you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 years ago* (11 children)

I’ll give Target a bit of lee at here because they were only there first to admit they were wrong, they also shared a bunch of data about how their shrink calculation methodology, which much of the retail sector shares, is flawed.

I have worked for target. Their logistics methodology is incredibly on point. They are highly invested in getting things right, if no other reason, for the sake of their own profitability.So as there are being open, they have some credibility here, I would say, especially given that others here are so closed. This interest certainly serves their profit motive as much as it services our our motive.  There is, at least, for now, no reason to distress them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Target: logistics methodology....

    laughs in Canadian

    No they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Canadian logistics sucks in general because Canada is one of the worst places, in terms of how population is scattered, to deliver any goods to.

    As a result, Canadian drivers often get US transport authority so they can make more money, but American drivers will rarely get Canadian authority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    No, not really. 2/3rds of the population lives along the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence River. The only out of the way centers are Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. But goods coming from Asia are going through those anyways.

    Target executives were explicitly told by HBC executives that their logistics weren't up to par, before the company moved up here.
    I have friends who worked for Target here who described their logistics as a bad joke. And they work for the government now in logistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I worked in logistics for years and ran a decent amount of international (both from ports and into Canada). I'm commenting about why Canadian logistics, not Target specifically, is tougher than it otherwise would be

    I'll take your word on things regarding Target specifically for sure, because it isn't my forte. Looking at your post, the Canadian gov probably knew their infrastructure wasn't up to the different challenge from the jump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    HBC is Hudson's Bay Company. Not the government.

    Target has for the last 15 years or so owned a controlling share of the company hence the high degree of cooperation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ahhh makes sense. Also makes sense how they'd understand the realities of logistics there to a much greater degree than Target. Here's hoping their influence helps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    A couple of regions aren't enough to make it worthwhile, at least according to an article I read recently.

    From the link:

    1. Economies of scale. Canada has a population of 39 million spread across a very large geographic area. Compared to other G-7 countries, retailers don’t benefit from economies of scale in Canada unless they operate across the entire country. A regional operator in the northeast U.S., for example, has a potential market of more than 125 million, while a regional operator in Canada is lucky to have a potential market of 15 million.
  • source
  • parent