[toaster29]

Exactly. There might be fewer options in smaller markets, but that doesn't mean there are no other options at all. And given a choice, why would anyone pick the worst one?

If you are looking for brand names, there aren't many other options. For example if you are looking for Levis jeans, or Clinique makeup, and you live in North Bay, there aren't many other choices. I think my point is that a retailer can continue to be a profitable entity without operating stores in the 416. It may not ever be as profitable as Hudson's Bay, but there is no need to vilify a company because they don't appeal to people in the 416 bubble. They provide jobs to smaller communities, and a boost to the local retail economies.

 

[PinkLucy]

^^^ This is why I was an online shopper many years ago. And you certainly don't need to go to Sears for jeans, there's Jean Machine in the mall. When Northgate expanded, it offered a lot more options, just as the New Sudbury mall did, and people travelled from across the north to go there -- and they weren't going for Sears.

 

[ILuvTO]

If you are looking for brand names, there aren't many other options. For example if you are looking for Levis jeans, or Clinique makeup, and you live in North Bay, there aren't many other choices. I think my point is that a retailer can continue to be a profitable entity without operating stores in the 416. It may not ever be as profitable as Hudson's Bay, but there is no need to vilify a company because they don't appeal to people in the 416 bubble. They provide jobs to smaller communities, and a boost to the local retail economies.

Nobody is vilifying Sears. The reality is that they are not making money. However they decide to expand or shrink their store footprint won't help them if they are screwing up every other aspect of the company.

 

[Bruno Republic]

I think my point is that a retailer can continue to be a profitable entity without operating stores in the 416. It may not ever be as profitable as Hudson's Bay, but there is no need to vilify a company because they don't appeal to people in the 416 bubble. They provide jobs to smaller communities, and a boost to the local retail economies.

My point is not to vilify Sears at all. Sears isn't failing (just) because it has lost direction, it's failing because it is being deliberately dismembered, with the parts sold off to the highest bidder. That's what happens when you treat a major retailer like a hedge fund. I think it's nothing less than criminal.

The explanation that Sears is simply realigning itself to better serve smaller markets is complete nonsense. Lampert has made it very clear through his actions that he his only plan is to drain every possible cent from the company and dump the carcass. There is no long-term plan for Sears; the only reason there are any remaining stores is they haven't been able to sell them.

Of course it could still be a viable business for smaller markets, and probably larger ones, too. The point is, it's not being run like one.

 

[Skeezix]

there is no need to vilify a company because they don't appeal to people in the 416 bubble

Could you please point us to the posts in this thread where someone has done so.

 

[GKW]

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems pretty clear that most people here are just just waiting for Sears to go under and hoping some other big brand or development takes over the leases...

 

[Skeezix]

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems pretty clear that most people here are just just waiting for Sears to go under and hoping some other big brand or development takes over the leases...

Where did anyone say that? I don't think anyone has expressed any happiness over this situation (quite the opposite) and given all the empty space left by Target I am not sure there is any expectation of some of other banner taking all of these spaces.

 

[donoreo]

Oh please, they've got nothing on H&M in that category.

Oh hell no. H&M's kids clothes suck in quality (most shrink like crazy), we have purchased them before but have stopped now unless it is a last choice. I have never found their selection to be very good. As I said, Sears is not the best price ever but they have a good selection and certainly better quality than H&M.

 

[Towered]

Oh hell no. H&M's kids clothes suck in quality (most shrink like crazy), we have purchased them before but have stopped now unless it is a last choice. I have never found their selection to be very good. As I said, Sears is not the best price ever but they have a good selection and certainly better quality than H&M.

I disagree. Haven't had a problem. Much funkier, cooler designs too.

 

[lead82]

H&M has much better clothes for kids. They are cheap and chic with funky designs. Sure they don't last years but they are kids clothes. Kids grow out of them after a few months.

Sears is a walking zombie just like Zellers was before it closed. The state of the economy means that the middle class is split into upper middle and a larger lower middle class. The lower middle class doesn't spend much on clothes and goes to places where it's cheapest like H&M or Walmart. The upper middle class goes to more upscale brands like Banana, even Hudsons Bay has better stuff. Sears occupied the middle blue collar market. That is aging and getting smaller each year. Hudsons Bay made a smart move to go upscale.

Sears will close up shop in major markets and may survive in smaller towns but even there the disposable income is shrinking as small towns shrink in population and leave most retirees and seniors. The youth leave for the big city and spend their disposable income there. The seniors and retirees don't need much clothes so I don't Sears will survive long.

With the Internet and more online shopping, a big department store has lost its core demographic.

 

[bcx]

Where did anyone say that? I don't think anyone has expressed any happiness over this situation (quite the opposite) and given all the empty space left by Target I am not sure there is any expectation of some of other banner taking all of these spaces.

Well, GKW didn't say we're hoping for Sears to die. I can agree that we are probably all expecting Sears to go under and hoping (for the sake of the Canadian economy) that something does take over those stores.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, GKW didn't say we're hoping for Sears to die. I can agree that we are probably all expecting Sears to go under and hoping (for the sake of the Canadian economy) that something does take over those stores.

The stores that are worth taking over had already been/are already in the process of being taken over. As to hoping for it to die - only in an assisted death kind of way.

AoD

 

[Bruno Republic]

The latest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...es-assigning-leases-to-leons/article28855057/

 

[Skeezix]

Sears Canada earnings improve, helped by credit card portfolio sale
Toronto Star, 18 March 2016

This doesn't seem like good news. They jumped into the black by virtue of a one-time payment under their credit card agreement. And they are bragging about annualized savings at a chain that has already done extensive cost-cutting and is already way behind in investing in its stores and logistics. Revenue is down 8.7% and same-store sales are down 1.6%, numbers that were already frighteningly low. The ship is still sinking, but they seem to believe they have bought themselves more time to rearrange the deck chairs.

 

[bcx]

What a horrible article/headline from the Star. Earnings didn't get "helped" by the CC portfolio sale, it was the ONLY reason they were in the black.

Anyhow, Sears Canada appears to be on track towards the goal that everyone knows they're on but they just won't admit to.