Archived Did you know?

[ChangeRequest]

I chuckled when I read this today in the Cashier Training Kit; especially the last part.

 

[commiecorvus]

And if you believe that I have this great bridge to sell you.

 

[mrknownothing]

 

[Cel]

 

[IhaveaDream]

It is actually true believe it or not. more sales = bigger truck=more things to do= more hours.

 

[Anonymous12345]

It's true, but you have to beat sales by 3% for the month to gain flex payroll. If you gain flex payroll and your store is making payroll for the year, they can freely replace call outs and add on extra TMs if they like. But it can backfire too, if you miss sales by 3% for the month then you loose payroll and have to pay it back by not replacing call outs and under scheduling.

So get those REDcards and drive sales!!

 

[Cel]

It's true in the same way trickle-down economics is true. By which I mean by cherry-picking your samples and then conflating some numbers and using some murky math, it's true.

Say for example your average redcard-toting guest spends $1,000 more per annum at your store (it's something in that ballpark, can't remember the exact figure). Let's say my store hits its redcard goal of 6 per day, every single day, for an entire year, and every guest spends that $1,000 extra average during that year. We make more sales, this is true. About $2m and change if we had had 0 redcards otherwise for the year. Unfortunately this is not enough to bump my store out of the D-volume bracket next year, which means any meaningful change in payroll is out of our reach. Yes we can get flex payroll if we beat sales by 3%, but I'm talking significant long term change in payroll.

If your store is right on the cusp of the next bracket up, sure, you might be able to break that hump by really pushing redcards. The odds are stacked against you however. The vagaries of your local economic trends, as well as things outside any of our direct control like the data breach and other things tend to have a vastly stronger influence on store sales trends. So on a wide view of the situation, yes sales = payroll. However it makes a difference when it comes to a tectonic shift, not a small scale change, the math just doesn't work.

 

[Producer]

It's true in the same way trickle-down economics is true. By which I mean by cherry-picking your samples and then conflating some numbers and using some murky math, it's true.

Say for example your average redcard-toting guest spends $1,000 more per annum at your store (it's something in that ballpark, can't remember the exact figure). Let's say my store hits its redcard goal of 6 per day, every single day, for an entire year, and every guest spends that $1,000 extra average during that year. We make more sales, this is true. About $2m and change if we had had 0 redcards otherwise for the year. Unfortunately this is not enough to bump my store out of the D-volume bracket next year, which means any meaningful change in payroll is out of our reach. Yes we can get flex payroll if we beat sales by 3%, but I'm talking significant long term change in payroll.

If your store is right on the cusp of the next bracket up, sure, you might be able to break that hump by really pushing redcards. The odds are stacked against you however. The vagaries of your local economic trends, as well as things outside any of our direct control like the data breach and other things tend to have a vastly stronger influence on store sales trends. So on a wide view of the situation, yes sales = payroll. However it makes a difference when it comes to a tectonic shift, not a small scale change, the math just doesn't work.

The only major change that occurs by moving up in volume is leadership organization restructuring. You'd end up picking up a TL or two. That's not really what affects payroll. With MyTime, hours are based on sales and volume drivers, so even a marginal change in sales affects payroll every single week. Trust me, it's frustrating when departments fluctuate every single forecast based on previous sales and projections per day per department.

 

[BobLoblaw]

Our VIBE figures show right around $10 more per RC user vs. another guest. (150 vs. 140ish)

We average anywhere from 16-22% RC sales each week so round to 20%

Out of 10 transactions there's 2 RC users so simplicity says $1,400 vs. $1,420 in sales for those 10.

On a bigger scale though, even on a normal day of 1,000 transactions you're looking at $142k vs. $140k or $60k a month PER STORE.

So yes, I think the application requirements are a hinderance, nobody wants another credit card, poor TM quality based on pay scale, etc. are all pretty valid points but as a business it makes complete sense.


Back on topic, do I think this leads to more payroll? Meh.

 

[GlobalJ]

I fixed a few errors on a now hiring flyer one day

 

[ZombiePanties31]

Ugh, red cards. We weren't meeting our old goal at our store, and now they've raised it! Guess what? We aren't meeting our new goal either! A couple other cashiers and I pretty much get all of the red cards at my store. And the more I get, the more they expect me to get.

However, I DO get more hours than other cashiers, although I still don't have as many as I need. I don't think that increased sales necessarily equals more hours, but it's obvious that the more RCs you get, the more hours you are likely to get.

 

[JustJoe]

 

[ChangeRequest]

And if you believe that I have this great bridge to sell you.

Hahaha. I just couldn't believe my GSTL was pushing this so hard to our new trainees. I was just like "yea, right". Selling lies...

 

[Rock Lobster]

The statistics are interesting that they throw around, but they simply show a correlation not a causation. That is my issue with using them openly (especially if we go around telling stock holders these things). Sure, a guest who holds a REDcard spends more than a guest who does not, but it begs a question... Do guests who spend more use REDcards or do REDcards make guests spend more?

 

[BigEyedPhish]

I look at that quote, then look at my QMOS numbers for the month, and say Bullshit.

 

[BigEyedPhish]

The statistics are interesting that they throw around, but they simply show a correlation not a causation. That is my issue with using them openly (especially if we go around telling stock holders these things). Sure, a guest who holds a REDcard spends more than a guest who does not, but it begs a question... Do guests who spend more use REDcards or do REDcards make guests spend more?

I'd say 95% of people who use Red Cards would have shopped at Target anyway. I think it is the people who are already loyal to your store and think "eh, what the hell"... These are my totally made up statistics, but in my mind are totally true.

90% would have shopped here anyway
5% are re-openning a card
5% think 5% is a big deal
99.9% are Females,
85% of which are 75+
14.9% are new Moms,
and the remainging 0.1% are Men talked into it by a recently pregnant wife, or wife of 45+ years.

 

[missionimpossible]

it's obvious that the more RCs you get, the more hours you are likely to get.

unpossible hours are not performance based

 

[Rock Lobster]

The statistics are interesting that they throw around, but they simply show a correlation not a causation. That is my issue with using them openly (especially if we go around telling stock holders these things). Sure, a guest who holds a REDcard spends more than a guest who does not, but it begs a question... Do guests who spend more use REDcards or do REDcards make guests spend more?

I'd say 95% of people who use Red Cards would have shopped at Target anyway. I think it is the people who are already loyal to your store and think "eh, what the hell"... These are my totally made up statistics, but in my mind are totally true.

Well that is the entire point. While I understand Target's strategy, I dislike that it is using statistics in a way that the stock holders could easily call out. When we say, "Target Guests who use a REDcard spend X% more a year than non REDcard users, so we are going to push REDcards in an attempt to increase the usage by X% which will increase sales by $X" ... The problem is that it is not that simple. Your statistics show there is a correlation between guests who spend more at Target and REDcard usage. However, the question is do the guests who already spend more just use a REDcard? How much is the average change in spending between a guest using their normal payment and then opening a REDcard?

I guess the question is will REDcards actually increase sales by as much as the statistics are stating?

 

[BigEyedPhish]

In my humble, loosely drunk opinion

The REDcard is Target's Half-Assed way of growing their Online Business... I could see them show us store workers these "Increased Sales Numbers" because it has much more of a correlation to us, than whatever the hell happens online, because at this point most of us could give a damn, we have 16 pulls on the line FFS.

When in reality I bet REDcards are more likely to make the guest shop online. Not shop HERE. Every store has their own version of a card. The very few REDcards I have ever gotten were because the guest wanted something we didn't have, but we had it online and he/she could get free shipping.

 

[Dying Sun]

righhhhttt yeah I call bullshit