OT: Demise of Target in Canada

[JF Mezei]

A few years ago, Target USA decided to setup shop in Canada. Instead of
buying the existing Zellers business from Hudsons Bay Corp, it only
bought the leases to stores and built its operations from scratch (not
even bringing in systems from its existing US operations).


The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
surprised.


http://www.canadianbusiness.com/the-last-days-of-target-canada/

The above article is worth a read in a "how to not fail" scenario that
could happen to any company. It does include the 3 letters S A P.



I am amazed that SAP is still in business and still being deployed
considering the number of spectacular failures caused by the move to its
software.

[VAXman-]

So, what you are saying is that SAP is selected by saps?
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[David Froble]

JF Mezei wrote:

> I am amazed that SAP is still in business and still being deployed
> considering the number of spectacular failures caused by the move to its
> software.

Not so amazing. Consider ....

A business gets started by people who know the business. Fine, they may make it.

Sooner or later, there is leadership change. People retire, get hit by the beer
truck, lose interest, etc. Now, who is called upon to take over the company?
Another knowledgeable person? Or, perhaps, the bean counter the former CEO used
to count his beans. You know, like that guy that Compaq set up as the CEO.

Sometimes, the bean counter actually knows something about the business, and
things may be Ok. But all too often the new bean counter CEO doesn't have a
clue about the business. That wasn't his job. So, who does he turn to? Why of
course, what he knows, the big accounting firms, which also know nothing about
the business. They of course suggest SAP, for which they can supply all the
$300/hr consultants (that also don't know the business) desired.

Look at the auto industry. There was Robert McNamara at Ford, and the 1960 Ford
Falcon. It did what it needed to do, other than sell. Then look at Lee Iococca
at Chrysler. An automobile person, who got $1 per year, until he turned the
company around, which he did. The auto companies seem to have learned the
lesson, if you want to survive, have an automobile person, not a bean counter at
the helm.

SAP, make your company conform to what it does.

Or

Have software that lets you run your business in the manner you know is needed
to be successful.

Which do you think works?

What happens when the bean counter doesn't want to pay for what is required?

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

I just read the full article, and it doesn't realy blame SAP *as such*.
This was a fault within Target itself. Most blame is on the buyout of
124 facilities from Zellers for $1.8 billion. That put a preasure on
Target to open their stores according to plan even if their operetions
and systems wasn't ready yet.

In no place does that article say that there was specific problems
with SAP, a part from that "it was a new system", the Target people
never got enought time to learn it and that the time schedule was
to anyway for an SAP installation.

But the largest fault seems to have been within their systems
that planed and calculated store shipments, and it seems to have
been an inhouse (?) application (its not fully clear).

They also had major issues with the POS system that did not
function fully as it should. That had nothing to do with SAP.

So it was a big management fuck-up. Part of the blame can also be
put on the US company structure, where it seems as "whistleblower"
are not that welcome. It says in a number of places that "everyone"
knew it wouldn't work, but noone dare to say at the board meetings.

So, this could have happend with any business system other
then SAP also, the way Target run its operation in Canada.

Thare are many and much better examples of where an SAP
installation have created severe issues for companies.
But in this case, as it is described in the article, the
same thing would have happend with any business system.

[Kerry Main]

[snip...]

Back to basics is how the Lee Iacocca's of the world turn around businesses
that have gone downhill. They look at what their Custs need as well as what
their field staff needs.

Unfortunately, this is not something well understood with many in senior
mgmt. ranks today. Back to basics is not sexy, so things like "moving to
the cloud" (outsourcing under the hoods) without fully understanding all
of the pros and cons.

At its core, SAP is a very rigid software system based on best practices
developed primarily in Germany. If flexibility and tight integration in
business practices is what is needed to meet Customers rapidly changing
service and/or product expectations, then SAP is not a good fit. You adapt
to SAP - it does not adapt to you. And as others have mentioned, custom
integration with SAP requires large teams of very expensive resources.

Case in point (from actual experience) - sales reps from 2 or 3+ BU's
need to coordinate their offerings to make a solutions sale to a Cust
wanting a custom solution. Unfortunately, Sales Reps are measured
by BU specific sales (as setup by SAP). There was no way Sales Rep1
was going to provide the margins needed as his BU would have made
next to nothing - even though the company would have had enough
margin and future opportunities to build on the win. The back end
flexibility was slim to none in allowing cross BU revenue sharing - hence,
the company lost the bid (after about 100+ nasti-emails up and down
the chain).

Conclusion - when choosing new applications, one not only needs to
understand the needs of its Cus's, but also the needs of its Field people
supporting those Cust's.

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com

[li...@openmailbox.org]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:53 -0500
JF Mezei via Info-vax <info...@rbnsn.com> wrote:

> The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
> unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
> Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
> surprised.

No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
are talking about.

Target is a crappy store, has crappy products, crappy service. They
basically sell junk to people who buy junk. Nobody ever said a positive
word about Target that I ever heard. Their stores are depressing and
rundown. If they go out of business it will be a very positive thing.

--
Please do not copy me on mailing list replies. I read the mailing list.
RSA 4096 fingerprint 7940 3F02 16D3 AFEE F2F8 ACAA 557C 4B36 98E4 4D49

[John Reagan]

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 2:40:05 AM UTC-5, li...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:53 -0500
> JF Mezei via Info-vax <> wrote:
>
> > The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
> > unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
> > Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
> > surprised.
>
> No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
> place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
> place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
> are talking about.
>
> Target is a crappy store, has crappy products, crappy service. They
> basically sell junk to people who buy junk. Nobody ever said a positive
> word about Target that I ever heard. Their stores are depressing and
> rundown. If they go out of business it will be a very positive thing.
>

You must have different Target's then I do. I like Target. I drive past WalMart just to get to Target. Other than the data breach, I think Target's reputation was pretty good.

[Louis Krupp]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 07:36:03 +0000, li...@openmailbox.org wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:53 -0500
>JF Mezei via Info-vax <info...@rbnsn.com> wrote:
>
>> The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
>> unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
>> Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
>> surprised.
>
>No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
>place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
>place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
>are talking about.
>
>Target is a crappy store, has crappy products, crappy service. They
>basically sell junk to people who buy junk. Nobody ever said a positive
>word about Target that I ever heard. Their stores are depressing and
>rundown. If they go out of business it will be a very positive thing.

OK. Here's a positive word about Target: I don't mind shopping
there. Most of the clothes I'm wearing right now were bought at
Target. When I ate dinner earlier, I used a spoon I bought at Target
in 1976. And a saucer, too. I remember that shopping trip. $100
bought a lot of Corelle ware in 1976.

What does this say about me? About Target? About VMS? Weren't we
supposed to be talking about VMS? Come on, someone say something
about VMS...

1976... I hadn't heard of VMS. I was working for Burroughs.

Louis

[Bob Koehler]

In article <mailman.142.1454312230....@rbnsn.com>, li...@openmailbox.org writes:
>
> No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
> place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
> place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
> are talking about.

I've never once seen products at WallMart that are higher quality
than Target.

If you want cheap, and don't care, then you buy at WallMart.

[li...@openmailbox.org]

Perhaps you have different Walmarts than I do :-)

Some things I like about Walmart:

Gigantic selection. I can't think of any store that has more stuff than a
Super Walmart. Beer and wine too if you live in the right state(s).

Gigantic buying power = lowest prices on earth on many important items.

Watches, calculators, cameras, TV, stereo, hunting and fishing and outdoor
gear, bicycles, home construction supplies, tools, home and garden shop with
lawnmowers, sprinklers, plants, trees, pots, topsoil and mulch, I haven't
seen any department store come close, especially not Target which doesn't
even stock 99.9% of that stuff. Some watches, but that's about it. And they
can't match Walmart's prices. You can still buy .22 rimfire ammo at KMart
but I don't think Target (despite the name) ever had it.

One stop shopping with grocery and department store all under one roof
which is that many less trips to get all sorts of shopping done.

They make an effort to sell American made products while KMart and Target
sell whatever the cheapest junk is and it is hard to find anything
American made on their shelves. Because of their buying power you can often
get American made stuff at the same prices of Chinese stuff. I would rather
support my local economy than piss the money away in some foreign land.

They run my favorite operating system in their data center last I heard.

[VAXman-]

In article <b7ouabp58qpf1u05i...@4ax.com>, Louis Krupp <lkr...@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 07:36:03 +0000, li...@openmailbox.org wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:53 -0500
>>JF Mezei via Info-vax <info...@rbnsn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
>>> unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
>>> Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
>>> surprised.
>>
>>No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
>>place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
>>place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
>>are talking about.
>>
>>Target is a crappy store, has crappy products, crappy service. They
>>basically sell junk to people who buy junk. Nobody ever said a positive
>>word about Target that I ever heard. Their stores are depressing and
>>rundown. If they go out of business it will be a very positive thing.
>
>OK. Here's a positive word about Target: I don't mind shopping
>there. Most of the clothes I'm wearing right now were bought at
>Target. When I ate dinner earlier, I used a spoon I bought at Target

I purchase or obtain my clothes at computer and rocketry events. There has
never been any need to buy garments of any type at Walmart or Target. Now,
if Target were to carry VMS-wear, I might reconsider by shopping practices.

[VAXman-]

For Cameras and Video gear: bhphotovideo.com exclusively.

Watches? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

Calculators? http://tinyurl.com/cbhhm5h

>gear, bicycles, home construction supplies, tools, home and garden shop with

Home construction? Go to Lowes and Home Depot.

>lawnmowers, sprinklers, plants, trees, pots, topsoil and mulch, I haven't
>seen any department store come close, especially not Target which doesn't
>even stock 99.9% of that stuff. Some watches, but that's about it. And they
>can't match Walmart's prices. You can still buy .22 rimfire ammo at KMart
>but I don't think Target (despite the name) ever had it.

Not in the People Republic of New Jermany. Hell, I had to obtain a license
just to purchase a hot glue gun. ;)

>One stop shopping with grocery and department store all under one roof
>which is that many less trips to get all sorts of shopping done.
>
>They make an effort to sell American made products while KMart and Target
>sell whatever the cheapest junk is and it is hard to find anything
>American made on their shelves. Because of their buying power you can often
>get American made stuff at the same prices of Chinese stuff. I would rather
>support my local economy than piss the money away in some foreign land.
>
>They run my favorite operating system in their data center last I heard.

And they have a webpage devoted to photos of all the freaks, fruitcakes and
people who don't own mirrors that frequent their stores! I've never seen a
people of Target page, so I assume it doesn't exist.

[David Froble]

Possibly China's biggest exported of "junk" to the US. So much for US jobs ...

[Jay E. Morris]

On 2/1/2016 1:36 AM, li...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:44:53 -0500
> JF Mezei via Info-vax <info...@rbnsn.com> wrote:
>
>> The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
>> unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
>> Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
>> surprised.
>
> No, Target doesn't have a good reputation in America. It is a distant 3rd
> place behind KMart (absolutely terrible) which itself is in a distant 2nd
> place behind WalMart which is pretty good to great depending which store we
> are talking about.
>
> Target is a crappy store, has crappy products, crappy service. They
> basically sell junk to people who buy junk. Nobody ever said a positive
> word about Target that I ever heard. Their stores are depressing and
> rundown. If they go out of business it will be a very positive thing.
>

Really different then from Target here. I think they're trying to be
Walmart Boutique, upscale from Walmart. There's certainly no Target in
San Antonio that would be considered run down. Not that I've been in
every one but have been in several.

[Norm Raphael]

> In article <mailman.143.1454337190....@rbnsn.com>, li...@openmailbox.org writes:

> <snip>
>
> Calculators? http://tinyurl.com/cbhhm5h
>
> <snip>

> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Thanks for that.

Norman F. Raphael
"Everything worthwhile eventually
degenerates into real work." -Murphy

[George Cornelius]

In article <56ae8057$0$4554$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:

> A few years ago, Target USA decided to setup shop in Canada. Instead of
> buying the existing Zellers business from Hudsons Bay Corp, it only
> bought the leases to stores and built its operations from scratch (not
> even bringing in systems from its existing US operations).

I tried to post something in this thread when it was active but it
went to the person I was respondinging to instead. Pretty much moot
now so I will not repost it.

I do want to mention that this is old news. Target announced the
discontinuation of their Canadian operations at least two months
ago.

Target is the old Dayton Hudson corporation and is based here in
Minnesota. The corporate name became Target at some point, and
the department stores, which became Marshall Fields when they
acquired that brand, were eventually sold off and are now part
of Macy's.

Looks like they dove in too quickly with their Canadian acquisition
and suffered the consequences, which happen to include ceding a
lot of ground to rival Walmart.

George

[Neil Rieck]

Here is a related story about the failure of Target in Canada.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/billion-dollar-failures-how-bad-decisions-and-poor-it-killed-target-canada

Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.