Trickle-back economics?

Let’s say there’s a movie you’ve been eager to see and you want to see it in the theater on the big screen. You pull out your phone and you google Movie XYZ near me. It shows 3 different showing times for your movie. One at 6:30, and two others at 8:15. The 8:15 works best for your schedule and both of the theaters showing at that time are a reasonable and similar distance away. Here’s the catch, one’s an AMC (a public company that you happen to own shares of) and the other is a private company. Both theaters in this situation are major chains so neither establishment has a niche or stands out in any way. The only real difference is that you’re personally invested in one of them. Is choosing the AMC theater over the other greedy? Does it even matter? I mean what’s the likelihood that those funds coming back full circle in any way? In theory I would say sure you’re supporting a brand you love. The hard earned cash you use to pay for the movie ticket will go to AMC which will pay its workers and buy more popcorn and movie rights and supplies for AMC. In theory these profits will help the company grow and outpace their competitors, thus increasing the share price. Which in returns, helps you afford more movie tickets.. In theory. But is that totally true? It defifenetly doesn’t make up for bad leadership, poor guidance by the board, or bad business practices. What’s the likelihood you’re contibution will matter, if at all. And especially in today’s age of rapid technology and change.. So does it matter? Probably not and your chances are probably pretty slim to ever see those funds again. But I would argue the chances those funds come trickling back to your wallet are greater, if you choose to buy that AMC ticket over the other chain.