In terms of triple points, all of the leased departments (except one!) at my saks do triple/double points. I just bought a
fendi bag from a leased
fendi store and got triple points. The one that won't do the points is Chanel (all per an SA at the store). The store I frequent the most is the one in CT.
Can anyone in retail explain this? I understand not doing any Friends & Family discounts, but why would a leased store care if the purchase gives you triple points at the department store that house the leased store - how does it impact their bottom line in any way? Would love some insight...it has never made sense to me that they care if the customer gets triple/double points if the purchase is not discounted in way. TIA.
Just a thought (I’m not in retail but I follow the industry news), but perhaps with the leasing arrangements, Saks has lost control over any profit margin they might gain from the sale. The design house may not be losing any money,
but Saks certainly takes a cut with all of these incentives. Chanel is a great draw to get people into the store, but if Chanel is controlling all aspects of the transaction now, how does that benefit Saks? What Saks wants now is for Chanel to draw people into the brick and mortar stores and then they will hopefully also spend time shopping in shoes and cosmetics where there are more incentives. So, I am thinking that this new state of things is motivated on both sides: Chanel, which wants to maintain an air of exclusivity, control/autonomy, and distance from “discounting”, and Saks, which is more than happy to host a brand like Chanel and the prestige it brings, but also wants to preserve their bottom line and not take a 10% cut on every Chanel purchase (which is what 3x points amounts to), when all they get monetarily from Chanel now are leasing fees, brand cachet and foot traffic. I think LV at Saks has gone in the same direction.
Two of my SAs from my Saks (and one from leased Chanel) we’re just laid off (and I don’t know how many more storewide) so I think big trouble is brewing at Saks and we will be seeing a lot more contraction in the luxury market. Heck, didn’t Barney’s just file for bankruptcy? And this is the strongest US economy we’ve seen in ages.
The viscious cycle is that with no other Chanel boutique near me and the loss of these incentives, I’m less inclined to buy more Chanel (and I keep telling myself that I have enough already ). Don’t even start me on what might happen to Chanel sales now that Karl is gone. So, I think eventually I won’t really have a reason/desire to shop at Saks or Chanel. I’ve already been cutting back. If others feel similarly, it will impact the bottom line of both retailers. Anecdotally, I’m sensing a lot less Chanel fever these days in the PB forum comments. I just don’t sense the same excitement or interest that was there even a year or two ago, so take that for what it’s worth....