Local-Ownership Arguments Loco

“If the small operations want to stay in business… they have to innovate.” – Wolfgang Puck

I’m with Puck, I don’t buy the argument that big national operations take money from smaller locally-owned operations. If anything, big name presence is proof a viable, stable market exists. Would it be better if Puck didn’t have a presence here and wasn’t pushing for locally grown food sources? No.

Should we all eat at Buffalo Wild Wings instead, simply because it’s headquartered here?

The premise that shopping at a national operation isn’t shopping local is bizarre for a number of reasons:

  1. The people working there live locally.
  2. Much of the business’s income needs to stay local to just to pay for continued presence (rent, marketing, salaries, utilities).
  3. And in the case of 20.21, the food itself is regional if not local.

Now, flip the argument around – Minnesota is home to many national brands (Target, 3M) – are we going to stop giving them money because they have locations elsewhere?

No, that makes no sense. In the same way the trade deficit doesn’t make sense.

3 thoughts on “Local-Ownership Arguments Loco

  1. It’s a a tough argument at the edge where you’re good enough to be a hit locally, but not hit enogh to get the big chain discount. But that’s just business. You still have to put yourself in a position to take advantage of the breaks when they come along. You shouldn’t expect to continue being successful just because the locals love you. You’ll still have to work harder/smarter than the next guy if you want to be more than local, if that’s what you really want. Some of the complainers simply refuse to update their business structure to compete. Guess what, those that don’t adapt are not around anymore.

Comments are closed.