First, the sample size. Eight companies? Is that truly a representative sample of all independent businesses? I'd question whether eight companies are even an accurate representation of Mid-Coast Maine companies.
Second, the comparisons. Can we really compare Mid-Coast Maine to Newburyport?
The report states that 53% of the dollars spent remain in Maine. Well, Maine is huge. If you're in Mid-Coast Maine you can't get out of Maine for a very long time. Stands to reason your dollars will be concentrated there.
That’s not the case in Newburyport? First, we have some border issues. I’d be willing to be a number of Newburyport store owners live in NH or Maine. They’re employees or their vendors might as well, so wouldn’t this impact that in-state or “local” percentage just a bit?
(BTW, what if the vendors are based out of state. What happens to a dollar going to advertising in the Daily News? Does it stay in Newburyport go back to Birmingham, Ala.? Not throwing stones here. Dow Jones owned the news when I worked there.)
Third, the lack of participation from the chains. I recognize that they researchers did the best they could. But without actual data from the companies it’s difficult to accept that we’re comparing apples to apples. Of course, that’s precisely why the chain stores wouldn’t participate.
The dynamic is similar to Karp’s reluctance to talk with the Daily News (or the Undertoad at the time). If he’s not providing information we should get the information ourselves. The researchers had to do the same thing. But newspaper articles have the luxury of preventing incomplete pictures. They’re not cited as irrefutable data points in an argument. The same can’t be said for studies. In fact, here’s a footnote listed in another study.
In the reports cited in the prior footnote, for example, local spending per $100 of operating expense varied from $30 to $80 for locally-based firms and $9 to $40 for chain stores.
As you can see, the numbers swing wildly.
Finally, and this is my biggest issue. The report operates under a false assumption, the idea that we only have X amount of dollars going into all retail stores in this community, and that we’ll always have X amount of dollars going into this community.
If that were the case, comparing percentages makes perfect sense. But what if a chain store—perhaps an extension of the Kittery outlets or some other high quality series of stores—brings in new traffic. Even if the 53% vs. 14% ratio holds true, we’d be getting 14%s that we’re not currently getting. And I’d be willing to bet more 53%s as well as our local shops benefit from the new traffic.
Proponents of the ban likely will point to studies showing that chain stores don’t draw new traffic but rather draw from customers who are buying from local stores. There’s truth to that. A BJ’s Wholesale or a Wal-Mart isn’t going to draw new people to locally owned shops in a community’s downtown.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here. No one is going to build a BJ’s on the waterfront or anywhere downtown.
What could come downtown are recognizable brand names that come with a following, and with that following will come customers who have never been to Newburyport before.
Isn't that exactly who we're trying to attract?
No comments:
Post a Comment