>

Name a successful business that built their original location themselves and didn't take over space from a failed business.
History is littered with failed startups that overpaid for offices in prestigious locations. >

Capcom is over 40 years old I would not call that a fail and it’s still standing. >

Sure, but I can name a dozen companies that failed despite their fancy offices. 
Offices don’t tell you about financial success >

Not necessarily. For example, you might have a very successful import business. All you need is a large warehouse in the crappy industrial part of town to store your goods, and maybe a small nondescript rented office. 
There are plenty of industries that don't rely on customer-facing prestige, and just have small, utilitarian office space but still earn a lot of money. >

How does that apply to any of the business I have listed. >

Your CMV is "You can measure the success of a business by its location." You gave some examples of businesses, but didn't limit the scope of your argument to only those businesses. 
If you mean "You can measure the success of a very small subset of businesses by their location," you should have specified that. >

If people want to visit your business there going to judge the area that it’s in. For example there is a sports complex in an area that is not somewhere people would want to go to at night. >

This shows a very limited knowledge of the breadth and scope of successful businesses. 
A successful wholesaler will likely operate out of the cheapest warehouse space they can find, because that increases their already slim margins. A successful holding company may operate out of a nondescript office building. Etc. >

Walmart, one of the most successful companies in the world, is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. 
Bioware, the gaming company behind Mass Effect, Anthem, and Dragon Age, is headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta. 
Nike, one of the largest apparel manufacturers in the world, is headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon. Adidas is headquartered in Herzogenaurach, Germany. 
There certainly are successful businesses that aggregate in specific areas - eg tech companies in silicone valley - but that doesn't mean that the location of a company reflects its success. >

I live in a tourist town with a downtown that would be considered high profile. Many of the businesses there are vanity projects that only exist to keep the store owners occupied.  They lose money and have virtually no customers outside of tourist season.  I know several of the store owners and they openly admit that a great year would end in them breaking even.
Left to their own devices these businesses wouldn't last a season despite being placed in the best location in my city. >


You can measure the success of a business by its location.

No you can't. There are plenty of businesses who are in debt up to their eyeballs and/or operating at a loss who have good locations.
Annual revenue is not the same as profit. Many, many companies operate at a loss. Why do you think businesses sell shares of their company to investors? Because they need someone else's money in order to succeed or grow their own business.
I agree that some businesses are very dependent on appropriate location. I mean, there's a reason there are three gas stations at every freeway exit rather than three gas stations eight miles down at the end of Bob's Road. But you still can't judge how much profit a business is generating based on just their location. >

There was a media production company in Va that was started by a former Power Rangers. He ended up closing the business because Va is not the state for film production. >

Was that the only reason? >

Idk >

Then what's your point? It could be a multitude of reasons >

From what I was told it was not doing well and they shut down the business. >

And how do you measure a location? >

The cost of living in that area, the quality of the shop and eating locations. >

Sounds like it's the other way around. That the success of the businesses determine the value of the location. >

A company's location can certainly impact its access to resources, talent, and customers, but it's not the only thing that matters. For example, a company can be successful in a smaller, less expensive city by having a strong online presence and reaching customers all over the world. >

ROIs tend level out given equal risk.
I don't have much time to explain atm but I'll leave it at that. >

My small hometown has many local businesses. They're all effectively in the same location in terms of cost of living, quality of shops, etc.. Some of those businesses are doing well, others won't exist a year from now. If you can measure the success of a business by its location, this wouldn't be the case.
Similarly, my former neighborhood in NYC has many businesses. They're all effectively in the same location / neighborhood. Some of those businesses are doing well, others won't exist a year from now. If you can measure the success of a business by its location, this wouldn't be the case.
You definitely cannot measure the success of a business by its location. Or you can, but it's a shitty measuring tool and you're going to be wrong a lot of the time. >

Is your view that you can always measure a business solely by it's location?
Or is your view that sometimes a businesses location can be an indirect indicator of a businesses succes? >


When it comes to the success of a business if they can keep a location in an area that is expensive to live in that shows you the business is making good money. 

How did you come to this conclusion? There are plenty of low income people that live in really expensive areas. Does this tell you they’re rich? There are plenty of homeless people that live in really expensive areas. Does this tell you they’re rich?
I think we also have to pinpoint when you said “can keep.” What is really telling you this the business is successful is their ability to manage money and actually sell their product.
If you have a business in an expensive area that is just not pushing product and not getting any revenue. Then why would this be an example of success to you? Why would the location even be relevant? In fact, them being in a very expensive area is pretty much telling you they’re bad at making business decisions when they can’t afford to be there.
In fact, there are some people that ridicule companies for moving too expensive areas and would tell them it makes more financial sense to move somewhere that is less expensive. We see giant multibillion dollar companies do this all the time when they build factories in low income areas where they can hire workers for extremely cheap wages. >

There are business that had to leave areas because the rent was too high and they couldn’t afford it. >

If the rent is too high for your business and you have to move that directly goes against your CMV.
You also didn’t really address any of my other points . >

From an article in the Wisconsin State Joirnal: Madison video game industry booming with major titles coming out of local studios
"But Raven is far from the only company in the area developing video games. PerBlue makes mobile games, including Disney Heroes; Filament Games designs educational games; PUBG, or PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, has a studio in Madison; and several independent studios are also developing and launching their own games"
Madison is not expensive as small to midsized coties go. >

“Blizzard entertainment is a good company.” This is such a laughably bad take. Blizzard is only a good company if you want to get sexually harassed >

Oh I forgot about that. They had to change the name of a character from Overwatch because of it. >


So if you want to be successful in the gamingin industry it’s worth the money to travel to California or New York.

Your thinking doesn't make logical sense. You recognize that a company which is doing well can afford to stay in an expensive location, but then leap from that to saying if a company wants to be successful they should move to an expensive location. That makes no sense.
It would be like observing that very wealthy people can afford expensive cars and mansions, so if you want to be wealthy you should buy expensive cars and mansions. You are confusing correlation with causation.

But if you want to sell it to a company you need to move.

This doesn't really make any sense. Software is something which is extremely portable and the location doesn't really matter for a decision about purchasing it. If Activision wants to buy a game IP they don't care at all if the company headquarters is in downtown LA or out in the country. Most likely they will use their own studios which are already where they want them, and moving software anywhere in the world is easy. >

The original location of L&L Hawaiian BBQ is in a really dumpy building in a dumpy neighborhood >

We use to have a 50 style restaurant in my area. They went out of business years later they put a Cracker Barrel in the area.