What happened, eh? (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Target+Corp+exit+Canada+after+racking+billions+losses/10731682/story.html)
Sales were not on target.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/target
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/target
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/target
Replacing "target" with a synonym:
Aim to close all Canadian stores
Goal to close all Canadian stores
Plan to close all Canadian stores
Why are you trying to close all Canadian stores? And how are you going to do so?
As some other press coverage pointed out (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/01/15/target_closing_in_canada_these_pictures_show_why_it_failed.html), Target made its first gruesome mistake by using the stores of the old Zeller's chain to enter the Canadian market. Zeller's was dying in large part because of its dumpy stores, and locations not exactly positioned to draw the kinds of customers Target seeks in the U.S.
I've been to a few Zeller's stores while that chain was still alive. They were thoroughly unappealing, as in a few notches below K-Marts. What could Target have been thinking?
American companies often seem to have trouble succeeding in Canada. Usually the critical flaw is they think that Canada is just like the US and they can run their business there the same as they do here with similar results. When the business model which succeeds in the US fails to attract customers in Canada, they are often left mystified as to why.
In Target's case the fact that they fired all of Zeller's unionized employees and then hired their own non-unionized employees for lower wages is a great example of this, as the article points out. Americans tend not to notice or care if a company does something like this because all we care is that the store sells all the crap we want under one roof for the lowest possible price - a philosophy which is driven by a lot of Americans not being able to really afford any other attitude. Canadians, meanwhile, have a higher minimum wage and more government services, so poor families are not under as much of a crunch as they are in the US. Ergo, in order to be successful as a retailer you have to do more than just offer the cheapest crap around because Canadians can and will pay more for a better experience and less abrasive business practices.
I never shopped there. I didn't find their products appealing to me. I'd rather go to Wal-Mart. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that much. Their shelves were bare, prices and selection weren't as expected, and perhaps service was unsatisfactory. I guess many Canadians just were fed up.
One thing I've noticed about US-based stores is that they are very dull inside as compared to ones in other countries. That wasn't always true, but it's been like that since about 2003. The US overall has been on a dull kick since the iPhone came out a few years later. People talk about the Wal-Marting of America, but Wal-Marts have only gotten flashier in recent years. They were a lot worse in say, 2000.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 15, 2015, 11:39:05 PM
I never shopped there. I didn't find their products appealing to me. I'd rather go to Wal-Mart.
That right there sounds like the problem. In the U.S., your third sentence could never logically follow the first two. One may not care much for Target, but the idea the Wal-Mart could be any better is laughable on this side of the border.
Then again, I can actually see that side of it: I live in the Bronx, and the Target in my area (which is technically in Manhattan, but that's another thread) is usually as much of a disaster as the typical Wal-Mart is nationwide; meanwhile, I've been to Wal-Marts across the country that are downright Fifth Avenue-quality by NYC standards.
WalMart's changed in the past few years in part because they saw what Target was doing and it was working better, so they've been trying to emulate it.
As a side note, the closest Target to me is one of these Canadian stores, though I've never gone there. I happen to be in the ONE state in the country that doesn't have a Target.
Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
WalMart's changed in the past few years in part because they saw what Target was doing and it was working better, so they've been trying to emulate it.
As a side note, the closest Target to me is one of these Canadian stores, though I've never gone there. I happen to be in the ONE state in the country that doesn't have a Target.
Wal-marts are just not as well maintained, in my experience. Broader selection, but stores and products aren't aiming for "pretty" like Target. This is how Target can do well selling limited selection and not necessarily the best price–it just
feels better than a Wal-mart or a Kmart.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 16, 2015, 11:29:25 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 16, 2015, 08:59:47 AM
WalMart's changed in the past few years in part because they saw what Target was doing and it was working better, so they've been trying to emulate it.
As a side note, the closest Target to me is one of these Canadian stores, though I've never gone there. I happen to be in the ONE state in the country that doesn't have a Target.
Wal-marts are just not as well maintained, in my experience. Broader selection, but stores and products aren't aiming for "pretty" like Target. This is how Target can do well selling limited selection and not necessarily the best price–it just feels better than a Wal-mart or a Kmart.
I've been in a few well-maintained Walmarts (granted, they're few and far between), but across the board, the stores just feel cheaper. Case-in-point, our local Walmart built a new store right behind their old one a year ago. (Kudos to Walmart for keeping everything on the same site instead of encouraging further sprawl.) The old store had finished walls (plaster/drywall) and ceiling tile. Their new store just has the exterior brick (albeit painted) and
no ceiling tile. I have yet to be in a Target that doesn't have ceiling tile, and boy does it make for a better shopping experience (screaming kids' noise doesn't travel across the store like it does in a newer Walmart).
One of the things I don't like about Target, aside from higher prices, is that
everything is red. At least Walmart varies things in their grocery section.
Sounds just like Wal Mart and Target in Illinois -yes big surprise- I have noticed Walmart has grocery on one side and drugs/pet /car on the other and all the Chinese junk in the middle where I mostly see people crossing from side to side. I have noticed their traffic has dropped I seldom go there. I use the internet for most durable goods
Given that Target's corporate headquarters is in Minneapolis, you'd think that they'd do much better across the border. Then again, we said the same thing about Detroit's Big Three automakers, and look how that experiment turned out.
I think Target missed the mark in a number of areas.
Most notably, as was mentioned above, was that Target bought second rate real estate. When Wal-mart came to Canada it bought old real-estate as well, but quickly moved on to buying better parcels. I think this may be attributed to Target overestimating its brand value in the Canadian market.
Target also may have underestimated the level of competition in the Canadian marketplace as well. While Wal-mart is the largest retailer of general merchandise in Canada, there are other players including both Canadian Tire and Loblaw Companies which both have an established customer base and good real-estate holdings.
It's amazing that a company with both the size and weight of Target could miss the boat so grossly with such a big launch into Canada.
Although the OP's article doesn't mention such and since Target was relatively new to the Canadian market; one has to wonder if the credit/debit card security data breach that occurred 2 Christmas' ago (were Targets in Canada also impacted by such?) contributed to their downfall in Canada?
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 16, 2015, 12:12:08 PM
When Wal-mart came to Canada it bought old real-estate as well, but quickly moved on to buying better parcels.
Did Wal-Mart also replace unionized workforces at the stores it acquired, like Target did? (Not that keeping unions would necessarily have been a bad thing, but it is so deeply against Wal-Mart's SOP.)
^ I don't think Wal-mart kept any of the old Woolco store's employees when they purchased their real-estate in the 1990s.
Employees of a Wal-mart store in Quebec successfully unionized in 2004. During the collective bargaining that ensued, Wal-mart promptly shut the store down. Since the store was shuttered, there has been a decade of court battles between Wal-mart and Union that represented the workers resulting in various outcomes.
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2015, 12:03:35 PM
Given that Target's corporate headquarters is in Minneapolis, you'd think that they'd do much better across the border. Then again, we said the same thing about Detroit's Big Three automakers, and look how that experiment turned out.
Like how Ford, Chrysler, and GM all do very well in Canada, and Chrysler sells far more in Canada (as a percentage of the market) than in the US? It's a very bad comparison, Henry. The Big Three have been in Canada since the 1920s (or earlier) and do very well there.
Another one of Target Canada's many problems was the dysfunctional supply chain. They tried to set up a full supply chain from scratch to fill the shelves in over a hundred stores nationwide, in a very large country. Several changes and adjustments were needed, and the broken machine was already too big to make quick changes to it. Result: Stores could never got their stock in time an in enough quantity, so the shelves were empty.
Also, you just can't offer the same products as Wal-Mart at a higher price and expect people to buy them.
There was no online store. You couldn't even look up a product on their Canadian website and see where it was in stock.
Other than that, I think they were nice stores with nice employees and there were no lines at the cash. It was practical for whatever products they actually had in stock. I heard their clothes were better than Wal-Mart's.
Quote from: Brandon on January 16, 2015, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2015, 12:03:35 PM
Given that Target's corporate headquarters is in Minneapolis, you'd think that they'd do much better across the border. Then again, we said the same thing about Detroit's Big Three automakers, and look how that experiment turned out.
Like how Ford, Chrysler, and GM all do very well in Canada, and Chrysler sells far more in Canada (as a percentage of the market) than in the US? It's a very bad comparison, Henry. The Big Three have been in Canada since the 1920s (or earlier) and do very well there.
Not to mention the fact that some of their vehicles are made in Canada.
Many of Target Canada's stores are within 2 hours of US locations. If you're in Hamilton, for example, and you're buying a lot of stuff at Target, you can head over to New York, do your shopping, and fill your gas tank for less than you'd spend at a Target in Canada. The Targets in Buffalo are full of Canadians from as far away as Toronto. Heck, I've even seen people from Barrie down here on weekends. Why spend the extra money in Canada if you can just go to US locations and spend a lot less?
I hate Target. And I'm from Minnesota originally.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 17, 2015, 10:09:26 PM
I hate Target. And I'm from Minnesota originally.
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Quote from: Brandon on January 16, 2015, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2015, 12:03:35 PM
Given that Target's corporate headquarters is in Minneapolis, you'd think that they'd do much better across the border. Then again, we said the same thing about Detroit's Big Three automakers, and look how that experiment turned out.
Like how Ford, Chrysler, and GM all do very well in Canada, and Chrysler sells far more in Canada (as a percentage of the market) than in the US? It's a very bad comparison, Henry. The Big Three have been in Canada since the 1920s (or earlier) and do very well there.
If they've been there for 95 years, they understand the market. Target only exists for a few years in Canada.
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 17, 2015, 10:09:26 PM
I hate Target. And I'm from Minnesota originally.
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Maybe the store or stores you visit. Maybe it's a regional issue. Wherever I've been in a Target, customer service has always been excellent.
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 17, 2015, 10:09:26 PM
I hate Target. And I'm from Minnesota originally.
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 17, 2015, 10:09:26 PM
I hate Target. And I'm from Minnesota originally.
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
I've rarely had a problem with Target, and Walmart tends to be dirty and unkempt in our area. Personally, I pass over both in favor of the nearest Meijer, especially for food items.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
One reason I prefer Wal-Marts over Targets is that in the U.S. the latter almost never have self-checkouts, while many of the larger and/or newer Wal-Marts do. (I don't recall seeing a self-checkout in a Canadian Wal-Mart, and I've never been to a Canadian Target.) So I don't have a lot of experience with their respective checkout cashiers.
But in their territories, Meijer and Fred Meyer are decent alternatives, and every Meijer I've shopped at has self-checkouts to help you make a quick getaway.
So Target fired 20,000 people only to hire around that many again just to lay them off a couple years later? Am I reading this stuff right? Nice job.
Quote from: 6a on January 18, 2015, 08:27:08 PM
So Target fired 20,000 people only to hire around that many again just to lay them off a couple years later? Am I reading this stuff right? Nice job.
It's not like floor work at Target requires much training- certainly cheaper to hire, then layoff, then re-hire and train new people for a week than to leave them on the payroll for months.
It's not very nice of them, but it's reasonable business.
Quote from: oscar on January 18, 2015, 06:33:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
One reason I prefer Wal-Marts over Targets is that in the U.S. the latter almost never have self-checkouts, while many of the larger and/or newer Wal-Marts do. (I don't recall seeing a self-checkout in a Canadian Wal-Mart, and I've never been to a Canadian Target.) So I don't have a lot of experience with their respective checkout cashiers.
But in their territories, Meijer and Fred Meyer are decent alternatives, and every Meijer I've shopped at has self-checkouts to help you make a quick getaway.
Targets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PMTargets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
Sounds like the old Bradlees to me.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 18, 2015, 06:33:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
One reason I prefer Wal-Marts over Targets is that in the U.S. the latter almost never have self-checkouts, while many of the larger and/or newer Wal-Marts do. (I don't recall seeing a self-checkout in a Canadian Wal-Mart, and I've never been to a Canadian Target.) So I don't have a lot of experience with their respective checkout cashiers.
But in their territories, Meijer and Fred Meyer are decent alternatives, and every Meijer I've shopped at has self-checkouts to help you make a quick getaway.
Targets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
Yeah. Most of the Targets around here have a smaller percentage of lanes open than the Walmart down the road.
I think a lot of poor people don't understand that you shouldn't discuss your personal problems in public or with people you just met. Doing so keeps them poor.
Quote from: GCrites80s on January 19, 2015, 12:53:31 PM
I think a lot of poor people don't understand that you shouldn't discuss your personal problems in public or with people you just met. Doing so keeps them poor.
Agreed. They should be like higher-class people and discuss other people's personal problems instead.
(WTF?)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 18, 2015, 06:33:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
One reason I prefer Wal-Marts over Targets is that in the U.S. the latter almost never have self-checkouts, while many of the larger and/or newer Wal-Marts do. (I don't recall seeing a self-checkout in a Canadian Wal-Mart, and I've never been to a Canadian Target.) So I don't have a lot of experience with their respective checkout cashiers.
But in their territories, Meijer and Fred Meyer are decent alternatives, and every Meijer I've shopped at has self-checkouts to help you make a quick getaway.
Targets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
Sometimes there's not enough people on hand to add extra cashiers. You're not going to schedule an extra person to work just in case you get a random spike in business at 2pm on a Tuesday. Even at $7.25 an hour, that's $58 for a whole shift of having someone there just in case it gets busy. Retail scheduling is done by looking at historical business data to find trends of when the consistently busy periods are and scheduling more people then.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 18, 2015, 06:33:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 10:13:18 PM
The problem with Target is that their customer service is horrible. It's sad that the Walmarts near me have better selection, customer service, and prices than all local Targets. I might see a long lines at both, but the Walmart line moves 3 times as fast because their people actually know how to work without talking amongst themselves about their personal lives.
Wal-Marts I've experienced have even worse throughput than Target, if that's possible. But it's the exasperation of the Wal-Mart checkers that really makes me miss Target.
One reason I prefer Wal-Marts over Targets is that in the U.S. the latter almost never have self-checkouts, while many of the larger and/or newer Wal-Marts do. (I don't recall seeing a self-checkout in a Canadian Wal-Mart, and I've never been to a Canadian Target.) So I don't have a lot of experience with their respective checkout cashiers.
But in their territories, Meijer and Fred Meyer are decent alternatives, and every Meijer I've shopped at has self-checkouts to help you make a quick getaway.
Targets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
The problem around here is that there are typically 4-5 employees milling about the checkout area chatting amongst each other and with the cashiers who can't talk and scan at the same time while there are 3 registers open with long lines. There might be a 10 minute line and the lazy employees and managers keep talking.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PMTargets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
Sometimes there's not enough people on hand to add extra cashiers. You're not going to schedule an extra person to work just in case you get a random spike in business at 2pm on a Tuesday. Even at $7.25 an hour, that's $58 for a whole shift of having someone there just in case it gets busy. Retail scheduling is done by looking at historical business data to find trends of when the consistently busy periods are and scheduling more people then.
This is how you understand it: too often, they take too damn long. And they do this with staff on the floor and mostly empty registers.
I have worked in a large retail environment–it's important to have the flexibility to adjust to demand. If the last thing your customer thinks of in your store is how unpleasant a wait they had, the customer is going to be glad to get away from your store. Being OK with that is adopting Kmart-level customer service priorities.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2015, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PMTargets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
Sometimes there's not enough people on hand to add extra cashiers. You're not going to schedule an extra person to work just in case you get a random spike in business at 2pm on a Tuesday. Even at $7.25 an hour, that's $58 for a whole shift of having someone there just in case it gets busy. Retail scheduling is done by looking at historical business data to find trends of when the consistently busy periods are and scheduling more people then.
This is how you understand it: too often, they take too damn long. And they do this with staff on the floor and mostly empty registers.
I have worked in a large retail environment–it's important to have the flexibility to adjust to demand. If the last thing your customer thinks of in your store is how unpleasant a wait they had, the customer is going to be glad to get away from your store. Being OK with that is adopting Kmart-level customer service priorities.
My father says something similar- and he was a higher-up in the retail business. He's always complaining about Target's crappy customer service with people standing around doing nothing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
Sometimes there's not enough people on hand to add extra cashiers. You're not going to schedule an extra person to work just in case you get a random spike in business at 2pm on a Tuesday. Even at $7.25 an hour, that's $58 for a whole shift of having someone there just in case it gets busy. Retail scheduling is done by looking at historical business data to find trends of when the consistently busy periods are and scheduling more people then.
That's why you cross-train employees. The large department store chain I used to work at cross-trained
every floor associate at how to run a register. If there were three or more people in line, a page was initiated to open at least one more register. When the lines go back to normal, you head back to your department. It isn't rocket science.
Do you need to have all 24 registers filled? Maybe one day a year, but there's also no excuse for ten-minute check-out lines every weekend. Even if you have an extra cashier on duty, they can fill their down time with other activities, as we had to, whether it was un-packaging merchandise, cleaning/straightening up nearby departments, etc. "Extra employees" are the result of poor management--not finding them a task to do--and there's
always something else that needs doing. Call them back up when the lines necessitate it.
I currently work at Target..so here's a little insight...
Concerning customer service.. Target makes a huge effort to bring up people from the sales floor when lines get too long. They actually rely on backups way too much, this results in not enough people on the sales floor. This means they won't let you stand in line too long; but you might have a hard time finding an employee on the sales floor when you need one cause they are all cashiering. There are often times when all sales floor employees are called up to cashier.
Part of that problem is understaffing, the other part is that cashiers often call in sick when they are not.
Concerning stocking...Target is way better than WalMart when it comes to replenishing stock. WalMart was recently out of 6v batteries for 3 weeks.
Target's grocery section sucks compared to WalMart's. They don't stock a good portion of items that I want or need. So, despite working at Target and getting a discount, I do my grocery shopping at WalMart. I am actually very surprised that so many people grocery shop at Target.
Target is way cleaner, neater, and more organized than WaMart. I once found a WalMart fitting room floor covered with giant dust bunnies that were rolling around like west Texas tumbleweeds.
At Target, women's shoe aisles do often get really messy. But that is because women are selfish and slovenly, and don't put anything back after trying it on. I personally always put shoes back neatly when I shop.
The parking lot and the cart areas are often messy because not enough cart attendants are staffed.
Concerning product quality...
WalMart's towels are shit. They fall apart within 6 months. Target's last way longer.
The Target I work at is incredibly busy..so much that working there sucks because of it. There are always people in your way. It's like NYC sometimes. Considering how well they do here, I really can't comprehend how they could fail so hard in Canada.
Target does strive to provide short check lines and good customer service, and to have neat and clean stores.
The problems that Target has are all due to understaffing...which is due to them being too cheap.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2015, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2015, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 11:10:48 PMTargets around here usually have more closed lanes than open. This seems to be less true on weekends, but the rest of the time it's kind of amazing to see the lines at three lanes open next to twelve closed. Aside from the periodic selection issues that are inherent to their business model, this is my top complaint about Target.
I'll never understand this line of complaint. Those 12 registers are for extreme, balls-to-the-wall peak madness periods, i.e. Black Friday. If you only had three registers in the store and you have a random day where you need 15 you're going to have to find room to set up 12 temporary registers, and lines will get worse while you send people out there to set them up. Having spare registers on hand means that if it gets too crazy it's easy enough that someone can be pulled from the floor to open up register 4 for a bit until it dies down.
During normal business times 15 cashiers are simply not justified. The majority of the time they would be staring off into space rather than ringing people up and they would be drawing more money than their presence would be bringing in. The equation is not "Are we making enough money that we can pay Philip to open register 6?", it's "Would having Philip at register 6 allow us to make more money than leaving it closed?" In most cases it's better to have people deal with a moderate wait (i.e. not one that is long enough to piss them off).
Sometimes there's not enough people on hand to add extra cashiers. You're not going to schedule an extra person to work just in case you get a random spike in business at 2pm on a Tuesday. Even at $7.25 an hour, that's $58 for a whole shift of having someone there just in case it gets busy. Retail scheduling is done by looking at historical business data to find trends of when the consistently busy periods are and scheduling more people then.
This is how you understand it: too often, they take too damn long.
If they have 5 open lanes, it doesn't matter if they have 12 or 15 or 97 or 0 closed lanes, your wait will take the same amount of time. So complaining about the number of closed lanes still makes no sense.
Quote from: Brian556 on January 20, 2015, 12:51:17 AM
Target does strive to provide short check lines and good customer service, and to have neat and clean stores.
The problems that Target has are all due to understaffing...which is due to them being too cheap.
You just contradicted yourself.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2015, 06:03:58 AM
If they have 5 open lanes, it doesn't matter if they have 12 or 15 or 97 or 0 closed lanes, your wait will take the same amount of time. So complaining about the number of closed lanes still makes no sense.
The complaint probably arises from the following thought most people probably have when waiting in line when there are a lot of closed lanes: "they have so many closed lanes, why don't they bring in more cashiers so I don't have to be in this ****ing line?".