomy was audited by the British arm of Deloitte. H.P., which is audited by Ernst Young, hired KPMG to perform due diligence in connection with the acquisition — due diligence that presumably found no big problems with the books.

That covered three of the four big firms, so it should be no surprise that the final one, PricewaterhouseCoopers, was brought in to conduct a forensic investigation after an unnamed whistle-blower told H.P. that the books were not kosher. H.P. says the PWC investigation found “serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and disclosure failures.”

That makes the Big Four tally two for Autonomy and two for H.P., or at least it will when H.P.’s annual finances are released with the Ernst audit approving books that include the write-down.

Deloitte did much more for Autonomy than audit its books, perhaps taking advantage of British rules, which are more relaxed about potential conflicts of interest than are American regulations enacted a decade ago in the Sarbanes-Oxley law. In 2010, states the company’s annual report, 44 percent of the money paid to Deloitte by Autonomy was for nonaudit services. Some of the money went for “advice in relation to remuneration,” which presumably means consultations on how much executives should be paid.

The consulting arms of the Big Four also have relationships that can be complicated. At an auditing conference this week at New York University, Francine McKenna of Forbes.com noted that Deloitte was officially a platinum-level “strategic alliance technology implementation partner” of H.P. and said she had learned of “at least two large client engagements where Autonomy and Deloitte Consulting worked together before the acquisition.” A Deloitte spokeswoman did not comment on that report.

To an outsider, making sense of this brouhaha is not easy. In a normal accounting scandal, if there is such a thing, the company restates its earnings and details how revenue was inflated or costs hidden. That has not happened here, and it may never happen. There is not even an accusation of how much Autonomy inflated its profits, but if there were, it would be a very small fraction of the $8.8 billion write-off that H.P. took. Autonomy never reported earning $1 billion in a year.

That $8.8 billion represents a write-off of much of the good will that H.P. booked when it made the deal, based on the conclusion that Autonomy was not worth nearly as much as it had paid. It says more than $5 billion of that relates to the accounting irregularities, with the rest reflecting H.P.’s low stock price and “headwinds against anticipated synergies and marketplace performance,” whatever that might mean.

Some of the accounting accusations relate to how Autonomy booked expenses. The H.P. version is that the British company made sales of hardware — personal computers it bought and resold — look like sales of valuable software. It hid some costs as marketing expenses when they should have been reported as costs of goods sold.

All that, if true, would inflate operating profit margins and growth rates for the most important part of the business. But it would not change net earnings.

What might change profits would be so-called round-trips, which became notorious a decade ago when it turned out that companies like Global Crossing and Qwest had pumped up profits by selling “dark fiber” cables of dubious value to each other for high reported prices. It is sort of like you buying my painting for $1 million, while I buy yours for the same price. No money changes hands, but we each say we have a lot of profits, and an asset worth $1 million.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and the economy at nytimes.com/economix.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/business/auditors-clash-in-hp-deal-for-autonomy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss