The New York Times had a good piece on the five year anniversary of Kmart buying Sears and becoming Sears Holdings. At the time, I said that Edward Lampert's acquisition of the retailing icon was as much a real estate acquisition as it was a retail deal.
Unfortunately on the retail side, the attitude of many people is, as the last sentence of the piece states succinctly, “Honestly, I’d rather go to Target.” Sears and Kmart are still doing poorly, and many think the future -- if there is one -- lies in the Sears strategy of trying to become an Amazon.com style retailer. (Go it its website with all the amalgamation of other sellers there and you will see what I mean.) Apparently Sears Canada is the company's saving grace.
The fallback point? Dump the dirt at some point. But given the current market even that isn't so attractive according to some analysts, and that makes sense. For every hot Sears or K-Mart location, according to analyst cited in the Times, there are three other locations that have four legs and bark. And that does not include the specialty stores such as Sears Hardware, outlets and the like. Perhaps the big buck stores can make enough money, but don't be surprised if there is ever a big liquidation of locations, you see a lot of empty or re-purposed stores. Given the co-tenancy clauses you see in many leases with national retailers, this can have a domino effect on shopping centers.
But that all puts the cart way before the horse. (Nor am I convinced this analysis is correct.) Many people had Sears Holdings dead a while ago, and they've hung on this far. One or two hit brands or lines (such as apparel, which I thought they figured out by buying Land's End some years ago, but I was wrong) can revive sales -- which are needed given a decline in its traditional dominance in appliances -- in a hurry, and that Chicago-based lady can be humming a happy tune again.
