Forgotten Stars

After timber, fishing, the Klondike Gold Rush and airplanes, the Next Big Thing for Seattle’s economy was supposed to be computer software. What we got out of that was Microsoft and a nice little community of tech companies.

Next came biotechnology, and we’re still waiting to see what we get out of that. That was followed by the dot-com boom, and what we got were lessons in how to evaporate millions of dollars in market value.

These days, we’re sure the Next Big Thing is the green economy, even if we’re not quite sure what it is.

Lost amidst this flailing about in attempting to create our next sure-thing, can’t-miss, unlimited-potential industry is the fact that the Seattle area has created a business sector that has generated jobs, economic activity and an impressive list of nationally and even internationally significant companies.

That sector: retailing.

Consider for the moment some of the retailing companies that have made national reputations for themselves while based here: Costco, Nordstrom, Starbucks, Amazon.com, REI, Blue Nile, Sur la Table, Drugstore.com and Zumiez.

That’s quite a roster for an out-of-the-way corner of the map to claim.

All that, without benefit of consortiums, task forces, alliances, institutes, governor’s subcabinets, legislative panels or tax incentives dedicated to preserving the cluster’s presence.

While many industries have their trade associations and lobbying concerns, the retailing sector has largely been left to fend for itself. How much do you really need to do to encourage retailing anyway? Doesn’t everyone shop?

Indeed, they do, but there’s nothing that says they have to shop at stores based in your city.

Having locally-based retailers of national significance pumps wealth into the regional economy just as having airplane manufacturers and software producers does. Retailing is often dismissed as a low-wage industry; at the checkout stand, the jobs might not be as remunerative as those on a jet assembly line or in code writing.

But someone has to run those retailing companies-the accountants, lawyers, marketers, merchandisers, buyers, real-estate prospectors, technology system administrators, planners and other people who carry out the hundreds of other functions and responsibilities that go with a retailing headquarters. Those jobs deliver good incomes. Then there’s the wealth put in the pockets-and returned to the economy-of early investors in those retailers that became successful and were sold or went public.

Having that core of retailers matters beyond just the jobs and sales they generate this quarter. Those companies are successful because they were good at figuring out what consumers wanted and how they wanted to buy it before the consumers themselves, and competitors, figured it out. Those are the companies most likely to shape the future of the industry and to spot trends that matter; they’re the ones best positioned to capitalize on these opportunities, either themselves or through spinoffs or executives who leave to try new ventures.

Seattle didn’t get to be a center for major retailing by design. It’s not a population or marketing center of a size to give those companies a head start.

What it has had are executives and entrepreneurs who were good at retailing, who had the gift of knowing how to sell what to whom and the drive to translate that talent into practical application.

So how do we capitalize on that?

There’s always a temptation to meddle with a good thing. We don’t like leaving the explanation to happenstance and historical accident.

What will best serve retailing is what should be done for most industries: create the conditions in which entrepreneurs and companies can succeed, then get out of their way to see if they can. Benign neglect doesn’t make for a catchy economic-development strategy. At least for making Seattle a retailing center, however, it’s worked pretty well so far.