Holiday Sales Up 3.6%

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by california-jewel

Find it hard to believe. Daughter works at a major Department stre, one of the big ones, came home last night after working there for over 5 years, no problems, she was told that in FEB MARCH of this year, the store may be closing, and everyone will be heading to the unemployment lines, this is good news. I am sick about this, daughter is so upset, and i love this store. The store saw no gains during Christmas at all, infact they were down. I don't care what is being said by the media, i have experienced first hand, what is happening to so many of my close friends. 4 have lost very good jobs, and 3 have lost their homes, i find it hard to believe, that things are going so good in other parts of the Country as well, The proof is in the pudding, and right now this FREAKING CHANGE JUST PLAIN SUCKS.

I don't doubt what you are saying about your daughters store - but the truth of the matter is that sales from HER store reflect sales souly from HER store and HER area and really says nothing about the national as a whole. In any recovery (as with any downturn), some areas lead the way and others will bring up the rear. Considering that much of California was ground zero for the housing market collapse (and one of the most hard hit areas of the country) it wouldn't surprise me to see your area trailing much of the rest of the country. Up here in Seattle we were one of the last areas affected and seem to be starting our recovery a bit on the early side. All I can tell is "have patience". Recovery will get to your area too.

Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

I suppose you missed the mention of ICSC in the Bloomberg report, the one that said 2008 was the worst in 40 years. And the report from RD5050 states that groceries basically helped keep that loss to single digits. So basically we are up from a 40 year low in shopping for Christmas from the previous year. That's good news! But like I said it's nothing to take your clothes off and run across the football field for.

No, last year was NOT a 40 year low for sales. It was a 40 year low for year over year change. See my post below:

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Indeed. The Bloomberg article states:

"Sales at stores open at least a year probably dropped as much as 2 percent in November and December, the ICSC said last week, more than the previously projected 1 percent decline. That would be the largest drop since at least 1969, when the New York-based trade group started tracking data. Gap Inc. and Macy’s Inc. are among retailers that will report December results on Jan. 8."

The initial line of the article ("[Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. retailers face a wave of store closings, bankruptcies and takeovers starting next month as COLOR="Red"]holiday sales are shaping up to be the worst in 40 years[/color].)" is just plain wrong - or at the very least very very misleading. I can only guess that the author was trying to say that 2008 was the worst CHANGE in year over year holiday sales in 40 years. CLEARLY it wasn't NEARLY the lowest sales in 40 years.

Ken

PS - the more and more times I re-read the article the more it seems to me that Bloomberg was just exhibiting REALLY lousy writing - writing that was confusing and misleading. Clearly it was the worst DROP in 40 years - NOT the worse SALES in 40 years. The author of the article did a REALLY BAD job conveying the information. Either that or he/she was deliberately misleading his/her readers. Either way, that article s*cks and isn't worth diddly.

If every year for 40 years you are getting a 2-3% improvement in sales (from the previous year) - and then one year you get a 2-3% DROP from the previous year, you can argue (as the author of the article states in the opening line) that you've had "the worst year in 40 years".

It's a REALLY lousy way to put it (and REALLY confusing) but that's apparently what the Bloomberg author was doing. 2008 was the "worse year in 40 years" because it saw a sales decrease instead of a gain (and it was the biggest year over year decrease in 40 years) - but it wasn't the lowest sales volume in 40 years. It was the lowest sales volume since 2005. More specifically it was the largest year over year sales drop since 1969 - NOT the lowest sales since 1969.

So - if the sales numbers for THIS year hold up it will probably put Christmas sales at roughly the same as 2006 (whereas last year sales was roughly the same as 2005).

Got it?

Ken

PS - I REALLY don't blame you for being confused. As I said, the Bloomberg article is REALLY badly written. In my opinion, the author should NOT be writing copy (he/she lacks the necessary skills to accurately convey information).