Thursday, April 9, 2009
Retail Another Reason to Stop Building Malls
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Nobody's doing great, but chain stores—especially clothing sellers in shopping malls—are doing terrible. The NYT reports:
The biggest drop came from Abercrombie & Fitch, which posted a stunning 34 percent March sales decline compared with last year. [...]Mall and specialty apparel retailers are still struggling too, including Zumiez (down 17.9 percent), American Eagle Outfitters (down 16 percent), Wet Seal (down 11.4 percent), American Apparel (down 11 percent), Gap (down 8 percent) and Limited Brands (down 9 percent). Sales were down 2 percent at The Children’s Place. Chains like Wet Seal and American Eagle Outfitters, which had climbed out of double-digit declines in February, sank back again in March.
However, Wal-Mart is slightly up. But Target is down.
Share via
1
Sounds more like "another reason why now is a bad time to operate a clothing store" more than anything else.
If you're going to use this piece as evidence to argue against mall development, by that logic you could also use it as evidence to argue that we should only build Wal-Marts from now on.
If you're going to use this piece as evidence to argue against mall development, by that logic you could also use it as evidence to argue that we should only build Wal-Marts from now on.
2
I wonder how H&M is doing. They're by far the least pricey clothing chain in that tween to twenty-something category.
4
Every Goodwill is now stuffed to the rafters with A&F t-shirts, which is ironic, because many of their designs pay homage to the small-town school athletics graphics that were originally picked up in those same Goodwills.
It's not too surprising that in an economic downturn people are buying fewer items of cheap, horrible crap that's virtually identical to what they already have. I know my appetite for shirts and pants with twisted seams and eight-inch-too-long sleeves has been slaked.
It's not too surprising that in an economic downturn people are buying fewer items of cheap, horrible crap that's virtually identical to what they already have. I know my appetite for shirts and pants with twisted seams and eight-inch-too-long sleeves has been slaked.
5
Not to mention that a woman just jumped to her death inside of a mall and seriously injured the poor teenager she landed on.
6
Hernandez, this isn't the only reason to stop building malls. There are plenty of other reasons--malls are auto-oriented traffic nightmares and supplant retail opportunities for local businesses with national chains, to name a couple. But the fact that those national chains are doing horribly--and 20 percent of major malls are closing all over the country--means we shouldn't be building more.
7
@1:
If you go and actually READ the article, you'll note it's not just specialty clothing stores that are doing poorly; large department store chains like Dillards, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Saks, and Nordstroms - the types of stores that typically act as anchors for shopping malls - are also tanking.
In fact, the only major retailers that seem to be doing well right now are big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Costco and B.J.'s Wholesale (notably, Target's sales are down), and discount apparel stores like Ross and TJX.
If you go and actually READ the article, you'll note it's not just specialty clothing stores that are doing poorly; large department store chains like Dillards, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Saks, and Nordstroms - the types of stores that typically act as anchors for shopping malls - are also tanking.
In fact, the only major retailers that seem to be doing well right now are big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Costco and B.J.'s Wholesale (notably, Target's sales are down), and discount apparel stores like Ross and TJX.
9
If Wal-mart was doing well they wouldn't have gone to quarterly financial updates. They used to do monthlies but since the tide has turned they abandoned that.
10
A&F , AE and Zumies aren't as popular anymore, and AA is grew too fast and is getting some backlash on top of it. How are F21 and H&M doing?
11
So you're saying the one bright spot in this awful economy is that we may finally be rid of Aberzombie & Fitch? I guess every cloud has a silver lining.
12
If I had three wishes, I might use one of them to make Abercrombie & Fitch go away. So this is a little ray of sunshine in my day.
13
So what you're saying is that in a shitty economy, people realize that paying $45 for an ugly shirt isn't worth it? @11 is right: every cloud does have a silver lining.
14
Stores that don't sell clothes in sizes big enough for me are welcome to tank. The average mall with 30 womens' apparel stores will have maybe three shops that sell fat-girl clothes. The other twenty-seven that are doing badly in part because they refuse to sell me clothing? Cry me a river.
17
Meanwhile India only has 8 percent growth this year (projected) and they're whining about that ...
19
@17: You could argue it's not fair to compare the two, because we have a "mature" economy (please feel free to snort at that) where a reasonable, non-inflationary rate of growth would be something like 3% to 4%, and India has decades worth of pent-up demand and drag on the growth of their economy, many more people living in extreme poverty, and can sustain a much higher rate of growth without it being inflationary.
20
American Apparel should just start selling porn to supplement their income. Oh wait... that's what they're doing now.
21
Hmmm..every store mentioned sells high priced stuff. Wow, how obvious. In a down economy people are not going to buy high priced shit. This include overpriced houses and condos, cars, clothes, and everything else.
In fact , it's sad that people even bought this stuff to begin with in a good economy. You are not a better person because you wear 50 dollar t-shirts and 250 dollar jeans and drive a $50,000 dollar car.
In fact , it's sad that people even bought this stuff to begin with in a good economy. You are not a better person because you wear 50 dollar t-shirts and 250 dollar jeans and drive a $50,000 dollar car.
22
I'll be pleased when the increase in actual poverty and need for secondhand clothing kills the fad for new clothing that looks secondhand. Frayed edges, distressed prints, pilled sweaters, etc. will not be missed.
25
You can buy a pair of pants at the Gap for $20. How is that expensive? Do you have any idea how long it takes a Bangladeshi eight-year-old to make a pair of your pants? If you'd spend more on your clothes, and get better quality, you wouldn't be filling the world with so much garbage.
26
Good, maybe A&F will go down under. That's what they get for charging $50 for their plain shirts.
27
@ 25: Most of the jeans my mother bought for me at the Gap cost anywhere from $40-70 full price--in the 2nd half of the 1990s and the 1st half of the 2000s. $20 is a sale price, for jeans that are somewhat tacky. I've bought discounted jeans from the Gap before, but under last minute circumstances, and it's not something I'd prefer to do. Now I don't know if I'll ever pay $20 max for jeans/pants ever again since discovering Buffalo Exchange.
btw, Dom, how is Buffalo and the like doing? That would be interesting to hear.
btw, Dom, how is Buffalo and the like doing? That would be interesting to hear.
28
@21:
Since when is Ross "Dress For Less", TJX (parent company of retail reseller TJ Maxx), and Target of all places, considered "high priced"?
I mean, if you're used to doing most of your shopping at Grocery Outlet, Value Village, and The $0.99 Store, maybe, but otherwise...?
Since when is Ross "Dress For Less", TJX (parent company of retail reseller TJ Maxx), and Target of all places, considered "high priced"?
I mean, if you're used to doing most of your shopping at Grocery Outlet, Value Village, and The $0.99 Store, maybe, but otherwise...?
29
@27:
$40-$70 for a pair of jeans seems to be the norm these days; a pair of Levi's button-fly 501's, the standard-bearer for the basic, no-frills denim pair-of-pants, will run you $50 at such "high end" retailers as -- Fred Meyer.
$40-$70 for a pair of jeans seems to be the norm these days; a pair of Levi's button-fly 501's, the standard-bearer for the basic, no-frills denim pair-of-pants, will run you $50 at such "high end" retailers as -- Fred Meyer.
30
I said "pants", not "jeans". I'm looking at their website, and I see a pair of "stain resistant straight fit pants" for $14.99. It's not Armani, but they're pants. Their regular prices are similar to all the other clothing chains -- J. Crew, Land's End, et al. I'm not seeing "expensive" here.
31
In my experience womens clothes at the GAP are somewhat expensive. Of course, they are not as pricey as Nordstroms, Anthropologie, or Betsey Johnson. However, getting an outfit at the Gap is a lot different than buying one at a place like the Red Light, especially if there are no good sales or if the clothes don't fit you right/are not your style. Every damn pair of pants at the Gap is low rise and I want a mid rise. I went twice this spring and their only two styles of mid rise pants were all wrong.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS