The obvious question: If local independent business recirculates more revenue locally, why do the local government economic incentives and abatements inevitably flow to the chains?
The most recent example is Summit Springs. City Hall happily bills itself as a partner in this development, and city funds will be used to make it a reality. There’ll be two hotels, both chains, along with three restaurants (need we ask?), on a commercial strip already dominated by big box retail.
In effect, in this and other projects like it, the city overlooks the multiplier by subsidizing the businesses most likely to recirculate less revenue locally.
Clearly communicating the importance of the local economic multiplier effect or “local premium” is a key part of effective “buy local” and public education campaigns. The multiplier results from the fact that independent locally-owned businesses recirculate a far greater percentage of revenue locally compared to absentee-owned businesses (or locally-owned franchises … in other words, going local creates more local wealth and jobs.
I can hear the excuses now — except I can’t. City Hall doesn’t publicly discuss matters like this, does it?
And that’s the real problem, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, even the area’s premier publication for chain glorification gets the memo.
Chain restaurants only do three things better than independents, study says, by David A. Mann (Louisville Business First)
Independent restaurants seem to have an advantage over their chain counterparts in a number of different operational and emotional metrics, according to a new consumer study.
The study came from industry consulting firm Pentallect and research partner Critical Mix. Consumers give independents the edge in 12 of 15 metrics being surveyed.
Independent restaurants seem to have an advantage over their chain counterparts in a number of different operational and emotional metrics, according to a new consumer study …