Please wait...
I didn't know Sears had a franchise business, the other day I was behind a bus and saw "Own a Sears store!" and thought 'What a horrible idea!' Within the last three years both the Sears and Kmart stores closed here.
I had to look this up and TIL Sears sold franchises, but because of poor business decisions within the rest of the company, the franchises are failing as well.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
I heard some interesting observations about the "retail apocalypse" today.
* Half of American households now have at least one Amazonopoly Prime subscription. There has never been any doubt where the retail dollars are going, but that number is staggering.
* In 2016, restaurant spending exceeded grocery spending for the first time. This is consistent with the concept that the retail experience of the future is going to be one less focused on buying things and more focused on doing things.
And here's the really interesting one:
* If you're old enough, think about how important your clothing brands are today vs. how important they were just a generation ago. Designer jeans, logo shirts, etc. If you didn't have the latest brands it used to make you totally uncool. Does anyone care about that anymore? Most don't. Today it's about having shareable experiences. Why is that? Social media, of course. Having an experience that you can post to [site of your choice] is more important than buying a particular brand.
Think about it: in 2007 it's "Hey all you 100 people reading this, check out me riding this roller coaster!" while in 1987 it would be "Hey all you 3 people with me at the amusement part, check out the Izod shirt I'm wearing while we ride the roller coaster"
We should *totally* nuke Seattle, it isn't doing anything useful.
So... retail stores should create a memorably awful experience that everyone can share on their favorite social media!
As for "experiences" - I think that's the new anti-capitalist take on things.
Why buy an object?
Post-consumerism is just another step towards communism.
I see all the major corporations merging as a step towards communism. All these name brands are made by one or two companies. You are getting the same thing with a different label on it. We have the illusion of choice.
2017-05-22 13:58 from Ragnar Danneskjold
How can clothing be a sharable experience without branding?
If ass-revealing pants become popular, everyone will share the experience of having the rest of the population laugh the assless-pants wearers to scorn.
Or, more seriously, if garments contain particularly useful innovations (maybe carefully woven circuitry that work with your smartphone in some way), you could share the experience of using such innovative clothing.
Actually, what kind of experience does shared branding confer to a people wearing the brand? It's like that absurd commercial for Dr. Pepper in the 80s, "Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper, too?" as they try to convince people through advertising that you can be a unique and individual person by drinking the same brand as everyone else.
2017-05-23 22:13 from wizard of aahz
Except for the fact that 30 years later the commercial is still in your
head.
That just means it was effective advertising for its day.
If young people want a 'shared experience', I suppose dancing around, singing "I'm a Pepper" would do it, but...
Young people want effective marketing?
Ugh.
Maybe that explains the whole pants-showing-buttocks thing. If that's prison-code for 'my ass is ready for you', and if it has helped men get their ass compromised in a way they desire, then I guess that's effective marketing.
If young people want a 'shared experience', I suppose dancing around,
singing "I'm a Pepper" would do it, but...
If I had been born 15-20 years earlier I would have totally been an "Up With People" cast member.
I suppose the subject line is provocative. Everyone except Radio Shack knows that Radio Shack killed Radio Shack. But there are some interesting perspectives.
The "universal postal union" which sets international postal rates from country to country still considers China a "zone 3" nation. This means that a shipper in China can send a package to someone in the US for LESS than it costs for a shipper *within the US* to send the same package domestically.
So there you go ... the second-largest economy on the planet gets the same international shipping rates as dirt-poor third world nations. The Hudson Institute did a piece on this, explaining that while Radio Shack certainly didn't execute very well, the deck was also stacked against them.
Meanwhile ... what's left of the now-perpetually-going-out-of-business Radio Shack isn't helping itself. $6.15 for a pack of 20 stick-on rubber feet? Umm ... no.