简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:JCPenney, Sears, Kohl's, and Target are just a few stores that had overcrowded racks, broken mannequins, and large messes throughout the store.
We've visited nearly 40 stores in the last three months. The state of each store often revealed a lot about the company's struggles as a whole.
Sears, Target, and the Vitamin Shoppe were some of the messiest stores we saw. But there were others as well.
In the worst cases, stores had merchandise on the floor, overcrowded racks, broken mannequins, and unsightly objects blocking the aisles.
Target was the messiest store we saw by far. But even so, the company is doing surprisingly well in terms of sales.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
It's been a tough year for retail. The proof is in the stores.
Often, when a company is struggling internally, the effects can be observed in person. In the case of Sears and Bed Bath & Beyond, their announced store closures and drops in sales were not surprising after we saw the state of each store.
Both were punctuated by issues with organization and cleanliness.
Read more: We went to Kohl's and Target and found they were both a mess. Here's why I'd shop at Target anyway.
However, sometimes — as in the case of Target — a disorganized and chaotic store environment isn't symptomatic of larger struggles for the company. For example, we visited a Manhattan Target in August and were shocked by the mess we found, but the company beat expectations in the second quarter of 2019 and reported a 3.4% growth in comparable sales.
From Urban Outfitters to Sears, here are the top seven messiest stores we've seen so far.
Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.