I feel a rant coming on: No, national chain restaurant franchises are not local mom 'n' pop shops.

On more than one occasion the past week there have been reminders from the local owners of national chain restaurant franchises that they’re mom and pop shops, too.

Jeeebus, this gets tiring. For background see the charts above and below, and then allow me to pound the desktop for a moment.

Taco Bell, Burger King, Culver’s, McDonald's -- whichever, whatever -- are not chains, they yell, because they’re franchises, and because the franchises are locally owned they’re not chains at all, and therefore, this 1,298th location cut from the same template is no different from Aladdin or Lady Tron’s.

We're locals just like you indies! We're mom and pop!

By the same mangled logic, the 2009 Ford Fusion that I inherited from my mother, which I believe was manufactured in Sonora (Mexico), magically becomes a “local” New Albanian automobile because I drive and operate it locally ... and because of this, I can take credit for building it by hand.

Uh huh. Look, you substituted money for creativity and bought a fully developed restaurant designed and programmed by others. You cannot change the menu on whim by substituting Frito Bandito Hot Browns for Roadkill Chalupas, but you’re quite happy to reap the benefits from national saturation advertising and sponsorship campaigns of the sort almost never available to genuine indie innovators.

Yes, it’s true that you must have enough money to buy the franchise and sufficient moxie to run it, but I’m guessing that bankers are far more cooperative with proven franchise financing than start-ups from scratch, and of course the entire point of franchising is to adjust the risk factor downward compared with start-ups by applying the sheer weight of huge and bland pervasiveness.

Which the public adores, even those who ought to know better.

It's ever harder to discuss matters like this without unleashing f-bombs. Franchisees are almost as annoying as those wealthy kids born on third base, convinced they hit a triple. It’s more like paying the umpire for a base on balls, trotting to first, and claiming to have been hit in the face by a pitch.

And, as a side note, genuine independent local small business owners know exactly what being hit in the face by a pitch feels like; it's how we learn, daily, without a safety net extended lovingly by a multinational.

All in it together? In terms of the pandemic, yes. But as it pertains to this idiocy about franchises being local, no, not really. Think you might stop pretending?

Death to chains, death to Dunkin Donuts -- and spare me the tired argument that it's a "local" business.

Charle's Marohn's piece at Strong Towns is almost five years old, but no less relevant now than it was in 2014.

Next time you're playing bumper cars and competing for inches of asphalt on State Street, look up past the runoff waterfalls to the plateau called Summit Springs, where the buildings being constructed will house businesses like Dunkin Donuts, the subject of Marohn's focus.

According to Marohn, there are at least two big problems with these chains -- which couldn't have been installed without local government subsidies generally unavailable to indie entrepreneurs, and propelled in the case of Summit Springs by TIF bonds used to finance the Daisy Lane road extension.

First, the relationship that Dunkin Donuts – and any national chain, whether selling tacos or auto parts or massages – has with your community is the same relationship that England had with its American colonies back in the 1700’s. The colonies provided raw materials. English merchants, manufacturers and transporters would take these materials, process them and provide them back – with all the value added – to the colonies. The government would take a nice bit off the top for the trouble and, just like that, you have a mercantilist economy, one designed to have a positive balance of trade for the English.

Second, there is an effect on the genuine grassroots entrepreneur.

In the localized version of capitalism, this person starts the doughnut shop. Over decades they slowly and incrementally build their business, creating a modest amount of wealth for themselves and their family in the process. In the national corporate franchise version of capitalism, this person becomes the night manager. They work for someone else. They may have some corporate profit sharing, but it is disconnected from their day-to-day work. They may have a 401(k) plan, but they’re not going to get wealthy from it.

Here’s what breaks my heart: I’ve seen that night manager. I’ve seen the look in their eyes. And I’ve seen that entrepreneur, felt the look in their eyes. One is borderline resignation, an acceptance of fate. The other contains endless optimism. I want an America full of endless optimists.

Tragically, we’ve priced them out.

Speaking personally, I hate chains because they're aesthetic abominations. I also know just how hard it is to create a business from scratch without recourse to throwing money at a tested template, and if this means I have a degree of contempt for those with enough cash to do it, that's fine by me.

But Marohn's valuable contribution to this discussion, as so often echoed in these pages by other contributors, is this:

Not all economic development is created equal. Not all local investments build wealth in our community. Not all open markets produce optimal outcomes for all places. If we want our places to prosper over time, we have to be prepared to ask a tougher set of questions at the local level.

Here's the rest of his essay, which has as its starting point the conditions to obtain a Dunkin Donuts "unit" in Minnesota. Thanks to JG for pointing to it.

Dunkin Our Future.

... Amid all the celebration, one little tidbit of information caught my attention:

Adequate capitalization – Requirements vary by market, but the lowest requirements are $250k minimum liquid assets and $500k minimum net worth per unit.

Now truly, when going through a list of potential small business startups, the kind of thing that someone without an MBA but just a lot of drive and desire could undertake, is not doughnut shop at the top of that list? Along with bakery, pizza joint and coffee shop, in my mind I imagine these as being the familiar Stage 1 businesses that pop up out of nowhere whenever that magical critical mass is obtained. (For more on Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 businesses, listen to my interview with Economic Gardening guru, Chris Gibbons.)

But if you are going to start a Dunkin Donuts, you need a cool half mil in net worth, at least half of which is liquid, meaning cash or something that can be quickly converted into cash. That doesn’t sound very small business friendly.

For households where the highest wage earner is under 35 years old, the ideal age for someone who is not necessarily college material but nonetheless has the work ethic and the entrepreneurial spirit to step up and start a business, the median net worth (excluding home equity) in 2009 was $2,003. Let me say that again. Take over half the families where the primary breadwinner is 35 years old or less, add up their investments and savings and then subtract their debts, and they have less than $2k. In other words, they are only $498,000 short of being able to start a Dunkin Donuts.

Note that for people 65 and older, that number jumps to slightly over $25,000, which should scare the hell out of everyone.

“Dunkin Donuts – and national franchises like them – are not looking for entrepreneurs. They are looking for investors.”
What this means is pretty clear: Dunkin Donuts – and national franchises like them – are not looking for entrepreneurs. They are looking for investors. They want people who already have money, who have already amassed wealth. They are looking for those people because they want someone locally to assume the bulk of the risk, whose interests will be aligned with the corporation and shareholders sufficiently to ensure that the right management is retained and the store is run efficiently.

That’s a very different person, and a very different impact on the city, than the doughnut shop started by your local go-getter with vision and a dream ...

Death to chains, by the numbers -- "The Multiplier Effect of Local Independent Businesses."

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.

The Multiplier Effect of Local Independent Businesses (AMIBA)

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 ...

Soon you'll be able to hit the Bob Evans on your way to Wal-Mart.

Boy, isn't New Albany lucky. Got that chain-think mojo going on, dogs.

Chain, tacky and opposed to human rights? Three strikes, and Chick-fil-A is out.

Robin Garr has it down at his Louisville Restaurants Forum, and my viewpoint is expressed in the title. 

---

Chick-Fil-A under fire again

We've had debates before about Chick-Fil-A's overt conservative Christianity prompting the chain to shut down on Sundays, posting signs urging everyone else to refrain from work (and, presumably, attend church) on that day. Okayfine. I find that a little pushy, but agree that it's not strong grounds for a boycott. But now the chain is trending on Twitter and Facebook and the blogosphere again over its owners' strong words against gay marriage - and the revelation that it spends millions of dollars in support of anti-gay organizations.

To me, that changes the equation: I'm even more strongly inclined to withhold my dollars from a situation in which some of them are likely to be channeled directly to organizations like the Marriage & Family Foundation, that has been called a "hate group."

What do you think? Is Chick-Fil-A a no-go zone for you, or do those tasty poultry sliders and waffle fries still call your name?

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, said in a radio interview this week that same-sex marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

Appearing on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Cathy spoke of his company’s pride in its socially conservative character, but then offered an assessment of same-sex marriage that might lose the popular fast food chain a few customers.

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” said Cathy.

“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about,” he added.

The Huffington Post reports that in 2010 Chick-fil-A, through its WinShape Foundation, donated approximately $2 million to groups that oppose same-sex marriage, most notably giving $1,188,380 to the Marriage & Family Foundation. In 2009 the company also reportedly donated $2 million to such groups.

Cathy is the son of the company’s founder and chairman, Truett Cathy.

The unapologetic social conservatism of Chick-fil-A’s leadership has caused several headline-grabbing brouhahas, including a decision this year by Northeastern University officials not to allow a franchise on the college’s Boston campus.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/18/chick-fil-a-president-gay-marriage-is-inviting-gods-judgment-on-our-nation-audio/#ixzz216MmDBaJ

Also: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-has-spent-5-million-trying-to-stop-gay-marriage/discrimination/2012/07/02/42684

Homework for today.

Here's an entirely serious question: Of the following, which actually are "locally-owned, New Albany restaurants"? Note that some have multiple locations.

Waffle & Steak
Domino's Pizza
Little Caesar's
Papa John's
Tumbleweed
Applebee's
Pizza Hut
Frisch's Big Boy

The reason for my asking is this:

Precision in language? Sorry, I suppose it's a fault of mine.

Meanwhile, One Southern Indiana Newspaper stays atop the situation in Clarksville, where a new chain installation is eagerly pumping money out of the local economy to corporate HQ in Columbus, Ohio: Something to crow about: BC Roosters opens near Green Tree Mall.

Louisville opts for more of the same ol' Cordish chain-think.

You work hard for years to cultivate a unique local presence as a bar, restaurant, entertainment venue and retail establishment, then watch as your elected officials reward your efforts by handing millions of dollars to an outside developer to install cookie-cutter chains and corporate lookalikes at the very center of your city.

Or, as the Cordish Company describes it, Center City, coming soon to downtown Louisville, whose metro council belatedly approved the project last week.

As noted among Monday morning's table setters at The 'Ville Voice blog, the Courier-Journal's editorial board, no doubt looking foward to multinational advertising dollars from the likes of Fourth Street Live's current occupants, is bought and paid. Velocity's gonna love it.

Least Surprising Editorial: The C-J Editorial Board really likes the Cordish Center City project, and is handing out free criticism to Republicans for opposing it. The copy reads like it was lifted from a Jerry Abramson speech.

[editorial link at C-J]

The 'Ville Voice also provides this helpful link to video describing the viewpoint of truly local business people.

At WHAS-TV:

The debate went on for months, but now the Cordish Company, the company that built Fourth Street Live, has the green light to start developing the area known as the water company block. That fact has local business owners like Nancy Shepherd, owner of Cafe Metro, concerned.

For the flip side, consider this comment from the discussion board at Robin Garr's Louisville Restaurants Forum:

I think there is a painful reality to deal with here: locally operated and owned small business can't rehabilitate an entire area of downtown, including making Louisville Gardens an up-to-date location, pushing a large tenant into the Starks Building, etc. While I'd prefer that locally owned business take on larger and more important downtown projects, the capital required to do a major task can be huge, and a company like Cordish has the ability to bite off big chunks of downtown development. There are very few companies that do what Cordish does, and we are fortunate to have them as partners in this venture. It doesn't mean that I won't prefer - and frequent - locally owned business, but we also have to be realistic about how, as a community, we can get capital invested into our downtown.

Me? I hate chains. My Philly beer writing buddy Lew Bryson says it best here: Death to Chain Restaurants, and he quotes Arnold Toynbee, to boot:

Civilizations in decline are consistently characterized by a tendency towards standardization and uniformity.

I’ll bet no one is complaining at Hooter’s.

Gee, you’d expect far more empathy from a multinational chain restaurant with hundreds of outlets that insists against all common sense that it is America’s “neighborhood” bar and grill.

And you wonder why I hate chains.

Protesters march outside Applebee's where mother had to cover up

LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- Armed with babies wearing onesies emblazoned with "breast is best" and "I eat at mom's," protesters marched in front of an Applebee's restaurant on Saturday to support a woman who says she was told to cover up by a restaurant manager.

Around 200 people, some of them carrying signs and breast-feeding, marched in front of the restaurant as drivers honked and gave the thumbs-up, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported on its Web site.

The protest was in support of Brooke Ryan, who said she was breast-feeding her 7-month-old son in June when a manager asked her to cover up. Ryan did not attend the event for "personal reasons."

The protest was one of 60 that have been held at different Applebee's restaurants in recent weeks. Kentucky state law prohibits any interference from a breast-feeding mother.

"You're just trying to do something special and normal, but you're being treated like a second-class citizen," said Maren McGimsey.

"You have a country that sees breasts only for sexual purposes."

Applebee's international guest relations manager Alex Bressett said the restaurant's "policies regarding breast-feeding are consistent with the laws of the states in which we operate."