I’ve been neglecting my blogging duties of late, not because I don’t have anything to say (it takes strong gaffer tape to achieve that particular result), but I just seem to be juggling a lot of stuff at once right now and there’s always something else to be doing. This post is therefore for those who have been missing my particular brand of opinionated rambling. 
I recently watched Dave Gorman‘s America Unchained. For those who aren’t familiar with the man, he’s a British alternative comedian / stand-up whose work includes such classics as Are You Dave Gorman? and Googlewhack Adventure, both of which I highly recommend. In this instance, Dave decided to try to cross North America without paying any money to any ‘chain’ – every business he patronised had to be an independent, ‘Mom and Pop’ set-up. That meant no staying in Holiday Inns, no buying petrol (gas) from chain-owned gas stations, no Starbucks or McDonalds. Having an affinity to independent business myself it sounded like a pretty interesting premise.
As it turned out, the film wasn’t as entertaining as his previous work, but it raised some fascinating issues about society and modern culture. He originally decided to embark on the journey because on a previous whistlestop tour through America, he’d lamented that by staying in chain hotels and often eating at chain restaurants, he got absolutely no feel for the individual character of a particular region – everything was homogenised, standard. This is increasingly the case wherever you go – high streets that have all the usual suspects lined up along them, all containing all the same products that you’ll find anywhere else. Why is it that, as a culture, we seem to approve of this removal of individuality, and excessive standardisation of our consumptive environment?
Ok, cost is one issue. Big chains can buy in bulk and sell cheaper (although not all operate like this of course – some sell at quite ridiculous prices). But I think it’s about far more than that.
I’ve said I’m something of a fan of independent business. I hate just about every major fast-food chain and have experienced first-hand the soul-sapping experience of staying in a chain hotel in a foreign country. However, if there was one chink in this armour (ignoring Amazon for a minute), then that was Starbucks. Earlier in the life of my coffee appreciation arc, I was a big fan of Starbucks, and would seek it out wherever I saw it, wherever I was in the world. Why? It wasn’t because it was cheap – their prices are ridiculous. I was because I knew I liked it. It was a safe, easy option, guaranteed – and I’m convinced that deep down, this is the primary factor for most people who unfailingly patronise chains. As time has gone on, however, I’ve discovered that by seeking out Starbucks rather than something else, I’ve risked missing out on broadening my experience. Going elsewhere sometimes means a dud, but that’s the risk you take. These days, I’ll drink Starbucks (although it never seems to taste as good as it used to, probably because I’ve broadened my palate), but the fact that I know precisely what it’s like actually means I’m less likely to buy it if there are other options now. Been there, done that – let’s try something else. Happily, the best take-out coffee in my local town is an independent (‘Woodies’, who also source their blends locally), but actually my favourite coffee is now my own; because I have the equipment to make good espresso and I regularly experiment with different beans.
Ok, amateur psychology time. 
So one of the factors I think is in play here is that our modern lives are so fast, so competitive, so turbulent, so mobile, so devoid of the predictability that previous generations encountered (discounting war and famine of course), that we cling more to any kind of perceived rock of stability and certainty that we can find. In an age where consumerism so dominates our existence, surely it’s very natural that some of the things we cling desperately to in the storm are brands. If your life is fast, tough and regularly complex and challenging, maybe it’s nice not to have to think quite so hard about where you get your coffee, where you got to eat, where you buy your clothes. Maybe in the past, with a slower pace of life, people had the time to build one-to-one relationships with local, independent traders and evaluate things individually – but when you’re moving around and have so much else to think about, fast, easy decisions with a predictable outcome are no doubt attractive. It sort of reminds me of speed dating – no time to consider the subtleties, just get the process done fast.
Personally, I think looking down a high street in any place in the world and seeing 90% country-wide or worldwide chains is pretty depressing. It represents a homogenisation of the world, a removal of individuality, and a ceding of personal, local character to faceless, amorphous giants. I agree with Dave Gorman that we should lament the steady decline of ‘Mom and Pop’ businesses, which may be less predictable, non-standard and quirky, but that’s part of the charm.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Alright, let me don my rant hat.
There, comfortably donned.
I take issue with this (very common) line of lament because at its route it assumes people are ignorant and don’t know what’s best for them. Barring the use of illegal labor practices, chains are successful because people choose to frequent them, plain and simple. To assume that something is being lost or that people are missing out on something they are *supposed* is borderline patronization. Allow me to demonstrate with a little example-
Take an average Illinois rural type who frequents the Gaps, Starbucks, and Wal-Marts to the exclusion of mom and pop operations. This man has one major hobby in life- painting wooden mallards. This man does not care for unique eateries, free trade Himalayan dark roast, or Italian wool. But I’ll tell you something- when it comes time to select his next wooden mallard blank or finishing varnish, he will do an inordinate amount of research, likely chat with people online or at whatever local club supports this activity, order from a specialty outlet, etc. etc. He doesn’t care about the uniqueness of the other aspects of his life and thus welcomes cheaper prices and convenience with open arms.
The reason this man’s *grandfather* frequented unique mom and pop places was because THAT’S WAS WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. Period. Given the option of mass market stores his grandfather would have likely shopped there as well.
It follows simple logic- either people want something or they don’t. Nobody is strong arming the market to abandon a greatly desired commodity in favor of a less desired one. Implying that people (or society) is somehow worse off is bollocks, to borrow one from you guys
It is akin to a fashion you enjoy then going out of fashion. Let’s say bell-bottoms. You can cry bloody murder that it sucks that people are wearing these hideous new slim jeans, but you ultimately realize that the fashion has changed because that is what the market demands. Claiming the people are worse off for it is arrogant and self-centered- what people want is what people want.
Conflating a small business atmosphere with culture is wrong. A small business atmosphere is a taste, a fashion, that is all. Except in the extreme cases from bad 80s movies where the local gub’ment is in cahoots with the cigar-chomping executive from national brand X, trying to force out the little guy if not for those precocious kids, chains win because the market speaks out. Plenty of chains also go out of business, let’s not forget.
But to somehow claim the people are being “misled” or losing their identity is back to the bell-bottom argument. YOU, the tourist, HE, the TV travel commentator, you want homemade grits and pancakes made by a folksome 90 year old. The locals just plain DON’T!
As a further example, it smacks of the basement elitism of Linux heads or indie music fans always claiming this band sold out or that music is not as good as it used to be- usually blaming the masses to one extent or another. You use Windows dev environments because they work, you don’t care about what Linux may offer, etc. etc. because that’s where your utility lies. Same with Bob in Illinois and his Gap chinos.
If you truly miss something, thanks to the wonders of the internet, you can find communities, have products shipped, research truly unique out of the way places, etc. etc.- the availability of a desired item will always reflect the size of its extant market, but you can’t whine about it when both shrink- because THEY ALWAYS SHRINK TOGETHER.
Just part of life, I s’ppose
February 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I wasn’t arguing that people don’t want chains. I was raising the question as to WHY that is, and how far we REALLY want it to go. It’s nothing about being misled, and I didn’t even mention that as an argument, but let’s face it – most people are far too busy to really consider the ramifications of their actions until it’s too late to do anything about it. And claiming it’s about fashion is a massive oversimplification. “Conflating a small business atmosphere with culture is wrong. A small business atmosphere is a taste, a fashion, that is all.” – that argument is so specious I’m not even sure where to start. You’re telling me that a town with nothing but chain stores, restaurants etc has exactly the same level of cultural interest as one with plenty of unique establishments? That a restaurant with a country-wide, cookie-cutter menu is just as culturally relevant as a one-of-a-kind local place which designs its dining experience around the local specialities? Come on.
“It follows simple logic- either people want something or they don’t” – again, a huge oversimplification. Actually, most people want to have their cake and eat it. If we even have enough time to really think about what we want long-term at all. We(at least a lot of us) want to retain our locally unique places, but we also like to frequent the chains too (for whatever reason – hence the discussion). It’s amusing whenever there are interviews with people lamenting the closure of their local butchers, but when asked they say they used the out-of-town Tesco most of the time. Of course it’s about supply and demand. But if it was that simple, most people also wouldn’t care when small places closed down. Enough clearly do though, while still liking chains, so that makes it valid to ask the questions I’m asking here about being aware of the reasons for our own behaviour, and how they intersect with the things we really want. If you think that a series of low-level, daily decisions is a valid indicator of what people want long-term, I’m afraid you’re very much mistaken – it’s a local minima only. It’s why project managers get paid so much
Sometimes, you have to pop your head up and take stock; aggregation of low-level decision making doesn’t necessarily equal the longer term strategy you would have picked if you’d had the choice. This extrapolation issue is a common flaw in both market theory and politics of course, but that’s a debate for another time 
And your locals vs tourists thing – not true at all in my case, and in the case of some others I know (although I also know people who wish for more chains). I don’t hanker after a high street full of derivatives, and enjoy the variety and uniqueness that local places bring, in my home town and everywhere else I go.
I’m not whining – that’s your interpretation on my words rather than the words themselves. If you want every town to look the same, that’s your business. I don’t. Some people agree with me, some don’t. If it happens due to popular demand, ok, but there’s nothing wrong with raising a flag and saying “why is this, and do we really want it?”. The conflicting position that people take (buying from chains, then complaining when local places close) makes this more complex than you make out. You’ve clearly answered for yourself – you’re taking the hard-nosed economic line – but don’t assume that’s a universal opinion. In my experience, people don’t appreciate something until it’s gone, and thus raising the discussion point is valid, IMO. You don’t have to agree with my point of view, but you also don’t have to rule the entire debate moot out of hand either.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I guess I choose independent when I can – like buying from a farmers market or farm shop, local butchers, etc. But I personally like Costa Coffee and tend to head to one of those – and the bulk of my shopping is at Sainsbury’s or the local co-op.
As you say, I think once you’ve had a reliable experience somewhere – it is always a nice fall back position that you don’t have to think about very much to go there again.
I think this is why word of mouth and good first impressions is so important for local independent businesses – because many people would only stray somewhere else on recommendation (or if they had to for some reason).
February 19th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“I think this is why word of mouth and good first impressions is so important for local independent businesses – because many people would only stray somewhere else on recommendation (or if they had to for some reason).”
Absolutely. Again I think increased population mobility is a factor here; obviously if you know you like Starbucks / Costa / whatever, you don’t need any local knowledge, because you can make a judgement based on your experience elsewhere and it should be valid. In many ways chains are like virtual communities, following you around wherever you go and making you feel comfortable because you know what they stand for.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Steve, I patently disagree. Assuming you still view this as a good-spirited back and forth, allow me to continue
1. It’s statements like this:
“most people are far too busy to really consider the ramifications of their actions until it’s too late to do anything about it.” and “If we even have enough time to really think about what we want long-term at all” or even “with the things we really want.” that I find the crux of the vastly patronizing problem in your argument. Do you *realize* how condescending this actually is of you? It is akin to me walking into your home, looking at an Apple you purchased instead of a PC, sighing, and saying “people don’t understand the ramifications of their actions”. Who am I to so boldly declare that *your* future happiness is going to be faulty??
“If you think that a series of low-level, daily decisions is a valid indicator of what people want long-term, I’m afraid you’re very much mistaken”
And YOU have the all-seeing wisdom of what people want long term??
I’m sorry to say, but your arguments would get you a big fat fail in any statistically-based economics or psychology class. “Professor, I understand that these chains prove their success by persistence and growth, but they’re not what the people ultimately want.” “Really, and how would you know that?” And what would be your response? Because *you* don’t like it? Because “many people you know” agree with you? Votes are the only thing that count in judging a population’s true attitude, and when it comes to a market, people vote with their wallets. This “we” talk is simply you and others who yearn for something more provincial.
If a group of people miss something, a market will spring up for it, plain and simple- this happens with food all the time. Today comfort food has a resurgence, tomorrow it’s something else.
And I disagree that it equates to a loss of culture. If you’re genuinely interested in a place’s culture, go to its library and read its poets. Go to a community center and see a performance of its music. Befriend some locales and have them show you how to cook local cuisine or better yet get them to cook you some in exchange for something you can offer, but don’t be saddened when they can’t offer you, the tourist, your conveniently packaged version of their culture because they’ve moved on to things *they* prefer.
To that end, the reason so many local cultures are willing to “lose” this supposedly vital wellspring of their identity is because at home, amongst themselves, they know damn well who they are. The fact that they’re willing to let these mom and pop shops goes under shows you just how vital these things are to them. That road-side tourist you mentioned couldn’t get his regional cuisine, but I bet you all the people he came across working at the Holiday Inns could go home and make as much of it as they wanted. I cry no tears for him for not being able to get his tidy, easily digestible slice of Americana by saddling up to a quaint coffee shop.
These local communities find what’s efficient and desirous to *them*. Telling them after the fact they can’t see the folly of their ways because they can’t offer you what you want is just pretentious. And if enough *tourists* want it back, guess what, up it shall spring.
At the heart of it lies this: I’d have zero problem with this argument if its orientation were: “I wish I could find more locally-owned places when I travel.” That’s a personal taste thing, one with which I can never contend. But to project your tastes as a greater judgment of people with all of your “our”s and “we”s, and somehow claim you know what’s best for people in the long run? Come on. Your word, your tastes, are not theirs.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Quote: “And I disagree that it equates to a loss of culture”
Here’s a definition of culture:
“the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group”
Are you saying that Wallmart and McDonald’s represent the ethnicity of all the places they’ve spread? If so, that’s kinda bizarre.
Ari, you seem kinda focused on Steve’s distaste for perhaps some things you like, or things you feel other people have the right to like. Fair enough. Although I think Steve should be able to express his opinions in his blog without being called pretentious.
Regardless, his argument about the loss of culture holds up, and really isn’t affected by the points of economics and free market that you have brought up.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:14 am
What seems to be lost in this folly over “chains” is that many of them are actually owned and operated by locals. Small, popular food chains like Subway, Quiznos, Dunkin Donuts, etc, are run by regular folks like you and I. I had a chance to buy into my own Quiznos restaraunt a year ago, but passed on it because the timing wasn’t right for me. But, I frequest them and guess who I see behind the counter, serving folks with a smile? The owners, and their always appreciative when I patronize their “chain”. My point is that chains can just be put into neat little category. Small business and chains are blending, evolving, changing, and creating new opportunities for families.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Woops, second to last sentence should have said, “My point is that chains can’t just be put into neat little categories”.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Hi Steve,
After reading this post, I instantly remembered this comic, hope you enjoy it:
http://www.boltcity.com/copper/copper_007_melonbread.htm
February 20th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@Asi: Yep, still good-spirited, just obviously wildly different opinions
“And YOU have the all-seeing wisdom of what people want long term??”
Nope, and again I never claimed to. I am asserting that the aggregation of our many small decisions does not necessarily represent our strategic desires, but our short-term desires only. If you want to talk statistics (and actually, I did rather well in undergrad economics thanks, I just didn’t treat it as gospel), I assert that small-scale decisions have an in-built error term which when accumulated can deviate significantly from the result that might have been reached if the same people ‘voted’ on a strategic level.
As an extreme example, let’s say you ask people whether they want to have the convenience of driving everywhere no matter what, very cheaply, in huge comfortable cars with only one person in them, they’ll say yes. If you asked them if they wanted congested, polluted city centres and global warming, they’d say no – and yet by the market reasoning they ‘chose’ the latter. Sure the demands will change, but once you’ve ended up at point B, turning it around is very slow, and very difficult. It’s not just going to flip over in a year now that people realise the longer term effects and change their demands. Your trust in the ‘voting’ assumes that small scale decisions aggregate perfectly to an entirely representative strategic outcome, and even if they don’t, they can just do an instant 360 anyway because demand changes. I think that’s naïve, because that is not the context in which those votes were made, and things never change that quickly. That doesn’t mean I know better, I just recognise the flaws that are potentially present in that thinking. I’m simply asking the questions, which you seem to think aren’t valid ones to ask. I’m not sure why you find it so challenging to your principles for these issues to be raised, and why you take it as an affront to good sense that anyone should think that market forces aren’t necessarily the purest form of reason. I’m trying to raise a debating point, which you seem to be trying to close down with what you perceive to be ‘truth’ (which basically boils down to ‘the market always knows best’). I don’t believe I’m the one being patronising here. Or at least, not the only one
And let’s be clear, I’m solidly including myself in the crowd here when it comes to day-to-day decisions. I’m painfully aware that in a time-pressured environment, I make short-term operational decisions which when aggregated do not necessarily equal the strategy I would have chosen. Much in the modern world is based on short-termism and unfortunately, the ‘market’ you have so much faith in, without the presence of a wider context, encourages this – look no further than the recent financial crises for an example. What I’m saying is it’s worth looking around and considering the wider ramifications sometimes, and that applies to me too. Again, not sure why you find this so abhorrent.
And really, stop implying this is purely a tourist thing. Maybe it is for you, but it’s not for everyone. I apply the absolutely same argument to my local environment – in fact more so, since it is obviously the locals that have the most effect on what survives and what doesn’t. Locals here and the UK regularly lament the demise of individual establishments, while at the same time recognising that it’s their own behaviour that caused it. It’s therefore a discussion point that we as locals of our environment should talk about – this isn’t about telling off the people of places I visit, I’m just recognising that we all do it. If you want to shrug it off, fine, but I choose to discuss it.
And I fully recognise that local culture doesn’t equal local businesses. Obviously there are many rich veins of local culture. But it’s definitely part of it, and to rule it out of hand is unjustifiably dismissive.
You’re correct of course that the market will drive what exists and does not exist. But the point here is that we are that market, and therefore having a discussion about what we want from it seems valid, no? Surely examining the whys and wherefores of our demands, the consequences of that, and how accurately our 5-minute choices at lunch represent what we want to see happen to our towns longer term, is a valid discussion to have? Because I for one am not going to claim 20:20 clarity on all my day-to-day decisions and find it useful to pause and take stock of the wider trajectory once in a while. I prefer not to take a ‘heads down, it’ll all come out in the wash’ approach all the time – after all some of our biggest problems have come from that mindset (such as the environmental issues we face in the future).
@Dan: this is very true, but in fact a locally owned and run franchise feels no different to a centrally owned chain anyway, so with regard to my point here – which is that high streets are in danger of becoming clones of each other – it really makes little odds. Of course, there are benefits in other areas to franchises versus chains, such as a more direct connection between local success and re-investment in the local economy, but that’s separate from the discussion here.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Steve, I’ll keep this one brief since we’re both on course to earn our forensics degree if we continue this much longer
I have two small points and that’s it-
1. Don’t think for a second I am actually taking this on a *personal* level- you should know by now that when I’m passionate or have an opinion on something, the floodgates of intensity open
If anything, consider it more a sign of respect and camaraderie since I save my most long winded arguments for only the closest of friends 
2. While I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve just said, I think our entire debate boils down to one key point. Let’s take a village with 100 people. It goes through the commercialization process we’ve been discussing. I think all of your arguments are based on the notion that afterward, a large majority feel some sort of loss or remorse at having lost local business, but go about their day shopping at the big guys. *My* argument is based on the notion that afterward, 80% are fine with it because their choices in the first place brought it about, and it’s only the *20%* that claim the whole village has lost something and didn’t know better because they themselves miss it.
If the first is accurate, you’re correct- the majority didn’t consider all the ramifications and now each stings a little. If the second is accurate, I’m correct- a “cultured” few are claiming the masses knew not what they did (hence the patronizing I keep referring to), but in reality are the only ones stinging a lot.
That’s about it- I think either of our arguments holds up, depending on what a populace actually feels ex post facto. (And yes, I do mean statistically, not hearsay or pointed documentaries!)
February 20th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
1. Oh, definitely understood, and vice versa – we clearly come at these sorts of issues from very different directions, but the entire point is to stimulate debate and therefore I can hardly complain if you don’t agree with me. In fact, I guess it would be dull if everyone did
2. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I do think it’s a but more fluid a situation though; it’s not like someone flips a switch and suddenly the town is in one mode or the other; rather that over the course of 20-30 years change like this occurs. Like all gradual change, we might not consider it that closely on a day-to-day basis, but if we take the time to stop and think about it, we may decide that at a macro level, it’s not what we wanted or intended. I think doing that every few years is a worthwhile exercise for all of us.
And actually, no specific survey or vote is needed – as you say, demand will dictate whether these things will sustain / reappear; *but* sometimes we need a nudge to shift our thinking to the 20,000 ft view to make that decision actively, rather than passively by association with our trivial, day-to-day decision making. So opinions being raised – whether by me on a blog, or you on a comment, or a documentary – do serve a purpose if they make people think about it, whichever camp they eventually fall into.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Word homey
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
>@Dan: this is very true, but in fact a locally owned and run franchise feels no different to a centrally owned chain anyway,
Not true. I have traveled all over the US and I can tell you for certain that the same chain does not feel the same wherever you go. The biggest difference is service quality. It varies greatly, and makes a huge impact on patrons. Sure, if you want to base things solely on “drive-thru” fast food, with limited service time with customers, that’s fine, but that’s not telling the whole story.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Not really the same here – maybe this is to do with the very different service culture between Britain and the US!