The Real Hy-Vee Story

I read with interest the latest news coming out of Hy-Vee’s headquarter offices. A national report issued Friday, March 21 said that the Des Moines, Iowa-based supermarket chain, which has 223 stores in seven Midwestern states, is planning to test a small format in Lincoln, Neb., explaining that “there is a value in developing a smaller store model with a limited assortment of merchandise.”

What they’re not saying is why the smaller format was created. Huge, and well-organized, opposition to the closure of key stores in both my hometown of Lincoln and the chain’s home market of Des Moines has prompted the grocer to find alternatives to leaving neighborhoods grocery-less.

In Des Moines, Hy-Vee is closing an older store on Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway and replacing it with a larger store several miles away. In Lincoln, Hy-Vee is closing a longtime store at 48th and Leighton Streets and, like Des Moines, supplanting it with a modern, 80,000-sq.-ft. supermarket about 40 blocks away.

Both neighborhoods in Des Moines and Lincoln erupted. And not just because largely pedestrian neighborhoods—with a significant disabled and elderly population—were going to be without a nearby grocery store, but because a lease provision prevents another grocer from filling the gap for at least five years.

Hy-Vee’s argument was that it needed to “protect its investment” in the new stores by eliminating potential competition for an extended time period. But the residents’ argument packed more punch. In Lincoln, a group called “Release the Lease,” formed to protest Hy-Vee’s lease restrictions, organized a rally and a press conference. The members generated a flurry of coverage in the local newspaper and on area television and radio stations. They met with Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler. And, finally, after a period of non-response, Hy-Vee officials answered—with plans for a smaller store, designed to “allow it to serve areas with unique needs.”

—Katherine Field

Prepared, or Paranoid?

Approximately 100 days after the shooting rampage in an Omaha Von Maur department store, another Von Maur incident occurred—this time in neighboring Lincoln, Neb.

I was in my office on Tuesday (March 18) on the phone with one of my Chain Store Age colleagues when, in the background, I heard some kind of urgent news break-in over the radio. The broadcaster said a man with a butcher knife was in my local Lincoln Von Maur—in the upscale SouthPointe Pavilions shopping center—and that the open-air center was in the process of being evacuated.

A few panicky hours later, during which time the center was successfully cleared by quick-thinking Von Maur and SouthPointe personnel and swarming Lincoln police, it was announced that the man—though not yet apprehended—was likely not a threat, but rather was apparently shopping in Von Maur before heading over to the nearby Scheel’s Sporting Goods to have his knife sharpened.

Sounds ridiculous, I know. And many a family shared a shaky laugh over dinner that night, as they discussed the events of the day.

Although it appears that the man was innocent, though not very bright, the incident shines a scary light on the state we’re in. The Dec. 5 shooting in Omaha, which left eight innocent people plus the shooter dead, has left the rest of us fearing the worst, looking over our shoulders even on a sunny Tuesday at our favorite upscale shopping spot.

—Katherine Field

Take Two on Irresponsibility

After reading my colleague Katherine Field’s blog on a mall’s responsibility to assume a more authoritative role in what happens in its stores, my first reaction was, “No, it is the retailers who are responsible for the merchandise they sell.”

Then I walked through a recently opened XXI store with my 16-year-old daughter this weekend. Blaring throughout the store was a rapper repeatedly swearing a vulgarity that if I were to write it in this blog I’d be out of work tomorrow. Suffice it to say, the first word was “mother” and the second was unprintable.

Like Katherine, I’m not a prudish mom—but that was tasteless. Frankly, if the words have to be bleeped out of the song when it is played on the radio, what business does a retailer have blasting it on the store’s airwaves?

What was interesting was my daughter’s reaction—definitely an artsy, edgy kind of teen, even she raised her eyebrows over the choice of in-store music. “Honestly, Mom,” she told me, “I probably wouldn’t have noticed it if I’d been shopping with my friends—but shopping with you, yeah it was harsh.”

So I asked her, given that she’s the age demographic XXI is looking for, should they be allowed to play that music? Her answer: “It depends on who they are targeting, like radio stations play those songs all the time and may get fined for the swearing, but it’s worth it if they get more listeners. Personally, I didn’t like the store because it was so hard to find things and I didn’t like the music.”

I’m still of the opinion that it’s the retailer, not the property owner, who has responsibility for what is presented inside the store. However, perhaps malls should borrow the film industry’s rating system and post G, PG or R beside store names on the mall directory. Of course, that would spawn endless debate and probably create more confusion than clarity for shoppers. (I’m reminded of the mothers who protested the “obscene” T-shirts sold in department stores…basically if it’s not Build-A-Bear Workshop, most stores would probably earn an R rating.)

Ultimately, I think it is the consumer’s choice what they buy, and the retailer’s choice what they sell. The gray area for me is the public environment—if stores are operating in a family-focused shopping center, then both retailers and property owners have a responsibility to keep the visual and auditory environment free of vulgarities. That would include swearing, sexually explicit language, pornography, graphic violence and any images that promote derogatory feelings toward a group of people.

—Connie Gentry

Irresponsibility at the Mall?

Much like homeowners are responsible for the goings-on inside our own dwellings, mall owners may need to assume a more authoritative role in what happens in the shopping centers they own.

If I permit underage drinking in my home, I am accountable. If I distribute cigarettes to the teens who visit my kids, I am to be held responsible. Should mall owners accept the same accountability?

A report this morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” titled “Morality at the Mall," questioned retailer Spencer Gifts’ practice of selling sex toys and games in suburban malls around the country. While the retailer maintains a chainwide policy of refusing the sale of sexually explicit items to minors, many stores didn’t honor the ban—and sold freely to kids the same ages as my own—14 and 17.

Would I want my children to be able to drive down the road to our local mall and buy sex toys at the Spencer’s store (which, by the way, neighbors a slew of other retailers that skew young) or any other store for that matter? I don’t even need to answer that.

I don’t suggest that malls be liable. But I do feel they should assume a more active role in assuring that a tenant follows the dictum of its parent company.

Visit http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4399117&page=1 to view the ABC report.

—Katherine Field

Spitting Nails

I’ve somehow found myself into the middle of a retail catfight. A newly opened natural nail spa on the east side of Lincoln, Neb., has attracted an enthusiastic customer base—women who have tired of acrylic tips and seek natural nails that still have all the visual appeal of their acrylic or silk-wrapped counterparts. Count me among them.

The Natural Nail Spa is a single unit, operated by an accomplished nail technician who worked for years to establish her own business. She envisioned the types of services she would offer (spa manicures and spa pedicures) and those she would not (quickie “mall” pedicures, as she calls them), all in an upscale, highly sensory environment. Sounds fine, right? Not exactly.

Several customers—rebelling against pricey spa pedicures with no alternative offering—conferred on the side and decided they would approach the owner about expanding her services to include a less expensive “express” pedicure. They put together their arguments and made a group appointment to present their ideas. The owner listened, then politely refused, explaining that she chose to maintain her $25 manicures and $45 pedicures, that she would not be interested in offering a lesser experience, but that all were certainly free to visit the local mall for $19 pedicures with no explanations required.

Now the ladies are angry. And two have called me to ask for my help in convincing the owner, who is a friend of mine, to give in. Ridiculous, surely, but there is an interesting quandary here. If the customer is always right, is the owner obligated to expand her services to satisfy demand? Or is the owner in charge of her own store, and her own destiny, and is she right to stand her ground? My feeling is the latter. And I told her so. As long as she makes each manicure customer feel free to visit another salon—mall or otherwise – for a cheaper pedicure, and truly doesn’t make them feel guilty for utilizing another purveyor, then I feel she is perfectly justified in staying true to her spa-only convictions. What do you think?

—Katherine Field