If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Tarmazon? Amarget?   ( bloomberg.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Target Corporation, well-known technology analyst, co-founder Gene Munster, Citigroup analyst Paul, CFRA bank analyst, analyst Tom Forte, Lululemon Athletica Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  
•       •       •

2553 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:20 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-01-02 11:36:49 AM  
'Meeeeeee-BA! 'Meeeeee-BA! 'Meeeeeee-BA! *engulf*....
...
'Meeeeeee-BA! 'Meeeeee-BA! 'Meeeeeee-BA!
 
2018-01-02 11:53:09 AM  
Narrator: "They won't"
 
2018-01-02 11:56:47 AM  
Has anyone ever done a follow up on futurists and predictions like this? Because I have to say it puts me in mind of psychics and other con jobs.
 
2018-01-02 12:12:17 PM  

mainsail: Has anyone ever done a follow up on futurists and predictions like this? Because I have to say it puts me in mind of psychics and other con jobs.


I'd like see a follow-up of analyst predictions vs their gains/loses for the year. Is it insider trading if you make your portfolio changes before you get on your media soapbox?
 
2018-01-02 12:13:01 PM  

mainsail: Has anyone ever done a follow up on futurists and predictions like this? Because I have to say it puts me in mind of psychics and other con jobs.


The thing is, there's a very real motive behind this - manipulating market values to capitalize on such "predictions." Dropping this hint, for example, should make Target's stock rise just a bit, as easily-led investors anticipate an Amazon takeover...

...and, quelle surprise! Target's stock value has received a lovely bump - about 3% - since this article was published, reversing a week-long downward trend.

That's why these assholes make these "predictions."
 
2018-01-02 12:24:36 PM  
But Target and Amazon were partnered before and it didn't work for either. Am I the only person with permanence of memory?
 
2018-01-02 12:26:11 PM  
Why would you buy that you would destroy?
 
2018-01-02 12:26:45 PM  
Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.
 
2018-01-02 12:28:24 PM  

mainsail: Has anyone ever done a follow up on futurists and predictions like this? Because I have to say it puts me in mind of psychics and other con jobs.


The Futurist Magazine from 1986(?):  "By the year 2000, all heavy manufacturing jobs will have moved to low orbit"

One of my favorites to cite because there are just so many things wrong with the baseline prediction.  Like moving millions of tons of factories to low orbit and then arranging for millions of workers to make daily commutes.
 
2018-01-02 12:29:24 PM  

GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.


Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears
 
2018-01-02 12:32:28 PM  
The empty Target stores will make nice Amazon drone airports.
 
2018-01-02 12:33:23 PM  

12349876: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears


Amazon doesn't want B&M in the traditional sense. They want showrooms, and cheap local distribution hubs. What Sears still has in droves is real estate.
 
2018-01-02 12:44:13 PM  
Armageton?

/Well, perhaps we were overdue.
 
2018-01-02 12:46:53 PM  

edmo: Why would you buy that you would destroy?


Because their stores make for perfect distribution centers for a nationwide 1 hour delivery initiative.
 
2018-01-02 12:50:27 PM  
Pfft.  You wish, Target.  You need to fix your terrible website on your own.
 
2018-01-02 01:00:25 PM  
Nope.  Nothing to gain.  Whole Foods was about gaining a foothold (and name) in grocery.  Target is general merchandise which Amazon already does better.
 
2018-01-02 01:18:20 PM  

doomjesse: Nope.  Nothing to gain.  Whole Foods was about gaining a foothold (and name) in grocery.  Target is general merchandise which Amazon already does better.


Exactly.  Whole Foods gave them groceries.  Something they can't really do online in a really cost effective manner.  Target?  That's a waste of capex.

GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.


The only sensible thing to do with Sears is throw it on the wagon.
 
2018-01-02 01:24:18 PM  
enchantedamerica.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 01:28:25 PM  
Ama....Amaaa....Amagonnatakeallayoumon​ey.
 
2018-01-02 01:49:06 PM  

GardenWeasel: 12349876: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears

Amazon doesn't want B&M in the traditional sense. They want showrooms, and cheap local distribution hubs. What Sears still has in droves is real estate.


Not anymore.  They sold it to their CEO to stay afloat.

Target has already partnered with CVS in my area.  I'd expect the two of them (and Aetna) to form a retail Voltron.
 
2018-01-02 01:52:50 PM  
If Amazon does acquire Target they will pick up another 41 distribution centers putting their distro infrastructure at more than twice that of Walmart.

http://www.mwpvl.com/html/target.html​
 
2018-01-02 02:38:06 PM  

GardenWeasel: 12349876: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears

Amazon doesn't want B&M in the traditional sense. They want showrooms, and cheap local distribution hubs. What Sears still has in droves is real estate.


I always imagined an Amazon store being like Service Merchandise.  And that didn't work out too well for them.
 
2018-01-02 02:44:02 PM  

GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.


It makes zero sense to buy Sears. They don't own the property. Their logistics network is a nightmare. Their customer base is non-existent. There is no upside to that purchase.
 
2018-01-02 03:05:16 PM  

mainsail: Has anyone ever done a follow up on futurists and predictions like this? Because I have to say it puts me in mind of psychics and other con jobs.


Gene Munster's predictions are often wildly wrong. Another example. And another.

What he is good at is creating clickbait.
 
2018-01-02 03:09:47 PM  
Yet another "analyst" who doesn't understand that Amazon's acquisition of WF wasn't about having brick and mortar store, but ramping up their food delivery service. Overnight they acquired a nationwide food distribution   network.
 
2018-01-02 03:28:24 PM  

wildcardjack: But Target and Amazon were partnered before and it didn't work for either. Am I the only person with permanence of memory?


They weren't partners.  Target basically hired Amazon to host their online presence in the early days until they figured out how to do it themselves.  Which they eventually did.  Same way they hired SuperValue to manage their grocery warehouses until they built their own.
 
2018-01-02 03:45:18 PM  

Sugarbombs: GardenWeasel: 12349876: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears

Amazon doesn't want B&M in the traditional sense. They want showrooms, and cheap local distribution hubs. What Sears still has in droves is real estate.

I always imagined an Amazon store being like Service Merchandise.  And that didn't work out too well for them.


Service Merchandise was just strange. A medium sized showroom coupled to a smallish warehouse where they'd grab the products from. It always felt like a big gimmick. The Amazon version would be a Target store sized showroom filled with one copy of a million items, where you touch and feel whatever it is you're buying, and when you "buy" them they pull stock from a real Amazon warehouse and ship it to your home, or drop ship it to the store within an hour.
 
2018-01-02 04:06:43 PM  
Amazon will make its purchasing Target this year?
 
2018-01-02 04:11:02 PM  

jayphat: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

It makes zero sense to buy Sears. They don't own the property. Their logistics network is a nightmare. Their customer base is non-existent. There is no upside to that purchase.


Yeah, the only thing which would make Sears attractive would be the real estate, and I'm pretty sure CEO Ayn Rand has already spun off that part into his own thing.

/it would be nice if Amazon bought Sears and converted many* of the stores into Amazon Showrooms, but it ain't gonna happen
//* but not all - maybe convert a third of the stores
 
2018-01-02 06:53:41 PM  
I love auto-play video when I have a cat sleeping on my lap, it's exciting. Scuze me while I go get a transfusion.
 
2018-01-02 07:23:13 PM  
Too bad they didn't buy them before their failed attempt in Canada.
 
2018-01-02 07:31:35 PM  
Target is a waste of capital. Amazon could buy part of a mall management company's junk portfolio and get cheap commercial real estate in suburban areas for "get it today" delivery they want to do.
 
2018-01-02 08:06:39 PM  
Target would be too large and expensive. Buying into malls, or a few regional chains would be a better bet.
Damn, I just heard this crap on NPR.
 
2018-01-02 09:48:01 PM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2018-01-03 12:08:16 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: edmo: Why would you buy that you would destroy?

Because their stores make for perfect distribution centers for a nationwide 1 hour delivery initiative.


They'd need to seriously overhaul the way the Target stores are setup, though. I worked weekends over the holidays there for some extra cash in my bindle, and mainly did picking for online orders.

They are using the store inventory for fulfilling online orders, but the whole system falls down because there isn't really good product tracking between the items arriving on the trucks and being placed in back stock, so you have employees trying to guess where items the computer says it has are hiding. They could be on the wrong shelf, or the planogram could have been flexed to a new location, or the items might be sitting in a cart waiting to be backstocked. It's especially awful for clothing because half the items are "not on planogram" when the Android device used for picking orders tells you where to look for it, so employees spend 10-15 wandering around the racks full of clothes trying to find the right collar and size (and even the back stock is not located and is just hanging from ceiling mounted racks). Compared to Amazon warehouses where the system knows exactly where every item is stocked at all times, it is horribly inefficient in terms of labor costs, and I don't know how you solve the problem without reworking the entire store and drastically expanding the storage space.
 
2018-01-03 01:54:15 AM  

steve_wmn: Sugarbombs: GardenWeasel: 12349876: GardenWeasel: Would make more sense for them to buy SEARS.

Theyre already too dead.  Amazon would get 2 nice stores in my city for target but just a tiny hometown store with Sears

Amazon doesn't want B&M in the traditional sense. They want showrooms, and cheap local distribution hubs. What Sears still has in droves is real estate.

I always imagined an Amazon store being like Service Merchandise.  And that didn't work out too well for them.

Service Merchandise was just strange. A medium sized showroom coupled to a smallish warehouse where they'd grab the products from. It always felt like a big gimmick. The Amazon version would be a Target store sized showroom filled with one copy of a million items, where you touch and feel whatever it is you're buying, and when you "buy" them they pull stock from a real Amazon warehouse and ship it to your home, or drop ship it to the store within an hour.


lazerhorse.orgView Full Size
 
2018-01-03 11:39:24 AM  

CrediFi: If Amazon does acquire Target they will pick up another 41 distribution centers putting their distro infrastructure at more than twice that of Walmart.

http://www.mwpvl.com/html/target.html


This would be a great thing for people who work at those jobs.
Amazon pays it's workers more than Walmart. $12.50 vs. $10/hr average according to this article.

https://www.fool.com/investing/genera​l​/2016/04/08/as-minimum-wages-go-up-ama​zoncom-looks-like-the-bi.aspx
 
2018-01-03 12:02:47 PM  

Catlenfell: Target would be too large and expensive. Buying into malls, or a few regional chains would be a better bet.
Damn, I just heard this crap on NPR.


You don't buy the losing companies that have no future.  People saying they should buy Sears - you're just buying a dying fish with a shrinking consumer base.  Why buy into mall chains that are dying because everyone goes online for those purchases?  You're the one killing them and taking their profit, why take on their debt?  You already have a superior supply chain, a fresh consumer base, and are growing leaps past them.  Adding an anchor you have spend billions to rehabilitate or convert is absurd.  They don't have anything you really want.

Target, however, is a profitable and strong company.  They're doing well and practically thriving in the dying environment.  That's worth picking up, perhaps.  But the others?  Let them die.  They don't have much of anything you want.  They're a stone around your neck.
 
2018-01-03 02:34:50 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Mr. Eugenides: edmo: Why would you buy that you would destroy?

Because their stores make for perfect distribution centers for a nationwide 1 hour delivery initiative.

They'd need to seriously overhaul the way the Target stores are setup, though. I worked weekends over the holidays there for some extra cash in my bindle, and mainly did picking for online orders.

They are using the store inventory for fulfilling online orders, but the whole system falls down because there isn't really good product tracking between the items arriving on the trucks and being placed in back stock, so you have employees trying to guess where items the computer says it has are hiding. They could be on the wrong shelf, or the planogram could have been flexed to a new location, or the items might be sitting in a cart waiting to be backstocked. It's especially awful for clothing because half the items are "not on planogram" when the Android device used for picking orders tells you where to look for it, so employees spend 10-15 wandering around the racks full of clothes trying to find the right collar and size (and even the back stock is not located and is just hanging from ceiling mounted racks). Compared to Amazon warehouses where the system knows exactly where every item is stocked at all times, it is horribly inefficient in terms of labor costs, and I don't know how you solve the problem without reworking the entire store and drastically expanding the storage space.


Amazon though has those processes and procedures down to a science. This idea of perfect inventory management and perfectly efficient warehouse operations is Amazon's bread and butter. Target is just dabbling. If Amazon were to buy Target, they'd bring in their warehouse management.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report