U.S. retailers admit they lied about shoplifting, retail crime again
The circle of life. Stores fail for complex reasons → retailer quietly posts accurate analysis of its own mistakes → retailer loudly posts press release blaming shoplifters and gangs → media likes …
You're viewing a single thread.
You mean that Target wasn't closing stores because of theft after all?! I'm shocked.
That was just the coverup so they didn’t get backlash from laying everyone off after another round of C-Suite bonuses.
They probably closed the stores trying to unionize.
You don’t understand what it’s like for them. They don’t like sacking people for bonuses but they just can’t come up with any other ways to increase profit. What are they supposed to do? Get creative? Build a strong respectful work culture? Not take a bonus? You see. It’s not as easy as you think. Timmy can miss out on his toy train this Christmas. Besides, it’s just business
When little Timmy got a train
"twas put beneath a tree
Christmas day had fin'lly come,
Such fun for all to see
The poor were done, they knew no fun
All stolen by some jerk(s)
Their patience done, their time had come
And quickly went to work
Timmy's dad had been quite bad
He stole, and cheated and lied
When they burned the system down,
Little Timmy fucking died.
Added context: "Little Timmy" is 35, has a cushy VP job in his dad's company, and is lined up to be the next ceo. It was his suggestion to cut 50,000 jobs so he could collect a finders fee for "finding" unnecessary expenses.
This is the content I miss from Reddit
Timmy doesn’t need an entire full sized private “toy” train. Just get him some Lego ;)
I’ll give Target a bit of lee at here because they were only there first to admit they were wrong, they also shared a bunch of data about how their shrink calculation methodology, which much of the retail sector shares, is flawed.
I have worked for target. Their logistics methodology is incredibly on point. They are highly invested in getting things right, if no other reason, for the sake of their own profitability.So as there are being open, they have some credibility here, I would say, especially given that others here are so closed. This interest certainly serves their profit motive as much as it services our our motive.  There is, at least, for now, no reason to distress them.
Let's practice this together, folks. "Corporations never put their employees or customers ahead of profits."
If you believed them at their word, you'd be wrong.
Target: logistics methodology....
laughs in Canadian
No they don't.
laughs in Canadian
eh eh eh
Canadian vampire counting
Canadian logistics sucks in general because Canada is one of the worst places, in terms of how population is scattered, to deliver any goods to.
As a result, Canadian drivers often get US transport authority so they can make more money, but American drivers will rarely get Canadian authority.
No, not really. 2/3rds of the population lives along the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence River. The only out of the way centers are Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. But goods coming from Asia are going through those anyways.
Target executives were explicitly told by HBC executives that their logistics weren't up to par, before the company moved up here.
I have friends who worked for Target here who described their logistics as a bad joke. And they work for the government now in logistics.
I worked in logistics for years and ran a decent amount of international (both from ports and into Canada). I'm commenting about why Canadian logistics, not Target specifically, is tougher than it otherwise would be
I'll take your word on things regarding Target specifically for sure, because it isn't my forte. Looking at your post, the Canadian gov probably knew their infrastructure wasn't up to the different challenge from the jump.
HBC is Hudson's Bay Company. Not the government.
Target has for the last 15 years or so owned a controlling share of the company hence the high degree of cooperation.
Ahhh makes sense. Also makes sense how they'd understand the realities of logistics there to a much greater degree than Target. Here's hoping their influence helps.
Oh it didn't because it was ignored. Target's expansion into Canada failed roughly 8 months after they launched, mainly on a complete logistical failure and that they tried to charge us more than the exchange rate suggested.
A couple of regions aren't enough to make it worthwhile, at least according to an article I read recently.
From the link:
- Economies of scale. Canada has a population of 39 million spread across a very large geographic area. Compared to other G-7 countries, retailers don’t benefit from economies of scale in Canada unless they operate across the entire country. A regional operator in the northeast U.S., for example, has a potential market of more than 125 million, while a regional operator in Canada is lucky to have a potential market of 15 million.
Probably doesn't help though
Theft clearly doesn't affect their overall profits considering how many chains have had record profits.
Looking at you Walmart
Of course it affects it.
Not meaningfully
Depends where you set the bar. Does it make it more likely that certain locations are closed? Probably.
Yeah but they're only closing because they're not bringing in maximum profits.
They're still making profits they're just butthurt they're not making more and that was my original point.
If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.
With all that said though if the store is legitimately being robbed to the point of affecting profits that much then yeah go ahead and close. But the companies that claim theft as the reason for closing stores are bullshitting you.
If you can lose $3b in theft and still make record billions then no, theft does not affect you at all.
But it does. You are using "at all" wrong lol.
No just understanding that they're making so much money the theft is doing essentially nothing to their profits.
Lemmings really need to stop this whole shtick about not understanding the nuance in word choice. Everyone here acts like a fuckin lawyer when it comes to breaking down and analyzing specific word choice.
It's clear through the context of everything else I said what I mean by "at all". It's such a negligible impact on the company as a whole that it's not even worth mentioning 90% of the time. Like a guy who just won the lottery dropping a nickel. It's completely inconsequential.
It's not nuance to just use the wrong words. Also no, it's not completely inconsequential either. It does matter when considering what stores to keep and which ones to close. It's one of the aspects you'd consider.