You...just survive.

There was a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine on June 5, 2012 that I saved for a time when I was ready to tackle the subject.

CAN MOM-AND-POP SHOPS SURVIVE EXTREME GENTRIFICATION? By Adam Davidson.

The basic premise of the article is to ask how some small shops have survived in New York City. What secrets did they hold?

"As an economics geek, I ... wonder how in the world they survived. How have they innovated? How were they shrewd enough to overcome the rising rents and profit off a new, wealthy clientele?"

He comes to a surprising conclusion, but one that doesn't much surprise me. I'm one of those types of businesses....actually. They survive because they want to survive.

One owner says: He ..."didn’t have any savvy business secrets. When I asked how business had changed since the ’80s, Wong shrugged. “It’s about the same,” he said."

'What a minute!' says the writer. 'Your entire neighborhood has changed around you!'

Yes, the owner admits, much has changed:

"But demand has grown at just about the same rate as the rise in rent and the price of beans. And the Wongs have done little to innovate. McNulty’s had the same disheveled charm that it always did, from the beautiful Chinese tins that held tea leaves to the wall of rubber stamps they use to mark everything. It doesn’t sell coffee online. “We’re not way richer or poorer,” he insisted. “We’re about the same.” And this didn’t bother him. "

The writer goes on to another store, who says pretty much the same thing:

I asked Walker why the store still looks so threadbare. It made sense 20 years ago, but didn’t Imperial want to entice its richer customers? He waved me off. “You make it yuppie, nobody will want to come,” Walker said, improbably. “They like the old-fashioned way.”

The only thing surprising to me about this article is that the writer actually has the flexibility to change his mind:

"That’s when I realized that my hypothesis was precisely wrong. Perhaps these small business survivors weren’t the smartest or fittest. They were run by unusually risk-averse businesspeople who sold a product whose value just happened to grow in lock step with the neighborhood."

Yet another example of a survivor:

"He’s surviving, he said, because he’s not an especially ambitious businessman. Stewart’s sales have risen over the past few years, but he takes home less money than he used to. He pays three times as much in rent as he did on his first lease, in 1995. Food costs more, too. “If I just cared about the money,” he said, “I’d have closed a long time ago.” Instead, he’ll remain open “as long as the place is covering the costs.”

And finally, the writer's conclusion. See if you can pick out the 'word' I'm going to object to:

"I wondered why Bowman, like her fellow proprietors, was disavowing economic theory and not trying to maximize her profits.

"A vast majority"..."are what economists call lifestyle businesses. They are owned by people whose goal is to do what they like and to cover their nut. These surviving proprietors hadn’t merely been lucky. They loved their businesses so much that they found a way to hold on to them, even if it meant making bad business decisions. It’s a remarkable accomplishment in its own right."


The writer twice uses the questionable word "bad" business decisions on the part of these small businesses, because they choose not to "maximize" their profits. (Begging the question, how do they do that? The real decision is, either stay in business with modest goals, or get out...)

But, yes. I think the reason small businesses in downtown Bend survive, mostly, is the same. Modest goals. Tenaciousness on the part of the owner. "Loving their business so much that they find a way to hold onto them."

What I've noticed in downtown Bend is that it is the more down-to-earth models that seem to survive year after year. Owners who are actually living off their businesses, and make sensible decisions about how to survive. It isn't the fanciest, most overhead heavy businesses that make it. It's not the ones who make the biggest splash.

My inventory has changed as the years go by, but all that has really done is made it possible to make about the same level of sales I've always made, proportionally to my overhead. I'm making a bit more profit now, but mostly because of my experience.

I'm not sure about the "risk-adverse" premise: owning a business is pretty risky in itself. But being careful, not going overboard and slowly adapting is usually a better response than completely changing your business in unexpected directions. You just constantly adjust to "...the price of beans."

I also agree with the idea of not spending too much money to get fancy -- because I think people really do look for an authentic experience, and they can sense whether you are doing your business because you love it, or it's some kind of tax write-off.

I used to worry about the threadbare carpet, the 'yellowed' toys, but hey, they are a real-world consequence of my position in business. Yes, I try to keep up as best I can, and improve as much as the budget allows -- but it's a real response to a real problem. Not just throwing money at it.

So the trick to surviving in business in downtown Bend is to have modest goals, keep on doing what you're doing as best you can, and just survive.

I can't see that as "bad."