I always enjoyed wandering through the Queen St Bay as well, pre-COVID. I did just pick up some great knives on a Bay Day sale.
|
|
|
Northern Light
Superstar
Bayer
Senior Member
My fond memories go further back, to Simpson's, when somehow men's clothing prices seemed to be actually related to quality. But after it became The Bay I regularly indulged in impulse shopping after a few glasses of wine in the Financial District.
Northern Light
Superstar
How many charges for S.U.I? Did you ring up?
Shopping while intoxicated is a serious offense!
Or at least your bills may suggest as much!
syn
Senior Member
Going further into the luxury market was a good move for Hudson's Bay in the early 2010s. Staying in the rapidly shrinking middle didn't make much sense.
With COVID hastening the department store decline, they really need to find the right balance.
With COVID hastening the department store decline, they really need to find the right balance.
Richard White
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
Well now, Hudson's Bay Company was nothing like it is today or was 20 years ago, 200 years ago, either.
Change is a constant.
HBC started out in the fur trade business, with general trading posts throughout the north and north-west regions of Canada.
They didn't start out as a department store.
Their first department store opened in Winnipeg, in 1881. So, 140 years ago. But that store would have born no resemblance to a 20th C department store.
The first of the 'original six' Hudson's Bay flagship stores was Calgary, which opened in 1913, the last was Winnipeg in 1926
Hudson's Bay Company also didn't operate department stores in eastern Canada until 1960 when they bought out the Morgan's chain.
Worth adding, along the way, HBC has been a mining company, an oil and gas company, and a real estate developer.
So while the current strategy may not be the right one; it's certainly not the first one, nor the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.
The only real question, will it be the last? (I hope not)
Johnny Au
Senior Member
No doubt about that.
There's a reason why shopaholic is a term. It's derived from a substance called shopahol. Alcohol is to dipsomania as shopahol is to oniomania. Frequent price reductions and advertising are a source of shopahol. Products known to contain large amounts of shopahol include clothing and electronics. I typed this post on a product rich in shopahol and you are reading this on a device filled with shopahol as well.
One major brand of shopahol is .
lenaitch
Senior Member
The missus came home today ranting about the Barrie HBC; single central checkout for entire store (single floor), about 15 people wanting in line while two "old ladies" (her words not mine - she's 65) fumbled with the technology. The one thing that drives her nuts is they organize their clothing floor space by supplier/fashion house. She was looking for jeans and had to run around looking at 'Jeans by x' then 'Jeans by y'. It struck me odd that jeans would be a designer item but I guess that's just me. I keep telling her that Mark's piles all their jeans in the same area but apparently I don't get it
Richard White
Senior Member
That's my beef with the Queen Street Store. I hate having to go from place to place to find things. If I need a shirt for example I want to go to the mens clothing section not the Polo by Ralph Lauren Booth, the Diesel Booth, the Tommy Hilfiger Booth, etc.
bcx
New Member
If you're going to sell to an upscale shopper with disposable income then you need to separate items by "mini stores" because the brand is important to that shopper. Of course, it doesn't work if your client base is still the value shoppers who just want to find one type of item with little concern for brand.
Northern Light
Superstar
I would split the difference on the above.
I think it makes sense to organize certain types of apparel together; the brands can still be clearly differentiated.
Mens underwear, socks and robes are all done this way.
You can see clear displays for Polo-Ralph Lauren Robes, and then HBC's house brand Black-Brown one rack over.
Underwear is typically divided into Jockey, Stanfield, Joe Boxer and CK.
Each has their own rack and clear signage, but they are all grouped in the same immediate area.
Socks similarly McGregor, Black-Brown, and 2 other brands.
***
I see no reason the majority of garments can't be organized that way.
It has always made sense to differentiate certain designers within women's apparel; and to a lesser degree within very high-end or unique brands for men.
I do think it is being overdone in many large stores.
It's often being done now on a concession basis (for the non-retail folk out there, the brand essentially runs its own store within a store, essentially renting selling space from the larger retailer).
I disagree with this business model when applied too widely.
I think it absolutely has its niche applications; but it doesn't serve the largest number of customers well; nor does it serve the interest of the general retailer well.
The retailer often loses control of customer service, consistent store look, sometimes refund policy may even be altered, staff often can't be shifted between concessions or regular store duties. (exact terms vary by concession)
I don't think that serves a brand well.
But that might be just me.
I think it makes sense to organize certain types of apparel together; the brands can still be clearly differentiated.
Mens underwear, socks and robes are all done this way.
You can see clear displays for Polo-Ralph Lauren Robes, and then HBC's house brand Black-Brown one rack over.
Underwear is typically divided into Jockey, Stanfield, Joe Boxer and CK.
Each has their own rack and clear signage, but they are all grouped in the same immediate area.
Socks similarly McGregor, Black-Brown, and 2 other brands.
***
I see no reason the majority of garments can't be organized that way.
It has always made sense to differentiate certain designers within women's apparel; and to a lesser degree within very high-end or unique brands for men.
I do think it is being overdone in many large stores.
It's often being done now on a concession basis (for the non-retail folk out there, the brand essentially runs its own store within a store, essentially renting selling space from the larger retailer).
I disagree with this business model when applied too widely.
I think it absolutely has its niche applications; but it doesn't serve the largest number of customers well; nor does it serve the interest of the general retailer well.
The retailer often loses control of customer service, consistent store look, sometimes refund policy may even be altered, staff often can't be shifted between concessions or regular store duties. (exact terms vary by concession)
I don't think that serves a brand well.
But that might be just me.
syn
Senior Member
Isn't that how things are organized now?
There do seem to be sections with "general" merchandise (shirts, ties, underwear, socks, etc.) along with the brand stores. This is just the Queen Street store on the 5th floor - perhaps it's not as well done in other locations.
mgl
Active Member
I disagree. I think the Bay Queen Street store is designed for those who like shopping not just for ‘upscale’ shoppers. I am not a value shopper but I hate spending an hour just to assess the selection of jackets or sweaters because they’re spread across the mini stores. I want to get in and out and the store design doesn’t allow that. Therefore, I don’t shop there now.