What we need is a Canadian version of Target - low (but not necessarily the lowest) prices and offerings that are curated to reflect Canadian tastes.
AoD
I do think a Zellers revival, which before it was jettisoned by Richard Baker was nearly a Target clone...........just smaller stores, and slightly higher prices.....is viable.
But, not in the corner of a Bay store basement.
Just like HBC's core brand, revival demands that you understand what made it work (Zellers wasn't super profitable, but did good gross volume and generally made some money, most years)........
Then you need competent management, design and execution., along with the right real estate.
***
The sucking sound made by the leeches in Private Equity draining otherwise viable businesses of all their resource and assets to one side......
Most business failures are, I would argue, the product of MBAs......
By which I mean, not that an MBA unto itself is bad education, but rather that people get tied up in the quarterly numbers instead of what drives most businesses, which is the feeling they evoke in people who patronize them.
Put another way, think like a customer, and then put the MBA hat on only for the detailed execution, not the vision.
Example:
Zellers: Traditionally, Zellers, like many 'five and dime' department stores featured lunch counters/diners.
These diners rarely turned much of a profit on a narrow operational basis...........and weren't intended to........like the IKEA cafeteria or the Costco hotdog, there was an understanding of cheap, cravable food as a sort of loss leader.
It wasn't really meant to lose money........but it was intended not to make very much.
The reason was straight forward.
1) It drove traffic. You're in the store, you may now buy something while you're there, even if it costs a bit more than elsewhere, because its convenient.
2) It drove brand recognition.......lots of men and women, stopping for mid-day lunch or breakfast on-the-go. Even if they didn't shop on a daily basis, they knew the store, where it was, its hours, and some of what it offered.
3) It drove positive feelings about the brand....... you or your kid liked the hot dog or the hamburger or the sunnyside up egg. Its a warm memory, and its driven by eating food you liked, and thinking it was a good value too!
When you see it that way.....the food offer doesn't really need to make a profit, because it helps create the profit in other departments. Its essentially a form of marketing.
****
'The Bay' used to do with its sit down restaurants in even the smaller stores; but also with year-round toy sections that kept bored kids (especially boys) busy while mom or dad shopped elsewhere in the store.
Bulk Candy sections (generally full serve), in the pre Bulk Barn days were very much in the same vein. Kids (and some adults) enamoured with chocolate or jujubes or whatever.....were more cooperative with a Saturday errand of buying new pants.
****
As the brands were managed by people increasingly in possession of MBAs and told every offering must justify its existence..........
Things like the above get cut. Its a 20m a year store, the restaurant actually loses $120,000 a year............why keep it? (see above)........ nix the bulk candy, we don't make money on that............uhh...
Good retailers get this stuff. Costco gets it. Trader Joe's gets it. Until not so long ago Nordstrom got it, as did Neiman Marcus.
But bought by equity holders that seek to keep a lid on costs and replicate formulas without thought.....the thing that made them successful is lost.
