I rather like this article from The Atlantic, arguing that the typical arguments against chain stores are misplaced. Among other things, it cites a planning consultant who finds that the aesthetes all hate Pottery Barn because it’s a chain and therefore dehumanizing, but that if you show them pictures of a Pottery Barn with a different name on it they all love it.
In bustling, growing towns, “rollouts of established stores allow retail variety to expand as fast as the growing population can support new businesses…. Chains let people in a city of 250,000 enjoy retail amenities once available only in a huge metropolitan center.”
Worth a read! (Thanks to Artur Oczko for the link.)
{ 5 comments }
Great article.
When I saw the author I was not surprised. Ms. Postrel was the editor of Reason for many years (back when it was more overtly anti-state than it has been recently). I seem to remember her puting Bill Maher in his place on one of his old round-table shows.
Thanks for the link Thomas.
This article sound almost exactly like on I read in the economist a couple of weeks back. Sometimes I wonder If the other magazines just read The Economist and them say to themselves that sounds like a good topic lets write about that.
I find this topic interesting. Recently I visited Seattle and found myself at the first ever Starbucks. It dawned on me, while enjoying a fine cup of coffee, that this now megachain was a result of a small, local coffee that discovered great success. So at what point do we start to hate success of retailers enough to discourage their development? Should we not embrace success?
American newspapers don’t love people or businesses who succeed, they love successful underdogs. Once people or business grow “too successful,” the envy motive sets in, and the attack begins.
I’d say the envy is the very essence of collectivism.
Comments on this entry are closed.