In Defense of Suburban Dining

But whether a Local or a chain closes down....People at both places lose there job...one is not more important then the other...whether you are an owner or a server....The botom line is you lost your job...

Fair enough Carla. Maybe I was not clear enough either, I was referring to the fine dining local restaurants. Your champagne example does not consist of two truly differentiated products, like chain food v. good food (just kidding) or luxury car v. kia junker, so it does not work for what I am explaining. And all those places you mention compete with the Oakroom to some degree, but they all are steak places, not five diamond dining experiences.

I agree some local restaurants are competing with chains. Just not the ones I eat at. Not trying to sound snobby, just my personal tastes. I eat at chains too, just not as often as the locals. Obviously chains enjoy economies of scale over local restaurants. But I believe my point for the fine dining locals certainly holds true. Let's just agree to disagree. It's all in fun. Too beautiful of a Sunday for blog wars.

Opps sorry Kevin, didn't mean for it to come off as a blog war. I was merely trying to get across the idea that restaurants, of all varieties and trends, have a tougher playing ground now than ever before.

Robert , I tried very hard in my post to make it very clear that I value everyones job regardless of where they work. Please quite looking for slights that aren't there.

Somebody has to do it.....

But whether a Local or a chain closes down....People at both places lose there job...one is not more important then the other..

Actually, Robert, there's a lot more to it than that. Studies from around the country have shown that local businesses usually return two to three times as much money to the local economy than their corporate-owned counterparts do. They hire local accountants, attorneys, insurance agents, plumbers, etc. When a local closes, all those people lose business. That's often not true of corporate stores.

You continue to make light of that economic reality, goading endlessly about your love of chains. By choosing to consistently frequent and promote chains rather than local independents, you're choosing to unnecessarily export dollars from our local economy and encouraging others to do the same, impeding all of us from building as sustainable and self-reliant an economy as possible. In short, your gun isn't aimed at just your own foot. Especially in difficult financial times, that raises the question to an ethical level beyond just personal preferences.

Carla raises interesting points about local versus chain competition but, to steal from Hugh MacCleod of gapingvoid.com, the market for something to believe in is infinite. The marketing narrative, then, needs to make clear where consumer dollars actually go and how that cycle impacts not just individual restaurants but families all over the region. It's an uphill battle to be sure but, as that message spreads and ignorance becomes less of an excuse, questions of character and values becomes more prevalent, i.e., are you just choosing where to eat or are you choosing whether to help or hurt your neighbors?

With the economy becoming more and more socially driven, those who knowingly choose to hurt their neighbors will eventually be treated likewise. Those who choose to build relationships on inclusive foundations will be rewarded as their entrepreneurial risk is distributed over a shared, more personal network. As Carla mentioned, the difference in feeling like you belong versus being snubbed is a powerful motivator. We just have to learn to use market and social forces differently by telling a better story.

But whether a Local or a chain closes down....People at both places lose there job...one is not more important then the other..

Actually, Robert, there's a lot more to it than that. Studies from around the country have shown that local businesses usually return two to three times as much money to the local economy than their corporate-owned counterparts do. They hire local accountants, attorneys, insurance agents, plumbers, etc. When a local closes, all those people lose business. That's often not true of corporate stores.

You continue to make light of that economic reality, goading endlessly about your love of chains. By choosing to consistently frequent and promote chains rather than local independents, you're choosing to unnecessarily export dollars from our local economy and encouraging others to do the same, impeding all of us from building as sustainable and self-reliant an economy as possible. In short, your gun isn't aimed at just your own foot. Especially in difficult financial times, that raises the question to an ethical level beyond just personal preferences.

Carla raises interesting points about local versus chain competition but, to steal from Hugh MacCleod of gapingvoid.com, the market for something to believe in is infinite. The marketing narrative, then, needs to make clear where consumer dollars actually go and how that cycle impacts not just individual restaurants but families all over the region. It's an uphill battle to be sure but, as that message spreads and ignorance becomes less of an excuse, questions of character and values becomes more prevalent, i.e., are you just choosing where to eat or are you choosing whether to help or hurt your neighbors?

With the economy becoming more and more socially driven, those who knowingly choose to hurt their neighbors will eventually be treated likewise. Those who choose to build relationships on inclusive foundations will be rewarded as their entrepreneurial risk is distributed over a shared, more personal network. As Carla mentioned, the difference in feeling like you belong versus being snubbed is a powerful motivator. We just have to learn to use market and social forces differently by telling a better story.

So when is an economy NOT local? Jefferson County, Kentucky, Mid-west, East of the Mississippi, USA? It's all relative. I personally think it's over the top to suggest that where I choose to spend my food dollar is a moral or ethical issue.

Where did this thread go wrong?

[Robin Garr]

Where did this thread go wrong?

Thank Robert.

My mistake....like I said I put my foot in it.

Every thread is now seen as an opportunity to denigrate those who champion locally owned restaurants, and an equal opportunity to laud chain restaurants on class grounds. Those who support the former are branded as snobs and elitists. The fact that even those who most ardently support locally owned restaurants are quite happy to praise those chains that offer good cuisine is purposefully ignored as it tends to undermine the divisiveness that is achieved.

It's sad. I don't get it. It's ruining the forum.

I still believe that most, if not all, of this stems from the fact that people still equate criticism of a particular restaurant with an ad hominem attack against them if they happen to like that particular restaurant. Obviously, that is not the case.

FWIW, I ate at a chain last night. (gasp)

Every thread is now seen as an opportunity to denigrate those who champion locally owned restaurants, and an equal opportunity to laud chain restaurants on class grounds. Those who support the former are branded as snobs and elitists.

Want some cheese with that whine?

If you re-read the posts in this thread, I think that the "class war" started when one poster equated those who frequent chains as Kia's while IR-diners were likened to Mercedes. That's a pretty narrow outlook, IMO. Personally, I think we're very lucky to live in a city with so many wonderful dining options, chain and IR alike. It amazes me that rather than celebrate that fact, so much energy is spent determining which group has the moral high ground.

I dine out about 2 times a week. I frequent IRs almost exclusively, but have no issue with chains (proposed to the wife at Ruth Chris - it's so hard to top that view from the balcony). And while food and service matter, as I've aged and hopefully gained some perspective, what matters most to me is not necessarily where I dine, but with whom I dine. A meal is a meal -- I will, hopefully, partake of thousands of theem. But its people who transform a meal into a memorable experience.

If you re-read the posts in this thread, I think that the "class war" started when one poster equated those who frequent chains as Kia's while IR-diners were likened to Mercedes. That's a pretty narrow outlook, IMO. Personally, I think we're very lucky to live in a city with so many wonderful dining options, chain and IR alike. It amazes me that rather than celebrate that fact, so much energy is spent determining which group has the moral high ground.

Very well said.

There is a lot of pain and immorality in this world, eating at a chain is not part of that problem IMO. A restaurant is a restaurant....and so on.

It is a good point that local restaurants tend to use local accountants and other services. It may be worth pointing out that a couple of chains, specifically Yum! Brands and Texas Roadhouse are headquartered here in Louisville. They choose to let our city benefit from restaurants nationwide. (Possibly worldwide, but I can't speak knowledgeably about where the KFC's in China send their paperwork.)

I think that as long as a good balance of chains and independents exist in our dining scene, we all win.

As far as the Kia vs. Mercedes comparison: I'm pretty sure Hyundai is now producing high quality cars, loaded with options, that may rival the lower end Mercedes. In an economic downturn, some consumers may buy the car loaded with features as opposed to the shell of a "luxury" car with a nice hood ornament and expensive service.

It's all competition to me, some are just more formidable competitors.

If Mercedes ever does a Buy 1 Get 1 sale, Kevin will never hear the end of it. It won't happen, but would be funny.

I give up. Do people actually read the posts before replying? I was not saying that people who eat at chains are kias, I was just trying to come up with an example of a general product that has numerous markets where the decisions of one firm in one market does not greatly effect the viability of firms in a different market. Apparently, that example missed the mark.

I eat at chains and local restaurants, which I mentioned repeatedly, so I guess I am calling myself a classless Kia driver.

My bad, Kevin. I guess I misunderstood the analogy you made:

I really do not think our fine local restaurants are too worried about the chains. They are shooting for two different markets. It's like saying Mercedes or Lexus should be worried about the improvement in the quality of Kias.