Posted on May 28, 2008

I was tempted to fire off a letter to the editors at Fast Company, suggesting a better fact checker before they publish commentaries like Elizabeth Spiers' "Not So Fast: Neighborhoodlums" (June 2008, p. 128), the latest mass-media sneer at local-first campaigns. But it finally dawned on me that the piece actually contains no facts whatsoever.

I almost feel sorry for Spiers, a fast-rising blog queen who writes gossipy pieces about the New York business scene. Someone made her feel damn awful about not buying local – "I can't help but think that death and dismemberment are implied if I don't buy the sweater knit by area hipsters or locally grown produce" — and now she has decided to punish the rest of us for it. So a note to her follows.

***

Elizabeth, let me offer an apology on behalf of locavores across the country. We're truly sorry you were made to feel bad about your shopping habits. You should never have to "risk a condescending eye roll when I protest, 'It's a cheaper and identical tomato.'"

But, methinks you protest too much.

You may "see exclamation-mark-laden signs in neighborhood stores that 'I buy local,'" but these kinds of signs are actually increasingly rare. The more common phrase is "Think Local First," deployed precisely to calm folks like yourself who have limited resistance to Big Box temptations.

We don't seek perfection. We just want you to become a smarter shopper, to find cheaper produce that's also locally grown, to realize that your Starbucks latte is almost never your cheapest cup of Joe (or, in New York City, remotely your tastiest), and to make modest shifts in your purchasing behavior that can benefit your personal and your community's bottom lines.

Elizabeth, I'm disappointed you didn't talk to a single person who promotes local when writing your piece. I don't know how else to explain the absence of "Think Local First" from your discussion. Plus, you don’t seem to know what "local" means.

"The emotional tenor," you write "is much more about shunning corporate behemoths. If the farmer next door happens to be Monsanto, you rethink buying local." But local business refers to local ownership, not proximity.

And where do you get economic arguments like the following? "As for local money staying in the local economy, when you walk into your least-favorite national chain store, no one working behind the counter is likely to be [...] nonlocal. Nor are the recipients of its property taxes or many of the vendors that service it."

Elizabeth, research was apparently not your best subject at school. No problem. Let's review some studies that carry more weight than your opinion.

Sure, all stores – local and nonlocal – hire local people and pay taxes. But we know that locally owned businesses contribute significantly greater levels of income, wealth, jobs, taxes, and charity to a community. Here's a brief tutorial in how we know this, in case you're interested:

Local Economics 101

Five years ago Civic Economics, a cutting-edge economic development group, analyzed the relative impact of a proposed Borders bookstore in Austin, Texas, as compared to two local bookstores the chain was gunning to put out of business. The researchers found that one hundred dollars spent at the Borders would circulate thirteen dollars in the Austin economy, while the same one hundred dollars spent at either of the two local stores would circulate forty-five dollars.

Greater local spending means a higher "economic multiplier," the benefits that flow from a dollar circulating many times in a community. The Austin study suggested that every dollar spent at the local store contributed three times the jobs to the local economy, three times the boost to income, three times the tax benefits.

In 2004, Civic Economics improved its methodology and completed another study of Andersonville, a neighborhood in Chicago. The principal finding was that a dollar spent at a local restaurant generated 25 percent more economic multiplier than a chain. The local advantage was 63 percent higher multiplier for local retail, and 90 percent higher for local services.

A year ago, Civic Economics did its most in-depth study yet, encompassing the City of San Francisco and neighboring communities of South San Francisco, Colma, and Daly City. Looking at books, toys, sporting goods, and fast food, the researchers found that if San Franciscans shifted just 10 cents of every dollar of their spending from chain stores to local retailers, they could add to the city's economy nearly 1,300 more jobs and $200 million more in annual output. The bad news is this: If 10 percent of local purchasing drifts to the chains, the region could lose 1,300 jobs and $200 million of annual output.

Elizabeth, if you believe these studies are wrong, or wish to point to contrary evidence, we welcome your argument. But please don't just pretend these studies don't exist.

And one more bone to pick. We’re the ones who are "condescending" in this discussion? Here’s what you wrote: "What buying local really means is buying boutique-branded artisanal products that are crafted by tender loving care by actual human beings." Talk about stereotyping....

In fact, roughly half the entire economy is made up of small, local businesses. In all but seven of the 1100 categories of industry the U.S. government keeps track of there are more examples of competitive small businesses than large ones. Get real, Elizabeth.

You do make a good point at the end of your essay: "Large corporations," you write, "certainly aren’t unaware of local appeal and are happy to exploit it as a marketing tool. Every gargantuan retail-financial institution in the country declares itself your 'friendly neighborhood bank.'"

But then you imply, illogically, that such local-wash means concern about the local economy shouldn't matter. Or, worse, that the emergence of deceptive advertising is somehow the fault of local businesses and local-minded consumers? Isn't this blaming the victim? And excusing the perpetrator?

Dumping on small business is easy if you’re being well rewarded for it. Rumor has it that this column for Fast Company is your last and your new employer is Fortune. How appropriate.

By Michael H. Shuman