Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Predicting the demise of Sears & Kmart since 2017!
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by storewanderer »

buckguy wrote: November 13th, 2022, 6:43 am I've never found Target useful for hardware or automotive---even 20 years ago these were areas with chronic out-of-stocks as well as limited selection.

I took a look at the reviews for Jackson and the most negative reviews on Google are from before the store opened---probably the old KMart.
20 years ago these areas did not have chronic out of stocks at Target. They were well stocked. No area of Target had chronic out of stocks 20 years though except food/consumables always had challenges due to too few facings and the "no pallets on the floor" policy. Their logistics system and backroom bin locator set up ensured the stores were in stock, and typically, they were. On any given day in a Target there was an employee or two assigned to the backroom to maintain the bins, and then employees out on the sales floor assigned to given departments would scan outs. The system would send a pick order to the backroom employee and they would pick the item and the sales floor person would go pick it up to restock the shelf. This program was largely stopped back when the online order fulfillment program with stores fulfilling most orders for shipping was rolled out. And Target's out of stocks have exploded since then. They are just as bad or worse than Wal Mart on out of stocks.

Not sure what reviews you are looking at. Reviews before the store opened don't count for anything, the store wasn't open yet. I am looking at Google Maps. There are 39 reviews.
The store opened 7 months ago.
7 months ago the store received 10 5-star reviews and 1 1-star review.
Rose fell off the bloom real quick.
Recent reviews trend far more negative.
BillyGr
Store Manager
Store Manager
Posts: 1579
Joined: October 5th, 2010, 7:33 pm
Been thanked: 58 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by BillyGr »

storewanderer wrote: November 11th, 2022, 9:28 pm Those college students who were so excited to have Target, after they get burned by the small Target not having what they need a few times and go back to their dorm and order from Amazon, and Amazon takes care of their needs, are potentially lost customers forever long after they move on from the college due to having the negative experience. In cases like that, Target would have been better off not even being there. No interaction at all is better than a negative one.
Not sure why that would be the case, unless for some reason Target isn't making it clear that these stores are NOT full sized stores?

Just as when they had the Greatland or Super on stores, people who went to one of those wouldn't be surprised not to see everything they had if they went into a normal Target store, as it was clear that they were different formats.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by storewanderer »

BillyGr wrote: November 13th, 2022, 10:39 am

Not sure why that would be the case, unless for some reason Target isn't making it clear that these stores are NOT full sized stores?

Just as when they had the Greatland or Super on stores, people who went to one of those wouldn't be surprised not to see everything they had if they went into a normal Target store, as it was clear that they were different formats.
It should be pretty obvious they aren't a full size store, all anyone has to do is look at the small space. But Target isn't making it clear. The sign says Target. It doesn't say Target Jr., it doesn't say City Target anymore, it just says Target.

The issue is more the mystery of just what do they have? And that really varies by location. Do they have socks? Do they have a hole puncher? Do they have a space heater? Do they have an ice scraper for the windshield? Do they have a phone charger? Do they have a backpack?

I think they have allocated too much space to food and to clothing in these small stores. There are usually other stores around with food already. The clothing mix is so small it is basically useless and aside from some basics like socks/underwear/jeans/basic shirts (which they can't keep in stock due to lack of space for said basic items) the clothing program in these stores should be reevaluated.
bryceleinan
Personnel Manager
Personnel Manager
Posts: 349
Joined: June 1st, 2018, 11:59 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by bryceleinan »

If Target can't keep their existing stores well-stocked (looking at you, Reno), what makes them think bigger stores are a better strategy?
arizonaguy
Store Manager
Store Manager
Posts: 1107
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 6:07 pm
Been thanked: 35 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by arizonaguy »

storewanderer wrote: November 12th, 2022, 5:19 pm
mbz321 wrote: November 12th, 2022, 5:14 pm
Alpha8472 wrote: November 11th, 2022, 11:21 am
Perhaps Target might try to copy Walmart and expand the selection of products to match. At Target for example you cannot find much in the way of auto parts or garden supplies. It would be interesting to see a full sized supermarket inside.
This right here. If the stores are going to be larger, there needs to be a bit more variety in merchandise, and as of late from my experiences, Target has has trouble filling the shelves as it is in non-core departments like hardware/auto/sporting goods/pet supplies/etc. I can't say that I am a frequent Target shopper as I can never get everything on my list.
Target feels to me like it continues to cut SKUs in those non-core departments like hardware/auto/sporting goods and then even after cutting SKUs does a poor job keeping these categories stocked. I don't know why pet is a non-core category now but I agree with you, the way they have it assorted, it is starting to feel like a non-core category for some reason.

With the way pricing has been rising in these categories hardware/auto/sporting goods as of late, I feel as if the retailers selling these items are no longer trying to price competitively anymore and everyone is getting a decent margin. There is less competition out there and it feels like the "race to the bottom" has ended in those categories. These categories are not labor intensive, the merchandise does not go out of season quickly, and I see no reason why Target should not handle more SKUs in these categories. But I've said that for many years and Target refuses to change and continues to double down on its merchandising strategy that is only useful for folks who live in an apartment and never have to fix anything or make improvements to their home/auto.

As long as sales of perceived higher margin decor/seasonal/clothing items remain, I don't see Target changing. Also with the way those categories go out of season often, are labor intensive to arrange/maintain, I question if they are REALLY even higher margin than a strong hardlines program would be, at the end of the day. On paper at a literal item wholesale cost vs. retail sales price analysis yes Target is focusing on the higher margin categories if you only look at those two metrics...
I was in a recently remodeled Target in North Phoenix (I-17 / Loop 101) and I was shocked as to how much square footage they dedicated to women's beauty supplies. They had the normal (if not expanded in size) beauty department on the same side of the racetrack adjacent to cash registers and then they had a large Ulta Beauty department directly across the racetrack from the registers. These two areas combined probably are around the same size as their normal HBA area adjacent to the Pharmacy if not larger. It seemed like a really poor use of space and seemed a bit overstocked in this category. I also didn't notice much customer traffic in either beauty area.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by storewanderer »

arizonaguy wrote: November 14th, 2022, 3:57 pm
I was in a recently remodeled Target in North Phoenix (I-17 / Loop 101) and I was shocked as to how much square footage they dedicated to women's beauty supplies. They had the normal (if not expanded in size) beauty department on the same side of the racetrack adjacent to cash registers and then they had a large Ulta Beauty department directly across the racetrack from the registers. These two areas combined probably are around the same size as their normal HBA area adjacent to the Pharmacy if not larger. It seemed like a really poor use of space and seemed a bit overstocked in this category. I also didn't notice much customer traffic in either beauty area.
Target space allocations are off in their stores in various departments. I think the chain is being run in middle management/corporate by inexperienced idealistic young people who do not seem to know what they are doing in a lot of cases and this is the end result. Yes they get it right sometimes but they seem to get it quite wrong a lot of the time too.

Target has gotten too arrogant and having a condescending attitude toward the customer- you will take this the way we want to give it to you and you will like it. If you don't like it, tough luck. They seem to continue to double down on going after the female customer who they think is 80% of their sales, and continue to forget about the male customer. Target does not listen to paying customers enough. They may do a lot of surveys and focus groups but somehow the data they are getting out of those groups is not reflective of the actual shoppers who actually spend money in their stores. Or people who take their surveys/focus groups are not responding honestly/accurately in those surveys/focus groups vs. how they actually behave when they shop in the stores.

What you describe is very prime floor space being taken up by... women's beauty products? There is only so much demand (also these are high theft departments). Wal Mart learned the hard way about positioning a beauty department in that manner across from checkouts (theft was beyond out of control and they had to bullpin the departments in the stores where they did this; looks terrible now).
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2698
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 289 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by ClownLoach »

Now that more pictures are posted, unfortunately the speculation is confirmed that this is not a "SuperTarget" grocery setup but the standard Target setup instead (P-fresh). The map didn't make this clear when it showed meat and deli in a way that looked like they were perimeter type areas and one earlier picture looked like a new version of the larger wall graphics used in SuperTarget.

As far as square footage goes I have two actual SuperTarget builds near me, one is 150K and other is 160K. I would guess the average regular format Target is about 100K, "Greatland" Era about 130K so this is still substantially larger than a regular Target. There is definitely a superior depth of SKUs in the former Greatland and Super locations - Target reduced too many of the basics in the regular stores when they launched P-fresh. They need that depth of assortment. So maybe this new format is really more of a relaunch of Greatland? I just wish Target would go back to signing what the store actually is outside. They really should bring back the City Target or Target express branding for the smaller formats to reduce disappointment. It also seems like Target has completely stopped regionalizing their apparel departments in their attempt to take share in the over-saturated "athleisure" market (basically yoga pants). So now they have a lack of swimwear in Hawaii stores, lack of winter coats in cold climates etc. and I can't imagine that they are doing well in apparel. This year they seem to have abandoned "ugly Christmas sweaters" despite selling them all out last year by Thanksgiving. I think they are just assuming that they don't have walk in apparel business and are serving it up as a convenience for grocery shoppers - but they don't have enough grocery assortment to be a primary shop for that category either. With the way Kohl's has self destructed and the struggles of JCPenney and other department stores Target should be aggressively revitalizing apparel to take market share. But they're already allowing the newer brands and product lines to stagnate and seem to be cutting higher quality items out of the SKU mix so they are more at a Walmart level of quality which won't compete. Jack of all trades, master of none is the current Target experience.

The entire reason for Target Express was sales per square foot - but when was the last time you saw Wall Street asking for that figure? Wall Street has moved on to e-commerce even if it kills your entire company. I remember touring with a VP and we went to an early Target Express in Orange, CA that was in a converted Ralphs (which was a questionable closure - nice newer store that had replaced a bad old Lucky). He approached the Store Manager and asked about the business, experience etc. and surprisingly the SM was willing to share quite a bit. But all he really kept talking about was sales per square foot, how he was leading his district in it despite being the only small format in that district etc. We were a tad puzzled about the fact that this seemed like such a quiet store and it didn't seem to have enough grocery - at that time apparel was dominating these small format stores and grocery was less than a Target P-fresh setup. So if that metric was the key to opening these up - and now it doesn't matter - then it's also a reason to shut these down in the future as leases expire especially if they are shrinking out or have other problems. Nearly every Target Express store has challenging logistics - no stockroom at all in some cases, some with no docks or requirements for short/mini trailers only (like the Seattle one by Pike Place which can only get a 26' truck onto its dock). All of these logistics challenges increase shipping costs to these stores and also add to the labor costs to operate. So I would imagine that these stores are really bogging down the bottom line for the company with truck driver shortages, diesel expense and other costs from the supply chain crunch that are getting passed on to Target. And they had to use the "S Word" in their most recent earnings call (Shrink) which is kryptonite to Wall Street - they are always delusional and think that all retailers can operate at 0% shrink if they're well managed which of course shows exactly how little they know about the retail business - yet an analyst from an investment bank who has never worked a day in his/her life in a retail store can wield more power over a company like Target than the CEO. Sadly this is a fact of life today and it is continuing to ruin retailers nationwide.

I really question the decision to open some of these Express stores more recently. For example they opened one in a former Office Depot by LAX airport - the area is full of homeless people and the store is too small to have any useful assortment. Tourists land and now see this as the closest Target to the airport so they flock to it instead of the nicer full size stores in the area like Manhattan Beach. They show up at this maybe 20K size store, can't find a place to park, and are accosted by the homeless that are surrounding the store. On top of that, this tiny store has entrances on front and back so it requires extra staffing and security. I'll bet it was cash flow negative from opening day and won't improve as the homeless loot the store. Meanwhile it disappoints all these tourists and damages the Target brand. Really doesn't make any sense to operate this location at all. They aren't going to get any grocery sales either as the area is densely packed with Ralphs stores. Heck I think the CVS across the street from the store is actually larger than the Target.
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2698
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 289 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by ClownLoach »

storewanderer wrote: November 14th, 2022, 5:47 pm
arizonaguy wrote: November 14th, 2022, 3:57 pm
I was in a recently remodeled Target in North Phoenix (I-17 / Loop 101) and I was shocked as to how much square footage they dedicated to women's beauty supplies. They had the normal (if not expanded in size) beauty department on the same side of the racetrack adjacent to cash registers and then they had a large Ulta Beauty department directly across the racetrack from the registers. These two areas combined probably are around the same size as their normal HBA area adjacent to the Pharmacy if not larger. It seemed like a really poor use of space and seemed a bit overstocked in this category. I also didn't notice much customer traffic in either beauty area.
Target space allocations are off in their stores in various departments. I think the chain is being run in middle management/corporate by inexperienced idealistic young people who do not seem to know what they are doing in a lot of cases and this is the end result. Yes they get it right sometimes but they seem to get it quite wrong a lot of the time too.

Target has gotten too arrogant and having a condescending attitude toward the customer- you will take this the way we want to give it to you and you will like it. If you don't like it, tough luck. They seem to continue to double down on going after the female customer who they think is 80% of their sales, and continue to forget about the male customer. Target does not listen to paying customers enough. They may do a lot of surveys and focus groups but somehow the data they are getting out of those groups is not reflective of the actual shoppers who actually spend money in their stores. Or people who take their surveys/focus groups are not responding honestly/accurately in those surveys/focus groups vs. how they actually behave when they shop in the stores.
Target, for better or worse, used to maintain three basic prototypes and had the same footage allocations in each one. There would be space for local assortment in each "block" but the "blocks" stay the same size in each prototype (Regular, super, Greatland). For example in a regular store maybe Toys was a 6 aisle block, in Greatland it was 8 aisles, and in Super it was 9 aisles. There may be a regionalized mix in the block, but the space stays the same in the prototype/format. Now they let computers think for them and it creates chaos in the footage allocated so some departments just disappear or reduce to nothing while others are oversized for seemingly no good reason. For example the system might decide in the next remodel for a store that Beauty was a good performer, so increase footage and SKU depth 20%, but take the space from Office Supplies and Automotive by reducing each section by 20%. In both of those reductions they wind up eliminating double facings but maintain depth of SKUs. This is a good trade off. But Target has been remodeling remodeled stores (while creating "second class stores" like the neglected Reno one mentioned in many posts that finally got a basic remodel). When they remodel the remodel the same mindset applies and the second round really kills the store. In the example above on a second remodel the system will say "wow, last time we increased the Beauty department 20% in size we saw a 20% sales lift. This time let's add another 40% to the footage - but we don't have any more SKUs to add so it'll just be a bunch of double facings which should surely drive more sales. Now reduce office supplies and automotive again, those sales are underperforming because they're flat after the last remodel. Cut the footage and SKU count 50% in those two departments at this store all the way down to what we put in a express location.". Can you see where this goes wildly wrong? This is how a store gets really lopsized assortments like the one in Phoenix described above. If Target really is 20% online sales as they are now reporting then increasing facings is probably delivering a zero sales increase now since their order pullers are now using optimized software that pulls from backroom stock before sales floor - and the SKU reductions do take away real sales - which causes their space planning systems to take away more space in the next remodel or reset. It sounds like Target is realizing this is a problem with this new format as they very loudly state it has "Target's full line in every department", but they don't exactly have 150K square feet in every store to fix the problem in existing stores. It may also be the reason why the absolute latest remodels (which are finishing up all over Portland Oregon amongst other places) seem to do almost nothing aside from installing new signage, a little bit of rearranging but very minimal layout change, lighted department signage and the new really bright hanging lights over checkout. Maybe they have realized that they are screwing up the assortments too much in these remodels and they need to just make minimal tweaks and refresh of worn areas.

As far as the focus groups and testing goes - it seems like new prototype builds wind up in Texas most of the time because it's the only place where Target is building mass numbers of full size stores. The last new prototype a few years ago was also in the Houston area, and based on the upcoming store listings the next store large enough to be this "new format" will also be in Katy, TX - two new format stores in same town. But the focus groups and testing all happen in Minneapolis which just isn't a realistic test program. Everyone in Minneapolis area pretty much knows someone who works at Target if they don't work there themselves, so they are going to get skewed results in focus groups. For a very short time Target had some new leaders who recognized this was a problem and established a 25 store test group in the Los Angeles area so they could make better decisions about new initiatives. That program was killed almost as fast as it was launched, by the time the remodels were completed the whole thing was mothballed because the executives from Minneapolis didn't want to fly to California all the time to check on their test stores. This just gets worse - reading Target PR about the new format - they never left the corporate office and instead used VR headsets to "walk the new store" as they were making layout changes etc. so nothing was really tested in a real building before it went into the new format.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by storewanderer »

Reno Target is in unbelievably poor shape for a week before Thanksgiving.

I don't know what this chain is thinking or how store and regional management get away with a store like this.

Had the usual group of employees standing around talking up front. Only a few employees on sales floor. No clue who the manager on duty is.

Looks like the place is going out of business. Obviously it isn't. Looks like a bad Kmart halfway through liquidation but with shiny floors.

This Target chain is extremely distressed to allow a store to look like this for the past 6+ months and even after a store management change.
Trht16.jpg
Trgt13.jpg
Trgt10.jpg
Trgt9.jpg
Trgt118.jpg
Trgt12.jpg
Trgt5.jpg
Trgt6.jpg
Trgt70.jpg
Trgt8.jpg
Trgt4.jpg
Trgt3.jpg
Trgt2.jpg
Trgt16.jpg
Trgt1.jpg
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2698
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 289 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target to shift to larger 150k square foot prototype

Post by ClownLoach »

storewanderer wrote: November 17th, 2022, 10:43 pm Reno Target is in unbelievably poor shape for a week before Thanksgiving.

I don't know what this chain is thinking or how store and regional management get away with a store like this.

Had the usual group of employees standing around talking up front. Only a few employees on sales floor. No clue who the manager on duty is.

Looks like the place is going out of business. Obviously it isn't. Looks like a bad Kmart halfway through liquidation but with shiny floors.

This Target chain is extremely distressed to allow a store to look like this for the past 6+ months and even after a store management change.

Trht16.jpg
Trgt13.jpg
Trgt10.jpg
Trgt9.jpg
Trgt118.jpg
Trgt12.jpg
Trgt5.jpg
Trgt6.jpg
Trgt70.jpg
Trgt8.jpg
Trgt4.jpg
Trgt3.jpg
Trgt2.jpg
Trgt16.jpg
Trgt1.jpg
I'm still baffled every time I see these pictures of Reno, but I wasn't very impressed with anything I saw in Oregon or Washington last month either.

I was just in a SuperTarget in Menifee (Riverside County area) and the store was absolutely immaculate. Maybe a handful of outs in each aisle. Someone with grocery experience is clearly managing foods - they get the concept of merchandising to ownership, fully flexing the produce department etc. versus the abysmal empty racks and bins of the past as Target used to operate strictly by the plano gram. I started my Thanksgiving shopping at Costco as always but wound up getting everything else at that SuperTarget (except for the vegetables and pies I'll buy day before). I am a tad annoyed by the fact that they're starting some of that "must buy 2" pricing on some of the foods, example Campbell's soups were $4 for 4 (must buy 4 or otherwise regular price). But I seem to recall they did the same thing last year around Thanksgiving so maybe it's a temporary thing driven by vendors? The store was very busy, packed parking lot. They added a bank of Tesla super chargers which is certainly helping their business, and the Murrieta/Temecula/Menifee area is still thriving because you can still buy a very nice, large home at a reasonable price. My other recent Target experiences at full size stores in LA and Orange County were also fine, but this Menifee store really shines. We did visit a small format by LAX recently and it looked about like that Reno store - newly opened and looted daily by shoplifting, smaller than the CVS across the street. It's a complete waste but clearly they never should have opened it plus the area has severely deteriorated in last 18 months like much of LA (I think they got stuck - signed the lease and sat on it as long as allowable before they had to open it to meet contract requirements).

So I just don't know what to say other than Target clearly has the capability of running excellent stores again, but they must have some of the divisional issues we see at other companies (like the dreadful Denver division at Albertsons). I'm still convinced that their Southern California region is probably their best operated division - with rare exceptions store conditions are always good, and if you encounter a bad store here it gets fixed very quickly and stays fixed.
Post Reply