popular thinking

Not all chain stores are created equal in the eyes of the media. Example: Krispy Kreme. The doughnut chain can get tons of free publicity -- from live TV "news" broadcasts to radio and front-page newspaper coverage -- just by opening a new store. How does that work? It works because the media treats some chains as "good" and some as "evil." Newspaper, radio and TV reporters might not come out and say it so explicitly, but the coverage for some chains always skews positive, while other chains get the short end of the media stick. I'm reminded of this as the new movie, Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle, debuts this weekend. White Castle and In-n-Out Burger are regional fast-food chains that usually get glowing media reports, and expect to see positive stories about White Castle in the coming week.
New stores open every day in towns and cities across the United States. Every entrepreneur would love to have the media spotlight his and her new business. Yet time and time again, the media shines only for certain companies and certain chains. Why? Well, let's take a look at some of the chains that get the most publicity.
Examples of "good" chains: Krispy Kreme, IKEA, Nordstrom, Trader Joe's, Target, Apple, In-n-Out, White Castle, Ben & Jerry's.
Examples of "bad" chains: Wal-Mart, Starbucks, McDonald's.
What do the "good" chains have in common? The eateries all fufill basic cravings, but the other retailers and department stores on the list are decidedly upwardly mobile or target the young urban professional (yes, yuppie) demographic.
What about the so-called "bad" chains? The companies will tell you they're providing services to towns that want them, but the media usually portrays these chains as the big bad businesses that kill the mom-and-pops.
Only that claim doesn't hold up against the facts, or provide any distinction for the good chains.
How is Wal-Mart more of a threat to indepdenent general stores than Target, for instance?
What makes Nordstrom more newsworthy than other major department stores?
To be fair, the media didn't always glare at Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonald's. In the past, the very introduction of these chains would "put a town on the map," so to speak. And that made these chains good. It was only when these chains became dominant that they lost their media luster.
Aha!
So maybe that is it. The media likes scrappy underdogs (or at least things having the appearance of a scrappy underdog) that appeal to either their own basic cravings or their own upwardly mobile demographic.
That there is a formula that may explain how the media treats some (chains, athletes, politicians) as somehow better than all the rest. It certainly demonstrates the power of branding.
***
For more on branding, read this timely special report in Business Week.
Check out this recent story about chains in USA Today.