Sears Canada (1952-2017)

[gabe]

And yet they still can't even help themselves which is quite sad. Target was 10 times better than Sears, and it was the media that accelerated its doom. I'd even go out and say that the physical layout of Target was a lot better compared to Wal-Mart's messy layout.

There's one obvious thing that can help Sears greatly and that's revamping their online portal. There's only 2 reasons why they havent done that yet: a) Eddie is sucking them dry at a rapid rate, or b) They're simply not interested

I loved Target for the reasons you stated. They were clean, layout made it easy to navigate, lots of staff. Sears is just a dump now.

I bought a toaster at Christmas from Sears, it didn't work, the only one they had left on shelf had a big dent in the metal plate. So i got my money back, and bought the same toaster from Canadian Tire. It worked perfectly.

 

[uto123]

There's one obvious thing that can help Sears greatly and that's revamping their online portal. There's only 2 reasons why they havent done that yet: a) Eddie is sucking them dry at a rapid rate, or b) They're simply not interested

They should make this their priority.
I can't even remember the last time I made a large purchase at Sears and a couple weeks ago, I was ready to make my first big purchase only to find out I can't checkout the items in my shopping cart.

 

[Skeezix]

Target was 10 times better than Sears, and it was the media that accelerated its doom.

That's simply not true.

One only has to read the recent cover story in Canadian Business, which focuses almost exclusively on the technological disasters that befell Target (it doesn't even get into the other numerous failures of their Canadian foray), to understand how the Canadian Target was a debacle long before they even opened a store. The media was not the problem whatsoever. They dug their own grave.

 

[PinkLucy]

Target may have been 10 times better than Sears (that's not a difficult thing to be), but it was 10 times worse than Target in the States -- people expected a product, and Target didn't deliver.

 

[Skeezix]

Target wasn't really "10 times better" than Sears. On a subjective basis, many people may have much preferred shopping at Target than Sears (as did I), once Target actually managed to get goods on its shelves. But I am not sure that Target Canada's sales per square foot were ever all that significantly better than the Sears figures. And Sears Canada has never, even at the worst of times, managed to lose over a billion dollars in one year. Sears is a disaster, no doubt, and is likely headed for bankruptcy, but it is somewhat ridiculous to say that one of this continent's most epic retail flame outs is somehow 10 times better than any other business. (Although it is open to anyone to say that they personally liked Target 10-times more than Sears - I certainly did.)

When I said earlier that Target's departure was the best thing to have ever happened to Sears, I wasn't speaking in terms of the loss of a competitor, as it doesn't appear that Target ever presented significant competition to anyone during its brief interlude in this country (although the fact that Target didn't turn out to be the giant-killer it was supposed to be certainly helped Sears to stay alive and keep stumbling along to present day). I was speaking more in terms of how many retail landlords are now scrambling to find tenants, and while in the past they might have been delighted to be rid of Sears, they will now be more inclined to make accommodations to this dinosaur. If Westcliff actually spent its own money to upgrade the Sears store at Carrefour Angrignon (Sears hasn't spent significant money upgrading its own stores in years), that's a pretty good sign that Sears has some leverage these days that it didn't use to have.

 

[PinkLucy]

Agreed, I was just using the 10 x based on the OP's post

 

[Skeezix]

And I believe that the OP was simply discussing his personal preference, which is fair. I simply wanted to go on a diatribe about Target and Sears.

 

[PinkLucy]

^^ which is also fair

 

[Bruno Republic]

...the Canadian Target was a debacle long before they even opened a store. The media was not the problem whatsoever. They dug their own grave.

Well, the media certainly didn't help. I remember they kept pointing out that people were disappointed that prices were not as cheap as the US stores. I don't know why anyone would expect them to be, when the cost of doing business here is higher all around. And Target was never about the cheapest prices, it was about style on a discount, and being so much nicer an environment to shop in than Walmart. But yes, the real disaster was how they were completely unreliable for inventory. This really disappointed me, because I've always thought Canadian retailers were lousy at inventory management, and American stores were so much better in this regard. I thought Target would come in and show people how it's done, but when it came to having what you went there for, they failed harder than Consumers Distributing! What so many retailers here seem to fail to grasp is that if a customer makes a trip to your store and you don't have what they came for, you are training them to shop somewhere else. All the marketing and advertising dollars are totally wasted if the only thing they find is disappointment. People quickly learned that they couldn't depend on Target for anything.

The article does go a long way as to explaining the specifics of how the disaster unfolded, but IMHO it all stems from trying to enter a new market as a major player. Every new business encounters all sorts of unforeseen problems, but starting out big meant that every such problem was a big problem. Businesses need to grow organically: if they'd started out with just a few stores in one area, they would have had more time to sort out all the issues, figure out what worked and what didn't, and then be ready to expand. By trying to be everywhere at once, they were losing so much money so fast there was no time to try and turn things around.

Anyway, getting back to the slow-motion train wreck that is Sears: How can they possibly recover when they've already sold off everything of value? I'm astonished they're still around at all.

 

[Skeezix]

Well, to be fair, it's not the media's job to make it better. The media simply reported facts. Blaming the media for reflecting what was actually happening in Target stores, and which was already all over social media, doesn't make any sense. The media didn't make it any worse - it was a terrible situation of Targets own making.

Walmart doesn't have the same prices as its U.S. stores, but it manages the issue better and gives its shoppers the impression that it is always working at keeping its prices as low as possible. And when the dollar was at par, or close to it, Walmart reportedly was quite focused on keeping the differential between Cdn and US prices at levels where shoppers would for the most part not balk (that, at least, is according to the coverage I've read - I can't say it with absolute certainty as I don't shop there). Target, in contrast, promised the same experience as in the U.S., but failed to deliver on a number of fronts, and its pricing was significantly out-of-whack with what shoppers saw in their U.S. stores. From what we now know, the Target Canada team was in crisis management mode almost from the beginning, and pricing strategy was not surprisingly neglected for much of the first year (it doesn't help that Target waited a year after the first store openings to start to do any meaningful analysis of the Canadian market). Target shoppers didn't just see prices that were different than the U.S., but that were significantly different. Some of this was bad luck - Walmart entered the Canadian market in a year when the average exchange rate was 73 cents. Target entered the Canadian market when the rate was more than 97 cents, when Canadian shoppers were already in a foul mood over US/Cdn price differentials at a number of chains. Walmart seemingly handled the issue quite effectively; Target not so much. It might not have been such an issue if Target had been managing everything else better.

Sears is still selling stuff off. Their objective, based on some articles posted here a few months ago, seems to be to try and stabilize the situation at stores in less competitive markets, and to try and better target their offerings at the people who are still shopping there. No mention of investment in stores, operations, etc.

 

[syn]

Poor Sears. They're just not on my radar anymore. I buy most of my clothes at the Bay Queen St. store, Marks Work, Eddie Bauer, or online at LandsEnd. I don't even know where the closest Sears store to me would be? Let me check, Fairview Mall or STC. I thought those closed too?

They still have a store at Fairview.

It's unfortunate Sears is struggling. They still have some good products at reasonable prices. Aside from a poor online shopping experience, if they'd invested more in their brand and the store experience I think they'd be a lot better off.

Every time I visit Sears it's like a step back in time to 1994.

 

[Amare]

That's simply not true.

One only has to read the recent cover story in Canadian Business, which focuses almost exclusively on the technological disasters that befell Target (it doesn't even get into the other numerous failures of their Canadian foray), to understand how the Canadian Target was a debacle long before they even opened a store. The media was not the problem whatsoever. They dug their own grave.

Dont get me wrong, I definitely wasn't saying that Target didnt have a vast amount of issues operationally within the company. It would be crazy to say that wasnt the case. What I was trying to get at was that consumers were gathering their "facts" about Target from the media and a significant number of those consumers never stepped foot into a Target Canada store in their lives. Here's a prime example of what I mean: when Target was in the early phases of liquidation they stated that things would be 10-30% off the original price depending on the item. There were many people who lined up outside Target's stores before opening expecting things to be at least 30% off because the media reported things would be up to 30% off. These same people used it as an excuse to blame Target further by saying that "this is yet another thing Target couldnt get right", but in reality the company never said that.

Another example was with the prices. Yes the prices were not on par with what people were expecting with their American counterpart (and that was frequently reported in the media). But if those people were actually price conscious they would have realized that the prices on many items were very similar with Wal-Mart's pricing (and even lower in some cases). I was astonished at the amount of people who passed up on low priced items at Target because that same item was on "sale" at another store for 20% off but it was still more expensive then what Target was selling it for.

Target definitely dug their own grave don't get me wrong (they expanded too quickly, chose poor locations for many stores, inventory issues, lack of an online presense, etc..) but consumers were misinformed. And as you guys stated, my preference was definitely with Target over Sears and Wal-Mart. I didnt really find inventory issues with my local store.

Now onto Sears. If people misconstrued information about Sears in the same way as they did with Target, i'm sure things would be much much worse then they are now. For example, if the media reported that prices were significantly higher with Sears Canada stores compared to the American counterpart people would start using that as an excuse not to shop at Sears. The media usually likes to leave out some important facts in order to get the story across (ie: in this case the very low Canadian Dollar). People who arent even somewhat business savvy would say that it is another example of American corporations short changing Canadians. My point is that, while it is true that Sears has been digging it's own grave, people like to misconstrue information and use that as an excuse not to shop somewhere because they think the issues are much bigger then they are.

 

[Skeezix]

What I was trying to get at was that consumers were gathering their "facts" about Target from the media and a significant number of those consumers never stepped foot into a Target Canada store in their lives.

I don't know why you put the word "facts" in quotes. If Target did a lousy job, and the media reported on it, and it dissuaded people from going to Target, then that's Target's fault, not the media's doing.

The media was not the problem. Nor was social media, which is where most of the problems first came to light. And none of it was untrue.

Here's a prime example of what I mean: when Target was in the early phases of liquidation they stated that things would be 10-30% off the original price depending on the item. There were many people who lined up outside Target's stores before opening expecting things to be at least 30% off because the media reported things would be up to 30% off. These same people used it as an excuse to blame Target further by saying that "this is yet another thing Target couldnt get right", but in reality the company never said that.

First of all, by then it was the liquidator, not Target, and unclear how the media somehow helped lead to Target's downfall or created false impressions when Target had already gone into creditor protection. Second, I don't have any recollection of the media making promises about better sales than there would be. Quite the opposite. The media was quite clear that the liquidation sale wouldn't start right away and that the initial sales would be 5% to 30% off. I just double checked many of the news stories from early 2015, and it was all quite clear - I can provide links if you want. In fact, we all saw stories about people who didn't pay the media any heed and headed to Target for big bargains before the liquidation sales began - that has nothing to do with the media, but rather a general misunderstanding among many members of the public about how liquidation sales work.

And people were quite justified to bitch about the lackluster liquidation sales. It was the liquidator's strategy, not Target's, but it was all part of the overall miserable Target experience.

But if those people were actually price conscious they would have realized that the prices on many items were very similar with Wal-Mart's pricing (and even lower in some cases).

It took Target over a year to get its pricing competitive with Walmart. Target executives were quite open about that, and it was all part of their "we're now doing better" efforts.

I was astonished at the amount of people who passed up on low priced items at Target because that same item was on "sale" at another store for 20% off but it was still more expensive then what Target was selling it for.

I don't understand why you would have been astonished. Target created a terrible perception among many members of the general public. It is really difficult to recover from that.

but consumers were misinformed.

That's the thing - they weren't. Not in the least. Target f*cked up just about everything that could have possibly been f*cked up. By the time they started to get their act together, which also was widely reported, it was too late. The well was poisoned. Consumers weren't misinformed - they were well informed, and they'd accordingly largely moved on. And Target wasn't prepared to spend 6 more years (with 2021 being the year they predicted they could turn a profit) wooing them back.

If you think that there was information that was widely misreported, please share some links.

The media usually likes to leave out some important facts in order to get the story across (ie: in this case the very low Canadian Dollar).

The media is ignoring the low dollar? They talk about it endlessly, and the issue is front and centre in almost all media coverage of consumer and retail issues.

people like to misconstrue information and use that as an excuse not to shop somewhere because they think the issues are much bigger then they are.

Who "likes" to misconstrue information?

The sad fact is, neither the public nor the media knew how bad things actually were at Target. It was bad, but the problems later turned out to have been much bigger. The media was simply reporting on what was actually happening. People weren't under some false impression that things were worse than they were - if anything, people had no idea how bad things actually were.

I think I am done talking about Target in the Sears thread. If you would like to continue, I would be happy to do so in the Target thread. I will respond to any further posts that anyone makes over there. Cheers.

 

[Amare]

I think I am done talking about Target in the Sears thread. If you would like to continue, I would be happy to do so in the Target thread. I will respond to any further posts that anyone makes over there. Cheers.

I think it's safe to say we'll agree to disagree on the Target matter, different point of views are how discussions are made.

But in any case let's continue with Sears screwing themselves over (or Eddie screwing Sears Canada). It's really interchangeable at this point.

 

[Skeezix]

I think it's safe to say we'll agree to disagree on the Target matter, different point of views are how discussions are made.

Sure, although I am not sure we actually agree to disagree since it's not clear what was misreported and/or misconstrued, so I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with you. If you have concrete examples, I will keep an eye out for them in the Target thread.