Rosalind Evans
On September 26, Target’s decision to close nine stores in four states sparked a nationwide debate. Citing theft and organized retail crime as primary reasons, the retail giant suggested these factors rendered the stores too hazardous to operate. This move supported concerns about the rising impact of retail crime on significant businesses. However, a detailed CNBC investigation reveals a more complex scenario, challenging Target’s rationale and suggesting alternative motives behind these closures.
Target’s closure announcement was initially seen as a testament to the crippling effects of retail crime on store operations. However, CNBC’s thorough examination paints a different picture. Surprisingly, Target’s closed stores experienced less crime than those it kept open in the same areas. This discrepancy raises questions about the company’s motives, suggesting a possible strategy to influence legislative action against retail crime or divert attention from the stores’ financial struggles amidst declining sales.
Mark Cohen, a professor at Columbia Business School and former retail executive, expressed skepticism about Target’s reasons, hinting at a potential stunt to overshadow the company’s overall performance issues. Despite Target spokesperson Jim Joice’s emphasis on the company’s growth and safety investments, the specific crime data for the closed stores, obtained through public records and law enforcement sources, contradicts Target’s claims. The records showed that nearly all the secure stores had fewer police incidents and reported crimes than those that remained nearby.
The decision-making process also appeared influenced by store location and demographics. Stores in areas with higher median incomes and better foot traffic, despite experiencing more crime, were kept open. This trend was evident in various cities like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and New York City, where the closed stores generally saw less crime than their counterparts. In some instances, the crime trends matched local statistics, further complicating the narrative around these closures.
Target’s store closures, initially framed as a response to escalating retail crime, reveal a more intricate reality upon closer examination. The contrasting crime data at closed and operational stores, alongside the influence of location and demographics, suggest a multifaceted corporate strategy. While safety concerns remain valid, the broader context of Target’s decisions highlights the complex interplay between crime statistics, financial performance, and retail strategy in today’s challenging business landscape.
