3 ms·
This seems a case of extracting a lot of information from very little data. The economy is in a weird situation. The situation is extremely fluid. And people w
by tomjen3 1y ago
This seems a case of extracting a lot of information from very little data.
The economy is in a weird situation. The situation is extremely fluid. And people who can afford to buy groceries, partially with a subscription service, are also the kind of people who are less likely to be affected by the economy.
There you have it. There is an alternative explanation that fits the same data. In fact I'll argue it fits a little bit better since the other chain's foot traffic was up only 0.3 percent. If people had fled from Target, you'd expect this one to go up quite a bit more.
- josefresco 1y agoIt's like 10-13 weeks of data that directly corresponds with a new US administration, how long should we wait?
- tomjen3 1y agoExactly. It's a new administration who has done some, shall we say, questionable things to the economy. That is going to have an impact on people. Which means they're going to spend less money in stores, especially those who have a more uncertain income. What is more likely? That people care about some rather obscure policies or that they care if they are able to keep their job?
- rtkwe 1y agoYou can compare it to other companies in the sector that didn't so publicly come out trashing their DEI programs to know if that's an additional factor and when you do you see Target has fallen farther than the rest in most metrics.
- ncr100 1y agoTarget has 30 million customers per WEEK so this is truly mathematically significant and believable.