Buying locally is often promoted, but the decision to support local or national businesses is not absolute. Supporting local businesses keeps money in the community, employs locals, and offers diverse products. However, national chains also provide employment and can benefit many people. Both types of businesses aim to make a profit, and supporting either is respectable. It’s important to make informed purchasing decisions and see in shades of gray.
It has become increasingly common to see advertisements and marketing materials touting the virtues of buying locally, as opposed to buying from national chains or online suppliers. Many people question the legitimacy of these claims, as the issue is often more complicated when deciding to buy locally. Certainly, local businesses are important in championing local shopping. National chains, on the other hand, tend to remain tight-lipped on this subject, as profits appear to be unaffected by the store’s local campaign. There are many different arguments around supporting local businesses, and the decision to support one or the other is not necessarily absolute.
Among the reasons to support local businesses, the most touted statistic is that money spent on a locally owned business stays in the community. Proponents of this buying strategy argue that more money stays within the community and is potentially spent on other businesses in the community when the business is locally owned. Another common argument is that these companies employ local people in all phases of the business, starting with its construction. Local businesses are also said to create more diversity in the products offered and take into account the needs of the community.
In many communities, there are a few companies that represent the community as a whole. These companies may have been around for a long time or serve a particularly unique product. Supporting these businesses is generally considered a community virtue because it symbolizes the spirit and heritage of the place. The argument for supporting these businesses is usually not a moral or economic justification, but an expression of love of tradition and pride in the community.
Some people believe that it makes little sense to support local businesses in larger ones, especially when the price and chain products are superior. National chains often employ local people, providing employment opportunities that might not otherwise exist. A chain that is publicly traded also has the ability to make large numbers of people prosper, whereas a locally owned business can only directly benefit one person, who may or may not decide to invest that money in the community. There is a subconscious misconception in some communities that chain businesses are trading for money while local businesses are a type of charity that benefits the community. It’s important to recognize that both types of businesses are businesses, and their primary objective is profit, regardless of the coating they put on their purpose.
One issue in this debate is whether a franchise is a local or non-local store if it is owned by someone in the community. This problem makes the “locally owned” debate difficult. Many people are not swayed by the locally owned component of a business, but by the perceived stickiness of a chain. In this case, supporting community businesses is an aesthetic decision, not a moral or economic one. Avoiding a locally owned franchise actively prevents a neighbor from making a profit.
It’s important to recognize that supporting local businesses and national chain stores is a perfectly respectable strategy. There’s no reason to get stuck in absolutes. Also, some local businesses may be more deserving of support than others, just as some large businesses may be better than others. Making informed purchasing decisions often means seeing in shades of gray, not just the black and white of location and network.
Asset Smart.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
