To me it seems that malls aren't dying, there's just been a major shift in who shops at them. Malls that are in prime real estate that cater to wealthy shoppers are doing quite well. Just go to Tyson's Corner in Virginia, or Somerset Mall outside Detroit on any Saturday and you will see that the reports of brick-and-mortar's death are greatly exaggerated.
But with regard to stores like Sears, JCPenney, and Macy's, the problem is that whereas in the 1980's, just about everyone shopped at them for everything but groceries and would travel from long distances to do so, nowadays it's just people who live nearby and just a subset of them.
I think this notion that it's Amazon that's killing traditional retail has some truth but it's very much oversimplified. While Amazon is no doubt eating into the sales of stores in every industry, I don't think Amazon is killing JCPenney, for example. After all, how many people do you know who buy their jeans on Amazon?
I think what's killing clothing retailers is the prevalence of a large number of smaller, niche manufacturers. People no longer want to buy drab clothing off a rack, they want to buy from a particular brand. People either are price-sensitive shoppers who will go buy off the rack from TJ Maxx or Ross, or are at the other extreme and want expensive name brands and will buy direct from the source or a select set of online retailers that sell them. That leaves retailers like JCPenney and Macy's in kind of a no-man's land.
What you're writing makes a lot of sense to me as a non-American where car culture is much less strong. I think that the US currently is undergoing a shift towards less car usage, replacing some of it with delivery services, home offices, more central living and public transport. There are still strong forces that counter this movement in the US, namely the way overregulated metropolitan housing market (compared to Japan or even Europe) and the political difficulties and ballooned cost of public infrastructure, but nonetheless the shift is happening albeit slowly
What does this mean for malls? Just look abroad. We do have malls, just smaller ones that you drive 30min to at the maximum, after that the added value becomes too weak. Japan kinda shows the endgame, with malls fully integrated in many train stations, so you can go for some shopping with minimal loss of time. Amazon is extremely strong in Japan, with same-day delivery for prime members, yet this doesn't seem to affect the more upscale malls that you describe much. Specialised stores for electronics or clothing meanwhile compete mainly on service, in some areas also on price (Amazon does have quite a different cost structure that makes certain things quite a bit more expensive).
Tl;dr: The only constant thing is change - looking abroad helps to see possible versions of the future.
Or someone starts up a city-wide drone delivery service for brick & mortar retailers. It could also offer a huge safety improvement for herb & powder retailers.
The safety and regulation issues that would need to be overcome kind of ensures that this drone delivery service would only be started by Amazon or some other giant, probably also making it available to others.
But brick & mortar retailers would end up competing with the company who owns the delivery infrastructure... boy this would be candy crush for anti-trust lawyers...
I have shopped at Macy's, JCPenny, and Sears a handful of times in my life, including for myself and when I was there with other people. These stores carry higher quality, but much higher price merchandise and I just don't want it. It all seems stuffy, the sales are never really any good, and the brands can be had elsewhere for cheaper (timing is key here).
But the couple of malls near me seem to also have a number of more innovative brands. Clothing stores that sell at much cheaper prices (ethics be damned), like H&M, Old Navy, etc. do quite well with the millennials and younger crowd especially because they change their merchandise very frequently. I read somewhere that H&M has a turn around for a new style measured in weeks from inception to shelf, whereas traditional brands take months. So these guys respond quicker to trend changes.
Other types of stores are also interesting. Compare Macy's makeup counter vs Lush. Lush, for those not familiar, is an ingenious brand that sells organic personal care products, made by hand, never tested on animals, and often in very innovative categories. Did you know there is such a thing as "skin conditioner" or "face shampoo" or "lip scrub"? I didn't until someone showed me their recent Lush purchases. These small stores attract a lot of people.
I think what's dying is Sears, etc. Not malls in general.
"High quality" and "high price" are about the last thing I think of in relation to JC Penney and Sears. I've always thought of them as kind of lowest common denominator, lots of private label poor quality stuff that's perpetually on sale.
Its totally dependent on where the store physically is located and some kind of rating of how "fashionable" the area where the store is located. I used to do a lot of my school shopping in department stores. The selection in my mid-size city was decent. Not amazing but fine. Fine enough that I could usually find at least a couple things I wanted even if I didn't want to buy everything there. I visited a friend in a very rural part of my state and found absolutely nothing I would buy at my favorite department store back home. Visiting a Macy's in a major city like NYC or Chicago and they are multi-story buildings with basically every major brand.
Nike does something similar, their shoes are put into fashion-ability tiers and only retailers that are at that tier or above are allowed to sell that shoe, be it a certain color way, brand (Jordan for instance), or even a style.
I suppose it depends. I was recently shopping for a blazer. Found a name brand one at JC Penny for $400 (!). I found a very nice middle ground of a sports coat at H&M for $70.
Yikes. If $70 is a 'middle' blazer, what's left for low?
Sears and Penney always offered better clothes than discount stores like Woolworth's, Wal-mart and K-Mart; you could get pants or a suit that might be worth tailoring and keeping for more than a season. One of the memorable lines out of the Millionaire Nextdoor was that most millionaires bought suits at Sears.
Today, fast fashion and casual office is killing off even semi-formal clothes. In almost every situation, Americans wear jeans or shorts, and don't want to pay much for those. Sears is hopelessly lost, and Penney has been limping since the Ron Johnson debacle.
The thing that kills formal dress is the total bullshit known as dry cleaning.
Basically fuck dry cleaning. If clothes can't withstand soapy water and hot air, those clothes can go get fucked and eat someone else's paycheck for no reason.
Rot in hell, dry cleaning. I shall never patronize thee.
I mean you can always find good stuff at places like Goodwill or Plato's closet, but that's hit or miss. And a blazer or sport coat and jeans is a classic enough casual look that I wanted to try it. Worked out well for me.
There's also some genius in figuring out new mixes of online/b&m services. For example, my wife shops almost entirely at a handful of stores. The B&M stores tend to be low-end retailers where she can buy clothes to mess around with for next to nothing. The rest tend to have on-line stores with returns happening in their B&M stores.
This is brilliant, because for her to return the items she'd have to drive to a UPS or Fedex location (depending) anyways, so why not just end up at their B&M presence instead and since she's there do a little shopping? She ends up buying about 1/3 of her clothes at the physical store just because of this smart policy.
If the on-line option wasn't available she'd buy far fewer clothes overall, but by making it easy for their customers to part with their money, they get better sales. By itself the store isn't as convenient as just finding another on-line retailer.
This model doesn't seem to be as easy to replicate with store types that sell more generic goods, and less likely to need B&M interaction.
I have worked on a lot of Amazon accounts and I even do a fair amount of retail arbitrage from TJ Maxx / JC Penney -> Amazon both online and in-store. Given that the bulk of my income either comes directly from Amazon sales or indirectly through consulting for Amazon sellers you would think that I would be in the ra-ra-ra-Amazon-will-annihilate-traditional-retail camp.
The big advantage that discount retailers like those have for shoppers over Amazon is price and being able to physically inspect merchandise before you buy it. The selection of certain brands is also often better at the physical retail stores.
The fact that you can make > 75% profit margins per unit in some categories flipping from discount retail to Amazon FBA demonstrates the advantage that these retailers have over Amazon. Amazon's fee structure also makes it so that certain price points are just about never going to be profitable for Amazon unless fees go down -- and fees have been going up quite substantially.
If you want good prices, you should not shop at Amazon - you should shop at a physical retailer.
So, Amazon has some issues with its model especially in categories like apparel that make it a pain to earn continual profits from. I prefer to sell men's to women's apparel for example because women return products for fit reasons at much higher rates as compared to men. Fitting measurements for women are also much less standardized because there's a lot of variance in female body shape. A return on Amazon is more costly to a seller than it is to a physical retailer.
Also, JC Penney generally has a minimum quality standard and often really impressive prices per unit that Amazon's fee structure makes it impossible to beat. You are not going to profit from selling a $7 polo shirt on Amazon unless the quality is awful and maybe if Amazon is buying it from you as a vendor. If you buy a $7 polo from JC Penney the quality might actually be great and JCP will earn a profit.
I have different opinions about Macy's because they generally do not have a price advantage. There is really no benefit to buying stuff at Macy's unless you really want the name brands and you don't mind paying a higher price. For a certain kind of shopper, that's what they want and that's what they'll get from Macy's.
This article is just as cherry picked as some of the 'death-of-the-mall' stories are. I could do a similar cherry picking locally by comparing one successful shopping complex about 30 miles distant from another one that is failing. Depending on which direction I drove I could tell a different speculative story about the future of the mall in small town America.
A lot of what is missed in the retail discussion is that while online retail is where a lot of the growth is, physical retail is where the bulk of the transactions still happen in the US. There is a limit to how much of that Amazon can 'eat.' Some if it is regulatory: in the latest issue of Total Retail, two of the biggest online sellers in 2016 were Walgreens and CVS. That's 'cause of online prescription pickup. If Amazon did go into that business -- as it might -- then the picture might start to look significantly different.
> If you want good prices, you should not shop at Amazon - you should shop at a physical retailer.
I've noticed that this has been pretty true across the board. I've basically given up shopping for things on Amazon that I know I can find locally, and going to other, more specialized, online retailers when I can't.
Here in rural northwest Kansas the nearest Walmart is an hour away. All the local retailers cost more than Amazon. And whereas I have fiber optic broadband, I'd rather shop on Amazon. I can, after all, return an item to them for free if it doesn't fit.
Absolutely, there are exceptions. I used to live in northeastern non-rural Kansas and local stores were generally cheaper. In high cost of living areas also prices may be cheaper on Amazon.
Interesting. Was this different when Amazon was still taking on losses ? I ask because, over here in India, certain items are almost definitely cheaper than in retail stores. There are of course other factors at play such as India's 'broken' logistics infrastructure and so on.
Then again, now that Flipkart has taken a beating and Snapdeal is being sold, things may be more real soon.
> If you want good prices, you should not shop at Amazon - you should shop at a physical retailer.
Is it so in America? In my country it is the other way around: you would sometimes go to physical retailer to just take a look of the product, evaluate it, and then go find cheaper deal in some online store.
Anecdotally, the Westchester mall in White Plains, New York is starting to show a fair bit of softness in terms of keeping tenants. There are many empty stores and it seems to be getting worse. This is the same mall with many luxury brands and even a Tesla store. It once had a thriving food court, but it has been closed for years and only recently seems to be ready for business once again, hopefully not too little too late.
Also anecdotally, from Silicon Valley - Vallco in Cupertino and Target/Macy's in Sunnyvale are dying, Stanford Shopping Center is kinda humming along ... but Santana Row in San Jose and San Antonio Center in Mountain View are thriving. Both of the latter are in (historically) poorer areas than the former, so you would expect them to do significantly worse.
I suspect that it's a combination of outdated brands and car-centricness that does malls in. People don't want to drive to go shopping anymore, when they can just get stuff online and have someone else drive it to them. But malls that are built new mixed-use developments, or ones that go up near walkable downtowns, tend to do fairly well. The local residents provide a critical mass of foot traffic, which makes the area seem like a "scene" where it's cool to hang out, which draws out car traffic from the surrounding area.
It's under reconstruction, finally. It was always a weak mall - but it had some niche offerings and I liked that my kids could run around there on hot summer evenings without having a press of people nearby.
Apparently there was a sort of ownership struggle, and now I think that's been resolve in one way. Hopefully the new design will a) reach fruition and b) eliminate some of the bad feng shui about the place.
My wife (Cupertino native) tells me that it was semi-alive when she was a teenager; her first job was there. That would've been the mid-late 90s.
Other than AMC, it's certainly been dead since I moved out to the Bay Area (2009). My wife was living elsewhere for the whole decade of the 00s, so she doesn't really know when it died.
Yeah, that's the Galleria. I haven't been in there for at least 20 years, but it seems to be doing well enough. I think that they have lower rent and a more central location that factor in to staying afloat. I also thought they would disappear, but it seems that the Westchester will have to go down market to fill their space and that would be counter to the image they are trying to project. It's a tough place to be. They do have quite a few more kiosks around nowadays, but still without making the place less classy.
A good portion of the trouble retail is in is due to leverage. Neither they nor their lenders baked online in to their models. The leverage kills the flexibility to adapt to new trends, or in some cases even survive a 10% sag in earnings.
Amazon is terrible for clothes, but non-Amazon is fantastic.
>Amazon is terrible for clothes, but non-Amazon is fantastic.
Key barriers in this space are fit and fashion. Either those suffer, or the retailer has to eat a lot of returns.
I'm between sizes. If I shop online and want things that fit, I have to order multiple sizes and keep the best one. I wonder how that cost compares against a B&M.
The problem at least for me, is that malls these days don't seem to have any of the types of stores I like to shop at. They don't have bookstores anymore. They don't have music stores anymore. They don't have computer software stores anymore. It's just one clothing store after another.
So maybe that's true of books, music and computer software - but those things are often best experienced digitally anyways, many people consume them solely as digital goods.
But when I need clothes, car parts, electronic components, computer parts, any physical product with a non-zero chance of failure or an immediate desire really - knowing I can try something on or walk in 10 minutes later and return something and get it replaced on the spot is a killer feature - one that online shopping cannot replace.
I'd go so far as to argue that real stores are always better than online stores - online stores can only win on price and selection. For every other metric around, delivery time, replacement effort, ability to compare and to try, there's just no replacement.
For every other metric around, delivery time, replacement effort, ability to compare and to try, there's just no replacement.
For me, very often the delivery time is less important than time spent shopping. If you want/need something, but not immediately, it is much less effort to click "Buy" on Amazon, and get the item in 2 days, than to spend an hour on driving to the store, walking around to find whatever item you want, waiting in line to make a purchase, and then driving back.
Agreed! There are very few things I need immediately, and to be honest by the time I have enough time to make a trip over to a mall I could have ordered and it would have been delivered already.
> But when I need clothes, car parts, electronic components, computer parts, any physical product with a non-zero chance of failure or an immediate desire really - knowing I can try something on or walk in 10 minutes later and return something and get it replaced on the spot is a killer feature - one that online shopping cannot replace
For most people, getting ready to go out, getting to the mall, parking, walking to the store, browsing, buying, then getting home - the total amount of time required for that is way more than ten or twenty minutes.
Re "non-zero chance of failure", that doesnt mean that there's necessarily much of a chance of failure, so plenty of these are fine to get online
You act like price and selection aren't that important. They really are. Electronic components? How can you even buy those locally? Radio Shack is dead, and never was that great anyway; if you want components, digikey.com and mouser.com is where you go. Computer parts you can get far cheaper on newegg.com and various other sites, and that isn't something you should worry about failing either (same with electronic components). Auto parts too are something you can get far cheaper online. 1/3 the price of Autozone is worth it even if there's a chance it might go bad early for many people, and for new high-reliability things like spark plugs and filters and brake pads, it's silly to pay high local prices. (But no one can beat Walmart for oil.)
There's definitely some things that do work out pretty well to buy online: clothing and shoes are the biggest ones. Kitchenwares are also no cheaper online, according to my recent experiences. I think the big factor is how much volume do people buy locally. Pots and pans are things that just about everyone buys, so local works out there. However, how many people need brake pads for a 1993 Volvo 840 in your local area? Online shopping's biggest strength has long been getting obscure parts that just aren't profitable for local stores to keep in stock. It's not profitable for your local Autozone to carry weird parts for decades' worth of dozens of manufacturers' cars, and for the Autozone 10 miles away to have all the same stuff, but it is easily profitable for one business with a warehouse somewhere to stock this stuff and be ready to ship it anywhere in the country on-demand. No, local stores do not win on delivery time when they have to special-order stuff for you and you have to make another trip to go pick it up instead of just having Fedex drop it at your doorstep.
Local stores (Active Electronics, Canada Computers) have comparable prices to online and often even beat Newegg prices - even without shipping. And even when they're a bit more, I'll pay an extra $20 to have that graphics card today and know I can return it if it's DoA without a hassle.
Of course there are exceptions and extreme price differences where it's worth it to go online, but if it's within 10% or 15%, or sufficiently cheap in general, I'll probably take a store. Shipping often involves going out of my way to pick something up because no one is at my house during the day and even the local post service decides to drop things off in the next town over. Often I have to wait an extra day just for it to show up there and go through a huge hassle to pick something up.
Of course with more obscure stuff or a large price difference, you'll choose online, but in my experience that's surprisingly rare - I shop everything major I buy around and with smaller stuff it just makes more sense to go local. I order IEMs and some electronic components, things I can predict needing in advance direct from China for price and that's about it. I've never placed an amazon order in my life, their prices and selection just aren't competitive in my experience - but I suspect mostly that's because Amazon Canada is a lot worse than Amazon US.
You must have a really unique situation, or maybe things are really weird in Canada.
Where I am, I live in a small town about an hour from a major metro area. The only shopping where I am is a super-Walmart. If I want to buy anything that Walmart doesn't sell, it's a minimum 30-minute drive to the nearest commercial district, and that's over a bridge that I have to pay $4.50 to go back home on. In the other direction (no bridge, no tolls), it's a minimum 40 minutes to that town, and the traffic there is terrible so it's a minimum 50 minutes to the shopping district. Both these districts just have the basic retail chain stores that every such place in the US has (except for hh Gregg which was in both locations, but just went out of business).
So, for me to get anything "locally" means a minimum of 1.5 hours in driving and running around.
You seem to have some weird problems with shipping. For me, I order stuff and if I'm not home, they leave it on my doorstep. There's no theft here that I've ever heard of. As for your "huge hassle", it sounds like you have some really serious problems with your postal service there. Over here, the USPS works great, and Fedex/UPS work fine too for the most part. The only time I've heard of people having to go to some other town to pick something up is when they live in an extremely rural area where there's no residential delivery.
Now, for an alternate view, I also have a girlfriend who lives in the metro area, about 1 hour away from me. She lives in a big high-rise condo, and is less than 2 miles from a quaint "old town" area with local shops, plus lots of typical big-box shops in other directions. This is one of the largest metro areas in the US (I'm guessing #5-7 by population), so there's certainly no shortage of shopping. Shipping is easy for her too: the staff at the front desk takes packages for the building residents. But they take a LOT of packages (many are frequently piled up in the front lobby when I visit; I even saw a mattress there one day); people in that building buy a LOT of stuff online. Why? Simple: time. Even though she's in the city, driving to some random place, even on that side of the metro area, is still a good 20 minutes in my experience, if not more, because of traffic and having to stop at so many red lights. You're not going to be able to get anything without spending at least an hour of your time driving there, dealing with parking, picking it out (assuming they even have it), and driving back. Why waste all that time when you can just get it with a few clicks and pick it up in a couple days when you come home?
Yeah, I can definitely see using it more if I were out of town or if the couriers actually bothered delivering things instead of trying once and dropping it at their warehouse because signature is required on everything - or the federal postal service which drops things up the road, beside a shit load of shopping and has a location only inside of a drug store, where no one works the postal counter and I spend 15 minutes waiting around sometimes.
Maybe I just have bad luck, but as is, ordering online is way more hassle and I only do it for absolute extremes.
Yeah, it really sounds like you have a bad situation because of shipping. It's the opposite for me, and I'm not exactly in a big metropolis here either (just a small town). It couldn't be any easier: stuff is sitting on my doorstep when I come home. Sometimes I meet the mail lady on Saturdays when she drives through my driveway to drop a box off at the door.
I have heard some horror stories from other Americans though in other regions, where they live in someplace so rural that Fedex/UPS don't even deliver without an extra charge (or at all) and they have to pick up their USPS mail at some other town's post office. But that's what you get when you live in an extremely remote place. For people living in or even remotely near any city of any size, receiving packages doesn't seem to be a huge problem here in general. People do complain about getting packages requiring a signature when they're at work, but IME most deliveries from online sellers do not require this, only particularly high-dollar ones.
I don't buy a lot of clothes, but I can understand why people want to physically handle and try them on, as buying them sight unseen online often necessitates returning them.
The stores in malls have always struck me as too mainstream. I n contrast I like lurking in local book/cycle stores that stock old/used stuff. Goodwill is interesting too; you have no idea what you'll find :D
Yeah, malls really don't cater to teenage boys any more, and technology has changed greatly. So all the stores left are ones where online shopping has a much harder time competing, and that's clothing, because you can't try on clothes that you buy online (you can buy them and return them, but that means paying for return shipping costs, or if the retailer covers that for you, it still means having to wait a lot for replacement stuff, or having to shell out a lot up-front to buy everything you want to try on).
And of course, since modern men's clothing is so horribly dull and men just wear a t-shirt and jeans usually, that means the large majority of square footage in the mall is dedicated to women's clothing.
Back to those stores that aren't at the mall:
1. Bookstores are still at the mall, but only some malls. It's called "Barnes & Noble". Lots of malls have them. But you don't see the small ones like Waldenbooks any more; they're all gone. People aren't reading books as much any more, and a lot of people who do buy e-books.
2. Not many people buy physical music any more. If they do, they get it on Amazon. Otherwise, everything is either MP3/AAC downloads or streaming music services.
3. No one buys software in a box any more; you just get it online. And a lot of application software has gone by the wayside, to be replaced with SaaS, web apps, etc.
> Bookstores are still at the mall, but only some malls. It's called "Barnes & Noble". Lots of malls have them. But you don't see the small ones like Waldenbooks any more; they're all gone.
I've noticed that Barnes & Noble is downsizing some of their mall stores. There used to be a nice 2-level one with tons of selection at an upscale mall near me. They closed it and replaced it with one with maybe 1/3 of the floor-space in a different location.
The fall of reading books has probably not been as dramatic as many people think: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-few.... I know modern society gets a lot of grief because everyone on the train and bus has their nose buried in their phones, but from what I see is there are still a lot of people reading print books, and even flipping through broadsheets.
Yeah, that's why I said "not as many"... I think there's a reduction, but it's not anywhere near a collapse. But more importantly, between Amazon, other online sellers (like Powell's), and e-books, this has lead to a big consolidation in brick-and-mortar bookstores, so there's only one national chain left (Barnes & Noble), plus some notable ones in certain localities (such as Strand in NYC, Powell's in Portland, etc.).
But it's not like music where no one buys music at a local record store any more, except perhaps for some secondhand CD shops that may have survived near colleges. Or worse, software, where they just don't sell it in boxes any more AFAICT and everything is sold online.
I've noticed a prevalence of malls in some places which has not slowed down even in this supposed "death of the mall" internet future. Namely Canada (very cold winters - gotta stay indoors?) and throughout major cities in Asia (hot and humid summers - gotta stay in air conditioned indoors?). Malls in Asia are like small cities.
Yeah I live in a regional capitol in Japan (pop around 300-400,000 or so?) in a "dying" prefecture (population is going down), and in the past few years, one mall has expanded, another large one has gone up, and there's another new one planned. On weekends they're packed, and it can be impossible to find parking.
My family is in small towns: David City, Nebraska. Columbus, Nebraska. Lamar, Colorado. Seguin, Texas. Until I read this headline, I had no idea that anyone could define a small town as a town large enough to have a mall. The hospital I work in employs more than twice as many people as live in David City.
I think the mall has a bad reputation TBH. My friends will not dare go, but I love it. I get Starbucks, a decent lunch, some basic shopping done and it has a kids play area.
I think we should turn them into a sort of social hub more than a shopping hub.
I'd love that if they were open later. 2am would work great. It makes a great place to study and work. If you've never been to the 24 hour bookstore in Taipei, someday you've gotta check it out.
I have a real issue with UPS / Amazon... ordered things like air filters, or a closet mounting rail, or just other random odds and ends I normally get an Home Depot or Costco... and they get all mashed up during shipping. Waste of time / energy to get them from Amazon if I can't be assured what I order won't be destroyed in transit. Anything that's not wrapped in another box is pretty much guaranteed to be jacked up when it gets to me in Austin.
But when you're out in the boonies, and the UPS drivers have to go a long way to get something to you... everything ends up busted / scuffed up in transit. It just sucks. Whenever I order anything for my Dad from Amazon (he lives in a very remote part of the US), what gets to him is never idea. I ordered a cowboy hat... and somehow it was squished flat. He tried to fix it, but by the time he told me it was destroyed in shipping it was a huge pain to return (he didn't know about returns). I ordered a bunch of jam... and they left it outside in sub-zero temperatures and all the jars broke because the jam expanded when it froze. I ordered a Jew's Harp and Harmonica set for him... and somehow the box got opened and only one of the instruments made it to him. Amazon hasn't always been great about returns / refunds in these situations. They are getting a little better, but it's just a shipping issue.
Shipping sucks to remote areas, and as long as shipping sucks, the Amazon experience will suck.
even in the seattle metro, home of amazon, the malls are very popular. its an ordeal finding a parking spot at any of the surrounding malls on a given day. humans have always liked going to the bazaar/market/whatever and malls are the modern version of that. online shopping doesnt provide the same satisfaction that you get from physically going out and interacting with people and things. probably why people do more binge shopping online to get the same "high". physical shopping for digital goods will probably die out, but shopping in person for clothes, cosmetics or fragrances, etc cant really be replicated online. also with amazon you never know for sure if you're buying the legitimate product or a cheap knockoff. I generally trust places like nordstrom or macys more than amazon when it comes to high end products like that.
It's interesting that you point that out because one of my favorite places to shop in Seattle, when I'm not looking for "must have this exact thing," is Northgate Mall. It's next to a bazillion bus routes, will have its own light rail stop in a few years, and has plenty of parking on the rare occasion that I drive to it. Meanwhile, it has a "full-sized" Barnes and Noble, some specialty shops, good places to eat (Azteca is pretty good, Mama Stortini's is amazing, Panera is Panera), and is within walking distance to basically every big box store (and a movie theater) you could want either on-property or by crossing one street.
(Funny enough, I've shopped two malls in one day on the same bus route: Metro's 75 runs between Northgate Mall and University Village. It was my favorite bus route when I lived in Lake City.)
Very true. The big malls have never been more popular and three major malls underwent major renovations (Lynnwood, Southcenter, and University Village). There's plenty of money being spent at these places - most feature local restaurants which draw people and mid-high fashion places to shop at.
> The rise of online shopping has summoned a death knell for some of the old standard-bearers of retail. (Jeffrey P. Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post.)
That in parentheses. Is this is a snarky comment from the editor or somehow required to add this information? (It's good to know btw!)
Disclosing potential conflicts of interest is standard journalistic practice for any respectable news organization. This isn't something the Post just invented.
Going to the mall is still a social thing. Maybe in the future with VR and such we will reach a point were the Amazon experience is able to entertain you and your buddies for an afternoon.... but for now, malls win at that. Amazon destroys a mall any day when it comes to convenience, efficiency etc. but they are a lonely solo shopping experience.
Remember that in many towns between the coasts, the mall is about the only "free" activity you can do on a Saturday afternoon.
didn't read the article due to paywall ... but given that I pretty much grew up in a mall (90's), I really miss them ... well, maybe just the arcades that were in them :P
Malls in their current form (or at least, the form they were in in the 00's) do need to die. In recent times, I've seen a few bright spots of innovation. Malls that have transformed their spaces to promote the social aspect ... just comfortable spaces where you can hang out. Also they've been innovating with adding bowling alleys, Arcades (albeit, the kitschy dave 'n busters type of arcades ... better than nothing I guess), and other experience-based attractions (rentals of little animal-shaped scooters, etc).
I hope that we can figure out something cool to do with all this real-estate that in many cases, just sits idle
A frequent catechism in the 'death of retail' elegy is that malls are often failing because these days, consumers prefer to spend their money on services and experiences rather than physical goods.
And I can't help but think along the same lines that you are. You're telling me that you have these enormous storefronts with several multi-thousand sqft and often multi-story commercial spaces. You're telling me that they're sitting empty as retail giants fail to sell enough goods. You're telling me that people want fun experiences these days instead of consumer goods.
Call me crazy, but maybe you should turn that J.C. Penny's into a giant laser tag arena with drone-targets, or a VR-cade, or a big IMAX/4D/whatever theater, or a 'hot desk' shared workspace. You know, things that people can pay to use for fun or relaxation?
I guess in California they are having some success taking the roofs off of malls and making them outdoor spaces. Hopefully, America can just build pedestrian oriented cities and then we won't need malls.
The idea of a mall as a social space is great; after all, lots of us spent a good portion of our teenage years hanging out at malls for a good reason, before they started kicking out the teens.
The problem with this is that it's expensive real estate, and people just hanging out and maybe occasionally playing some game isn't going to generate enough profit for the place to stay open.
That's only true as long as it is expensive real estate, though.
If half the storefronts are empty and shuttered, the causeways devoid of shoppers, the parking lots eerily silent, then how long is it going to remain expensive?
Yes, but for now, at least in the more desirable locations, they seem to be doing just fine selling lots of expensive women's clothes, shoes, and luxury goods.
In the crappy locations, if the rent goes really low, then it's more likely to attract a lot of gang activity and have a lot of crime.
Huh? Maybe some teens, but not all of them. When I was a teen, I had some peers who were like that, overachievers trying to be valedictorian and also involved in a ton of extracurricular activities. It was a total waste of time AFAICT: colleges don't really care that much about either one of those, your standardized test scores are more important. I easily got into a top tech state school just on my GPA score after they told me I was too late to register for that semester; they saw my SAT score and decided they could make room for me after all. I spent plenty of time at the mall, in pool halls, at Krispy Kreme donuts after midnight, etc.
And the lower-income, not-so-academically-inclined teens certainly aren't spending all their time doing homework and extracurriculars.
From what I've seen, it's changed over time. I graduated HS in 1982, my kids are in HS now. I had virtually no homework, and spent my spare time playing music, learning electronics, and eventually learning how to program. I wasn't concerned about college admissions at all.
Amazon is benefiting from decentralized local retail stores. 90% of goods a person needs can be located within 15 mile radius. Instacart or Uber needs to setup a central inventory system that locals can shop and get their products within 1 hour instead of 2 days.
Surprised to see no comments about the fact Bezos owns the post and they randomly include the fact about halfway through the article. "(Jeffrey P. Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post.)"
They include the fact in the first paragraph that mentions Amazon. Almost certainly this is a house rule that all the editors at the Washington Post are familiar with.
But with regard to stores like Sears, JCPenney, and Macy's, the problem is that whereas in the 1980's, just about everyone shopped at them for everything but groceries and would travel from long distances to do so, nowadays it's just people who live nearby and just a subset of them.
I think this notion that it's Amazon that's killing traditional retail has some truth but it's very much oversimplified. While Amazon is no doubt eating into the sales of stores in every industry, I don't think Amazon is killing JCPenney, for example. After all, how many people do you know who buy their jeans on Amazon?
I think what's killing clothing retailers is the prevalence of a large number of smaller, niche manufacturers. People no longer want to buy drab clothing off a rack, they want to buy from a particular brand. People either are price-sensitive shoppers who will go buy off the rack from TJ Maxx or Ross, or are at the other extreme and want expensive name brands and will buy direct from the source or a select set of online retailers that sell them. That leaves retailers like JCPenney and Macy's in kind of a no-man's land.