Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Mall Bans Signs Touting Merchants' Web Sites 105

Posted by Roblimo from the start-your-xmas-shopping-season-with-a-dull-thud dept.
barjam spotted it: "The Saint Louis Galleria informed its 170 retail tenants in a letter last week of a new policy prohibiting any in-store "signs, insignias, decals or other advertising or display devices which promote and encourage the purchase of merchandise via e-commerce." The merchants are understandably irate. See the ZDNet story. The mall is afraid that e-commerce may eventually put it out of business.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mall Bans Signs Touting Merchants' Web Sites More

Mall Bans Signs Touting Merchants' Web Sites

Comments Filter:
  • I can understand why the mall is upset, although I think their action is silly. A bit like King Canute [viking.no] ordering the tide not to come in.

    But I guess the real question is, does the mall have the right to do this under the terms of the tenants' leases?

  • This mall is already in trouble (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wow. They managed to annoy lots of deep pocketed major retail chains with an (illegal?) limit on free speech. Yikes. What were they thinking? This mall would be lucky to retreat from this mistake with its tail between its legs.
  • We've had a similarish situation in the UK where the large car manufacturers are terribly terribly upset at people buying online cutting out the middleman. Both instances seem silly: if these guys, with the resources behind them were to set up their own eCommerce sites they would, if anything, grow their business and intercept the entrepeneurs that stand to make millions due to corporate inefficiency and institutional inertia.
  • With the emphasis, of course, on 'jerk'.
    If they thought this through for a few minutes, they'd realise that while a lot of people use the internet, a physical presence is still required, and will be for years to come. Pissing off your tenants with probably-illegal actions is no way to to business, and they'll probably retract this edict within the week.
    This is the best example of luddism I've ever encountered. Ever.
  • When I heard the St. Louis Galleria announced they would ban the display of web site information for the local store, that could end up being a HUGE mistake.

    There are these reasons for the mistake: 1) this is definitely a major violation of First Amendment rights, especially since the owners of the shopping center didn't bother to put in such a clause in the store rental contract, and 2) they just may have forced a potential boycott of the shopping center from specifically the group that would SPEND the most money at these stores.

    Gives new meaning to the phrase "Bah, Humbug!", that's to be sure.
  • Especially over something stupid.

    In a lot of cases ordering online is great, but I feel the need to touch, taste, try, and possibly damage the goods that I'm going to buy. I will never buy a suit jacket on-line, it's hard enough to get one fitted in a good store. Malls need not feel threatened by the net and should have a web presence, possibly with an amalgamation of links to the websites of the stores within the mall.

    E-commerce has it moments, but will never replace the tactile advantages that mall retail offers (not to mention the KFC).

  • It would be useful to know how much control the lease agreements give the mall over signs and displays. I'd be willing to bet that the agreements stipulate that the the mall management have to right to veto any signs or displays they don't like.

  • A little off-topic, but in a 40000-person population where I live, there are about five large malls. Each of them is desperate to attract businesses to set up there, and none of them have over 60% of their space filled.

    A pity about Hycel Partners. "We're trying to deal with each of these on an individual basis," indeed. Sounds more like "We're scared, we're trigger-happy, and we don't really know what to do."
  • Free speech? This is a mall, not a governmental institution. The mall owners can do anything alloted to them in the mall lease. The only way this would be 'illegal' is if the lease prohibited it, which i doubt. More than likely the mall can tell tenants exactly what their signs can and cannot say, how big they are, how many they can have, etc. etc. etc.
  • The article seemed to imply that *all* e-commerce / Internet references must be removed from the store's promotional material. Legally, they might be able to control signage within the mall, but how can the mall dictate printed newspaper ads? printed stuff on bags? catalogues? Time to re-read the tenant's agreement, I guess.
    ==================================
    neophase

  • No doubt, this is a braindead move on management's part--e-commerce is just an added convenience as far as I'm concerned, and even if I find something on the web I usually buy it at the local brick-n-mortar if possible, especially if it's a big-ticket item that could be damaged in shipping or that I may need to be able to exchange in a hurry without a hassle.

    With that said, this move is no violation of First Amendment rights. The First Amendment applies to Congress, not shopping malls.

  • Probably. The Mall is private space (sorry, kids, you really can't hang out here!), the stores are tenants, and the terms of the lease usually give the landlord broad power to review and limit signs, advertising, window displays and such. It's not a free speech issue but one of an investment group (which in all likelyhood financed the construction of the mall) blundering as it tries to protect the revenue stream it generates from the rentals. If the mall is new, odds are good that the investment group is still years away from breaking even.

    They may have their restriction upheld if it makes it court, but it isn't going to matter. They way people shop is changing. Connected consumers are better informed and visit the retail stores to touch and feel the product before buying it for less somewhere else. Actually, it's not remarkably different from the situation the large chain stores in the malls inflicted upon the local shopkeepers when they offered lower prices, greater selection, and more convenience than any small family business could offer. Reminds me of a proverb: When forests are cleared, splinters fly. It's unfortunate to be a splinter.

    Welcome to the new paradigm, shoppers.
  • Well Malls are eventually "On their way out" -- that's what people keep saying... "In the future we are all going to shop online" ... It's obvious that a little bit of this over and over would definately inspire some FUD to a Mall... they are just trying to make certian that they don't get pushed out of business...

    But lets be honest. Shopping is a social activity. What would the world be like if you didn't have to go running through screaming people to get your furby? Hell if your shipping on that Tickle me elmo you bought for christmas was late people would sue a webshop.

    The difference is that Brick and Mortar shopping has 6 thousand years or so of experience ... I don't think it's going away any time soon. Malls will always stand - they are actually a monument to how wonderfully commercial everything is - which if you read some of my other comments you will find out I am all for (bitter sarcasm).

    There are possible legal issues, does this fall under freedom of speech? Does this fall under something the mall can regulate due to an advertisment clause in thier lease agreement? Or more than that ... Does the mall really have the right to regulate how these people are going to conduct their business.

    I think that the mall was having problems and got scared and now will have so much bad PR that they will reverse their decision because of public and shopowner heat.

    At any rate, this is as always my opinion - what's yours?
  • The First Amendment only restricts the US Federal Government, and by some later amendment, state governments. Just about anything's fair game wrt private property that falls under contract law.

  • This expresses a "deep concern" doesn't it (Score:3)

    by Gurlia ( 110988 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @06:06AM (#1505661)

    The mall claims that it's expressing a "deep concern" that many other malls have, but are not showing. Doesn't this show that many people are still not ready for the evitable age of ecommerce? (Witness the parallel with so many business people that look at the success of Open Source with disbelief, not understanding why it works and looking at it more like a threat.) Human beings tend to be like the legendary ostrich... (probably more so than real ostriches, but that's beside my point).

    But in spite of all the catcalls this mall and other techo-phobic businesses may be getting from techies like us, I think we should stop and consider the issue that their reaction shows. The Internet is growing so fast, and getting so much attention, that barely anyone has had time to consider it's real relevence in our lives.

    Will the Net develop so much that eventually we can do virtually
    anything on it: shopping, socializing, entertainment, etc., so that it causes us all to be locked up in our homes, isolated from the "real world" with the Internet connection as our sole link?

    Apparently that's the picture a lot of people fear will come true. This is a rather significant question: what will the role of the Net be in our lives in the future?

    IMHO I think the answer is that it is only a convenience, more than anything else. I think the picture I described above will never happen. Why? Because the idea of a living, breathing human being, being willing to vegetate in a tiny niche on this globe with an Internet connection as his/her sole link to the outside world, is simply ludicrous. Human beings will never be able to put up with such a life. Tech-junkies like myself might be able to do it for longer times than others, but regardless, a human being needs physical interaction with the outside world, esp. with other human beings. Yes we have VR and all that. But nothing compares with real, physical interaction. That said, I think physical shopping will not die out. It will be less significant, perhaps, but there will always be people who prefer to physically see and handle the goods before they purchase. The Internet only acts as a convenience for the different things in our lives, but it is not a replacement.

    But of course, this is just my opinion. What do my fellow slashdotters think? :-)

  • As a resident of St. Louis, I can tell you that most tenants are ignoring this. They (the stores) have said they will take this to court if the Mall wants to conitue this insane charade. It's getting all kind of local press and most everyone here is outraged.
  • You see alot of fuss about online shopping these days and well. it is probably the new wave of the future but I don't agree with most of the reports that it will totally replace nomal shopping.


    There are a couple of sites where you can buy cars online, not find a deal on cars but BUY one. I can't imagine a worse thing to buy on the net, there is so much that you have to see and consider when getting a new car, especially used. Amazon.com CDnow.com have the idea, the kind of product that you can buy over the net is somthing that can be completely described in a couple words or less. A book is a book and a CD is a CD and you know what you are getting when you order it online but ordering cloths? Does it fit? even if you have your measurments that doesn't guarrentee that it will fit WELL. In any mall clothes stores are the majority.


    As a general rule the online things that really work selling online are things like books and CDs wich are all identical. It also has to be somthing that the person doesn't need in a hurry. Plus the fact that returning somthing to a online store and getting something else is a much bigger deal with shipping and such then anything that is bought localy







  • I don't shop online because I see ads in mall windows or on shopping bags. I shop online because I find that most stores still don't understand the basic concept of customer service.

    I live in Toronto and we have a beautiful downtown core. There are many unique little shops scattered all over the place. Most of the things you find in these stores are probably unique to that store and I don't think you'd be able to find it online. I doubt if these people are worried about losing out to e-business.

    Malls are scared because they know that what they do is provide an arena for middlemen to sell their goods. These goods are not all the unique, you can by them at any store. So why not save yourself the trouble and do it online, avoiding those marked up prices, the annoying sales people, the crowds etc.

  • Well I love shopping online for some things, but for instance the other day I went to the Kitsap Mall - local -- I went in and saw the new bed I am buying for us this Christmas, I went to Sears, paid my sears card bill. I then went to Zales and bought new 'wedding' bands... I was able to see the merchandise. Not to mention a cinnabon was conviently inbetween the Zales and Sears *yum*. Some little things like CD's, books, or otherwise noncritical purchases I can see eventually migrating to the web. But not totally. Let's be honest - how many people really want to go buying clothes online (As I think about the "don't get e-screwed" commercials).

    Mauls suck, Malls are okay ... plus it gives jobs to young people.

  • Re:This mall is already in trouble (Score:3)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @06:22AM (#1505668) Homepage Journal

    Free speech? This is a mall, not a governmental institution.

    That is absolutely true. It is, however a violation of customary expectations. Typically, restrictions are used to prevent obscene, lewd, or just plain ugly displays. A URL is none of those things.

    Of course, the Mall has to contend with free market forces AND with what's in their lease. For example, did they give the stores adequate time to comply? Does signage (which is probably the relevant topic in the lease) include shopping bags? Complementary bookmarks? I doubt it. What about products that have their web address on them? If the mall management continues with this, it will most likely devolve into a legal war of semantics.

    The odds are, they won't be able to enforce the ban. In the event that they can (or if they revise their lease at renewal time), the stores could elect not to renew, possably even as a group. That would more than likely break the management's back.

  • Cool (Score:3)

    by Amphigory ( 2375 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @06:23AM (#1505669) Homepage
    I can think of lots of good uses for all that retail space that will be vacated... Several churches have bought malls and setup swinging church/crossover ministries with charitable activities, community center stuff, and even homeless shelters.

    One that I'm aware of changed the name of the church to "those crazy people who bought the mall".

    Shalom.

  • >Let's be honest - how many people really want to
    >go buying clothes online
    Very true. It's just that I hate Christmas shopping, and I'm getting pretty stressed out.

    As for clothes shopping, it's pretty easy for me. Go to Wallmart, buy jeans, socks, and underwear. Go to Music World, buy t-shirts. Thank god I'm a full time student and can get away with a dress code that...
  • I am from St. Louis and was here when the Galleria was built. The owners are used to getting there way. Maybe this time the tide won't stay out, but they've succeeded so far.

    There was a smaller mall on the site which wanted to expand. The 80 or so quaint brick houses around them were reluctant to sell so they got Brentwood to blight the area. The blight laws are set up so the city can force the sale of property which is too run down to ever recover. They blighted a bunch of senior citizens, an audiologist, a yuppie wood working store, and a Ferrari dealer. You know once a Ferrari dealer moves in to the neighbohood there's no way it can recover. :-)

    They currently want to expand across the street, but only if they get a special exemption from taxes and I believe low rate government backed bonds.
  • Doesn't this amount to a ban on advertising other branches of the same shop? I would be surprised if America's rules allow this, and can't see the difference between banning display of website URLs and banning mention of that store's outlet in $COMPETING_MALL.....
    --
  • I wish more malls would go out of business, especially in high-price areas like here in Silicon Valley- that way we can have some more friggin' places to live.

  • Typical Corporate Short Sighted-ness (Score:3)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @06:35AM (#1505675)
    Of course, the mall owners are terrified of E-Commerce, but there's more to "The Mall" than just buying things.

    What they forget, is that the Mall isn't just a place to buy stuff. It's a social scene itself. People get together to go to "The Mall." That's not something you can do with E-Commerce sites online. I don't think I've ever seen friends say "Oh, let's go to MY house, and we can go shopping on the internet!"

    The main thing about getting people together to go to the mall is social interaction. Not only that, but you also have things there that aren't offered online. (i.e.: Resturants, snack bars, etc.) The presence of these places makes the Mall a viable option to make a day of being there. You aren't offered the same option online. Social entities like the Mall aren't going to disappear because of Online shopping.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Retailers versus Online (Score:3)

    by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Thursday November 25, 1999 @06:36AM (#1505676) Homepage
    Here are a few scenerios to think about:

    (1) I'm about to grab a bite to eat and I want something to read while I'm eating. I go to the bookstore, find something that suits my current mood, and go to lunch. 0% chance I'd switch that to an online transaction.

    (2) Someone tells me that I have to read this book. It's much cheaper online than it would be in the local bookstore, but if I go to my local bookstore I could have it right now. 50% chance I'll buy it online, increasing dramatically if it's a particularly expensive book, decreasing to zero if it's below, say, $ 15.

    (3) There is a subject I've been curious about that's rather obscure. I go to amazon.com and find a book on that subject with favourable customer reviews. 100% chance I'll buy online. But I'll go to the bookstore too and I have a nearly 100% chance that I'll buy what I see there, too.

    (4) I want a Canon XL1 MiniDV camcorder, a product which, at the time I bought it, sold for about $4,400. I could get it more cheaply via mail order or online, but if there was a problem it would be a hassle to return, and I don't really know if the online store I see has it in stock. 0% chance I'll buy online; I want customer service.

    In general, what I've found out is that I'll spend more on books overall than I did before online book retailers. Instead of passing up a $50 book because I can't afford it, I'll buy it online and get a good discount. But I'll still buy that $5-20 book or magazine and read it during lunch. I don't think bricks and mortar bookstores have much missed me, since I still buy from them all the time; there's nothing like being able to see and read what you're buying before you plunk down your money.

    So in sum, I really don't think bricks and mortar are on their way out. In fact, I think online retailing expands the total market more than it crowds out offline stores. In my case, that's certainly been true.

    D

    ----
  • The Mall makes 4 to 10 percent off of everything the store sells, so the stores are essentially cheating the Mall-owners by directing buyers to their internet site.

    This is not a freedom of speech thing, it is all about honoring the intent of a contract.

    The stores should respect the current business model of the Mall and perhaps suggest a change in the revenue model which is more 'internet compatible'.

    The fact that the stores are considering legal action is 100% proof idiotic !

    IMHO: Shopping Malls are all crap, and they should all be bulldozed.
  • Interesting ... they think if they ignore ecommerce, it will go away?

    Recently I was disappointed to see how few local malls had webpages of their own, listing what stores were in the mall. This would have saved me some time (I was looking for a particular item I knew would be sold at a particular store.) Buying the item online wasn't really an option. The malls that were embracing the web got my attention, and made it more likely that I would visit them in the future.

    Ecommerce is probably here to stay. However, not everyone will use it, and even those of us who are not afraid to use SSL ordering will still be using the real-life mall for some things. FUD tactics like this one will only alienate the informed consumer.

    YS
  • One can point to the trend in furniture/kitchen in that the components (sinks/cupboards) are becoming commodities so furniture stores are turning into lifestyle/design/fitouts where they assemble a package tailored towards the customer's desires. Perhaps car dealers will shift towards a similar philosophy in ordering on-line, but offering mag-wheels, gee-whiz mobile-phone/stereo/DVD, beer cooler, leather seats, etc .... Heck it'd be just like designing a portable room :-). Everyone is going to know the price so the only way to add value is to offer services (insurance, repairs etc) that make a one-stop shop with physical visits worthwhile. If you're just moving wheels, then you will disappear.

    As for retail, the basic stuff will be commoditised and automated but there will still be need for people to suggest alternatives and provide an admiring audience. Perhaps the days of the megamalls will disappear?

    LL
  • I thought this was on topic. When one is a confused young lad, [acmecity.com] there's nothing like the mall [freebsdmall.com] to check outfly members of the gender one prefers. [geocities.com]
  • There really isn't a simliarity here because cars are a product you sell and the mall is a forum where you sell.

    If the mall had its own commerce web site, that would place them in direct competition with their customers ( the people who set up shop inside the mall ). They aren't afraid they'll go out of business but they are afraid of losing very high premium rent.

    The inefficiency is what the mall makes their money on. Cut out the cost of rent, products cheaper online, mall loses business ( or rather, has to cut rent prices )
  • lol - I don't know, buying clothes online still scares me ... the emails that the complaint dept may get:

    To: complaints@shop.com
    Subject: hair?
    Body:
    I got my new pair of Levis today and before putting them on I found a hair in a rather unsightly area -- mind explaining?

    But honestly I love online shopping for CDs etc. I work in Seattle -- which is a larger city then where I live -- Port Orchard... Let's just say that I can't generally find little things like the newest DJ remix cd at Wal*Mart ;-) -- but Amazon has an okay selection.

    At any rate, l8rz
  • disclaimer: I hate malls. I find "the mall experience" exasperating. If they were turned inside out so that you could park in front of the store you wanted to go to and walk straight into that store's front door I'd be a lot happier about having to shop there.

    The mall in St Louis (and all the other ones, AFAIK)gets, in addition to the monthly rent, a percentage of each store's gross income. That's *gross* sales, right off the top before the store covers *any* of their costs (inventory, payroll, utilities, taxes, anything), and whether the store itself turns a profit or not. If someone buys on-line from, just to use them as a handy example, J.C. Penny's, then Penny's gets the money but the mall doesn't get a piece of it even though the purchaser went to the Penny's in the mall in question to examine the merchandise before buying.
    Find a way for the malls to get the same cut from on-line sales as they do from in-store sales and they'll *force* tenants to bombard shoppers with URLs.

  • These malls depend upon us going to them. If everyone shopped online they'd get no business, therefore have no job and no money. Well, I think them doing that is downright shitty, but if I were in their place I have to admit I would too.

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
  • This is simply another institution bitching because they've been made less important to their customers because of the Internet. I offer for example:

    RIAA and mp3's.
    MPAA and VCD's/DeCSS DVD rips/movie trading online
    Intel and Via

    It's amazing what how a free exchange of information can get so many corporate panties in a knot. To the RIAA, MPAA, Intel, The Saint Louis Galleria, and everyone else threatened by competition: It's inevitible, so deal with it. You don't expect your customers to search you out specifically if they don't have a good reason for it when they can get a better deal somewhere else, do you?

  • I fail to understand how this can prevent the stores involved from purchasing advertising space outside the mall's property. There's always the option to buy air time on radio, TV, and billboard space. And does the prohibition extend to business cards of the individual store owners? It would be interesting to see this go to court. If the mall wins, which I doubt, it'll only be due to technicalities in the lease contracts. Surely some compromise to this may be possible, where the mall can advertise the products of it's tenants online, and therefore receive a cut of take. (Of course, it'll mean somewhat higher prices for the online purchasing public. LOL!) Kibble
  • Not my fellow /.ers who are obviously intelligent people but these silly clods like the ones that think banning website advertisements will save their sorry little suburban-hell strip mall.

    Morons...if e-commerce is going to kill your mall...You can't stop it. It kind of reminds me of our postal services being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    All I can do is shake my head.

    Besides, I don't think malls are going to die. E-commerce may be convenient and perhaps cheaper, but its missing a few things: 1.Cash and carry, 2. the touchie feelie aspects of shopping and 3. the social interaction. The first two are important to me; I want to see the product, pick it up and bring it home...not look at a picture, then wait a week for it to show up.

  • What the stores SHOULD do... (Score:3)

    by mykey2k ( 42851 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @07:58AM (#1505692)
    They should all dot-com their names.

    What's the mall going to do, tell the stores they can't put their names on the door?

    So now what would be better... a non-descript sign promoting a website, or a 20 foot-long sign, lit up like a casino, on the outside of the store?

    -m


  • Absolutely right. Until the web can offer me tactile response, I'll do all of my shopping in person. (except where I can't get something locally) Pictures ain't the same as picking something up, asking the clerk questions, listening to a stereo, and so forth.

    Which isn't to imply that the malls have nothing to fear. In most cities, they've vastly overextended themselves, and will probably find that they'll have to close half of their malls eventually. Tough. Around here there are only two companies that own all of the 20+ malls, and they'll survive just fine when they close down.

  • Just wanted to add a bit to this discussion. I have to start by saying that I do not agree with the Galleria's actions. According to my sources though (I work for a local television station, in the news department), The St Louis Galleria does have the authority to govern what is advertised in their mall. Under the tenant's lease agreement, the Galleria reserves the right to decide what may or may not be displayed. The reasoning for this initially was because St Louis (like many other cities and their "Exclusive" areas) has a penchant for seeming exclusive and making sure that everything's just how they want it. (i.e. Making sure the tenant's in the mall cannot display "tacky" or "undesirable" decorations or advertisements.) Like you said, I don't necessarily agree with the action, but I understand why they're worried. . . It would serve 'em right anyway, it's too damn expensive and snobbish up there. . . 2cents from a local boy

  • The people who've been going on about how the Internet won't replace malls and how people will always need a place to congragate have it half-right: people are inherently social animals. But the Internet will most definitely wipe out malls.

    eCommerce will not always involve sitting at a computer. As long as it does, there will always be malls. But ten years from now, you'll be able to the intelligent agent hanging on your belt, "buy my wife a cashmere sweater, blue, turtleneck, high quality, price no object, use my Visa, delivery two-day", and the agent will have it delivered to your door two days later. Maybe even wrapped.

    Malls developed because they provide an easy way for a shopper to get nearly everything they want in one stop. As soon as something else becomes easier, the paradigm will shift again. And humans will start congregating in places built for congregating, not in places primarily designed for letting you buy your wife a cashmere sweater, yourself a new TV, and your kid a baseball glove, all in one stop.

    Maybe malls will adapt into the above. But somehow I doubt it. :)

  • (1). I'm about to grab a bite to eat and I want something to read while I'm eating. I grab a book from my to-read pile (all previously ordered on-line) that suits my current mood, and go to lunch. 100% chance I used an online transaction.

    (2) Someone tells me that I have to read this book, the next time I'm at my desk (at work or home) I pop onto amazon and order it. It "magically" shows up the next day and goes onto my to-read pile. 100% chance I'll buy it online, decreasing significantly if I happened to be in/near a bookstore before I'm near a computer.

    (4) I want a Canon XL1 MiniDV camcorder, a product which, at the time I bought it, sold for about $4,400. I get it more cheaply online, knowling that the minimum-wage store employee knows less about it than I do or that the commissioned sales-droid is going to try to push me into a higher margin item -- and both will try to push their extended warranty onto me.

    Further I know that if there is a problem the store won't give a damn and I'll be dealing with the manufacturer regardless.

    100% chance I'll buy online; customer service is an oxymoron.

    I'd order on-line a lot more if shipping to Canada wasn't such a pain...

  • Many future trends indicate that the direction of retail activity is towards creating an 'experience' environment so that shopping and leisure become blurred: which they already are.

    In the last 3 months, I have been to Potsdamar Platz in Berlin -- a mini entertainmentsville of the future with surreal Gibsonesque oranges and german structured futurist terracotta architecture --, and Bluewater in England. Both mix shopping, food, leisure activities in a kind of indoor space. In the former, you also have cinemas, casinos and other activities; enough for a weekend worth of amusements (yes, the hotels are part of the environment as well!).

    A recent article in the Financial Times indicated that 'airports of the future where going to be shopping malls with runways attached'. Another indication.

    eCommerce will take off. At the business level, it is currently transforming value chains and industries, we're only just now part way through the revolution as many more industries are to go through the process: computers and communications lead the way. At the personal level, people will often want to (for the near term) feel and touch things and see them in the raw: especially clothes, but also household items. The goal for the retailers is to increase service, provide the enjoyable experiences, and somehow prevent the consumers from seeing it in the raw, and then going back home to the computer to find a better deal online. The goal for the online merchants -- or even the retailers -- is to harness the globalised nature of eCommerce : when you buy a television, aren't you interested in comparing the specs, seeing what choices other people make, and someone being confident in a good price for a good product ?

    Perhaps the mall should realise that eCommerce is inevitable, and somehow find the best way to accommodate it for the benefit of itself, the customers and its stores. For instance, what if you could go the mall, try on those shoes, and decide to purchse them elsewhere, but because you tried them on, you get an online discount ? Just an idea.

  • neophase, (and all who wish to read.) I live in St Louis and work for a local television station in the news department. They are not, and cannot force tenant's to change their printed ads. They are only able to control any and all signage in the mall, as well as not allowing them to distribute anything with website advertisements on it. (i.e. handbills or flyers put with purchases. . .) Just wanted to clarify... I still don't agree with them.
  • Well as much as it makes me sound like an anti-social freak, I really do avoid shopping in stores and malls as much as possible. The simple fact of the matter is that the so-called "social activity" is filled with rude, pushy shoppers, even more rude & pushy (oh, and disgruntled & disinterested) employees, etc. It of course gets worse around the December shopping hysteria season, and I just don't like dealing with it. You ask how my world would be if I didn't have to go running through screaming people to get my furby. It's awesome, actually. I despise shopping, and hate being surrounded by frenzied idiots who couldn't be bothered to do their gift shopping earlier in the year. I do realize there's certain things you can't order over the internet (yet), but you'd be amazed at how much you can get. We really only venture out of our cave for groceries & work now :) I agree though that this mall will probably reverse this decision from all the flack they'll be catching from this. Sadly, though, I don't think it falls under the First Amendment (RIP :). Methinks if I were a shop owner in this place I'd invite them to shove it and move the place elsewhere at the earliest convenience :)
  • That shouldn't matter... say I go to JC Penny in Mall A to examine a pair of jeans. Then at a later date, I go to another JC Penny in mall B across town just to buy them. Mall A shouldn't get a cut of the sale that took place in mall B, and vice versa. Now replace mall B with "Internet shopping".
  • I would say go the exact opposite direction altogether. "The Mall" could _embrace_ the internet. They could set up public web-cams and link with other malls, whatever. Just ADD to the social atmosphere in some "internet" fashion.

    Also, set up an infrastructure for internet access to it's stores. This would actually increase the mall's appeal. Customers could check "online" if they didn't find what they wanted. All the benefits of online, but you don't have to sit at home alone.

  • neither will disappear (Score:4)

    by / ( 33804 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @09:25AM (#1505703)
    Instead, what you'll be seeing is further integration between online purchasing and brick&mortar stores. Instead of purchasing your book online and waiting days for it to show up via the mail, imagine ordering your book online and having it delivered locally by courier. Local stores are capable of performing value-added services; they're just in a bit of flux right now as to how to go about doing so.

  • This doesn't suprise me (Score:3)

    by phil ( 4362 ) on Thursday November 25, 1999 @09:27AM (#1505704)
    As a St. Louis native, I must say I am not the least bit suprised by this. St. Louis seems quite determined to squander its advantages whenever possible, particularly when it is related to something progressive, innovative, or technological.

    The Gallarina is "prime" retail real estate. Located near the wealthiest neighborhoods, done up in pink marble, and catering exclusively to national retailers, they are not in danger of going out of business anytime soon. Unless they work hard enough at it, that is...

    It is simply that Hycel, the mall owners, are part of the group of rich old white men group that own the region. They are not interested in anything other than what they have. If they have the option to modify cut off their nose to spite their face, they will do it. They are not going to stop the Gap from putting up billboards with their url.

    Whatever. In the local paper, the spokesdroid for the mall said they are only interested in keeping local money in the local mall. The powerful chains, like the Gap, are telling them to basically FO, and the weaker ones are knucking under. This won't last. It will be amusing to see if this ends up in court. Especially if it is the mall trying to drag some big retailer in. More likely they will "strike a deal" with the big ones, and bully the small ones.

    In St. Louis, even though the area has quite a lot of advantages, the ROWM are obviously quite prepared to allow the region to deteriorate under their control, rather than work to make the region thrive, but with less ROWM influence.

    I find it quite interesting that this is getting the attention it is. Good ole' STL, the only time it makes national news is when someone here does something stupid. Again.

  • Not much, in my opinion. Think about the kinds of stores you generally see in a mall: Housewares shops. Clothing and shoe stores. Stores that sell "random pieces of garbage" for impulse-shoppers (e.g. Dapy). Stores that sell sunglasses, perfume, jewelry. What do all these stores have in common? They all require some basic level of intimate human interaction with the products in order to sell merchandise. These kind of stores will *never* be replaced by web-based variants! Nobody's going to buy a perfume they can't smell, a pair of jeans they can't try on, or a little piece-of-crap knickknack they haven't seen before. Very few people will buy frying pans or massage chairs or home-entertainment systems on the Internet. Imagine the shipping rate for a big-screen television!

    Sure, there are lots of stores that will definitely see a bit of a reduction in sales due to online commerce: record stores, bookstores, and, perhaps, stores that sell videos and DVDs. What do these shops have in common, though? Their merchandise can be disseminated, in "sample" form, over the internet! You can listen to a CD before you buy it, or read a chapter of a book online at amazon.com. Maybe soon, you'll be able to download scenes from DVD movies and watch them, as well, before you buy. I've yet to see a mall which consists solely of stores which sell media, though. I've yet to come a cross a mall which is composed of even a strong minority of these kinds of shops. Usually, there's one or two big record stores, one or two bookstores, and an "Electronics Boutique". The loss of sales in three to five stores out of forty or fifty in a small shopping center isn't much to cry about, if I'm a mall owner.

    To add to my assumption that this is all much ado about nothing and a rather bad case of paranoia on one mall owner's part, CNN.com just ran a story [cnn.com] today that says that fully 75% of all consumers in the country had never shopped online! Not only that, but most of those that do buy online never spend more than $200, and most spend under $50. What's that mean? Books and CDs, to me.

    Methinks someone needs a dose of reality.

    -A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • Personally, I don't think malls are going anywhere too fast: there's just too big an installed user base.

    I, however, wouldn't mourn their loss if it came to that. Malls are one of the singles greatest wastes of real estate, sources of traffic, light pollution, etc. Surely, no one would defend strip malls as they have sprung up in this country.

    Yes, it would cause untold social expense to cut out the middleman, who in this case is doing his best to fill a low-paying retail position. I would argue, however, that the demise of malls would actually open up opportunitites for local small businesses to thrive again, which would soak up any resulting unemployment. The internet has allowed more and more businesses to succeed without tying themselves to a single brand in the form of a commercial chain.
  • How is this any different then advertising your telephone number, or giving out business cards, or advertising other store locations?

    Answer: It's not. This is silly.
  • If the mall we're truly only about the "Social Scene", they would be out of business by now.

    A significant proportion of the Mall's business is made up in holiday shopping. I don't know about you, but I did a heck of a lot more Christmas shopping online this year. Sure I'll still go to the mall for regular things (clothes, food court, getting out of the house), but not for birthday or Christmas presents... I can really aviod the Xmas rush online, and that's when the mall's been traditionally making more money.

    Remember the season which this was announced. I think the "Do your Christmas shopping online, avoid the mall" message would scare the crap out a multi-million dollar mall owner.

  • Re:Cool (Score:1)

    by jafac ( 1449 )
    One thing's for sure, all of those retail clerks and stockboys are going to have to retrain as delivery drivers for Fed Ex.

    I think it would be kind of neat to see some malls (like Fox Valley in Aurora, IL), converted from retail space to apartments. Think of the interior spaces being converted to year-round indoor leisure parks for tenants. . . You could prolly keep half the stores and restaurants too.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • A good, intelligent reply except for one thing. You go to the wrong bricks and mortar stores. I've found Samy's Camera in Hollywood to never be less than totally helpful, and they're great folks who love cameras. And, incidentally, contrary to what you'd probably expect, they undercut Good Guys et al on price.

    People who buy cameras at places like Circuit City or Fry's get what they deserve.

    Otherwise, what your response proves is that people have widely divergent shopping styles. At the same time, if you buy the XL1 via the net now, you probably would have bought it via mail order two years ago. Retail sales at a local level haven't changed.

    D

    ----

  • Galleria from A St. Louis Native.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Like a few other people, I live in St. Louis. St. Louis is a great city; however, the problem with it for high-tech people is that St. Louis is built around "old money"- like breweries, banks, etc. We are one of the wealthiest cities in the US (when comparing wealth per person); however, when it comes to investing or embracing new ideas (especially anything high-tech or cutting edge), St. Louis falls behind. Thus, this would explain the Galleria's desire to squash e-com advertisements in the mall. I was there last night and it does not appear that many stores are listening. Eddie Bauers, the Discovery Channel Store, and Famours-Barr all had their website advertisements up. Oh and BTW: I almost hate this town. It is very stifling for someone who likes high-tech. I wanted to start a company here but finding money is nearly IMPOSSIBLE. Matthew P. matthew@opendesk.com

  • So, what are we going to do with the empty malls? One person has suggested housing. I'm not exactly sure how I'd feel about living in a space that used to be a Gap, especially if it didn't have a bathroom. Also, malls are creepy enough during the day. At night, they are downright scary.

    Someone else suggested using them for large installation art spaces. I like this idea.

    Anyway, I think it will be neat. We have all these big buildings with their neighbouring concrete parking structures that no one really needs anymore.

    Maybe the malls will become a super internet cafe, a place where you can buy a capuccino and browse the web for a while, maybe play an online game or two. Perhaps untethered from the need to sell lots of physical stuff, the malls could become the new entertainment centers.

  • Yeah. E-Commerce is really nice. It could, potentially, take away from meatspace businesses. But why are America's malls STILL burgeoning with people around the holiday season?

    In it's simplest form, humans are tactile creatures.

    Sure it's nice to be able to plop your butt down and look through pictures of thousands of items. But the impact of it on the buyer isn't the same as being able to pick up, play with, or otherwise handle an item.

    E-Commerce is going to, understandably, cannibalize a small portion of meatspace business. New market utilization often does.

    Did the old mom'n'pop stores die when mail order came about? Nope.

    Did the big stores like Macy's kill mail order? Nope.

    Have malls killed big single-building stores like Macy's? Nope.

    Will meatspace businesses like malls die out because of e-commerce? HELL NO.

    Malls are ingrained into the US culture. More are going up every year.

    The policy being adopted by this mall could be viewed as a violation of the lease agreements with it's clients. If so, they're going to be looking at one of two things:

    1. Lawsuits by the client stores.
    2. Loss of lease renewals.

    BOTH of which will hit the owners where they live. In the pocket-book.


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!

  • Yes. It is one of the nicest malls in town. Large but very tasteful. Not that I'd know of course since I've been boycotting them for their abuse of the blight law. They don't seem to be suffering from my one man boycott. Maybe if my wife (aka princess of acquisitions) would join me in my efforts... :-)
  • Yes he did. He didn't expect it to stop, but what sort of test would it be if he didn't tell the tide to stop?
  • The Mall makes 4 to 10 percent off of everything the store sells, so the stores are essentially cheating the Mall-owners by directing buyers to their internet site.

    Well, not really - in negotiations, the rental agreement will probably be $X per year + P1% of total sales + P2% of sales > $Y. Then the values of X, Y and P1 and P2 are argued over, depending on the stores business plan, expected expansion, special requirements etc. This figure is to give a store a chance to get started, before the mall starts making real money. This is why malls take time to make cash, and it encourages the mall owners to make an effort to promote the stores.

    Each mall has certain key stores, large chains that drag people in. These stores have lower (or even nonexistant) values for X,Y,P1 and P2.

    This money goes towards property costs, security, advertising, cleaning, shop outfitting, and other infrastructure for the mall.

    When a store makes a sale over the internet, which of the above resources is being used ? The original advertisement in the mall ? It's already been paid for out of the base rent. Asking the shop to hand over P1% for that sale is as silly as if the customer walked into another branch in another town, and made their purchase there.

    Shopping malls are neccesary - it reduces overheads for all the shops through consolidation, allows a store to run more efficiently, with less costs. Most of the complaints about malls are actually mis-directed shots at the *management* of said malls, who tend to be interested in maximum return on their original investment, and tend to be overly controlling and interfering. The curse of management everywhere.

    Do you really think that a city of 2-10 million people can exist with the long-street-of-shops system ? Consolodation, centralisation and maximum density are the only way you can keep the consumer culture of today ticking over.
  • ... it doesn't belong to the censorship category, but to the the almighty buck section...

    Because this is, first and foremost, a question of croporate greed...
    -- ----------------------------------------------
    Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!

  • Sales (Score:1)

    by Restil ( 31903 )
    I don't think I read it wrong, although I'm not sure if the reporter got it right. It stated that the mall's commission on sales, which the mall is afraid of losing to e-commerce, consists of about 4-10% of the tenants' rent. If this is true... then a 4-10% increase in the rent payments of all tenants and simply cutting out the commisions would solve all the problems the mall has with e-commerce. The very fact that this makes so little sense means that either I'm wrong or it was reported incorrectly.

    However, I can see how the mall would want some percentage of sales. The amount of sales is directly proportional to the number of people that trample through the mall and therefore is directly related to upkeep costs. If suddenly, unexpectedly, the traffic in the mall increased 3-fold, then the mall would be able to handle the expense of the increased maintenance costs involved with that much extra traffic.

    HOWEVER... if the mall really IS bringing in that much more traffic, then the mall can legitimately raise the rent payments during the next renewal of the contracts as the space is worth more, and vendors will pay it.

    The mall may have no vacancies, but there was a mall near my home when I was growing up that had no vacancies, then one of the big department stores there moved out (JC Penny's I think). After that one store left, the other vendors left in droves and in a matter of just 2-3 years only 1/3 of the the spots were occupied. All this mall has to do is piss off one big customer enough to make a decision on relocation and that mall could die too. While this might not happen in this case, imagine if 10-15 of the smaller stores decided to close up shop and move elsewhere because of this new policy. Certainly, there are companies drooling to take their place, but now that this new policy is in effect, perhaps they'll decide to pursue other locations instead, which means the value of the space will go down.

    Chances are good it won't come to this. Regardless, the internet is here to stay, and its not getting any smaller. You can either embrace it and use it to your advantage, or you can try to hide from it, but you can't hide from it for long.

    -Restil
  • Naaah. Most of the profit in malls is in the clothes stores.
  • Hmm...here's some random ideas:
    -Server house (I'm sure /. could find a mall quite beneficial for this : )
    -E-Commerse warehouse
    -A college (my dorm was in Sears!)
    -Casinos/Donald Trump usage
    -Ultimate frisbee
    -School? Nah, pass.
    -If it's got a movie theatre in it...private screenings : )
    -After removing all the obnoxous signs and inards of the stores, economy housing.
    -Place to store all that Pokemon/Star Wars/Star Trek merchandise (depending on the size of the mall)
    -Skate park
    -Say you have kids, and they're misbehaving...just bring them to a deserted mall and start reminicing. Child dicipline : )
    -We could put everyone we hate (Steve Case, Bill Gates, etc.) in one of these malls just as it's about to be knocked down...
    -Movie sets ("Oh look! They've got a Pier 1!" "Wow, this place has everything.")
    -And finally, ART. I have a few friends who love to paint strange things...I'd just love to get a bunch of them together and paint the Disney Store or Foot Locker...

    But your ideas are good too : )

    miyax
  • Chalk up another reason to move to West County :P.

    I drove down to the Galleria the other day and realized how little of an impact this rule will have. Some of the stores in the Galleria include Dillards, Software Etc., F.A.O. Schwartz, and Lord and Taylor. Most of the companies are nationally run stores and have been doing things in the past that haven't stopped business at the Galleria, or any other mall in the States, much less in St. Louis. Take mail order catalogs for instance. Despite the millions of dollars that groups make every year from mailings, malls and discount stores continue to operate. E-commerce is just a techno-catalog.

    Steve Sawyer
    MajereDB8@altavista.net
    "Your friends in the diamond business... shameless plug..."
  • Check out The Mall in Columbia [themallincolumbia.com] for a perfect example.

  • I think the whole thing is hilarious. And meaningless.

    This whole idea that the human race is perched on the edge of a wonderous new cyberworld is itself hilarious. I call it the 'Jetsons Cartoon World View".

    It is a meme in which the computing industry and the mass media are heavily invested. It is one in which the general populace is also heavily invested. I don't buy it for a moment.

    It is an important platform upon which huge fortunes have already been built, and which, if it continues to be accepted, will allow for unfathomably huge further fortunes to be built. The only basic flaw in it is: nothing works.

    How is it possible that a machine which requires constant interaction, eats far more productivity than it enhances, and costs way too much money compared to what it offers, how is it possible that millions of such machines have been sold to business and industry over the past 15 years since the IBM PC? It is only because the general public had a pre-conceived notion that we had finally arrived in Jetson-time, and so we had better have computers.

    The arrival of the internet as a media star has only made things worse. There is literally no wonderful thing that will not be wrought by this technological miracle! We must have internet everywhere! On the desk of every file clerk and office temp everywhere! Think of the efficiency and productivity we will gain!

    E-commerce is also hilarious. Sell some stuff online? Certainly! Commit the entire world economy to HTTP over TCP/IP accessed via AOL? I think not.

    I realize this may be read as a troll or flamebait - but I am serious - I think major portions of the population are seriously deluded - they want to live in the world of the Jetsons so badly they are pretending they already do. Others, like this mall owner, beleive it so seriously they find it a threat. I find it all a joke.

    ======
    "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

  • That's the message here. If "other mall owners", many of which own multiple malls (I think that most mall companies, at least based on my experience in New England, own and operate several at a time) don't ban .com ads, it's not because they're afraid to - it's because they aren't dumb enough to shite where they eat! The bigger chains will do what they want, anyways, because a mall can't afford to say "no" to the Gap, the Limited, or Victoria's Secret. Without brand-name stores, most malls wither and die.

    What Hycel has done is just demonstrate they don't understand running a mall. From some of the comments here, their mall is apparently an "upscale" mall in St. Louis, and the only one in Hycel's portfolio. Well, I suspect (but don't know for sure) that they acquired the mall rather than built it, and that they mainly operate other sorts of properties. Because they seem to rate poorly on the Clue-O-Meter (tm) when it comes to mall management. America has sufficent critical mass in mall distribution that there's probably a competitor in the immediate area that'll find room for the tenants they anger enough to drive out. Sales for the chain are unaffected, and the Galleria goes into a death spiral.

    .com shopping is a threat in many instances - but for the most part not directly to the brick-based retailers in malls. An Eddiebauer.com won't pull the business without having the store presence to back it up - allowing for convenience to the customer. If Eddie Bauer doesn't sell in stores, there's nothing to drive the brand into people's heads. If they don't sell online, they'll lose the online sales that go to the web-only segment. The biggest threat to retailers is from the "pure" web companies. So do they stay out of e-tailing because some piss-ant mall owner says they can't advertise in-store? I don't think so. Do they cave for one mall owner? Nope. Can't afford to set the precedent. Do they sue the mall owner or leave to go elsewhere? Now you're talking...

    (addressed to Hycel): guys, running a competitive mall is tough enough as is. Don't fsck it up by taking on the Gap, too. You need to keep them happy or they'll squish you like a bug - not to mention they can afford more lawyers than you can. You may sell $500 per square foot, but it's not because of you - it's the store mix. If the stores leave, so do your sales numbers.

    Hello?

    - -Josh Turiel
  • It is a little known fact that most lease agreements with malls provide that a mall receives a base rent and then usually some percentage of a stores revenues or profits.
  • The Mall makes 4 to 10 percent off of everything the store sells, so the stores are essentially cheating the Mall-owners by directing buyers to their internet site.

    Here's a scenario: you go to the website. There's a link to search for the nearest retail store near you. You go to that store (which happnes to be in a mall). Therefore, the website has led to a retail sale.

    This is not a freedom of speech thing, it is all about honoring the intent of a contract.

    Where in the contract(s) does it say you can't promote a URL? Especially if the URL brings people into the store. Also, it's hypocritical that the mall itself has a website...

    The stores should respect the current business model of the Mall and perhaps suggest a change in the revenue model which is more 'internet compatible'

    OK...recording artists should respect the current business model of the recording companies by not releasing MP3s or pressing their own albums. Open source software writers should respect the current business model of software publishing by closing their source & charging big $$$.

    The Internet is *changing* current business models. If I was this mall, I'd start aggressively using the Web (maybe by hosting websites for some of the smaller businesses, or some other idea).

    The fact that the stores are considering legal action is 100% proof idiotic !

    What's 100% idiotic is changing the terms of a lease for something that is highly unenforceable.

    IMHO: Shopping Malls are all crap, and they should all be bulldozed.

    But then where would we get Orange Juliuses from? (BTW, this is slightly offtopic, but it looks like http://www.orangejulius.com was hacked.)

  • I've lived in the StL area for about five years now; my first job here was right across the street from the Galleria. This action by the mall is stupid enough to offend me greatly. Personally, I prefer to do product research online and purchase from local merchants; most of my online purchases have been for things I couldn't find locally. Hell, a week ago, I used the web to find a local source for a product I could have ordered online (Penguin Peppermints at Goths 'R' Us -- oops, Hot Topic). I do not want to support this idiotic policy by shopping at the Galleria. My parents, however, are in town for the holiday, and traditionally join the post-Thanksgiving mall rush. My mother (who is aware of the issue, but doesn't care as much as I do) likes to go to the Galleria, and probably will in the next few days while she's here. I don't want to go at all (and my Mother is quite capable of going on her own); she thinks I should go, do a little window shopping (without spending anything) and register a protest at the information center while I'm there. So, what do folks here think I should do?
    P.S. If there's one place this mall has lost money on me, it's been by letting stores give away their mail-order catalogs. There is at least one chain there from which I've bought more by mail order than through their retail outlet. Do these jokers want to ban catalogs as well?
  • I'm another St. Louisan appalled by this ridiculous policy (BTW, yes the Galleria is the biggest of the upscale malls in town; only one more upscale is more of a Stepford place than a "normal" mall). I'd say you ought to take your guests to the Galleria in commercial web t-shirts. If the stores can't have 'em, why can't the customers?
  • The mall isn't going away. Its too much of a hang out and "go shopping" socal event to simply go away. What will happen is more merchants are going to tell the mall that they are not going to continue to pay the high prices for mall space. A typical US mall (not the one here, it cost about 2x as much) will charge about $25 per sq ft per month. Also keep in mind that outside of the Christmas season about 90% of all shoppers are women and in case you haven't noticed malls are full of shops that target thoue shoppers.
  • Big, busy, expensive shopping malls should be scared of e-commerce, especially this time of year. My hunch is that this year will be a blockbuster for online sales, as more people say screw the crowds and the hassle of malls when you can get the same things via the web, and packaged, wrapped, and shipped directly to the recipient for you. I mean really when you are shopping for some things sure you want to see, hold and try them on, but if it's a gift then you've got the size and a pretty good idea of what it looks like, and you know the recipient can exchange it if it's not quite right.

    Having said that, I think it's stupid and irresponsible for the mall owners to try to fight it. They're not going to protect their business that way. Who wants to go to a mall to buy the same cookie-cutter items from the same cookie-cutter stores that you can get online? If malls started to line up non-chain merchants who actually had unique items to sell, then people might have a reason to go back. Until then, it's point-click-buy.

  • I think the "Do your Christmas shopping online, avoid the mall" message would scare the crap out a multi-million dollar mall owner.

    You're right. The problem is that it scares them so much that they're taking it out on their sole source of income -- the stores within the mall. There is immense pressure on stores -- especially chains, like Gap, Banana Republic, etc., -- to create a strong on-line presence. So if the Gap is told by some mall "sorry, you can't advertise the URL," I suspect they may pack up and move on out.

    Now, for all I know, this particular mall is the only game in town. But I've made a fair number of websites for merchants that want to move into e-commerce in a big way, going from a small (2-10 stores) chain onto a bigger web presence. And for some of them, it's worked out really quite well. And they continue to maintain their retail presences. But if the landlord of one of those places said "it's our way or the highway," then the highway it would be.

    My rambling point is that the social portion of the mall is essential. Being able to sell something one-to-one is essential to many businesses. E-Commerce is booming not only because it's a great way to buy, but also because it's a novelty. Retail stores aren't, for the most part, going to go anywhere. But given the hype surrounding e-commerce, it seems like a particularly bad times for malls to be telling stores to eliminate URLs from their stores. It's bad PR, it results in unhappy tenants, and it makes them look foolish.
  • Go to http://www.postnet.com for the local paper's take on it.
  • It's funny that the stores who are pushing their online branch most are the mid-range stores found at the Galleria, and not the type of store one finds at Frontenac Plaza (Note to non-St. Louisans: Frontenac Plaza drips with money. Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, designer baby clothes, and the like). I doubt the high-end expense malls are feeling an e-commerce impact in revenue. The GAP and Old Navy are definitely marketing their online presence more than big sister Banana Republic. Does this just have to do with the popularity of lower-grade mall stores?
  • Check out this link [adbusters.org] FMI.
  • Unless there is language in the lease that constrains signage to specific content (as opposed to height, brightness, etc), the mall has no leg to stand on. On the other hand, if the tenants have signed a lease that says that the contents of advertising signs are subject to approval by the landlord, shame on the merchants FOR SIGNING AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

    Yes, you heard me correctly. This is not news, if the shops have signed away their rights, which they are quite free to do.

    So let's see the documents, else this is not news.
  • They have replaced the Town Square, which was a public place (where constitutional rights exist),
    with the Mall, which is a private place (where rights do not exist before the privilege of using the private property).

    If you don't understand this, try gathering at the mall for the purpose of protest. If your Town Square *is* the mall (c.f., Tempe Arizona and the Centerpoint Property), you have no Town Square, only a place where you can be charged with Trespassing if the management or the security personnel or the police do not agree with your appearance or any other criterion.

    So let's all do everything in our power to bring the hasty demise of the Mall, in order to resurrect the Town Square.
  • Potential loophole: Start selling merchandise with the stores web-address on it. I can see it now...www.thegap.com-could'nt be much worse than those commercials!

  • If the problem is that the malls dont want to be superseded, it is a relatively simple matter to add an ecommerce solution as part of the rental agreement. The idea goes like this: package a high speed internet connection, and storage space (and of course tech support) with the usual ammenities like water and electricity, as part of the leese.

    This would allow the malls to develop into online communities (as much as I hate that cliche), and could divert business between themselves. Packaged with a delivery service, the mall could then be less concerned with losing business through e-commerce, as it might actually charge for the traffic for different users.

    Whilst I dont claim to know the intricacies of this case (Im surprised that they take part of the gross) however this seems like a relatively simple solution, and if its teemed with the usual services such as an internet cafe (though this would be better served by placing them in the food court, and in place of information kiosks - rather than charging customers for access, the service could be payed for out of the shopkeeper's rental.

    Just an idea anyway.

  • The Mall in Columbia? I believe that's where my wife is right now, downloaded gift list in hand.

    They have public 'net kiosks there, and she's e-mailed me from them more than once, usually to let me know she's just (grumble) bought something expensive.

    - Robin

  • In the Memphis metro area, a new mall opened in February 1997 that was (at the time) one of the biggest in the country. Another is likely to open in the next two years about 3 miles south of the state line (either in Horn Lake or Southaven, Mississippi), that will be at least as big. Another megamall just opened about 30 miles west of Atlanta. All of these malls opened in areas where affluent people live and there is probably 60% internet penetration. Malls aren't dying, at least not in the aggregate.

    Where malls will die is where retailers with online presences decide to choose between underperforming malls (i.e. >10 years old) and e-commerce. Some malls will lose out, but it won't be because e-commerce took their customers; instead, it'll be because e-commerce is more profitable than operating in a mall that's been left behind by urban growth.
  • Hmmm... I wonder if the paper companies felt threatened way back when there was the idea of a paperless world from computers? I'm too young to remember.

    But anyway, will e-comerce really replace the mall? Um, no. If it would, why didn't the telephone and catalogues? Because there is more at a mall than sometimes-pretty pictures, a blurb written by the marketing team, and an 'order' button.

    Give me an e-commerce store where you can chat with friends -- and I don't mean type, I mean look at [in three dimensions, damn it!] and talk to them. -- get something to eat, and shop all in the same bloated building. Maybe with a T1 and some neat hardware you can manage the chat and the shopping, but it still won't be real.

    Give me an e-commerce site where you can actually touch and sometimes even try out the stuff before buying it. Maybe with that nice T1 I could try out software by using an X server, but how will I know how it works on my computer? And what if it's not software?

    I'm sure there's more, but I don't hang out at malls. Oh well.

    Malls need to recognize what they do best -- and do it. I'm sure they'd love to be the only source for merchandice, but there's already a Walmart down the street. And a Fatbrain.com on the 'Net. Both are cheaper. Somehow, I think people go to the mall for more than the products they sell. Maybe they should get their pollsters out and research what it is if they don't know :)

    And besides, who can't figure out www.StoreName.com by now?

    --

  • I had a professor tell me, a few years ago, that there was a survey that found that the number one reason why people go to the malls is entertainment. I know that if I go to the Mall with my Mom, or some of my friends, while they spend a lot of money in the mall they spend even more time in there, dragging me from store to store while they try on outfits. It's boring for me, but for them its a fun way to kill an afternoon.

    If a store has an online presence, and they don't advertise it, there is always the possibility that someone will come into their store, find stuff they like while window shopping and go to someone else's site to buy them when they decide they really did want them after all at 3:00 AM.

  • This is a great way to promote on-line sales for the holidays. You can't buy publicity like this. (Or maybe you can.)

    The first comment attached to the article suggested that on-line browsing could actually boost sales in stores. Web pages could serve the purpose of a Sunday paper supplement. See the pictures and descriptions first, then go buy the thing that you can touch. (So should papers should ban URLs in paper ads?)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close