CVS Closing Dozens of Pharmacies Inside Target

[pseudo3d]

I don't think many people consider Target to be a one-stop shop. Walmart is a supercenter where you can get everything you want. Target is, at least in California, viewed as a clothing and household store. No one thinks "let's go to Target!" when they need something for their car. (Perhaps it's different at SuperTargets, I don't have one of those near me).

Target was probably forced to cut assortment in these departments because of low sales. That is probably for the best. Target isn't Walmart and shouldn't try to be. They should focus on their strengths and not spread themselves thin by trying to sell everything. Clothing, home/bath items, a good grocery selection, and a pharmacy are all they really need. If they execute that well, they will have no problem attrating customers.

I think you are right that many people do not consider Target to be a one-stop shop. But a store of its size should be a one stop shop. Otherwise it is a waste of space and not using its square footage effectively. And this is why Target continues to lag behind Wal Mart as a whole. This is part of why Target continues to have issues on the grocery side (though they report they are having great success on grocery in recent years).

Target cut assortment in those departments because they were unhappy with margins and thought they were better off focusing on higher margin seasonal goods and such.

Clothing is not the strength for Target that it is made out to be. Their clothing areas seem to have traffic issues and the amount of kids and women's clothing they send to the salvage operator "FALLING PRICES" in CA/NV which only gets there after Target tries to sell it at 70% off for weeks/months is unreal. Their clothing prices have become very high, department store like, and I think they have been using price hikes to cover up volume declines on the clothing side for years now. Their clothing used to be "cheap chic" and "trend ready." Now it is "mall expensive" and "trashy." Home/baby seems to be a strength because certain competitors went out of business who focused on those categories. Their grocery selection is not very good and pharmacy is lacking.

Target has a lot of "plus size" models. Women do not want to shop at the "fat girl" store, it's one of the reasons of the downfall of Forever 21.

[ClownLoach]

I don't think many people consider Target to be a one-stop shop. Walmart is a supercenter where you can get everything you want. Target is, at least in California, viewed as a clothing and household store. No one thinks "let's go to Target!" when they need something for their car. (Perhaps it's different at SuperTargets, I don't have one of those near me).

Target was probably forced to cut assortment in these departments because of low sales. That is probably for the best. Target isn't Walmart and shouldn't try to be. They should focus on their strengths and not spread themselves thin by trying to sell everything. Clothing, home/bath items, a good grocery selection, and a pharmacy are all they really need. If they execute that well, they will have no problem attrating customers.

I think you are right that many people do not consider Target to be a one-stop shop. But a store of its size should be a one stop shop. Otherwise it is a waste of space and not using its square footage effectively. And this is why Target continues to lag behind Wal Mart as a whole. This is part of why Target continues to have issues on the grocery side (though they report they are having great success on grocery in recent years).

Target cut assortment in those departments because they were unhappy with margins and thought they were better off focusing on higher margin seasonal goods and such.

Clothing is not the strength for Target that it is made out to be. Their clothing areas seem to have traffic issues and the amount of kids and women's clothing they send to the salvage operator "FALLING PRICES" in CA/NV which only gets there after Target tries to sell it at 70% off for weeks/months is unreal. Their clothing prices have become very high, department store like, and I think they have been using price hikes to cover up volume declines on the clothing side for years now. Their clothing used to be "cheap chic" and "trend ready." Now it is "mall expensive" and "trashy." Home/baby seems to be a strength because certain competitors went out of business who focused on those categories. Their grocery selection is not very good and pharmacy is lacking.

Target has a lot of "plus size" models. Women do not want to shop at the "fat girl" store, it's one of the reasons of the downfall of Forever 21.

This might be one of the dumbest and most insensitive comments ever posted on this forum.

They have one or two "plus size" mannequins in each store, and only in the plus size department. I highly doubt women see one mannequin and decide to abandon their cart of Tide detergent, Coca-Cola and Crest toothpaste, then go to Walmart where their new remodel concept has at least half a dozen plus size mannequins and 4XL sizes stocked for everything.

Victoria's Secret had all size zero models and was primed for bankruptcy liquidation. They diversified and replaced their "angels" with a group of women of all body types and it literally saved the company.

Forever 21 tanked by pulling a Haggen type transaction and moving from little 5,000 Sq ft stores to taking over 100,000 Sq ft department stores and couldn't figure out how to increase their assortment and inventory levels by 1900% instantly and still maintain the same margins, sell through etc. And operate with the same logistics, policies, systems and staffing as the little mall in-line stores.

Plus size models. Asinine.

Clearly Target is dying,considering they've "only" doubled their business in the last ten years and drastically improved their cash flow, profitability, indebtedness, not to mention they have more than doubled their wages in most markets (in some tripled). Sounds like the death cries of a failing company.

Can anyone come up with something more insensitive and offensive?

[ClownLoach]

I don't think many people consider Target to be a one-stop shop. Walmart is a supercenter where you can get everything you want. Target is, at least in California, viewed as a clothing and household store. No one thinks "let's go to Target!" when they need something for their car. (Perhaps it's different at SuperTargets, I don't have one of those near me).

Target was probably forced to cut assortment in these departments because of low sales. That is probably for the best. Target isn't Walmart and shouldn't try to be. They should focus on their strengths and not spread themselves thin by trying to sell everything. Clothing, home/bath items, a good grocery selection, and a pharmacy are all they really need. If they execute that well, they will have no problem attrating customers.

I think you are right that many people do not consider Target to be a one-stop shop. But a store of its size should be a one stop shop. Otherwise it is a waste of space and not using its square footage effectively. And this is why Target continues to lag behind Wal Mart as a whole. This is part of why Target continues to have issues on the grocery side (though they report they are having great success on grocery in recent years).

Target cut assortment in those departments because they were unhappy with margins and thought they were better off focusing on higher margin seasonal goods and such.

Clothing is not the strength for Target that it is made out to be. Their clothing areas seem to have traffic issues and the amount of kids and women's clothing they send to the salvage operator "FALLING PRICES" in CA/NV which only gets there after Target tries to sell it at 70% off for weeks/months is unreal. Their clothing prices have become very high, department store like, and I think they have been using price hikes to cover up volume declines on the clothing side for years now. Their clothing used to be "cheap chic" and "trend ready." Now it is "mall expensive" and "trashy." Home/baby seems to be a strength because certain competitors went out of business who focused on those categories. Their grocery selection is not very good and pharmacy is lacking.

I think you're right, but this is the doing of Target's attempt to add food. They used to be an all-under-one-roof retailer, but then they slashed the assortment entirely to bring in the P-Fresh line. Unfortunately the aftermath a decade plus later is certain categories have been all but abandoned even in stores where the space was never reduced (like Super and Greatland formats). Automotive is a great example, along with sporting goods, apparel, and yes all aspects of home. I have one of the few non P-fresh Targets next to me and it's like walking into a time warp and realizing how large these departments used to be. But the loss of business in say automotive, where Target used to even have a house brand for auto detailing products, probably means they no longer have the need for a category director or manager and they just have the same hundred SKUs or so spread across one, two, three or four aisle sides.

To the best of my knowledge Target seasonal department is the same size in all stores except small format and it has not changed size in decades (if ever).

Walmart has the same problem though in non expanded Division 1 stores that compacted the main assortment even more to put in full grocery, and they have more of those non-standard stores in California than anywhere else. No two stores (except prototype supercenters which are few and far between in CA) have the same GM lines and there's no rational reason for it.

[storewanderer]

Target has a lot of "plus size" models. Women do not want to shop at the "fat girl" store, it's one of the reasons of the downfall of Forever 21.

Based on what the competitors are doing as well as overall demographics I'm not sure there is an issue with that at the present time. I know in the 90's you rarely saw plus size models for clothing but times have changed with regard to that. I think the modeling business in general has worked hard to quit demanding a very specific body type and only that with no flexibility, as that is not representative of the population as a whole, and tries to be much more representative of the population as a whole.

[storewanderer]

I think you're right, but this is the doing of Target's attempt to add food. They used to be an all-under-one-roof retailer, but then they slashed the assortment entirely to bring in the P-Fresh line. Unfortunately the aftermath a decade plus later is certain categories have been all but abandoned even in stores where the space was never reduced (like Super and Greatland formats). Automotive is a great example, along with sporting goods, apparel, and yes all aspects of home. I have one of the few non P-fresh Targets next to me and it's like walking into a time warp and realizing how large these departments used to be. But the loss of business in say automotive, where Target used to even have a house brand for auto detailing products, probably means they no longer have the need for a category director or manager and they just have the same hundred SKUs or so spread across one, two, three or four aisle sides.

To the best of my knowledge Target seasonal department is the same size in all stores except small format and it has not changed size in decades (if ever).

Walmart has the same problem though in non expanded Division 1 stores that compacted the main assortment even more to put in full grocery, and they have more of those non-standard stores in California than anywhere else. No two stores (except prototype supercenters which are few and far between in CA) have the same GM lines and there's no rational reason for it.

I have one non P-Fresh also, in Carson City, and it was very cheaply remodeled around 2020 (first remodel since mid 90's opening) and they did not change layout much at all during that remodel so department sizes are interesting. They took space from men's clothing to put luggage in (that was previously over near hardlines by where seasonal got expanded into). They took space from hardlines to add a few more seasonal aisles. They also took some space from party/cards/office supplies to add more cosmetics. They actually took an aisle or two from food to add additional drug/HBA (but slightly expanded frozen which is on a small area of the front wall). But areas like home, kitchen, cleaning supplies, and pet are all identical to before the remodel. Toys/sports may have interchanged a couple of aisles (with toys expanding and sports downsizing). Aside from the changes to men's (cutting it) to give space to luggage the clothing/baby/shoe areas stayed the same size, maybe a slight downsizing to women's to add in a Starbucks.

I still think there is plenty of space even after considering P-Fresh to add additional hardlines. They could do it right on the existing couple of aisles. The few items they have are very spread out on the shelves, and there are few shelves. They could put up twice as many shelves, reduce the number of facings (they sure love to have only one facing of many items that need more facings to stay in stock properly- look at the grocery sections), and increase variety.

The only Div1 Wal Mart in my area is in Susanville and they have a hard limit how much space they can have for groceries in that store and were not allowed to expand into a Supercenter to protect the IGA there (and Safeway- both union shops). This is a really old store from 1991, one of the first in the area (they got to Reno around 1994 but were in Carson City from around 1992). So that is an interesting store- the hardlines areas seem fairly typical for a Wal Mart (auto/hardware/sports). Seasonal is very small but they do a lot of overflow with garden even having stuff like Christmas outside. No Home Depot or Lowes there. There is a Big 5. Toys are smaller as is clothing (there was a Ross there, it closed/is now Goodwill; still has Marshalls).

[veteran+]

Target has a lot of "plus size" models. Women do not want to shop at the "fat girl" store, it's one of the reasons of the downfall of Forever 21.

Based on what the competitors are doing as well as overall demographics I'm not sure there is an issue with that at the present time. I know in the 90's you rarely saw plus size models for clothing but times have changed with regard to that. I think the modeling business in general has worked hard to quit demanding a very specific body type and only that with no flexibility, as that is not representative of the population as a whole, and tries to be much more representative of the population as a whole.

The modeling business is gravitating back to slimmer models again according to what I have read an seen (my second career was a Talent & Model Agent so I keep up on this stuff and talk often with my friends in the Biz).

Side note: Target clothing has degraded below H&M

[mbz321]

Side note: Target clothing has degraded below H&M

The price of Target clothing outside of basic Tshirts and Polos is just outrageous as well...like they are no better than Kohl's 'non coupon/sale' prices.

[storewanderer]

Side note: Target clothing has degraded below H&M

The price of Target clothing outside of basic Tshirts and Polos is just outrageous as well...like they are no better than Kohl's 'non coupon/sale' prices.

And it is important to note this is not how Target's clothing used to be priced. It used to be priced quite a bit lower than a department store. That was part of the draw. It looked better than Wal Mart stuff, but didn't cost much more (another couple dollars). Plus Target ran percent off sales which got the clothing prices down further; they seemed to like 30% off.

I think TJX (TJ Maxx/Marshalls/Home Goods) has stolen a lot of clothing and home business from Target.

[pseudo3d]

I think you are right that many people do not consider Target to be a one-stop shop. But a store of its size should be a one stop shop. Otherwise it is a waste of space and not using its square footage effectively. And this is why Target continues to lag behind Wal Mart as a whole. This is part of why Target continues to have issues on the grocery side (though they report they are having great success on grocery in recent years).

Target cut assortment in those departments because they were unhappy with margins and thought they were better off focusing on higher margin seasonal goods and such.

Clothing is not the strength for Target that it is made out to be. Their clothing areas seem to have traffic issues and the amount of kids and women's clothing they send to the salvage operator "FALLING PRICES" in CA/NV which only gets there after Target tries to sell it at 70% off for weeks/months is unreal. Their clothing prices have become very high, department store like, and I think they have been using price hikes to cover up volume declines on the clothing side for years now. Their clothing used to be "cheap chic" and "trend ready." Now it is "mall expensive" and "trashy." Home/baby seems to be a strength because certain competitors went out of business who focused on those categories. Their grocery selection is not very good and pharmacy is lacking.

Target has a lot of "plus size" models. Women do not want to shop at the "fat girl" store, it's one of the reasons of the downfall of Forever 21.

This might be one of the dumbest and most insensitive comments ever posted on this forum.

As for "dumbest" I've seen a lot of terrible takes in regards to H-E-B, WinCo Foods, and Albertsons/Safeway. So not sure why you're attacking this one specifically. Insensitive? Perhaps, but being "plus size" is neither a protected category or above criticism.

They have one or two "plus size" mannequins in each store, and only in the plus size department. I highly doubt women see one mannequin and decide to abandon their cart of Tide detergent, Coca-Cola and Crest toothpaste, then go to Walmart where their new remodel concept has at least half a dozen plus size mannequins and 4XL sizes stocked for everything.

Walmart's clothing selection isn't exactly appealing to the core Target customer either.

Victoria's Secret had all size zero models and was primed for bankruptcy liquidation. They diversified and replaced their "angels" with a group of women of all body types and it literally saved the company.

It was a novelty that gave a sales bump and then reversed after two years of plunging sales.

Forever 21 tanked by pulling a Haggen type transaction and moving from little 5,000 Sq ft stores to taking over 100,000 Sq ft department stores and couldn't figure out how to increase their assortment and inventory levels by 1900% instantly and still maintain the same margins, sell through etc. And operate with the same logistics, policies, systems and staffing as the little mall in-line stores.

Of course Forever 21's business model was fatally flawed and brought back memories of Steve & Barry's pump-and-dump leasing, but there's also the whole issue of remembering who your core customers are and not putting them off, because that's what bankruptcies are made of.

Clearly Target is dying,considering they've "only" doubled their business in the last ten years and drastically improved their cash flow, profitability, indebtedness, not to mention they have more than doubled their wages in most markets (in some tripled).

I never said Target was dying. Right now they're in their stable state, but that's where the cracks are forming. Retail analysts noted problems with Sears years ago, with the retailer trying to push more into softlines, yet their continued success proved elusive and within a decade (despite still turning a profit) they were bought by a hedge fund...and well, you know the rest.

[ItsAshleyFTW]

I never said Target was dying. Right now they're in their stable state, but that's where the cracks are forming. Retail analysts noted problems with Sears years ago, with the retailer trying to push more into softlines, yet their continued success proved elusive and within a decade (despite still turning a profit) they were bought by a hedge fund...and well, you know the rest.

The difference between Target and Sears is that Target doesn't have the competition that Sears had. And in some areas, Target has no direct competition. In the five boroughs of NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Mateo County, California, there is no Walmart. Target is really the only store in those places where people can get a wide selection of items at a good price, all in one place without needing a membership. And even the places that need a membership don't have certain products like office supplies, small electronics, baby products, and many other products where a bulk-size offering isn't feasible. In some parts of NYC you have to drive up to a half hour or more, and pay an ever-increasing $17.63 toll (with congestion pricing if you live in Manhattan) just to get to the nearest Walmart. Target is just so much easier and convenient to NYC residents and has a strong foothold in the city due to the lack of competition. In fact there are more Targets in the five boroughs than in 70% of the 50 states (and they are continuing to open more) and it's gotten to the point where, in some parts of NYC, Target is the only physical store that sells certain categories of products. If you ask me, I think Target isn't even close to "cracks forming" and won't be so for a very long time (if ever). They make over $100 billion a year (Walmart, Costco, and Home Depot are the only large US retailers that make more than that) and have a market cap of $65 billion (about the same as FedEx). They're more profitable than Walmart and Amazon in some regards and have much more urban marketing. I just can't imagine NYC without Target (especially the outer boroughs).