Slashdot Mirror
Mall Bans Signs Touting Merchants' Web Sites
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.
But I guess the real question is, does the mall have the right to do this under the terms of the tenants' leases?
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
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.
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).
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
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.
slashdot broke my sig
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
==================================
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.
slashdot broke my sig
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...
... 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).
... Does the mall really have the right to regulate how these people are going to conduct their 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
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
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 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.
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? :-)
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
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.
One that I'm aware of changed the name of the church to "those crazy people who bought the mall".
Shalom.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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.....
--
-=DaveHowe=-
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?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
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
----
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
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.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
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.
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 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
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
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
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
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.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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?
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
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.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc