Christine, people aren't fond of change, in general. That's why the stores that usually pop up and do well in malls are mom and pop operations, but rather large chains. Specific stores may vary in terms of size what items they carry, but they're consistent. For example, H&M in Livingston and H&M in Palisades are different in size and what lines they carry, but the "feel" of each store is the same; going into either store you have a specific idea of what they'll carry, how it'll be presented, and what their policies are, making any store that belongs to the chain "familiar" no matter how different individual locations may be.
To that extent, I agree with Andrew. If malls get rid of stores that people aren't shopping at and replace them with stores that people are actually excited about, they can keep consumers coming.
However, I think Andrew places too much of an emphasis on the aesthetics of a mall. Of course, no one wants to shop a dingy, unkept area, but pretty ceilings, carpeted floors, and leather couches aren't necessary either. What makes a mall "good" -- at least from my experience -- isn't what it looks like but what it's got to offer.
Take the two malls in my county, for example. The larger, more popular, and successful one opens up new stores all the time, but it's ugly as fuck whereas the smaller, prettier one is getting shut down. When the larger mall first opened, it had similar -- if not the same -- chains as the smaller one, but because it was bigger it could hold more stores than the other mall, and thus, offer things that the older mall couldn't. Despite it's general ugliness, people kept flocking to the new mall because they could get more of what they wanted. According to Andrew's theory, the smaller, older, mall could have stayed in business by scrapping all their old businesses for newer, shinier ones, but I doubt that would've worked. If you're going to pick between the mall that has the Victoria's Secret, Forever 21, and American Eagle and the mall that has a Steve Madden in addition to all those stores, you're going to pick the latter because it has more stores you want to shop in.
Aesthetics help, but they're not the main criteria shoppers judge malls by.
To that extent, I agree with Andrew. If malls get rid of stores that people aren't shopping at and replace them with stores that people are actually excited about, they can keep consumers coming.
However, I think Andrew places too much of an emphasis on the aesthetics of a mall. Of course, no one wants to shop a dingy, unkept area, but pretty ceilings, carpeted floors, and leather couches aren't necessary either. What makes a mall "good" -- at least from my experience -- isn't what it looks like but what it's got to offer.
Take the two malls in my county, for example. The larger, more popular, and successful one opens up new stores all the time, but it's ugly as fuck whereas the smaller, prettier one is getting shut down. When the larger mall first opened, it had similar -- if not the same -- chains as the smaller one, but because it was bigger it could hold more stores than the other mall, and thus, offer things that the older mall couldn't. Despite it's general ugliness, people kept flocking to the new mall because they could get more of what they wanted. According to Andrew's theory, the smaller, older, mall could have stayed in business by scrapping all their old businesses for newer, shinier ones, but I doubt that would've worked. If you're going to pick between the mall that has the Victoria's Secret, Forever 21, and American Eagle and the mall that has a Steve Madden in addition to all those stores, you're going to pick the latter because it has more stores you want to shop in.
Aesthetics help, but they're not the main criteria shoppers judge malls by.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment