On a sunset stroll along the Ocean City boardwalk in the heat of summer, the same scene unfolds as always: Teenage boys and girls ride their bikes and their skateboards in packs, yelling over the crowds. Young parents scramble to keep track of their young children, who jostle one another, sprinting through small groups of friends and family in the miles-long crowd. Among the jewelry stores, mini golf courses, and tee shirt shops, Manco & Manco stands alone in its old-timey, carnivalian glare.
To locals and tourists alike, this 60-year-old pizzeria is forever legendary for serving the best slice on the South Shore. Just take a look inside the restaurant, and you’ll see an ever-present variety of patrons that surpasses generational bounds. Many gaze at the pizza as it enters and exits the oven, from dough to delicacy, before it is speedily sliced and shuttled to patrons lounging at the tables, sitting at the bar, and standing in line for take-out.
At Manco & Manco, pizza is an art.
And yet, no one seems to mind the wave of controversies within which Manco & Manco is contemporarily submerged. Until 2012, the now 61-year-old establishment was dutifully named after its two founders, Mack & Manco (Tuleya). That was when the Mack family sold out of the business, but it’s hard to say that the buyout was amicable (Tuleya). Since then, the one name banned from the lexicon of servers, bakers, and managers alike is that which was previously plastered right next to Manco’s, and it’s nearly impossible to find an explanation. Ask some waiters about the name switch, and they’ll mention that Mack was devoured by a shark—ask others, and he’s “on vacation” (“Restaurant Culture”). With a one-line quip, they speed back to work, and the pizza-making machine continues to thrive, each gear within it spinning without a hitch.
The more realistic rumors surrounding the buyout, however, appear to be much more complex than previously stated. Whirling around this buyout are the possibilities that the old owners may have informed the IRS of serious tax fraud, since they would no longer be liable for the damages after cashing their checks and fleeing the scene. That certainly wouldn’t be unrealistic, given the present consequences: Charles and Mary Bangle, the present-day owners of each Manco & Manco location in Ocean City, as well as one in Somers Point, had been under investigation for years before their day in court on February 24, 2017. Charles Bangle now faces 15 months in prison, followed by “three years of supervised release,” with restitution monies and fines for him and his wife totaling to $256,560 (Bellano). Add to that three years’ probation for his wife, “for lying to IRS agents” (Hefler). This is a light punishment, given that the couple was “originally indicted on 30 counts of tax evasion,” including several for “alleging false statements and structuring bank deposits,” but 27 were dismissed on account of their guilty plea (Bellano). According to court documents, “Bangle had collected paper bags full of cash from the business and hidden them under pizza boxes” (qtd. in Hefler). District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler stated that these bags were later delivered home, “covered in pizza dough,” to avoid suspicion from passerby (qtd. in Lowe). Overall, the U.S. Attorney’s Office estimated the concealment at close to $1 million over the course of four years, beginning in 2007 (Hefler). Despite the relatively light punishment, this pattern of fraudulent behavior was longstanding, premeditated, and incredibly detailed.
One might expect for the long-term tax evasion of two restaurateurs to play a critical role in the decision-making methodologies of otherwise unaligned boardwalk visitors. Because local tax revenue is endemically communal, a case of tax fraud presents a need to levy heavier taxes in nearly every other sector of the city, making everyone a victim. With hefty prices for beach tickets and parking meters, it’s quite an arduous task to imagine how someone might possibly sympathize with two restaurateurs unwilling to pay their fair share. Not to mention, for residents of South Jersey and visitors who’ve made a point to visit their favorite pizzeria throughout many visits over the last several years, their purchases helped to enable the perpetuation of damaging illegal activities. Unknowingly, they’ve provided the two restaurateurs-turned-mountebanks the very monetary means to damage the city and its neighboring communities with their tax evasion. Even if these community members are to be held blameless in their purchases, as they likely should be, they’ve been forced to assist, in their continued, years-long patronage of Manco & Manco, the very swindlers who’ve made all community members, patrons or otherwise, victims of their crime.
And yet, one counterintuitive reality remains: Today, Manco & Manco thrives. Not to mention, boardwalk-goers still regularly appreciate and support the Bangles as members of the community. In fact, nearly 100 community members stood by their side at their hearing in Camden (Lowe). Among them were “clergy, firefighters, and police officers; the head of the Ocean City Pops orchestra; teachers; and former pizza shop employees” (Hefler) One general manager at the pizzeria detailed how the Bangles paid for much of his honeymoon (Lowe). When a longtime employee’s house lost power in June 2012, the Bangles paid for a hotel room until the power was restored (Lowe). Even the Ocean City Police Detective, Robert Koob, spoke in the Bangles’ favor: “Their generosity is overwhelming” (qtd. in Lowe). These are by no means ordinary comments for restaurateurs to receive from their customers. They are distilled in an extraordinary enamoration for pizzeria owners who have far surpassed their duty to simply serve pizza to those beachgoers willing to engage in a simple capitalist transaction. They are emblematic of two restaurateurs who have engaged with their base of consumers and employees alike enough to foster a community-wide ardor for sharing and peaceful coexistence. Transcendent far beyond the community’s love for the mere taste and texture of Manco & Manco pizza, these words from such a wide array of Ocean City community members clearly validate the role of the Bangles’ establishments in cultivating a community based on love and compassion. The one element of their legacy in Ocean City absent from each of these statements is the very one which put them on trial in the first place—the Bangles’ longstanding history of tax fraud. I contend that the greater Ocean City community’s continued patronage of Manco & Manco, as well as its positive perception of the Bangles, is ultimately a testament to their pursuit of aretaic ethics.
It’s worth mentioning why an ethical framework might even be relevant in food choice on the boardwalk in Ocean City, because many people may not appreciate the thought that tasting the pizza of their childhood is a choice grounded in ethics. This isn’t necessarily on account of widespread apathy, though—nor is it merely a rejection of practicing ethics in circumstances, such as vacationing at the beach, that often preclude other sorts of long and potentially exhaustive mental labor. Even if people wanted to wholly evaluate their food choice based on real statistics regarding sustainability, GMOs, or food sourcing, for instance, most of that information is really only available to “insiders,” as Paul B. Thompson writes (219). At the boardwalk, the insiders with all the relevant information are likely exclusively the owners and managers of restaurants and no one else. Keep in mind, this secrecy in food sourcing and recipe management is what keeps secret the proprietary knowledge that makes each restaurant unique and perpetually economically viable. As a center for enterprise and immense competition among stores and restaurants, there is a great economic advantage in leveraging the knowledge and techniques of one’s competitors, in order to cultivate a superior product, so there is an equally critical imperative for restaurateurs to keep quiet as much information as possible. The obvious disadvantage to this symptom of such high-stakes economic competition among the restaurants is that the responsibility falls on the patrons to choose their food with a severely limited understanding of their actions’ repercussions. However, if every restaurant plays into this code of actions, then there is no choice for consumers. Each purchase would lead to the same ethical ignorance, without a clearly moral option. That all said, there is still only one cluster of pizzerias on the boardwalk owned by two people convicted of tax fraud. Such information is proliferate for locals and visitors alike, with omnipresent media coverage across Ocean City and Philadelphia. For a clear-cut and simple ethical litmus test—people can buy pizza at Manco & Manco, where the owners have committed fraud, or literally anywhere else.
To understand this phenomenon of continued patronage and trust, though, it is critical to grapple with aretaic ethics. This decision-making methodology is the pursuit of virtue in one’s actions, and it develops a feedback loop of trust (Thompson 212-3). If someone loves a product, then they are likely to trust the provider of that product, because, in serving that very product, the provider proves her worthiness of trust from the community (213). In this case, I contend that consumers’ widespread brand loyalty to Manco & Manco has overpowered their distaste of the owners’ history of tax fraud. Furthermore, for many community members, their love of Manco & Manco pizza has translated into both continued patronage and strengthened trust in the Bangles, to the point that they still willingly testify for the Bangles’ compassion and generosity, tax fraud withstanding.
Any reliance on aretaic ethics—or any ethical framework, for that matter—to shift the viewpoint of every customer is likely short-sighted. Consider first that trust, or lack thereof, is of minimal pertinence when the decision at hand appears to make no significant difference to the system at large. Regardless of the ethical standing of the business, the average consumer may rightly imagine her pizza slice as nothing more than a $3 drop in a daily bucket of tens of thousands of dollars. In that case, the ethical standing of the restaurant and its owners is far less important than the quality of the overall pizza-eating experience, as it would for any other pizzeria on the boardwalk. And yet, even if one were to consider a single slice as significant, she may still buy it anyway. After all, denying herself a slice of childhood may still overpower the ethical significance of boycotting a sketchy business. The grand pleasure of nostalgia, in this case, outweighs the petite pain of supporting such a supposedly morally bankrupt institution.
The more relevant aspect of this phenomenon is that, for many patrons, the love of Manco & Manco pizza merits the trust of the owners themselves. With this modus operandi, there would be no ethical downside in continued patronage, and there would be good reason to stand up for the Bangles throughout the entirety of their judicial process. It is critical, though, to ground this ethereal, consumer-based enamoration in brand and attitudinal loyalty, before extracting assumptions on the ethical framework at play in deciding to stand up for the Bangles and their establishment.
R. L. Oliver defines brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future,” even when facing other advertisements and promotions (qtd. in Leppäniemi et al 271). This pattern of repeat purchasing is deliberate and longstanding (Huang and Yu 525). Attitudinal loyalty, on the other hand, is “the likelihood to recommend” and repatronize an enterprise (Leppäniemi et al 272). Together, brand and attitudinal loyalty help a business such as Manco & Manco flourish for decades, because they are endemic of a base of customers excited to return and bring everyone they know. This ensemble is imperative, because, according to Leppäniemi et al, service quality alone cannot guarantee a successful business; it is only “an important but insufficient antecedent” for attitudinal loyalty (Leppäniemi et al 281). This may help explain why Manco & Manco has, for so long, beat out the dozens of other pizzerias on the boardwalk, while many supporters acknowledge that its competitors may have a similarly valued product. Part of the beauty of Manco & Manco is its legendary status. To take a bite out of a Manco & Manco pizza is to immerse oneself in generations of nostalgia from locals and visitors alike. In this sense, its quality is greatly augmented by the mystification surrounding it, as brand and attitudinal loyalty to the restaurant deeply impact one’s perception of the slice itself. “Value, satisfaction… repatronage intention, [and] service quality” are embedded in the restaurant (Leppäniemi et al 281). Because of these key factors—regardless of the owners’ history of tax fraud—Manco & Manco continues to prosper.
I contend, furthermore, that Manco & Manco’s dreamlike, legendary qualities redeem its owners in the court of public opinion. For conflicted patrons, the endless nostalgia and joy inherent in Manco & Manco provide reason enough to trust and support its owners. For community members, the existence of Manco & Manco as a pillar of Ocean City justifies the otherwise short-sighted accounts for the Bangles’ generosity. After all, strictly monetarily, the Bangles’ financial assistance of their friends and employees by no means accounts for the massive scale to which they concealed income. Attempts to label them as philanthropic to their loved ones deny the all-too-clear reality of their longtime theft from Ocean City. However, when their pizza enters the equation, philanthropy transcends mere numbers: The Bangles’ continued operation of Manco & Manco is enough, for many people, to overcome any reservations rooted in the Bangles’ history of tax fraud. For a lover of Manco & Manco, supporting the Bangles throughout these years is not contrary to virtue, because the Bangles have bettered the community through their restaurant much more than they’ve taken from it via tax evasion.
Thus, if patrons still find an intrinsic virtue in the joy and nostalgia of Manco & Manco pizza, and an extrinsic virtue in patronizing the restaurant, then they will likely come back for another slice. Furthermore, if these virtues translate further into assisting the owners themselves, such that the Bangles continue to serve the community with their cuisine-based joy, then there is little reason for community members not to stand by the Bangles’ side, at court, at the boardwalk, and anywhere else. With virtues, joy, and nostalgia in mind, Ocean City eaters will have their pizza and eat it too, defending the providers however they can. Besides, at the end of a long, sunny day at the beach, for locals and visitors alike, regardless of how conscious the ethical framework behind their decision might be, a slice of Manco & Manco pizza is still a must. A visit to the boardwalk just wouldn’t be the same without it.
Works Cited
Anonymous. "Restaurant Culture at Manco & Manco." Personal interview. 2 May 2017.
Bellano, Anthony. "Manco And Manco Owners Sentenced On Tax Evasion Charges." Ocean City, NJ Patch. Patch, 24 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 May 2017. <https://patch.com/new-jersey/oceancity/ manco-manco-owners-sentenced-tax-evasion-charges>.
Hefler, Jan. "Manco & Manco Pizza Owner Sentenced in N.J. to 15 Months for Tax Evasion." Philly.com. Philadelphia Media Network (Digital), LLC, 24 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 May 2017. <http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/Manco--Manco-pizza-owner-sentenced-in-NJ-to-15-months-for-tax-evasion-.html>.
Huang, Ming-Hui, and Shihti Yu. "Are Consumers Inherently or Situationally Brand Loyal? A Set Intercorrelation Account for Conscious Brand Loyalty and Nonconscious Inertia." Psychology and Marketing 16.6 (1999): 523-44. Tripod. Web. 6 May 2017.
Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Glen Pettigrove. "Virtue Ethics." Plato.Stanford.edu. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 Dec. 2016. Web. 6 May 2017. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/>.
Leppäniemi, Matti, Chanaka Jayawardhena, Heikki Karjaluoto, and David Harness. "Unlocking Behaviors of Long-term Service Consumers: The Role of Action Inertia." Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27.1 (2017): 270-91. Emerald. Web. 6 May 2017.
Lowe, Claire. "Manco and Manco Owner Gets 15 Months in Prison for Tax Evasion." PressofAtlanticCity.com. The Press of Atlantic City, 25 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 May 2017. <http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/manco-and-manco-owner-gets-months-in-prison-for-tax/article_903dd62e-a985-5848-9207-c7ff04fedd7c.html>
Sandler, Ronald. "An Aretaic Objection to Agricultural Biotechnology." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17.3 (2004): 301-17. ProQuest. Web. 6 May 2017.
Thompson, Paul B. From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone. New York: Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
Tuleya, Jon. "Ocean City's Manco & Manco Unveils Plans for New Boardwalk Location." PhillyVoice.com. WWB Holdings, LLC, 29 June 2016. Web. 07 May 2017. <http://www.phillyvoice.com/ocean-citys-manco-manco-pizza-unveil-plans-new-boardwalk-location/>.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire