is it a 'video killed the radio star' thing?

Retail is a finicky thing.  Betting the farm on the whims of a fickle buyer and the ever fluctuating trend.  Very few models are bulletproof, and building a reputation is that magic elixir of well planned marketing, a lot of good old work and a generous pinch of magic fairy dust.  So why is it when the now dusty or dysfunctional giants of the past shutter their doors are we so nostalgic about it?

I expect the answer includes some left over bit of fairy dust.  But are we putting too much emphasis on what once was and not evaluating what is?  Or do we only create nostalgia when we no longer shop there?

Over the past few months Toronto lost both the majority of the urban Sear's stores, the legendary Honest Ed's and very shortly mall staple, Jacob.

At first blush it seems like old institutions had had their day. But if this is my argument then why are we watching HBC resurrect itself, arguably, again.

Before Jacob, there was Cotton Ginny, or as we called it at the end, Polyester Ginny, both radically changing a well liked brand to their eventual decline.  Cotton Ginny tried to reach out beyond the basics and cotton, and it wasn’t what their customer wanted.  Jacob closed their casual store front, upped their prices and eradicated that pesky size XL from their offerings.  The quality also significantly deteriorated.  The shop was less and less full; those of us who enjoyed the casual line or needed that XL size had been abandoned.  All the while the sale section got bigger and was the first place many customers headed whenever I was in the store, myself included.  After not shopping there for several season’s I happened in recently and noted that the pricing was still more than I wanted to pay and the store wasn’t full for a weekend day.  Two days later the company announced its bankruptcy. 

Honest Ed's demise, looks from the outside to be the victim of the dollar store phenomenon and a bit of disinterest.  As in, the Mirvish's younger weren't all that interested and got an offer on the property they decided not to refuse.  Granted this is a very oversimplified answer.  But I'm not a customer of theirs, having last graced their door sometime in the mid 90's and being willing to pay just a little more for something of better quality I never went back.  I didn't get the appeal.

Sears Canada is an entirely different kettle of fish. An odd fit for downtown Toronto from the start, they set up shop in Eaton's old Toronto Eaton's Centre location shortly after Eaton's bit their own dust.  (Having worked at Eaton's TEC store in the early 90's I have some insight into what-the-what happened there, but back on point.)  Sears took up trade with modest renovations of Eaton's tired space, essentially used Eaton’s same merchandise floor plan and never really stepped it up.  It was handy if you needed a mattress or to look at vacuums, but the balance of the offerings didn't really appeal to an urban market.  As the mall upgraded their store mix and retail in general did well through the early 2000's Sears just sat there getting dusty and providing a handy hallway between the mall and the subway entrance.

If you're partial to analysis having the physical store be in competition with your catalogue was an odd choice, considering you could pick up your catalogue orders there.  And truthfully in a large centre the idea of paying for the order processing never sat well with me.  If you're partial to rumour there's a lot of accusations of using the division as a corporate type of ATM thereby devaluing the entire thing.  Oh and that stuff about an 'Ayn Rand' business philosophy used by people with 'C's' in their title.  An idea that is so farfetched I'm going to leave it over there rather than to make any sort of sense of it.

Eaton's also failed to innovate & renovate, held an entirely too large management team (people working in the walls as we called them) and a huge shrinkage and theft problem.  Yes that’s my perception, but not all of it is unfounded.

So why are we so upset when these giants fall?  Are we harbouring a nostalgia, which by definition, is no longer the reality?  Did we really think they would pull their socks up and get it sorted out or are we stubbornly hoping things never change?

By way of placing myself into a particular part of the city's history I was a very little girl when I both went to the closing of the Eaton's College Street store and then visited their new TEC location.  Later, I did at first find it weird to go to my old work location and find it was a Sears, but I got over it.  And in both the case of Eaton’s and Sears, by the time they were ready to close I wasn't shopping at either of them.

Perhaps the potential of something new in their place placates our loss?  But the new entrant is another enterprise fraught with uncertainty.  I don't know a single person who was sad to see Zeller's go but then again Target hasn't quite been a direct hit either.  I'll write soon about the anticipation by Canadians of US retailers and how we sometimes have to be careful with our expectations.

So I guess it is nostalgia. I have fond memories of the small town Woolco of the 80's but if I went there now would I be impressed?  I still sorta wonder if Cotton Ginny would have lasted now that so many retailers have decided to carry expanded size lines.  Although we still have some work to do there, but another time, another blog post.  It seems time and exposure to more choices does temper out expectations.

And sometimes, it's just that, the times, they are a changin'.

The now famous Honest Ed Signs

not, never

I spend a great deal of time purposefully distracted. I try to live by (George) Carlin's word and not sweat the petty stuff - and also the reverse because that's important.  In doing that I try not to pay too much attention to politics.  But lately I've paid closer attention to my city and its lack of progress and, perhaps because individual opinion makes the news a lot lately I've been noticing a shift in NIMBY from Not to Never.

The first time I really noticed it was at a party talking about an over-the-weekend closure by the TTC to do work.  The argument was that closure was inconvenient, to which I agreed.  But when I suggested they had tried to inconvenience the fewest people as they could my acquaintance wasn't convinced.  The thing is, there's never a good time to shut down a major downtown subway line in a busy city. But there are less bad times.  And that was what the TTC was striving for.

Admittedly my defense was more appealing 6 months ago before the official motto of the TTC became 'We're Sorry'.  And as much as I still feel my points are valid a week of being late to work for no reason I can see makes me want hear less why and see more action.

The major issue with any sort of progress is that someone is inconvenienced.  This seems to be the modern way.  And unfortunately the result doesn't always work out for the majority.  It is, in as a very ambivalent kind of descriptor, the price or result of democratic decision by committee.

I do not have great examples to share.  But issues that come to mind are the discussion about wind power.  As a province we are taxing our power grid.  We need to make more but everyone wants some sort of 'clean' power.  Provided it's not unsightly, inconvenient, disruptive or nearby.  All elements which are unavoidable. And so we do nothing and the problem is not solved.  And so it goes ad nauseam.

I don't have to fabulous solution.  I have nothing stupendous to say.  Other then think. 

Yes, no one like it when development encroaches on our lives but what is the payoff?  Does the current system work?  Is a bit of pain worth it? 

I don't know.

I can only tell you what I see.  And sometimes the answer is that I can get behind the least bad choice.

Now, how does one make an appointment with Andy Byford?  I have some choice words about the state of my backyard.