234

...the data does not point to any clear changing crime trend that would justify rapid closures of these five stores for specifically crime reasons. Given these trends I’m highly skeptical that rising crime at these stores is the main explanation for the store closures.

...

My theory is that the above graphs are actually telling a deeper story. Those stores may not be closing in spite of lower levels of crime but rather because of them.

Crime isn’t good — obviously — but shopliftings at a store imply something about that store’s performance. That the stores that are closing have lower crime levels may suggest that they are seeing fewer customers than the other stores. The number of crimes isn’t just a measure of criminal activity, it’s also a measure of customers (NOTE: A few readers have pointed out that some of these stores are physically smaller than normal Target stores which certainly fits the data and is good context to have).

You can’t have pickpockets on Bourbon Street if there are no tourists around, so a ton of pickpocket incidents being reported can be taken as a sign of a rollicking good Mardi Gras.

...

Unfortunately, crime makes an easy and simple boogeyman for complex decisions that may only be tangentially related to crime — if at all. We are fortunate to have open crime data that allows for a deeper dive into the factors that may or may not be impacting corporate moves such as this.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Find out who on the board of directors is shorting Target stock. There's your culprit.

[-] GreenMario@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Sears/Kmart all over again.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

All of them? Sounds right.

[-] isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Sounds like they fucked around and found out what happens when you completely gut your system to cut corners and make data look pretty.

[-] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 year ago

I work at a target and so much this. This past month has been absolute hell, the inventory system does not work, they send shit that doesn't go on the floor for 3+ weeks all while we still have empty shelves of the things we sell right now.

[-] isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I worked there before it went to shit and left riiiiiight as they started gutting inventory teams. It has had absolutely spectacular fallout across the board just because they didn't like inventory team + system telling them their stock counts were totally fucked as a result of never giving overnight time to properly unload trucks.

It's even funnier because it's like this at almost any store you go into, same shit different spoon. Oh and pushing overnight to dayside so they didn't give them the extra money on their pay + hire less people lol. What a joke.

[-] joekar1990@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shit, a company I worked for had stuff on Target shelves and after we pulled the items we were still getting inventory back almost 1 year later. That seems so inefficient to me. I could be wrong but to my knowledge it's like this because each department acts as their own business unit so there is no cohesion it feels like.

[-] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

You are correct about how everything is weirdly split, we even now have 2 different beauty departments as they decided to add an Ulta into my target. Never will they schedule enough people in any single department though.

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

Crime isn’t good — obviously

That greatly depends on the crime being committed

[-] CarlsIII@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

I don’t know why they can’t then just say “these stores are closing because they don’t get enough business to justify staying open”. Is there something wrong with saying that?

[-] flyoverstate@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

because that would hurt their stocks and thats all they care about

[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I'm bummed they're closing the 117th street Target but it's been pretty barren for the past year or so. Target also just opened the smaller store at 86. It looks like they're reducing their retail footprint.

As far as retail theft, there's a Costco in that same mall and Costco recently reported significantly less shrinkage than other retailers. That makes me question the crime narrative.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

File this under “No fucking shit.”

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Anecdotally speaking as someone close to the one they're closing in SF the store really didn't make sense. It was too small to offer the variety of goods you want from target. For the stuff they did have they couldn't compete with other stores in the area. For groceries there's a Costco, trader Joe's and local coop close by that have more variety, and for electronics there's a Best buy across the street. Combine all that with competition with Amazon for misc. Home goods and they have no market.

Guess it's easier to blame theft then a failed business model, especially to shareholders.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

isn't target the one that sells with low profit margin but has membership fees? or is that costco?

[-] DrDominate@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Costco is membership. Target is not.

[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

On a purely anecdotal level from shopping at both, the Folsom St. Target in SF and the Harlem Target are both wack locations/spaces that Target shoehorned smaller operations into.

[-] TurboDiesel@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The 117th one? I dunno, it seems normal sized to me. The one on 34th street is definitely one of their "micro-store" concepts though.

My issue with the E Harlem location is more that it's SO picked-over. It seems like there's never any restock and the store is always a mess.

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If they cared about crime, they would be removing the stores in Fresno lol.

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
234 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2503 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS