This piece is hilariously out of touch.

“Middle-class staples like Williams & Sonoma, Coach, Lush, and an Apple store (along with the obligatory food court Sbarro) help account for $1.8B in annual sales.”

Those are not middle class “staples” - the US middle class can not afford to shop at Williams Sonoma. Apple is a luxury or near-luxury brand, same with Coach.

That’s really just a semantic question over the definition of middle class. If it’s median income then sure, those brands are generally out of reach. However for many middle class might also refer to various tiers of purchasing power, in which middle class may represent something closer to the 70-90th percentile of incomes.

What? The median income in the US this year was $60k which is plenty enough to shop at those stores. Lush's products are less than $15.

Do note that 60k is household income, not individual salary. I don’t know most of those brands well personally, but I think it’s fair to say that most $60k families might have shopped there for splurge purchases but do not do so regularly or casually. What was the statistic from the other day, 40% if families can’t produce $400 without debt or selling things? To your point (and mine), the purchasing power of money varies by context, nominal figures vary in usefulness

$60k after taxes is what, $48k take home? After rent, gas, groceries, insurance, a car payment, what’s left? You certainly shouldn’t be shopping at any of those stores on that salary.

Midwest prices my friend. When I made $60k I was able to put half my paycheck straight into savings and still have a few hundred bucks leftover for 'whatever' every month.

Depends a lot on where you live. I used to make less than that but lived quite well. If your rent and car payment are low, $4k/month could easily leave you > $1k/month to spend on "whatever".

If you live in Silicon Valley and take home $4k/month, not so much.

Right, but nobody NEEDS a bath bomb. It's like saying Voss water only costs $3 a bottle; anyone can afford that. Yes, literally, the homeless guy on the corner can AFFORD it, but that doesn't mean he's likely to make that choice.

The homeless guy on the corner isn't middle class.

Middle class people commonly buy "unnecessary" things, even clear luxury items like Coach bags.

This article kind of bothers me with its elitist attitude; it seems to view anything below upper-middle class as aesthetically offensive. And I don't really like the view that corporate stores are inherently good and mom-and-pop stores are bad. I agree with the article as far as economics, but shopping at a place more downscale than Williams and Sonoma shouldn't be viewed as a shameful thing. "Mall of Shame", really?

When people define their identities and place in the world by their consumption of branded products, and look down on people who shop "below" them, it is a sure sign that we need to end this cult of consumerism.

100% - these are the kind of texts that echo stentiments that eventually lead to class warfare.

There's a lot more here to take issue with in this piece, like how thin its "Is this an opportunity for tech start ups" section is which is like a medium tech post self-parody with no real concrete ideas or proposals.

I laughed out loud at "mini-brand," as if the norm for a company in the mind of Silicon Valley is so massive that anything under 2mm/yr in revenue is "mini."

"I'm not an independent proprietor, I'm a mini-mogul of a micro-barbershop." vomit.

Middle class does not mean "median income". I don't know why anyone below is suggesting that. It's a range, between lower and upper.

Someone can make $200k+ per year for a family of 5 and still be "middle class" and I don't think anyone would be shocked if they owned an iPhone.

Edit: Specifically, "middle class" is not defined with respect to the nation's income. It's a loose definition based on job/lifestyle/purchasing power, which are correlated to income, but not strictly defined by it.

what? Maybe we are working from different definitions of middle-class, but my family is decidedly middle-class and we shop at Apple and Williams & Sonoma - not often admittedly, but often enough.

"my family is decidedly middle-class"

Why are you so sure? What are the numbers? It's possible you're in a middle income bracket within a rich region, but if you're shopping at Apple and Williams Sonoma on the regular, I'd guess that puts you in the top 20%. I guess we have to define middle class too...maybe the 25%-75% household income bracket?

According to https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html

"In the US, we have a rule: to describe a person as "lower class" is an insult; less obviously, to describe them as "upper class" is as well. To describe something as "lower class" or "upper class" is to denigrate it, and to attribute a "lower class" or "upper class" thing to some one is to denigrate them. It is the designation "middle class", alone, which is virtuous – a fact which explains in a nutshell why, famously, all Americans arrogate the term to themselves."

This is the reality, but of course it's absurd. I'm going to be brave and admit I'm not middle class from now on, though I'm sure all my peers would easily accept any claim that I am.

we are in the top 15% I think? which I guess puts us in the upper middle class ? We aren't 'high income', for sure, we make a bit south of $130,000 / year jointly.

I think they could be pretty darn sure if their income was between $55k and $65k since that's right around the median.

The root of the problem of definition here is that there is no concrete definition of "middle class". Median income is related, but not required to be middle class. Besides, in San Francisco, making less than $59k per year is considered poverty level, and $100k+ is still "low income" [0].

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

When I was making ~60K/yr, I had no trouble spending $2K on a laptop. So what is your frame of reference here? Apple might be a "luxury brand", but it isn't yacht shopping.

Sure, it's possible to buy a $2k laptop at that salary, but it's sure not a thoughtless routine purchase. That said, lots of people who financially really shouldn't do buy Apple products.

On the other hand I don't know any honestly middle class people who shop at Williams Sonoma with the possible exclusion of special gifts maybe for a wedding or anniversary or some other rare special occasion.

>On the other hand I don't know any honestly middle class people who shop at Williams Sonoma with the possible exclusion of special gifts maybe for a wedding or anniversary or some other rare special occasion.

Shopping occasionally is still shopping. Plenty of people have run businesses off of gift and special occasion spending. Or just occasional spending in general. None of this is out of the range of the middle class. Almost anything cheaper than a child is affordable to the middle class.

>lots of people who financially really shouldn't do buy Apple products.

That only strengthens the point that middle class earners are spending their money there.

When I was making $60K, my laptop cost about $500. So did my other co-workers who made similar amount. It was exception for anyone to by $1K+ laptop and then everyone talked about how there $500 laptop was faster than that.

I'm doing well enough with that same laptop and my budget, so save the spending advice for someone who needs it. This is a pointless diversion with so little context.

For some of them I'm baffled at how they still exist. Williams and Sonoma isn't a unique selection and quality and price can be easily found elsewhere. While I know I'm not the target market, it's still hard to grasp.

While electrics (Breville, etc) can be found on Amazon, W&S can generally be trusted to have decent quality dinnerware and linens. My experience of trying to buy stuff like that on Amazon has been mostly shoddy quality from unknown brands.

I'd say Bed Bath and Beyond, Macy's, or Target have similar quality off the top of my head, Amazon isn't the only game in town.

W&S reminds me of JC Penny/Goldsmiths, just for a new generation.

Coach went downmarket, IMO

Never heard of Williams Sonoma before, visiting their website gives me an idea as to why...

"PAGE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN YOUR REGION

TO OUR VALUED CUSTOMERS,

We regret that due to technical challenges caused by new regulations in Europe, we can for the time being no longer accept orders from the European Union.

If you reside in the UK you can continue to order from our UK websites or shop from our locations and partners."

It's a fancy kitchen store for malls. The kind of place to go if you think a set of beautiful hammered copper French pans will make you a better cook, or you want a really Italian-looking espresso maker. Nice place to buy a serving dish for your mother-in-law.

And yes, middle class people can afford to shop for luxury goods, and do so. It's not unusual to have a moderately expensive hobby.

The Hater's Guide to the Williams Sonoma Catalog is probably all the context you need.

https://adequateman.deadspin.com/the-2017-hater-s-guide-to-t...

It's a store full of high-end/overpriced (take your pick) pots and pans, small appliances, condiments and ingredients. $1299 personal espresso machine, $25 canister of hot chocolate mix, and $19 jars of whatever the trendy dip/topping is right now.

You've never heard of them because they don't operate in your country, not because they blocked you from visiting their website from your country.

It's a high-ish end kitchen store chain (similar to Sur La Table). It tends to be in higher-end malls.

> many of the products in these stores seem to be dubiously sourced, the commitments of some, e.g. Christmas Town, are definitionally short, and the branding is banal. Currently, 10% of the storefronts are occupied by these independent brands, but one wonders what happens when this shrine to shopping begins to feel more like a swank swapmeet?

Other than the dubiously sourced products (which is a problem at Amazon too, so hardly unique to this space), I'm unclear on why this is such a problem? What happens when a "shrine to shopping" begins to feel more like a "swank swapmeet"? Presumably people buy stuff, which is the point, and honestly, after a lifetime of being deceived by or taken advantage of non-"banal" brands, banality doesn't sound so threatening. The rest of the article (not that there's much of it) leaves me likewise uncertain of what need is going unfulfilled. Is there anything I'm missing?

Apple never co-locates with a Dollar Tree store. There's a point at which Apple and other high-end retailers will decide that their brands are being diminished by being located next to an Alpaca-based clothing store. This may create a death spiral that accelerates the demise of the mall.

The NH malls across the border from Massachusetts are a somewhat unique situation. I'm not really familiar with the mall the author is writing about but the other one across the border is definitely lowish end by Apple standards. However, because lots of people cross the border to save on sales taxes, it makes sense Apple would be there--and is one of the busier stores in the whole mall.

> Apple never co-locates with a Dollar Tree store

Is that because Apple doesn't want to be tainted by that brand...or because there's minimal overlap in customer bases?

If Dollar Trees are bringing in the money and the customers, then either Apple DOESN'T belong there, or they'll start to share customers. Either way, I think the "banality" of the brand is at best an inefficient way to look at it and at worst a misleading one.

I don't get this piece at all, starting with the title. What's shameful, or even mysterious? Malls all over are closing/shrinking due to disruption of the retail business by Amazon and others. In this specific case the mall is located at a sales tax gulf between NH and MA (I used to live in Londonderry and shop at Rockingham) and so the shrinking fortunes of the mall owner have provided an opportunity for independents to move in and acquire "first class" store frontage they otherwise couldn't afford.

Author here. My point is that if a mall that is by all accounts one of the success stories can only fill space with low-quality retailers, maybe the situation is more dire than we're being led to believe. I live in that area and was shocked to see how many storefronts had suddenly gone low-rent. But YMMV.

I was surprised to see you didn’t mention the ubiquitous cell phone repair kiosks in every mall. I co-own a chain of cell phone repair stores, and although we don’t have any mall locations, the people in our industry who do have mall locations generally do well with them.

These small services type of businesses are able to pay larger rent and are more stable clients than the “boxes of clothes or accessories from China” types of stores. And since phone repair is an in-person service, it’s less likely to be hurt by online retailers.

I believe more malls will move toward service businesses. One here in Austin allowed a giant trampoline park in what used to be a flagship store. The store is packed with kids and parents.

I’m very interested in this area and how it will continue to play out!

It's a great point! I'm always skeptical of the "move to experiences" narrative, but it sounds like you're having success there! I think that's definitely one route to go. I'm mostly curious about how Simon and similar companies are viewing this landscape? Are they planning on managing these malls indefinitely? Or do they largely view them as depreciating assets that they'll milk until they are demolished?

A common critique on malls is that they are all the same, always the same stores, no variety.

So I don't see how some independent operation that brings something new to the table could be a bad thing.

Unless it upsets your taste to having to deal with some unpolished store that lacks cooperate design.

This was my take away as well. "Shame" in this case is defined as independent retailers with "low quality goods." In this case, it appears that "low quality" is synonymous with anything not Mainstream Luxury.

Beyond that, this is the reality of how modern mall development works. Mall properties are basically ephemeral pump and dump real estate schemes. When the anchors move out to the latest highly subsidized mall with bigger and better TI incentives, little guys move in. Some of them are garbage, but many are not. Sometimes the mall makes it, sometimes it doesn't. Nothing new or special here.

Fair enough. From my perspective I'd say the mall is a success story _because_ it can still fill storefronts with independent operators. Is that a sign of impending doom? Maybe, or a sign of a transformation in progress, and I give you credit for perceiving that change as it's happening.

I'm much more familiar with the other NH mall in Nashua (Pheasant Lane). I guess I would have said that it, at least, has long been midrange at best--not that I've made a study of it. It does have an Apple Store which is something of an outlier for the mall as a whole but, as you allude to, Salem and Nashua are both somewhat unusual because of the sales tax situation.

For more context for people not in the area, the Pheasant Lane Mall is close enough to the border that part of the parking lot is in Massachusetts.

Also, the Merrimack outlet mall that opened a few years ago is also almost certainly taking foot traffic away from the southern NH malls.

I was at the Pheasant Lane Mall the weekend it opened! You are 100% right, it's decidedly middle-brow, compared to something like the Copley Mall in Boston.

I grew up going to this mall. I think the premise of this article is a bit misleading.

Sure, some malls are not doing well, some will go out of business, and some will evolve. For example, the nearby Bedford mall lost tenants, turned into a ghost mall, and was demolished a few years ago. But in its place, they built a Whole Foods. And right down the road, a large outdoor mall with outlet stores opened and is thriving with over 100 stores filled with upscale national retailers.

Lots of large chains and even anchors have died. Circuit City, CompUSA, Filene's, KB Toys, Ames, and so on. Amazon didn't kill these companies. These stores were killed by poor management (For example Best Buy is thriving in the age of Amazon). Tech giants would do well to learn from big box retail failures because having a website does not make one immune to poor management or a failure to innovate.

Our local mall has lost most of the bigger stores, anchored by a Sears and JC Penny. McDonald’s, subway, and Taco Bell have left the food court.

It almost looks like a flea market inside. Tattoo shops, stands that sell gold by the inch and cheap phone cases, bootleg t-shirt vendors, nail salons, there’s even what’s basically a convienence store.

Cheap rents sound good, but they bring in low-end retailers that don’t stick around and sell gray market product.

My closest mall still has its Sears and JC Penney but we'll see for how long. Macy's is its most successful anchor store. The complex has already lost Toys R' Us. There's a successful local grocery chain and a Home Depot that are always busy in the same shopping center; the mall itself has stores but very little traffic.

> even what’s basically a convienence store

I find it funny that that's the most extreme in your list. Why wouldn't there be a convenience store where people go to shop?!

As someone who has worked for a startup in this space, I understand the sentiment of this article. Shopping malls desire anchor stores to be the driving force of footfall traffic. Those stores are very keen on knowing the spending power of where they operate which the malls use survey data to collect that information. When the profile of stores change in the mall, it changes the spending power of people visiting. That in turn can cause those anchor stores to relocate elsewhere.

Retail is suffering right now. High street brands in the UK are collapsing with HMV in just the past week. Mike Ashley (Sports Direct CEO) has called to tax online retailers to make it a level playing field for the high street[1]. I personally disagree because I honestly don't think the retail experience is helping themselves to innovate and train staff correctly (at least in the UK). When visiting shops becomes a frustrating experience for the consumer, then no wonder people turn to shopping online for convenience.

I think the article is saying that if things continue on their trend, it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/03/mike-ashley-...

While the mall obviously needs some revamping, I don't think tech entrepreneur magic is going to revamp it. It's ultimately a problem of customers wanting a physical space to shop in, otherwise, why bother leaving the couch at all? Why not just get what you want on Amazon? The invisible hand of the market will refine the malls, if it can get past the coarse-grained lumpiness of large, expensive facilities.

I'm almost more interested in online boutique stores, and their fates. How do they compete against Amazon? I hate going to buy some obscure thing, and then getting hit with a ten buck shipping charge for something that will arrive two weeks later, when Amazon Prime has me used to "free" two day shipping. But when I want that fancy smoked salt, or the obscure imported Japanese pen, I have to go to the boutiques.

>why bother leaving the couch at all? Why not just get what you want on Amazon?

You are obviously pro-amazon...but my experiences with amazon are awful.

From counterfeit goods, to just shit products (examples: dress ties that stain my white dress shirts, ill fitting clothing, to goods that never arrive, even amazon basic products have turned out to be embarrassingly shit quality).

I recently purchased a new snowboard jacket and would never have thought about rolling the dice on amazon when I could buy online from the manufacturer direct at the same price and know I’m getting the real deal.

I completely understand someone opting for an in person shopping experience over amazon. buying online direct from manufacturers is one thing, but I honestly can’t understand why anyone would buy from amazon after my experiences.

I don't think I'm "pro-Amazon", but I'm generally a happy customer. Then again, I use them mostly for name brand goods. Prices that are too good to be true are a warning sign for me.

>Then again, I use them mostly for name brand goods.

Why not buy straight from the manufacturer for name brand goods? I’m guessing price or maybe the name brand products you buy the manufacturers don’t sell direct. If it’s the former, isn’t that a warning sign?

I don’t understand the point of this article. It starts off with by discussing that the most successful mall is a tax haven, and then muses about possible future mall occupants.

Also this article has a suspicious number of upvotes, no comments, and is realitivily low quality. Smells like vote manipulation.

Hey, author here. If you look at my submission history, you'll note vote manipulation is not my foray :)

If you want a clear point, how about "At what percent of mom and pop retail occupancy do malls, even successful ones, become unattractive destinations for the stores that are still driving retail sales."

Related series of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNz4Un92pGNxQ9vNgmnCx... "Dead Mall Series: Informative tours of some of the most depressed shopping malls in the mid-atlantic region and beyond."

I hope all these mostly useless malls get replaced with things are that more needed: libraries, decent grocery stores, farm co-ops/local farming, and especially housing. At the end of the day, humans need shelter more than they need stuff to put in their shelters.

Absolutely agreed, we need more empathy and less stuff in our lives.