Johnny Au
Senior Member
I must agree. However, that would require Target to have another large warehouse.They should actually build a website so people can buy online.
|
|
|
I must agree. However, that would require Target to have another large warehouse.They should actually build a website so people can buy online.
I must agree. However, that would require Target to have another large warehouse.
Then they didn't do their homework and don't understand how Canadians shop. There are a lot of large stores that half ass online shopping in Canada and I have no idea why.
Holt Renfrew should be launching ecommerce in Canada. It's a really difficult proposition.
What's interesting though is that unless you do offer ecommerce you can't utilize certain google advertising products, ie Product Listing Ads. Search has become a huge part of the shopping eco-system whether in-store or online. I would argue that this has been one of Target's big issues in Canada - if a consumer is searching google for Tide, for example, Well.ca, Wal-Mart, Staples all have PLA for their product. Target, is NOWHERE to be seen - because they can't. I know the Canada expansion cost them a bundle, but they shat the bed with digital IMO.
Target to open full size store in downtown Toronto at Harbour Plaza:
http://www.thestar.com/business/rea...da_to_open_downtown_anchor_store_in_2016.html
Target still is having stocking problemsNothing will change at Target until they lower their damn prices and bring better selection. If Walmart can do it, so can Target.
Target Canada's Near-Comical Blunders May Send It Packing: Analysts http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/08/target-leave-canada_n_5289626.html?utm_hp_ref=canada
Retailer Target may have to back out of Canada entirely if it doesn’t turn around its struggling operations soon, some analysts say.
According to estimates from Tiburon Research cited in the Wall Street Journal, Target is on track to lose $2 billion on its Canadian operations in the first two years of operations.
It already lost $941 million in its first year of operations, a genuinely poor outcome given the company had been predicting Canada would be profitable for it by the end of 2013.
“It is conceivable that they will close Canada,†Cowen and Co. retail analyst Faye Landes told the Globe and Mail. “I assume with a new CEO, everything will be on the table.â€
Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel resigned abruptly this week. Most observers attributed the move to the retailer’s disastrous security breach in January, which exposed the credit and debit information of millions of customers.
But many analysts pointed to Target’s problem-plagued entry into Canada as “one giant reason†for Steinhafel’s departure. Belus Capital’s Brian Sozzi warned in January that the chain’s emtpy-shelves problem in Canada could mean the chain risks becoming “extinct†in Canada.
As Forbes reports, Canadian customers’ complaints about empty shelves and a lack of selection stem from investment decisions, and those are made by the CEO.
Reports that Target may give up and leave the market are overblown. They have invested way too much money here to just pack up and leave. I bolded invested because that is the key word. Not all investments provide immediate returns. They will take years to find their groove, but are working hard to find it. Packing up and leaving would mean billions of dollars tossed in the garbage.
Many companies have tossed away billions to leave markets they don't forsee as profitable, or profitable enough. It actually happens a lot, like RIM recently abandoning the consumer market and writing off billions of dollars of inventory, and equipment. Or how about when Olive Garden abandoned Canada, even though they were makomg a small profit. Taking time to find a groove while losing billions a year with capital tied up in investments that are inevitably depreciating is not a situation many businesses would find tolerable. And this is ignoring that they they could be sold, just like HBC unloaded 2/3 of Zellers on to Target, or some leases could be bought out by another retailer.
Their investments to date in Canada are a sunk cost. They have no part in the evaluation of staying or leaving. They will look at future revenue vs. expenses and net exit revenues only.