Big Box Stores or Main Street

In “Big Box stores are bad for main street”, Betsy Taylor highlights the negative social effects of superstores, or what she calls “Big Box stores”, on local communities in the United States. Although Taylor touches on issues such as reliability and customer service, her main focus in this short article is to convince the reader that “big box stores” suck the life out of local communities. Even though, Taylor’s criticism of superstores is creative and amusing, it is built on assumptions and generalizations that Taylor fails to justify. In this paper I will use personal preference and experience to argue against Taylor’s idea that “big box stores are bad for Main Street”.

Taylor’s biggest, and perhaps most faulty assumption, is that shopping should be associated with socializing. In this sense she blames superstores for not giving people the opportunity to socialize as they would if they were to shop at small local providers. This, she says, is bad for the community. I disagree with this point. From personal experience most of what goes on between shop keepers and their customers is business related. The customer is there to buy something, and the shop keeper is there to convince the customer to buy it. Personally, when I shop, I don’t like to be fallowed around by someone who is constantly looking over my shoulder. When shopping, I like to take my time, look around, and feel free to put the item back on the shelf. This makes shopping at superstores ideal for me. If I need help, I like to simply ask for it, and if I want to socialize I simply start a conversation with another customer who is there to buy and not to sell me something.

In addition to her socializing argument, Taylor makes a value assumption about efficiency Vs fun when it comes to shopping. She acknowledges that shopping at “Big box stores” is more efficient than shopping at small stores, and that this efficiency factor is what attracts the American ‘supper-consumer’. However, she ends her article by saying “But let’s face it--- bustling thriving city centers are fun. They breathe life into a community”. Here she assumes that shopping should not be about efficiency as much as it should be about entertainment and fun. This might be true, sometimes. However, it is only sensible to have the option of this efficient method of shopping, especially in a society such as the American society which is highly concerned with efficiency. It is important to point out that no one forces people to shop at superstores, and that they can always decide to bounce back and forth between small shops when they feel like they have some time to kill.

Furthermore, Taylor’s attempts to convince the reader that “Big box stores” are less responsive to their customers’ needs then small businesses are misleading. Taylor backs up this argument by rhetorically asking “ever try to complain about bad service or poor quality products to the president of Home Depot?” As if the president was the only person in charge of insuring customer satisfaction. The truth of the matter is that when it comes to these supper chain stores, each of the branches has its own administration that has its own branch manager. There is no need to take matters up with the president of Home Depot. Each Home Depot branch has a manger that is responsible for keeping his clienteles happy.

To conclude, Taylor’s approach on the negative social effects of “Big box stores” is intriguing. However, it is an approach that requires extensive and careful analysis. Her article is full of generalizations that weaken an, otherwise, thoughtful argument. Just because people have the option to go to Home Depot now does not mean that they will not shop in ‘Main Street’ anymore. It just means that they have a help yourself shopping option that is more practical and efficient then the ‘Main Street’ setting.