Category Archives: downtown retailing

SOME MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT DOWNTOWN RETAIL

Posted on by

GAFO E-Sales

In my retail recruitment experience, I’ve found that there are types of retail stores that clients need and those that they want. The need category generally includes groceries, specialty food shops, pharmacies, etc., while the want category overwhelmingly includes GAFO operations — i.e.,  general merchandise, clothing and footwear, home furnishings, electronics and appliances, sporting goods, book and music stores, and office supply stores. The shops that respond to needs did relatively well through and after the Great Recession, while the GAFO stores have been in consistent decline or weakness since about 2009. Recent research indicates that e-GAFO retailers are now eating the lunch of brick and mortar GAFO merchants.  

An Enormous 45% Hit on B&M Retail Sales Potentials!. One of the most significant trends that has helped define the new normals for retailing and our downtowns is the increasingly significant share of the sales of the merchandise sold in GAFO stores that are being captured by online operations. Obviously, the more sales dollars the e-stores win, the less there are for brick and mortar shops (B&Ms) to capture.

A while back, in another blog posting, I presented the above table, taken from a provocative  study by Hortacsu and Syverson,  that showed  e-store market penetration for a range of retail  categories in 2013 along with estimates of the years in which they each would reach 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% market shares.

A more recent 2019 report by Morgan Stanley suggests that the Hortacsu and Syverson study was pretty sound. It found that while “…e-commerce penetration reached 11% of total retail sales at the end of 2018”  that “e-commerce penetration in the GAFO segment”  was now over 45%.(1) That makes it so much harder for B&M GAFO retailers to survive, much less thrive, unless they are executing or part of an omni-channel marketing strategy.

The Morgan Stanley report also found that “the shift to e-commerce has hit the home-furnishings segment the hardest,” while clothing, linens and other “soft” goods have experienced a significant “e-commerce disintermediation” with a 22% e-commerce penetration expected in 2019. (2)  It was long thought that these two retail segments would be resistant to e-store penetration because one offers large and heavy merchandise and the other offers merchandise that consumers would want to touch, feel and try on. One weakness of such thinking was the failure to recognize that so many of the soft goods we buy are like commodities and we don’t need to touch them, feel them or try them on. For example, lots of people have long bought shirts, trousers, shoes, dresses, swimsuits, parkas from catalogs. They often are buying more garments like the ones they already have – e.g., I have countless blue, button down collar shirts — or replacements for them. Then, too, lots of home furnishings products are not furniture suites or otherwise prohibitively large, while others have been re-imagined – e.g., Casper Mattresses – so they can be shipped “small.” 

How Are the Leakage Analysis Data Providers Dealing With This? Frankly, I do not know the answer to this, but I think the data providers owe their customers a clear explanation of how they are handling this situation. One technique they might be using for estimating consumer demand is to take the sales of retail stores by NAICS code within a certain fairly large geographic area and then divide the sales by the number of households in that study area. That defines demand solely in terms of B&M store sales, ignoring the huge Internet sales and demand. If, instead, they are using extrapolations from BLS consumer expenditure surveys to determine demand, then they must have whopping “leakages” in each of the NAICS codes analyzed unless they also are using data on e-store sales by NAICS code.

The leakages to the Internet for GAFO store merchandise now are probably several magnitudes larger than traditionally defined leakages to B&M shops located beyond the trade area’s boundaries.

Of course, an increasing number of downtown merchants now have both a B&M shop and an e-store. Most of their e-store revenues often come from distant customers and represent “e-surplus” sales. How are these e-sales revenues included in the leakage analysis? How do leakage analysts know which e-sales come from within the B&M store’s traditional trade area from those that come from beyond it?

A growing number of retail sales are “click and collect” transactions that involve ordering online via a retailer’s server that probably is located hundreds of miles away and then picking up  the merchandise at the retailer’s local store. Are those transactions to be deemed leaked or “unleaked” sales? The local store’s involvement may be key to the sales transaction, though it may not logically be part of the monetary transaction. Would the sale have occurred if the local store were not there? If the answer is no, then somehow the role of the local shop has to be recognized in the analysis.

Vacancies, Store Closings and Openings, Changing Functions

A Word or Two About Vacancies. I fear that I’m very much an outlier, a contrarian, when it comes to downtown vacancies. While I don’t like vacant storefronts, my jockeys don’t always get in an uproar when I see them. Too often, they are not viewed from the proper perspective. Rule 1 for looking at vacancies should be to ask: where is the downtown on its revitalization arc? If it’s in the initial very troubled stages, then the prospects for recruiting really good retail tenants are not great, especially with today’s upheavals in the retail industry. Moreover, recruiting crappy tenants would be worse for the downtown’s revitalization effort than the empty shops. Also, at these early points in the revitalization process, an EDO’s scarce resources are probably better spent on working for improving the infrastructure and housing and reducing quality life issues such as the fear of crime,  than paying for very problematic efforts to recruit good retail tenants.

Rule 2 is don’t be snooty — look at pamper niche tenant prospects such as hair and nail salons, yoga and martial arts studios, etc., especially early in the revitalization process when their relatively low revenue needs and desire for low cost spaces can put them among the downtown’s best tenant prospects.

I take vacancies more seriously when the downtown is much further along on its revitalization arc. In these situations, Rule 3 is the locations of the vacancies are far more important than their number. Those that are in strategic locations such as on or near the district’s “100% corner” or near other strong assets will certainly need attention. A cluster of them is also significant and probably indicates the existence of an important underlying problem.

Rule 4 is that the downtown EDO should identify and address such underlying problems, otherwise any “fill the vacancies” recruitment program undertaken either by it or local commercial brokers will most likely yield paltry results.

In the mid-arc downtowns, Rule 5 is to determine if new downtown projects have raised landlord expectations about:

  • Their ability to attract national chains, even though they are looking for fewer and smaller spaces and have become much more finicky about their new locations.
  • Potential rental incomes to the point that their spaces are too pricey for their most likely tenant prospects, small independent merchants.

If either of the above is the case, then there’s a landlord problem, not a tenant prospect problem. This leads into Rule 6: as downtowns revitalize, erroneous landlord estimates of viable rent increases can result in more vacant spaces than diminished consumer retail demand or its associated reduced retailer demand for store spaces.

In the past, I argued that a vacancy rate of about 5% was the sweet spot for mid-arc downtowns. Some vacancies are necessary to allow for the tenant churn that can bring in new merchant blood and help keep the district vital. That still strikes me as an ideal goal. Many years ago, my real estate mentors taught me that vacancy rates above 10% indicated the existence of serious downtown problems that needed immediate identification and remediation. Well, these days, under the New Normal, it seems that a 10% vacancy rate is about average for retail spaces (3). Of course, I am not clear whether that statistic refers to all the spaces in shopping centers and malls or just to those allocated for retail tenants. Given that so many malls and shopping centers have saved themselves by bringing in non-retail tenants, I would say it probably is the former. One disturbing implication for downtowns is that, these days, a 10% storefront vacancy rate may not be all that bad, comparatively speaking. Even more unsettling for me have been the reports I’ve seen of downtown vacancy rates in the 10% to 20% range in some of our small and medium sized communities,  Another implication is that downtowns must look more to nonretail tenant prospects to fill their vacancies, but ones that are able to stimulate and reinforce pedestrian traffic on nearby sidewalks.

Because of Omni-Channel Marketing, B&M Retail is Not Going Away. One might expect that if the addressable retail markets for B&M chain stores have shrunk substantially, that lots of the stores would be closed. In fact, there have been a huge number that were closed –e.g., 7,000 just in 2017.  However, new shops are also opening and an accelerating number of them are by Internet-birthed retailers (4). For example, so far in 2019, there have been 1,674 retail chain store losings, but 1,380 store openings (5).

Today, successful retailers do not see B&M store customers as a different set from their e-store shoppers. Instead, they just see customers who they can individually reach through several channels, e.g., B&M shops, websites, social media, traditional media, etc. They know that while most consumers may still prefer shopping in B&M stores over e-stores: (6)

  • Convenience is an important driver of which shopping channel the consumer will select
  • Unless the B&M store provides an attractive shopping experience, it will not attract as many customers as its management might want.

B&M retail shops, under an omni-channel marketing strategy can play a number of functions, besides being a place where sales transactions occur, that can justify their existence:

  • SONY and Samsung, for example, have had important store locations that are nothing more than showrooms. Many other retailers use their shops as places where customers can experience the use of their merchandise. You can, for example, book a nap at a Casper Mattress Sleep Shop.
  • More and more large retailers are offering “click and collect” purchasing, e.g., Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon.
  • Some retailers are developing special store formats, e.g., Nordstrom Local, where they can provide extremely high levels of customer service to shoppers with a proven record of spending large sums in their stores.
  • Almost universally, the B&M store is seen as the venue where the retailer can best provide experiences that will strengthen their relationships with customers.
  • B&M stores also can generate website traffic. For retail chains, a new B&M store in a market area sparks “a 37 percent increase in overall traffic to that retailer’s website” by area residents. (7) “For emerging brands, new store openings drive an average 45 percent increase in web traffic following a store opening, according to ICSC research” (8).  Of course, web traffic does not mean web sales (see below).

Very importantly, B&M stores outperform e-stores in several very critical ways:

  • They have a much higher sales conversion rates (visitors who turn into actual buyers), averaging about 22.5% across all retail sectors, than the less that 3% for e-stores (9).
  • Merchandise return rates for e-stores are three to four times higher than for B&M stores, probably because e-shoppers cannot touch, feel, try on or otherwise experience the merchandise. Returns have become an enormous ball and chain on e-retailer profitability, while bad returns experiences are really ticking off e-shoppers (10).

Bottom Line: B&M retail stores are not going away, but there will be far fewer of them, they will occupy smaller spaces, and perform many new functions that justify their existence besides making sales transactions. How is your downtown planning on dealing with such a scenario?

ENDNOTES

1) https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/us-consumer-retail-trends-2019

2) ibid.

3) https://www.nreionline.com/retail/how-many-more-store- closures-are-expected-2019

4) Ibid.

5) ibid.

6) https://www.retaildive.com/news/why-most-shoppers-still-choose-brick-and-mortar-stores-over-e-commerce/436068/  . Pew surveys have had similar findings.

7) www.nreionline.com/retail/how-should-retail-leases-account-omni-channel-transactions

8) Ibid.

9) See: http://www.comqi.com/sales_conversion_rates_more_for_physical_stores/

and https://www.invespcro.com/blog/the-average-website-conversion-rate-by-industry/

10) https://www.retaildive.com/news/shoppers-are-judging-retailers-by-their-returns-process/544740/

Downtown Tourism: Boon or Bane?

Posted on by

By N. David Milder

Introduction

As my years spent in the downtown revitalization field increased, I gradually realized that I unconsciously had been working with the view that bigger and better defined a successful downtown. With time, I also realized –perhaps in an embarrassingly late fashion — that making a downtown better was much more important than making it bigger. Indeed, for many communities, a bigger downtown would essentially change the whole character of the town.

As I came to realize that better was more important than bigger, I also began to think more critically about tourism. Downtowns large and small are often lured into economic growth strategies with large tourist attraction components. NYC’s mayors and economic development agencies, for example,  for decades have targeted tourist growth and lauded how many millions are attracted annually, how much money they spend, and how many jobs they generate. Smaller communities, especially those in rural areas, often see tourism as a major way to overcome the small populations and low consumer spending power in their market areas. It is often seen as a way to strengthen a Main Street’s retail shops. Well regarded organizations that work to support Main Street and downtown revitalization often suggest increasing tourism as a viable component of an economic growth strategy – as do many economic development consultants. Unfortunately, tourism can be a two edged strategic sword, a boon or a bane – or even a boon and  a bane. In my experience, too may downtown andMain Street leaders leap at a tourist growth strategy without properly thinking through its possible drawbacks as well as its advantages

Some Boons and Banes

The Character of the Community. Over the past year, several articles have appeared that indicate that I am far from the only one who is concerned about what is, for me, the worst  possible drawback about tourism: that too many tourists can change the character of a downtown and/or the community in which it is located. For example, the November 18, 2018 edition of the Washington Post had an article headlined:

“DETOURING. Top world destinations are overrun. Take our suggestions for roads not taken.”

Earlier in the year, the German newspaper Der Spiegel noted that European tourism officials were reporting frequent problems of “overtourism,”where too many tourists and/or unacceptable tourist behavior threaten to severely diminish the very attractions that lure the tourists.  In response, local officials:

“…want to redirect the streams of tourists, as officials in Rome are trying to do, or even to limit them, as Dubrovnik is doing. Barcelona is no longer approving new hotels, Paris has strictly regulated Airbnb and other apartment?rental platforms….(1)

Nicole Gelinas, in a very thoughtful article in the City Journal, has argued that:

“While much of this change ( increased global travel) is positive in economic terms, the ongoing invasion of global cities by people who stay for a few days or a few weeks can fundamentally transform the character of places whose unique charms are what attracted tourists in the first place.” (2)

Gelinas goes on to argue that in the West’s central cities, tourist pedestrian behavior has changed their character:

“Central­ city sidewalks designed decades or centuries ago can’t handle today’s foot traffic, particularly when people don’t walk like the local commuters and residents of decades ago did.Today’s pedestrians walk slowly, several abreast, stop frequently to take photos or look at maps on their ever­ available phones, and wheel bulky luggage behind them, ensuring that fast walkers can’t pass. Tourists to a large extent have become the central cities.” (3)

Unhappily, Yogi Berra’s quip that “nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded” is increasingly applicable to many of our most attractive city centers, public spaces  and arts venues. Can you really appreciate the Mona Lisa at the Louvre if you are standing 50 feet away in a dense crowd (while few are looking at the marvelous Raphael’s and Titians nearby?) Or appreciate an exhibition at NYC’s MoMA in rooms packed like a sardine can, but with people and no olive oil? Most visitors to both museums are tourists – 75% at MoMA, 70% at the Louvre.

Many NYC residents stay away from Times Square because it is too crowded, filled overwhelmingly with tourists and passé attractions – we no longer feel it is one of “our” places. It is this ability of overtourism to make local residents feel dispossessed that is most troubling.

Sadly, too,  problems being caused by tourism are not confined to large central cities. In smaller towns, it is tourism’s insidious ability to make local residents feel dispossessed that is perhaps even more troubling, because a strong sense of community is what so many residents cherish about living in them.  I have run into small town residents who feel that way in a number of communities such as Montauk, NY, Chatham, MA, and Lambertville, NJ.  Montauk used to be known as the Hampton’s blue collar community, a great, affordable place that middle income folks could go for terrific fishing, attractive beaches,  and some good, if funky, eateries. Today, it is the pricey summer recreational town for affluent hipsters. The whole tone of the town has changed.  

In a very useful article, Tomoko Tsundoda and Samuel Mendlinger looked at the economic and social impacts of tourism on the small and very attractive town of Peterborough, NH( 4). They showed that there long has been an awareness of  a number  of wide ranging impacts, both good and bad, that tourism can have. On the positive side are:

  • Increased jobs
  • More  business opportunities
  • More interesting shops and entertainments
  • Heightened demand for local housing and commercial properties
  • More tax revenues

On the negative side are:

  • Loss of the community’s character
  • Higher retail and restaurant prices
  • Higher housing prices
  • Businesses favoring tourist patrons over local resident patrons
  • Low-paying or unsustainable new jobs
  • Increased traffic and poorer air quality
  • More quality of life crimes

One of their most concerning findings was that wealthy families and working families may view the benefits of tourism quite differently.

Much can be said about each of the above impacts, but that would take a far longer article than this one. My key point here is that downtown leaders who are thinking about avidly pursing a tourist growth strategy should carefully assess these potential impacts on their communities.

Tourism as a Strategy to Improve a Downtown’s Retail

I do want to do a bit of a deep dive here because in recent years I have so often heard this argument offered by downtown leaders  to explain why a tourist growth strategy should be developed.


I would say that,  in my experience, almost invariably when clients and client prospects have suggested pursing tourist growth, their primary reason for doing so is to improve the downtown’s retail.  To put the potential benefits in some perspective, it is useful to look at how much of tourist spending goes to retail, see the table above. It shows that, for example, tourists in NY spent about $64 billion in 2016, but only about 9.9% of this hefty amount went for retail. Expenditures for recreation and entertainment were slightly larger 10.0%,while expenditures for food and beverages was much higher, 23.7%. All of these expenditures can help the types of merchants that downtown can attract – if there are those types of shops already present or if the tourist spending potential is large enough to spark their development. In many instances, these types of operations do not exist, and the tourist spending potential is not sufficient to stimulate their creation. Retail in MS accounts for a seemingly impressive 26% of tourist expenditures, but this is partially due mathematically to the extremely low expenditures for recreation and entertainment. In NC, on the other hand, tourist spending for retail rivals, in absolute dollars, those expenditures in NY, and surpasses it on a percentage basis, 20.2% to 9.9%. In NC, the percentages of tourist spending that go for both recreation-entertainment and food and beverages are relatively low, but the level of absolute dollars spent does suggest that retail merchants in that state are rather good at capturing tourist dollars.

The above table shows the percentages of tourist spending that went for food services, retail and recreation in 11 multi-county regions in PA in 2016.Retail  accounted for a lower percentage of tourist spending than food services or recreation. The highest percentage for retail expenditures among the 11 regions was 18% and the lowest was 12%.

My observations over many years suggests that towns with strong tourist sales all have strong retail offerings: outlet centers (e.g., Manchester, VT), major urban retail streets like Fifth Ave, Rodeo Drive, Michigan Ave, or ritzy tourist havens where lots of rich people have 2nd, 3rd or 4th homes (e.g.,East Hampton, Bal Harbor, Palm Beach).

Unique offerings in the other towns can indeed sell, but I hear more about how they can sell than I see merchants actually doing it.

In the towns most downtown leaders would want to emulate,  quality merchandise is offered to tourists in attractive and often charming shops.  Unfortunately, there are also towns that are tourist nightmares. I shall refrain from mentioning any of them, but they are usually busy, gaudy, and filled with a lot of shlock merchandise. As with obscenities, you know them when you see them.   

Suggested Take Aways

The above leads me to make the following observations:

  • Most downtowns should not expect tourism to be the savior of their retailing. Retail expenditures will probably typically account for only 10% to 20% of local tourist spending. Tourism can provide local retailers with the equivalent of the  whipped cream and cherry on top of a sundae, but not the two scoops of its ice cream.
  • Attractive local hotels and restaurants are likely to capture most local  tourist expenditure dollars.  Is a tourism growth effort worth it if those types of enterprises are by far the primary beneficiaries?   
  • Crappy retail shops selling crappy merchandise will usually not capture many tourist dollars.But the real danger is that, if there is a lot of such shops, they just will attract a lot of crappy tourists. This can create town – tourist problems.
  • The major retail needs in many smaller communities are grocery stores, pharmacies, a hardware store, etc., the types of neighborhood retail that tourist expenditures are unlikely to support. If tourist focused retail is dominant, and these needs are not met, then some hairy town –retailer/tourist problems can emerge.
  • To attract lots of tourists, your town needs to be well-located and accessible. If you do not have significant levels of auto traffic now, or strong nearby scenic magnets, assume that you probably cannot quickly build a base of local tourist attractions that will significantly increase the flow of tourist customers.
  • To succeed you probably need enough local attractions to keep tourists in your downtown for four times the length of time it took them to travel there.  Your downtown needs some real there, there.      
  • If there are significant tourist flows nearby and your downtown is not capturing significant traffic from them, correcting that should be the first order of business of any tourism development program.
  • Tourism that endangers the community’s character is never worth it. Why kill the goose that’s laying golden eggs?
  • Yet, tourism certainly can be beneficial for a downtown. Programs to attract more tourists should be thoughtfully designed, with an eye on possible emerging problems, not just a look at potential financial gains for local businesses and residents.

ENDNOTES

1. Der Spiegel staff. “Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love.”  Spiegel Online.  http://www.spiegel.de/international/paradise-lost-tourists-are-destroying-the-places-they-love-a-1223502.html . Posted: 08/21/2018 01:20 PM

2. Nicole Gelinas. “Planet Travel. Globalization has created a tourist boom in world cities—but masses of tourists create new challenges.” City Journal. August 31, 2018. https://www.city-journal.org/html/global-tourism-16143.html

3.Ibid.

4.Tomoko Tsundoda and Samuel Mendlinger, “Economic and Social Impact of Tourism on a Small Town: Peterborough New Hampshire.”  J. Service Science & Management, 2009, 2: 61-70
Published Online June 2009 in SciRes (www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)

The Use of the Muddled Immaculate Retailer Concept in Leakage Analyses

Posted on by

By N. David Milder

Looking at retail leakage studies, I am reminded of Coleridge’s famous line: “Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink”. Retail leakage studies seem to be de rigueur in the downtown economic development field, but a good one, devoid of fatal errors is hard to find. As I have detailed in earlier posts, leakage analyses have serious analytical and data issues. I want to return to one of these analytical problems because I think our field lacks appropriate  awareness of the muddled conceptual thinking  that too often is being used to make a lot of important program, policy and investment decisions. I call this muddle the concept of the immaculate retailer.

This concept runs along these lines:

  • A leakage is said to exist when the retail expenditures of a trade area’s residents exceeds the sales of trade area retailers. Those dollars that are uncaptured by trade area retailers are said to be captured by retailers located outside of the trade area. So far, all this is analytically simple, well and good.
  • A next and troublesome step is to assert that one or more new retail firms can locate downtown, and their sales will be based on capturing these leaked sales. Consequently, they will not take sales away from retailers already established in the downtown. The new retailers somehow can compete immaculately. Local retailers ostensibly have nothing to fear from new merchants entering their downtowns.

My understanding of how retail markets function and how retailers behave suggests that immaculate retailing is simply impossible. I have little doubt that some merchants, large and small, may appreciate locations where the competition is sparse and/or weak, though all but monopolies and oligopolies must fight for market share whether they realize it or not. How such retailers then would parse their sales to only capture those dollars that would go to distant rivals is never specified and frankly has proven to be beyond my analytical abilities to identify. I have no idea how a merchant could feasibly, in the real world, compete against retailers outside their trade area, but not with those already located in their downtown – unless it is on the Internet. I’m willing to learn, so if you know of such a path, please let me know.

Even in situations where there is no retailer of that type, e.g., a grocery store, the new entrant will likely have to compete with a really powerful retailer located outside of its trade area. The presence of that strong competitor is probably why, for example, there was no grocery store already there. There is an asymmetry in the trade areas among individual retailers and as well as those among retail centers that reflects their relative strengths. The stronger they are, the farther they can reach. As a result, a proper market analysis cannot just look at the competition within a trade area defined by where a store’s potential residential customers are located. That store’s being located in the trade areas of strong competitors must also be identified and assessed.

There is, however, another perplexing face to the immaculate retailer muddle: that somehow, it will be relatively easy, perhaps because of their greater proximity, for new downtown retailers to win back the leaked sales. There is often an unstated assumption that the competitors located outside the trade area are weak or will not compete, that the leaked funds are like lots of coins fallen on a carpet and just waiting to be picked up.  This shows itself most overtly when the question of how much of the leakage can be recaptured. Far too often the question is not overtly addressed, leaving the implicit false implication that all of it can be recaptured. When the question is addressed, some rule of thumb often is used. Most regularly 10% to 15% of the leakage is suggested as a conservative, reasonable  estimate, though no research supporting that suggestion is cited. The rule’s purported general acceptance is what lends it legitimacy.

To the contrary, I would argue that no general rule can be applied, because two crucial variables are not being properly taken into consideration:

  • The strength of the competitors. Too often the bulk of a leakage analysis’ focus is just on the downtown’s trade area, when its major competitors are located well beyond its borders. That is often because the location of these rivals was not taken into consideration when the trade area was defined. This results in the competitive strength of rival centers being poorly researched, and ill-considered in the analysis. By the way, I think most downtown retail market analyses do not pay sufficient attention to the competition. Indeed, most trade areas are defined by where consumers live, but techniques such as gravity models and considering the distances to competing centers need to be more frequently incorporated.
  • The second and most overlooked factor, is the ability and power of the new retailer(s) that would be brought into the downtown. I’ve seen one suggestion that 40% TO 60% of a retail leakage can be recaptured. Perhaps, by a major retail raptor like Home Depot or a major specialty chain, but in smaller communities, that’s probably unlikely for independents who would be happy as lark with annual sales of about $500,000 each, even if there are more than one of them. This, too, should be considered: by definition, half of all retailers are below average.

Who the downtown can recruit matters more than the size of any leakage. My enquiries to retail site selectors indicated that few, if any, use a leakage analysis to determine where they will locate their physical stores. The retailers you want for your downtown are prepared and able to compete. Among these able retail competitors will be chains and independent operators. In almost every downtown I’ve worked in I’ve found small operators who are very savvy merchants and very able competitors.

The identification of those retailers is what we should be focused on. A proper analysis of the downtown’s  various addressable market segments, that includes psychographics,  should indicate which types of retailers will find their types of customers in a that district and its trade area attractive. Those retailers should be targeted for recruitment.

Major retailers, because they can use their data on their stores’ sales and costs,  current customers and potential customers, can generate more reliable estimates about the potential sales revenues and operating costs at a new location and how much space they can afford to lease. The ability of a leakage analysis to address that question pales in comparison!

Leakage analyses have other analytical issues as well as some very severe data issues. The data issues could be resolved if the data providers would detail how their many needed manipulations of various types of primary data have been validated, demonstrating that they are truly measuring what they say they are measuring. For example,  BLS’s surveys of consumer expenditures are national and the data can be presented at the level of multi-state regions. But when a data firm produces estimates for a downtown’s much smaller radii or drive sheds, how do we know that the necessary manipulations of the data produced the correct results? Given  that such estimates can vary from firm to firm, how do we know which are the correct ones?

A retail leakage report from Esri or Claritas may be relatively easy and inexpensive to purchase. Nonetheless, one should not be misled by that fact — the correct analysis of those data will not be commensurately easy and cheap.