"Because of limited local decision-making authority, franchisees typically do not meet AMIBA’s suggested definition of a local independent business."

Read more about the Local Multiplier Effect.

Just in case you were wondering. It comes up from time to time, and the point to me remains: "They (franchises) buy into someone else’s business model."

AMIBA readily concedes the "gray" in franchising, but not the fundamental difference between your own conceptual creation and using someone else's. That's always been the crux of it for me, and it always will be. If that makes me cantankerous, so be it.

Should Franchises or Buying Coops Be Part of “Buy Local” Initiatives?

And are franchises’ advantages worth the trade-offs for business owners?

Editor’s note: we originally wrote this memo for AMIBA affiliates as a member resource. We decided to make the page publicly accessible to help prevent others from making costly errors after we saw many “buy local” campaigns derailed by mishandling franchises or cooperatives.

Franchising is a business model used by corporations (franchisors) wishing to expand their reach and increase revenues without taking direct responsibility for financing and managing each new location. The franchisor grants licenses and enters into contracts with individuals or companies wishing to open a branch (franchisees). These licenses typically are for a limited number of years and grant a specific territory to franchisees. It’s akin to leasing a business.

While some franchises are operated by area residents, others are owned by management corporations that may own many franchises (this is especially common in fast food, where a single company may run outlets of multiple brands).

Individual store owners may own or lease their store building or space, but they buy into someone else’s business model. Support from the franchisor may include a known brand, business plan, trademarks, training, site selection assistance and other tools that theoretically help make success more likely. The franchisee pays a royalty fee and also may pay a portion of sales or profits as part of the franchise agreement, which usually has a finite term attached to it that may be renegotiated at its end. For most franchises, especially restaurants, contracts typically require buying some or all inputs from the parent corporation or its chosen distributor.

The franchisor typically has the right to revoke the franchise from a franchisee if their stipulations are not followed. Because of limited local decision-making authority, franchisees typically do not meet AMIBA’s suggested definition of a local independent business. However, since we are not a franchisor, member organizations ultimately make the decision of how to handle franchises.

If you opt to allow any franchises to be listed in any of your organization or campaign materials, we recommend strongly it be in a “locally-owned franchises” category, distinct from independent businesses. Make sure your board and staff know your policy to ensure consistency and share this page with them so they can speak knowledgeably on the topic ...

LEO returns to the Yarmuths. By the way, LEO needs a beer column again, eh?

In a probable triumph of localism against the dull conformity of media chains, LEO will again have Louisville ownership.

This qualifies as good news, I believe, and of course, I can't help reliving the villainous time of my shit-canning as beer columnist, back when telling the truth about wretched mass-market swill led directly to my principled departure -- and then another principled departure by the ax-wielder herself, some years hence. As Grandpa Jones always said, "Truth is stranger than fact."

Just go here and read about it:

Coming around again: Matters of principle at LEO.

Best of luck to the new ownership group. Some times a freshening is needed.

LEO Weekly Bought By Group Led By John Yarmuth's Son, by Joseph Lord (WFPL)

Long before he was a congressman, John Yarmuth was the founder of Louisville's alternative weekly, LEO.

And now his son is its principal owner.

The Nashville-based media company SouthComm Communications has sold LEO to a group of local investors led by Yarmuth's son Aaron, LEO staff writer Joe Sonka reported in a blog post Tuesday.

DNA can come out of the farmers market dust-up smelling like the proverbial rose. All it needs to do is follow this script.

What have we learned these past two weeks?

• The farmers market is popular, and people support it.
• There is far more interest in keeping the farmers market away from the parking garage than rejecting outright other conceivable locations.
• The simplistic "black vs. white" straw man quickly built to rout John Gonder’s plausible garage idea, while unfair and regrettable, has clearly won the day, for now and perhaps forever.
• In the aftermath, as people have been exposed one-on-one to the many different aspects of the discussion that were purposefully not mentioned before last week’s council meeting, they’ve been both surprised to learn there actually were other angles, and receptive to factual arguments.
• Opinions tend to be mistaken for facts.

In short, welcome to reality. We learned what we already knew, and now it remains to salvage sensibility from the insensible.

The supreme irony is this: For all its lampoon-worthy missteps, Develop New Albany emerges from the skirmish ideally placed to do the right thing. With City Hall inexplicably doubling down on its secretive mixed signal mode, DNA may be the only (albeit loosely) organized civic group able to point the farmers market conversation in the right direction, to do so openly and publicly, and to play a leading role in restoring sanity to the scrum.

Yes, it cannot be denied that DNA’s polling and Facebook page comment deletion tactics have been a complete disgrace, and the organization has acquitted itself very poorly even if some members are embarrassed by the shoddiness of it all. These failures must be addressed. And, yes, many years of non-housetrained bad procedural habits must be confronted and vetted by DNA's board.

I didn't say it would be easy, but lately I'm riveted by counter-factual history.

To be sure, I’ve taken a sinfully great delight in pointing out these inadequacies to those many people locally who never, ever read what I have to say. However, it does not preclude me from offering DNA this real-world, rational solution, because if it chooses to do so, and I hope it will, Develop New Albany could take control of the situation tomorrow morning, occupy what passes for a high ground in this town, bring well-meaning folks back to the thoughtful middle, and encourage what should have been happening (transparent consensus) all along, before this whole farmers market expansion imbroglio was doltishly stoked into extremism.

That is, if Shirley Baird will see fit to allow it. She went out and brought back Doug England's years-delayed lunch money, and as God is her witness, she's intent on spending it. But lunch isn't the same thing as a yacht, and DNA’s statement should read something like this.

---

Develop New Albany always strives to fulfill its mission as a Main Street organization. It's why we're here, and why we volunteer.

Develop New Albany was founded in 1990 by community-minded individuals and local business leaders. The leadership of Develop New Albany focuses the organization on the economic revitalization, historic preservation, and promotion of our Historic Downtown.

In recent weeks, what should have been a guided civic conversation about New Albany's farmers market has somehow gotten off the rails, and Develop New Albany is eager to restart the process of achieving consensus.

We understand that while the composition of our recent on-line poll was flawed (our social media presence requires a major tune-up, too), the sheer volume of votes received amply testifies to the community’s keen interest in the continued success of the farmers market, and by any reading, this is fitting and proper.

Furthermore, Develop New Albany fully understands that the economic revitalization of our Historic Downtown is dependent on multiple factors, not only one, as reflected by the differing but complementary components of our own Main Street program goals. It is crucial that all these factors are given a hearing.

For example, the very fact that the city of New Albany has committed to spend $75,000 on a street study conducted by none other than the nationally renowned Jeff “Walkable City” Speck indicates that infrastructure factors previously unaddressed (street calming, traffic direction and walkability, among others) must be counted among those factors directly impacting economic development in a modern, versatile and thinking urban area. In fact, it is highly likely that many of Speck’s recommendations for New Albany will mirror similar ideas in Develop New Albany’s own experience as a Main Street organization, given that the national Main Street program has been advancing complete streets for a decade or more.

The results of Speck’s study, both great and small, are sure to serve as the blueprint for many overdue changes, some of the implications of which cannot be envisioned at this precise time. Accordingly, the recent constructive dialogue about the farmers market’s location and long-term future is just the beginning of a consultative, inter-active process ideally taking place alongside the study and other examples of thinking outside previously limiting boxes as we move toward a city configured to meet the challenges of coming decades within a Louisville metro area itself surely to be reconfigured owing to the ongoing Ohio River Bridges Project.

During the coming months, Develop New Albany proposes to take the lead in exhaustively and transparently studying future options for the farmers market, thus cataloguing the facts that must be known in order to make informed choices, and providing elected officials, civic leaders, other non-profit organizations and farmers market shoppers with information and the proper tools to act in the best interests of this valuable amenity. In this vein, the results of Jeff Speck’s study can only help us see more clearly into all the myriad possibilities awaiting New Albany.

The farmers market has been successful as it is, where it is, and as such, there is no reason why it cannot do so again this season as we come together collectively to think about how it might be made even better in the future. By autumn of 2014, we’ll all have a far better grasp of the coming landscape in downtown, and we can begin planning with all the facts, not just a few, at our disposal.

We’re very excited about this process, and are eager to begin. Let us know what you think, and help us become part of the solution.

---

You're welcome. You may use it without attribution ... but we'll be watching to gauge the effectiveness of implementation.

Council agenda scant, so let's make a New Year's non-binding resolution to cut a rug.

New Albany's city council meets tonight, and yet again, it has quite little to do apart from housekeeping. The sole agenda item is this:

A-10-13 Additional Appropriation From EDIT/Riverboat Fund Matching Fund Of Fire Department Grant For Fire House Vehicle Exhaust Systems (Coffey 1&2)

Fortunately for the Fire Department, it's an appropriation and not a non-binding resolution, meaning that 6th district council representative Scott Blair can take part in discussing it, thus earning his pay.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, CM Blair has yet to reply to an e-mail I sent him on November 22, repeated here in full.

Scott

Please consider this your opportunity to clarify what happened last night. I refer you to the last sentence of WDRB's coverage of the meeting: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution."

As a council regular, I know that in the past, you have at least prefaced such an instance with an explanation, but last evening, you did not. That's one problem; the people in that gallery are not regulars, and are not aware of your casuistry. A second problem is the casuistry itself, and the nature of your way of expressing opposition to resolutions. As I put it in the blog:

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a yes or no vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his 'I shan't vote' principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting no.

In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Frankly, I find this very troubling. As far as the outside world is concerned, my 6th district CM (where I own property and a business) has voted AGAINST an expression of principle (that word again) opposition to tyranny. A leftist like me gets it. Ed Clere gets it. What are you trying to say here? I guarantee that the majority of NABC's 70 employees are going to have a very hard time grasping your stance here -- and HJR-6 has just a bit to do with economic development, doesn't it?

Surely you do not support HJR-6, and surely, you'd like to elaborate on this for my readership.

Thank you

R

And yet it's never too late to set the record straight.

We'd be delighted to publish a statement from CM Blair explaining the vote and the nature of his objections to resolutions of the sort considered last time the council met. This might be a dialogue, and a means to achieve greater understanding. You might even refer to transparency as a non-brainer.

But: It takes two to tango. NAC's got the ballet slippers on. Let's dance.

A "principled" Blair votes no, but council approves resolution condemning HJR-6.

7:00 a.m. Friday update: WDRB makes my point with the final line of its report: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution." 

Earlier tonight, the Common Council of the city of New Albany approved R-13-16, a resolution opposing HJR-6.

The vote was seven in favor, with Diane Benedetti abstaining after a lightning-fast attempt to match a thicket of post-it notes detailing 5th district voter rolls with numbers from a flurry of phone calls she received late in the afternoon, presumably from the Koch brothers and their gay-baiters nationwide.

Scott Blair was alone in voting against the resolution. More about that in a moment.

Overall, with Blair the one glaring exception, the council acquitted itself well. Lone Republican council person Kevin Zurschmiede sounded confused for a bit, but rallied nicely. Bob Caesar said nothing, and was firm and crisp in joining the majority. John Gonder and Shirley Baird spoke convincingly, and Greg Phipps eloquently provided all the necessary preparatory information. Dan Coffey surprised some, although not me, by forcefully advocating for the resolution. I believe Coffey's life experiences have led him to savor the role of the underdog and downtrodden, and although the two of us come from entirely different poles, we have this one thing in common, if nothing else.

On the other hand, Blair achieved the rare distinction of striking out before stepping to the plate. All evening long, he spoke only one word with regard to a sensible, rational resolution opposing shameful violations of human rights: "No".

Regular council attendees of a particularly masochistic bent know that in the past, Blair has bizarrely confused his council seat with a slot on the Supreme Court of the United States, choosing to somewhat pedantically take issue with any resolution he feels does not pertain to his specific mission on the city council. It is entirely a procedural objection, and we are supposed to take this as an expression of profound governmental conviction even if he hasn't quite divulged the criteria for it in any great detail.

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a "yes" or "no" vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his "I shan't vote" principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting "no". In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Has anyone on the council even tried to explain this to him, or is is some sort of hazing ritual gone tragically astray?

Consider that many of the folks in the gallery tonight do not regularly attend council meetings. They are not aware of Blair's tortured, quasi-Jesuitical "pick and choose then flip the coin again" soft shoe when it comes to proper versus improper resolution jurisdiction.

However, after tonight, what they DO know about Blair is that sans explanation, the 6th district councilman voted against a resolution opposing human rights violations. Yes, in effect, he chose a side. It is quite clearly the wrong side, because it's the side that mocks human dignity -- and at the end of the day, it's a public relations failure of epic dimension, all because of slavish devotion to an obscure procedural principle.

Perhaps as a banker, Blair mistakes principle for principal; after all, even if the principle of human rights fails to excite like the cost-benefit aphrodisiac, there's always high interest in principal, or rather the high interest owed on principal -- and as procedural devotion goes, and fetishes are nurtured, there's always the blessed penalty for early withdrawal ... except that premature stupefaction couldn't possibly be the desired outcome for someone like the councilman.

Could it?

At LouisvilleBeer.com: "No worth without principle."

My first of two September columns is up at LouisvilleBeer.com, and it's an explanation of festival strategy in a context of principle. Not a single Beer Advocate review was harmed in writing this piece. My columns at LouisvilleBeer.com appear monthly, on the 1st and 15th.

No worth without principle

Louisville’s annual Brew at the Zoo (BATZ) has come and gone, and while by most accounts it was bigger than ever in 2013, fair-minded observers can (and will) differ as to whether it was “better” this time around. So it goes, and I can’t offer a valid opinion, seeing as my weekend was spent in Lafayette, Indiana. NABC participated in the 2nd annual, Indiana-craft-only Beers Across the Wabash festival, and a wonderful time was had by all.

At this juncture some might ask, and plausibly: But Roger, you always claim to be a localist, and Lafayette is three hours away – so exactly how is that local?

There are different answers for that sort of question, some serious and others more light-hearted, as in “local is anywhere I happen to be drinking.”

Coming around again: Matters of principle at LEO.

I think it is highly instructive that LEO's Sarah Kelley has chosen to "take a bullet" rather than acquiesce to a directive she cannot abide. Good for her. I recall a similar story back in 2010.

It had to do with my column for LEO, and Sarah Kelley's protectionist view of Budweiser's place therein,as documented at the time in A Tale of Two Columns, followed shortly thereafter by This round goes to the Liteweights, as Mr. Mug Shot is no more.

Recently I was approached by a pleasant LEO advertising sales person and her boss. They pitched the idea of an ongoing, half-page ad/column to be sponsored by NABC, on the topic of cooking with beer and food-beer pairings.

The rate? Reasonable by the standards of the genre.

I asked who'd be providing the actual content, and clarified that it would be NABC (read: me) and not a LEO staffer. After all, isn't the fact that I once wrote a column for LEO sufficient proof that I'm a writer?

Having established that as a writing ad buyer, I'd have control over the content, I told them the story about my experience as a LEO columnist, the tiff over ever-sensitive megabuck monoliths like AB-InBev not abiding insults, and the fact that I encouraged the door to hit me in the ass while exiting.

So, as advertising purchaser, would I still be censored as to anti-Budweiser polemics in the same way as before?

They said they'd get back to me. It's been a few weeks now, and I've heard nothing.

Now it strikes me as ironic. Sarah Kelley's principled departure from LEO, and the uncertainty surrounding the alt weekly's future, perhaps offer an even better reason to be wary of advertising there ... but it wasn't clear that truth-telling would have been allowed even if I paid to place it.

Matters of principle. Funny damned things, indeed.

WFPL: LEO Editor Sarah Kelley leaves rather than cut staffers, by Staff (Insider Louisville)

In late July we told you SouthComm CEO Chris Ferrell was in Louisville to meet with LEO Weekly staffers.

At that time, we asked Ferrell both in phone conversations and in emails about information we had from LEO insiders about pending cuts. He declined to discuss the changes on the record, and, as we say, off the record is off the record.

We also contacted LEO staffers about the cuts, but no one would go on the record.

Today, WFPL’s Gabe Bullard reported LEO Editor Sarah Kelley has chosen to take a bullet rather than to layoff colleagues.