The Buy Local Movement

The modern “Buy Local” movement – which explicitly encourages consumers to choose independent local businesses to strengthen their economies – can trace its roots to the late 1990s. Boulder, Colorado in 1998–1999 is often cited as the birthplace of the movement, when a group of business owners and activists led by Jeff Milchen formed the nation’s first Independent Business Alliance (IBA)amiba.netamiba.net. This Boulder Independent Business Alliance pioneered the idea of organizing local businesses and community members to promote the benefits of shopping local. Their successes (public awareness campaigns, local loyalty programs, etc.) became a template that soon spread to other communities.

By 2001, Milchen and others co-founded the American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA) to help replicate the model across the countryamiba.net. Parallel to this, in 2003 a network called BALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) was formed, with a broader focus on local sustainable economies. Throughout the 2000s, these organizations and others (like the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s New Rules Project, and local “Keep It Local” campaigns) led to a proliferation of local business alliances. By the mid-2000s, numerous cities had launched “buy local” or “local first” initiatives – from Austin’s famous “Keep Austin Weird” slogan (adopted by the Austin Independent Business Alliance) to “Local First” in Grand Rapids, “Sustainable Connections” in Bellingham, “Think Boise First” in Idaho’s own capital, and many more. BALLE grew to support 80+ local-first business networks across the U.S. and Canada in its early yearsweall.orgweall.org, showing how rapidly the movement caught on. These alliances engaged in public education about local multipliers, created directories of local businesses, and often lobbied for policies favoring local enterprises (such as procurement preferences or formula business restrictions).

One landmark moment was in 2008, when the recession hit – communities with strong buy-local campaigns saw smaller declines in local business revenue than those without, as reported anecdotally. This gave the movement more credibility and urgency. Another was in the early 2010s with the rise of “Small Business Saturday” (championed by American Express, interestingly) which brought national attention to supporting small retailers after Thanksgiving. By the 2010s, the localism movement had matured: groups like AMIBA and BALLE provided toolkits for cities to run effective buy-local campaigns, and many local governments and chambers of commerce had integrated “shop local” into their economic development messaging.

However, the landscape was also shifting. E-commerce was on the rise. In 1999, e-commerce accounted for barely 0.6% of U.S. retail sales; by 2010 it was about 4.5%; by 2025 it has reached roughly 16% of retail sales in the U.S.backlinko.comemarketer.com (and higher in certain categories). The “local vs. chain” narrative became more complicated when the competition wasn’t just a big box store down the road, but a global online marketplace delivering to customers’ doors.

Amazon played a central role in this shift. Founded as an online bookseller in the 1990s, Amazon by the mid-2010s had transformed into a retail behemoth capturing a significant share of many product categories. It also established a third-party seller marketplace, which allowed small businesses to reach wider markets but at a cost – Amazon set the rules and fees. For the Buy Local movement, Amazon presented a new kind of challenge: it often undercut local businesses on price and convenience (with fast shipping), all while remaining largely invisible (no local storefront, so the “empty Main Street” phenomenon became partly a result of digital migration). By 2019, over 60% of Americans started their online product searches on Amazon’s siteilsr.orgilsr.org, illustrating its gatekeeper power over the retail market.

DoorDash, Uber Eats, and other delivery apps similarly disrupted local service sectors, especially restaurants. These platforms exploded in popularity in the late 2010s, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 accelerated their adoption dramatically as dining shifted to delivery. For local restaurants and retailers, these apps were double-edged: they offered access to customers who demanded convenience, but they often came with high commissions and the loss of direct customer relationship.

To frame the historical arc: In 1999, the Buy Local movement’s adversaries were seen as big chain stores (like Walmart, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble) entering local markets and displacing independents. By 2025, while that dynamic still exists, the more significant extractive forces are digital platforms and “virtual chains.” The movement had to evolve to address these.

Let’s consider how Amazon and similar platforms changed the game:

• Value Extraction: Amazon introduced a model where it could extract a cut of almost every sale. As of 2022, Amazon was taking an average 34% commission on independent sellers’ revenues through various fees (referral fees, fulfillment fees, advertising fees)ilsr.org. This is up from about 19% in 2014ilsr.org, showing how the toll has grown. For small businesses that use Amazon as a sales channel, this is a huge loss of margin that would otherwise perhaps have stayed in the local economy. Essentially, Amazon has become a “monopoly tollbooth” between producers and consumersilsr.org. Local retailers who can’t compete with Amazon’s prices often go out of business, meaning all that local consumer spending shifts to Amazon’s platform – with much of it siphoned off to Amazon’s corporate coffers. A study by ILSR calculated that Amazon’s growth had led to a net loss of retail jobs nationally, as the jobs it created in warehouses were far fewer than the jobs eliminated at brick-and-mortar stores displaced by Amazonilsr.org. In Idaho, one can see this in the closure of some local shops or even chain stores due to e-commerce competition; the state gains some warehouse jobs (Amazon opened facilities in Idaho), but loses more retail and the ancillary community benefits those retailers provided.

• Data Appropriation and Competition: Amazon not only takes money out; it also has been known to appropriate data from independent sellers to compete against them. Investigations revealed that Amazon employees used aggregated sales data from third-party sellers on the platform to identify popular products, and then Amazon’s private-label division created copycat products to sell under Amazon’s own brandsbusinessinsider.combusinessinsider.com. Internal documents showed strategies to “siphon data” from sellers and even to rig search results to favor Amazon’s in-house productsbusinessinsider.combusinessinsider.com. This is a dramatic shift from the classic retail competition of the 1990s. Now a local business might find that after achieving success selling a novel product on Amazon, AmazonBasics or another Amazon brand introduces a very similar product at a lower price, using the intelligence gathered from the small business’s sales. This kind of behavior, which the EU has fined Amazon for and U.S. regulators have scrutinized, undermines innovation by independent firms – it’s a disincentive to create new products if a dominant platform can so easily clone and undercut them. It’s essentially the antithesis of the local supportive ecosystem: instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, the platform harvests the fruits of the independent seller’s work. From the Buy Local perspective, this is troubling because it means even if a local producer is selling nationally via Amazon, they may still struggle to retain the value of their work.

• Loss of Local Market Knowledge: Historically, local businesses survived by knowing their customers and community – that tacit knowledge helped them stock the right goods and provide personalized service. With algorithm-driven shopping on Amazon or via big-box analytics, some of that human element is lost. The platform might actually have more data about local consumers (through their online searches and purchases) than local independent merchants do, flipping the information advantage. This can erode the competitiveness of local firms in their own markets over time, unless they too adopt sophisticated data tools. However, many small businesses lack the resources for big data analysis. The result is a sort of knowledge extraction: consumer behavior data that used to reside in the community (in the heads of local shopkeepers and their loyalty programs) now resides in Seattle (Amazon’s HQ) or with other tech companies.

• Delivery and Convenience Culture: The rise of DoorDash, Uber Eats, Instacart, etc., has changed consumer expectations towards near-instant convenience. This can be a hurdle for local businesses that operate on thinner margins and can’t afford to offer “free delivery” or 15-minute delivery windows without third-party help. When local restaurants partner with these delivery apps, they often surrender 15–30% of the order revenue as a feeblog.menuviel.com. Given that restaurants typically operate on only 5% (or less) profit marginsbakertilly.com, a 20% commission can wipe out their profit on an order and then some. Essentially, to stay visible to convenience-oriented customers, they pay the platform and may have to increase prices to survive, which in turn can push some customers away – it’s a difficult bind. Furthermore, the platform holds the customer relationship (the orders come through DoorDash, and the customer might think of DoorDash, not the restaurant, as the provider). This erodes brand loyalty to the local business. If a customer has a bad delivery experience (cold food, etc.), they might blame the restaurant, even if the issue was with the delivery service.

• Direct Competition from Platforms: Delivery and e-commerce platforms have also begun directly competing with the very local businesses they started by serving. DoorDash, for instance, launched “DashMart” virtual convenience stores that stock common items and some local restaurant specialties for delivery, effectively acting as a retailer itselflocalogy.comtheverge.com. These are essentially DoorDash-owned corner stores (often dark warehouses) that could draw sales away from local groceries or pharmacies on the platform. Similarly, Uber Eats has experimented with ghost kitchens and virtual restaurant brands that it owns or partners in. Amazon, of course, competes with its third-party sellers by selling similar goods (and it competes with local brick stores by offering nearly everything). Even Instacart has introduced its own micro-fulfillment centers to compete with supermarkets. In sum, the platforms can leverage the dependency businesses have on them to eventually replace those businesses or squeeze them harder – a dynamic far more predatory than the old competition between two independent stores on Main Street.

Given these challenges, how has the Buy Local movement responded or evolved? In the last several years, there has been a growing recognition among localist advocates that local businesses need to embrace technology and new models to compete effectively, and communities need to build their own alternatives to extractive platforms. Some of the strategies and developments include:

• Local Online Marketplaces: Many local business alliances have developed community-based e-commerce platforms. These range from simple directories to full-fledged online marketplaces where customers can browse products from multiple local vendors, fill one shopping cart, and check out once. For example, during COVID-19, the City of Battle Creek, Michigan launched EatsBC, a local online ordering and delivery platform for restaurants, specifically to help local eateries avoid the high fees of national appsbattlecreekmi.govbattlecreekmi.gov. Restaurants could join for free (just a small payment processing fee) and get orders through a city-supported websitebattlecreekmi.govbattlecreekmi.gov. This kept more revenue in the community and gave restaurants a lifeline. In the same vein, some chambers of commerce have partnered with tech providers to create “Shop Local” web portals (e.g., "Shop Idaho" if one exists, or similar initiatives in other states) where local retailers can sell online collectively. While these local platforms might not match Amazon’s scale, they cater to residents who want the convenience of online shopping and the impact of buying local. A success story includes cities like Tulsa, OK or Boulder, CO launching local ecommerce sites promoted heavily by city government and downtown associations.

• Cooperative Delivery Services: To counteract the DoorDash/Uber Eats model, local delivery cooperatives have formed in some areas. These are services owned jointly by local restaurants or drivers that charge much lower commissions. Examples include the “LoCo” co-op network (in Las Vegas, Reno, and other cities) where restaurants banded together to hire their own delivery drivers and run a shared ordering app, keeping fees around 10–15%. Another example is in upstate New York, where a non-profit called Chow Ciao was created to provide delivery for local restaurants at minimal cost, with volunteer or low-paid dispatch. Even in big cities like New York, there has been talk of a publicly supported delivery platform to eliminate the need for private apps. These efforts are still nascent, but they represent a recognition that local communities can collectively provide the infrastructure that otherwise siphons money to Silicon Valley. In Idaho, one could envision, say, a “Boise Local Eats” delivery network that charges just enough to pay fair wages to drivers but not to enrich an external corporation.

• Policy Responses: Some municipalities have stepped in with regulations: caps on delivery commission fees (e.g., many U.S. cities imposed temporary 15% caps during COVID), ordinances requiring third-party delivery services to have agreements with restaurants before listing them (to stop the practice of platforms scraping restaurant menus and offering delivery without consent, which was happening), and antitrust scrutiny of Amazon at the federal level (ongoing as of 2025). While these are policy rather than grassroots responses, they intersect with the local business movement’s goals by attempting to level the playing field. For example, if Congress or the FTC succeeds in limiting Amazon’s ability to advantage its own products or if new laws force marketplace transparency, that could help local manufacturers and sellers compete more fairly on the platform.

• Emphasis on Experience and Community: Many brick-and-mortar local businesses have adapted by doubling down on what e-commerce can’t provide: in-person experiences, personal service, and community building. The Buy Local campaigns increasingly highlight that when you shop local, you’re buying an experience and a relationship, not just a product. Independent bookstores host author events and book clubs, hardware stores teach free DIY workshops, cafes provide live music – these experiences create loyalty that transcends price comparisons. This isn’t technology per se, but it is an innovation in how businesses operate in an Amazon age, focusing on their unique strengths. It has economic benefits as well: events and experiences draw foot traffic, which can increase overall local spending (including at neighboring businesses).

• Data and Marketing Collaboratives: Small businesses are learning to collaborate to achieve some economies of scale in marketing and data analysis. Local business alliances might collectively purchase a customer relationship management (CRM) tool or a shared loyalty program that tracks points across multiple local stores, yielding data on customer habits that individual businesses alone couldn’t easily gather. For instance, a downtown district might have a unified gift card or rewards app accepted at dozens of shops, which also provides analytics to the merchants. By sharing the costs and data, local businesses can start to approximate some of the targeted marketing that big chains do. Such initiatives have been supported by technology startups focusing on “Main Street CRM” solutions and by local governments offering grants for digital tools training.

• Renewed Public Awareness Campaigns: The core message of “buy local” has been updated in many places to account for e-commerce: campaigns now say “Look local first – whether shopping in person or online.” People are encouraged to visit local business websites, use local delivery options, or simply remember that their spending choices matter even if made via an app or the web. Educational efforts highlight the hidden costs of “free shipping” (e.g., local jobs lost, environmental impact of more delivery trucks, and the fact that those shipping costs are embedded elsewhere). Some campaigns cleverly frame it as “It’s not about spending more, it’s about spending here.” Others have targeted the convenience aspect: for example, promoting local businesses that offer curbside pickup or same-day delivery by a local courier, to show that you can get convenience without defaulting to Amazon.

The Buy Local movement today thus operates on two fronts: defensive and proactive. Defensively, it supports policies and awareness to mitigate the harms of extractive platforms – basically “stop the bleeding” of local dollars and data. Proactively, it encourages local innovation and cooperation to provide a competitive alternative (through local e-commerce, improved service, community engagement).

It’s important to note that the movement has largely remained non-partisan and focused on pragmatic economic arguments rather than anti-corporate ideology. Successful messaging avoids villainizing the consumer (for using Amazon or Walmart) and instead provides positive reasons to choose local (“strengthen your community”, “create local jobs”, etc.). In Idaho, where political leanings tend to favor free market and personal choice, the framing has often been about freedom and self-reliance – supporting local businesses means supporting your neighbors’ freedom to control their own livelihoods, and keeping Idaho’s economy self-reliant rather than dependent on outsiders. This avoids any appearance of protectionism or government overreach, instead appealing to community values.

Over the last two decades, the landscape shift has indeed been dramatic: from the rise of big-box retail in the 90s, to the dominance of e-commerce and app platforms in the 2020s. Yet, the essence of the Buy Local argument remains: local ownership and localized exchange yield better outcomes for the community. The movement’s durability shows that, even with all the technological change, people still care about place and are willing to act to preserve it.