January 19, 2026
JHVEPhoto/Depositphotos.com
Is the Luxury Department Store Facing Extinction?
In a thoughtful and exhaustive consideration of the luxury department store concept as a whole — brought into start relief by the looming and troubled bankruptcy of legacy player Saks Global — Forbes contributor Kate Hardcastle made several distinctive claims.
The first was, what (and more pertinently, who) is the department store of today actually for? Outlining that the luxury department store used to reduce customer risk (by serving as a pre-approval stamp of what is en vogue); create identity at speed (letting customers “assemble who you are, across brands, in one afternoon”); and made service part of the product (via “the fitting room, the alterations desk, the sales associate who remembers your taste, the subtle choreography of being looked after”); Hardcastle contrasted this ideal which the negative experience she’d endured most recently in a similarly designated space.
“On January 14th, 2025, I headed to Saks on Fifth Avenue for a Helmut Lang skirt, and I watched the department store problem play out in miniature,” she began.
“A simple purchase should have been quick. Instead, it became a slow drift of waiting, scanning, hoping someone would notice. Nearly 40 minutes passed before help for a size (that technology has already pricked my appetite for) arrived. When the sale finally happened, it landed without warmth. No sense of being known. No sense of being welcomed. The product was fine. The experience was so very flat. For me, this is the moment that service breaks, when as a customer, I begin to ask a dangerous question: ‘If I’m doing the work, why am I here?’” she added.
Luxury Retail Was Always About the Experience — But the Theme Has Changed
Hardcastle pivoted to note that luxury had moved away, at least temporarily, from the traditional department store to occupy places such as hotels playing at being art galleries, restaurants that put ambiance on equal footing with the food, and airport venues which curated their clientele as carefully as the fashions and accessories they were aiming to sell.
“The consumer has discovered that pleasure can be purchased without a till in sight. Brands have noticed. They are building experiences before they build stores: exhibitions, residencies, collaborations with chefs and architects, temporary worlds that feel closer to travel than to retail. The goal is not simply to sell an object but to occupy memory,” the Forbes contributor wrote.
She underscored strong and proven examples such as Bag Harbour Shops in Miami and Highland Park Village in Dallas as emblematic of this sea-change in luxury retail, alongside Market Street (The Woodlands, Texas). The latter district boasts over 90% occupancy, pulls in more than $300 million in yearly tenant sales, and plays host to such big names as Gucii, Yves Saint Laurent, LoveShackFancy, and Vuori — and shoppers are “treated as guests, rather than footfall.”
Do We Need Luxury Department Stores in 2026 and Beyond?
Finally, Hardcastle suggested that the old and now-tired model of the traditional luxury department store was obsolete, and those that survive will become a “luxury operating system” where brand curation is paramount, the level of service provided invokes instant trust from shoppers, and not a second of customer time is considered wasted.
“Saks is the cautionary tale because it has become the loudest version of a quiet truth: luxury doesn’t collapse when consumers stop wanting beautiful things. Luxury collapses when consumers stop believing the experience is worth the effort,” Hardcastle concluded.
BrainTrust
Bob Phibbs
President/CEO, The Retail Doctor
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Shep Hyken
Chief Amazement Officer, Shepard Presentations, LLC
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are luxury department stores, broadly speaking, facing eventual extinction? Why or why not, in your opinion?
What are your thoughts on Hardcastle’s framing of the goal as “not simply to sell an object, but to occupy memory”?
What are your own recent memories of the service, merchandising, and product standards while shopping at a luxury department store?
Poll
Loading …
No, I don’t think luxury department stores are destined for outright extinction, but the traditional model is under serious pressure and must evolve or continue to diminish in influence. The recent bankruptcy of Saks Global — parent of iconic banners like Saks Fifth Avenue, Bergdorf Goodman, and Neiman Marcus — underscores how fragile the legacy department store model has become when burdened with heavy debt, understocked inventory, and diminishing vendor trust. Saks’ woes reflect both strategic missteps and broader market shifts, where single-brand boutiques, direct-to-consumer platforms, and e-commerce have pulled share and attention from sprawling, multi-brand emporiums. That said, bankruptcy protection does not mean liquidation, and well-executed reinvention — from experience-rich environments to seamless omnichannel integration — can still preserve relevance for those willing to innovate.
Hardcastle’s framing of the goal as “not simply to sell an object, but to occupy memory” captures a timeless truth about luxury retail, one that is particularly salient now. The future of department-scale luxury isn’t about transactions alone; it’s about meaningful experiences, emotional resonance, and cultural engagement that give consumers a reason to choose and remember the brand. Luxury’s enduring strength has always been tied to narrative — heritage, craftsmanship, and aspiration — and department stores that successfully integrate these with bespoke service, events, and immersive moments are more likely to thrive. This aligns with broader shifts in experiential luxury retail, where immersive spaces and storytelling are becoming as important as merchandise.
In my recent experiences shopping at luxury department stores, the difference in service, merchandising, and product standards has been striking when retailers commit to curation and connection rather than breadth for its own sake. When associates are empowered to deliver personalized attention, when assortments feel thoughtfully edited, and when environments feel purposeful rather than generic, the memory of the visit endures — and so does loyalty. Where those elements are absent, the format feels dated and interchangeable with pure e-commerce or single-brand boutiques. Going forward, the department store category that survives and thrives will be the one that reimagines its role — from being a vast house of brands to being a destination where story, service, and experience converge in ways digital channels can’t.
Couldn’t agree more. A clearly focused, well merchandised assortment with some eye contact and friendly social interaction goes a long way…If one can find a sales associate, they tend to hug the register even in a higher end location. Part of the challenge is the productivity measurements given to sales associates. They don’t understand/have the benefit of the feedback that time well spend with clients will ultimately lead to better results. Combine that with skimping on well trained floor coverage and the business ends up with a self fulfilling prophecy.
To generalize the Saks/Neiman failure debacle as proof that there is no place for luxury department stores is an overstatement. What is dying, and should, are poorly run luxury department stores that have lost their way and are being run by private equity firms that could care less and have no idea about what it means to run a luxury department store. I don’t agree with the high-brow statement about “not selling an object, but to occupy memory.” When great service is delivered, it results in a sale. You can’t pay your staff with “memories.” I do agree that luxury department store category has lost its way, and that the consolidation and financial engineering has only led to the demise of brands that at one time defined the category. Retailers like Simons (Montreal based) and Dillards, make clear that department stores still have a place, and so too does luxury and I suspect that sometime in the future a luxury department store player will emerge that proves that it is possible.
The author waited 40 minutes for help on a skirt, then blames the “department store model.” That’s not a model problem. That’s a training problem. Saks didn’t fail because luxury moved to hotels and airports. It failed because private equity stripped the stores of staff, inventory, and any reason for customers to trust them. The fix isn’t philosophical. It’s operational.
Consumer expectations and the marketplace have changed. There is still a place for luxury goods and a shopping experience alongside. However, you have to deliver it how the customer wants it. In some markets, large stores can rock, while other markets require different retail experiences. Saks is just one retailer (with several brands). Large stores with an online presence are their main strategy. There are plenty of luxury retailers out there doing well, but not all of them play like a traditional luxury retailer. They have found their audience and niche. Retailers must understand their customers, the marketplace, and the broader retail landscape. AND… They must change and adapt to the changes outlined above.
So, the author of this article scanned the floor and hoped someone would notice her for nearly 40 minutes at Saks? Rookie move. Anyone who has shopped that Fifth Avenue store knows that unless you’re dripping in obvious wealth, invisibility comes with the territory.
Is it ideal service? Absolutely not, but her experience does not indicate the demise of department stores; a topic I am so tired of reading about. Had she gone to Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Macy’s, Bergdorf’s or any other department store, her experience would have been different. Do I think department stores are headed for extinction? Nope. They are evolving, growing and changing, but will always be part of the retail experience.
(You can read about my own Saks experience here:
http://www.retailadventuresblog.com/2017/02/fashion-is-hard-when-you-are-double.html)
In defense of the store with three names, it sounds like the sales associate was quite helpful, at least up until the price point was mentioned – maybe it’s more the store of five digits? – so while perhaps they flubbed on inventory issues, at least they cleared the trainng hurdle.
The associate was helpful for the less than 10 minutes she was with me. As soon as she heard I wasn’t going to spend thousands on a single dress she bailed. We’re talking service here. Regardless of training, my sale clearly wasn’t worth her time.
Saks is a cautionary tell all right, but it’s one about poor execution and devaluing the core elements of successful retail, which matter more than product itself in luxury. Luxury retail is about high-end products, yes, but even more importantly it’s about high-end service. Luxury department stores need two core elements – curation of luxury brands and high-touch service. The current Saks business has lost sight of that service element, as the 40 min wait by the article’s author demonstrated. Yes, luxury malls can deliver the product – on brand at a time. But is that what the true luxury customer wants? I don’t think so. Luxury customers want that curated selection plus access to knowledgeable staff that can help them buy the looks and styles they want and go above and beyond in effort to provide the best items that customer wants. That’s luxury service. There is still a market for this, but Saks has lost its way, due to poor execution and management that is less interested in delivering on that customer promise and cared more for delivering short-term value to shareholders.
One should not extrapolate the problems of Saks – which was brought down by bad management which loaded the firm with too much debt – to the entire department store sector, luxury or otherwise. It’s certainly true that department stores have issues and need some reinvention but they’re not facing extinction. Indeed, some – like Bloomingdale’s – are doing pretty well.
Online shopping and consumer preferences for convenience and personalization have posed significant challenges to luxury department stores. Customers increasingly prefer boutique stores and online platforms that offer tailored experiences and direct interactions with brands. Due to these changing preferences, luxury department stores may struggle to maintain relevance if they do not enhance their digital presence and offer exclusive in-store experiences.
Luxury will always have a place societally, but the bar has moved. Department stores that evolve into what Hardcastle calls a “luxury operating system” can thrive. Those that don’t will follow and fail not because people stopped wanting beautiful things, but because the experience stopped earning belief.
Luxury department stores can face irrelevance if they continue to rely on a model that no longer earns its place in the customer journey. Historically, department stores reduced risk, curated taste, and delivered service as part of the product. When those pillars erode, as in Hardcastle’s Saks experience, the question “Why am I here?” becomes existential.
Hardcastle’s framing is exactly right. In 2026 and beyond, memory is the real margin. Consumers can buy the same Helmut Lang skirt online in minutes. What they cannot replicate is the feeling of being recognized, anticipated, and effortlessly guided. Luxury retail must justify its physical presence by creating emotional recall, not transactional convenience.
The concept is not doomed to extinction. One store per chain in each major city (probably not more than eight in total) can thrive. The problem, from this perspective, is that the success of a few, well-located, well-performing stores misled executives to believe that the concept could be replicated everywhere. It can’t. Bringing the companies public to stand the scrutiny of the markets also doesn’t help. If we go back in time, the department store was a family-owned-and-operated business. Then, some got greedy or succumbed to investors wanting to expand a business that, in this writer’s opinion, is not elastic.
No, luxury department stores are not facing eventual extinction. Financial and operational incompetance may be incredibly frustrating to the customer, but that doesn’t mean the customer doesn’t still want a luxury shopping experience. There is plenty of margin available at the luxury level to provide the customer with the shopping experience they are looking for. Unless maybe all that margin is being siphoned off to pay for debt. Physical plants don’t get the updates that this century’s shopper expect. Staffing and service levels deteriorate to non-luxury levels. The debt levels taken on to finance the NM acquisition weren’t just stupid, they were insane coming on top of already existing financial stress. It was ego and financial engineering hubris run amok. The outcome surprises no one. How about we suggest the extinction of irresponsible financial engineering instead of the extinction of one of the really fun and entertaining parts of retail…???
Let’s not confuse Sak’s demise with a trend for luxury. Sak’s Global is the result of financial engineering. There was never a sense that once the “deals: were made, there would be a future. There never is.
The pressure the financial engineer puts on the retailer is the antithesis of what is needed to be a successful luxury retailer. While luxury retailing is certainly about luxury products, it is more about luxury service. The customer MUST feel special and unique. That is really what they are paying for. That means the most important assets are the people on the floor. Yes, they should know the customer’s name.
The extinction narrative has haunted department stores for two decades. I remember working with Marshall Field’s chief strategy officer on a turnaround project. His diagnosis was blunt: “Our biggest issue? Our customers are dying and we aren’t replacing them.”
Retail is brutal. The market doesn’t take prisoners, and the luxury department store model as it exists today won’t survive—and honestly, maybe it shouldn’t. Retail has always been about change.
Hardcastle nails the core problem: the experience has collapsed.
I saw what luxury department stores used to deliver. Nordstrom built an empire on customer service—I remember getting thank you cards from clerks who sold me a shirt and tie. The Oval Room at downtown Minneapolis Dayton’s had personal shoppers meeting with affluent customers to show couture pieces buyers had selected specifically for them. As one buyer told me: “I buy outfits we retail for $15K and more. Those don’t come in case packs. You better believe I know my customers by name.”
That was real. But the market moved.
High-end shoppers now go directly to the designers they love. Those brands have figured out direct-to-consumer, they know how to deliver outstanding experiences, and they’ve built real relationships with their customers—everything department stores used to do, but better. They don’t need the middleman anymore.
Meanwhile, middle-class shoppers—where the operational cash flow actually happens—now have a ton of options: fast fashion, online everything, experiential retail that actually delivers. For younger shoppers, the storied department store mystique carries little weight.
Neighborhood department stores drifted into sameness. The market cleared the field, and what replaced it isn’t new department stores—it’s a fundamentally different retail ecosystem. Short of a few brands with strong operational discipline and clear differentiation, the extinction event is well underway. Not because the format is inherently flawed, but because it failed to evolve as aggressively as the market around it.
The customers that many department stores think they’re competing for don’t really exist, at least not enough numbers to support the model. One of the fundamental truths in retail has always been “change or die.” The only variable in that statement- the speed at which the market demands change- accelerates every day.
While I am no expert on US department stores, I can’t help feeling that Saks failure has very little to do with bring luxury…and even less about department stores in general.
It appears to be a badly run business focused on real estate assets rather than enjoyable retail experience.
Here in the UK we have Selfridge’s, Harrods, Liberty and Fortnum & Mason that all offer variants on the luxury department store.
They are still desirable destinations that suggest department stores and luxury experience are alive and well. If you get retail principles right, a department store can thrive. And if you get luxury retail right, it will always appeal to wealthy shoppers.
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Closure When Concerns Emerge?
How can retailers better provide closure and proper resolution to today’s shoppers?NRF 2026 Rewind: Abercrombie’s CEO Shares Leadership Lessons
In a session at the NRF Big Show, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s CEO Fran Horowitz shared…Does Gap Inc. Need a Chief Entertainment Officer?
Does Gap need a chief entertainment officer or not?
No, I don’t think luxury department stores are destined for outright extinction, but the traditional model is under serious pressure and must evolve or continue to diminish in influence. The recent bankruptcy of Saks Global — parent of iconic banners like Saks Fifth Avenue, Bergdorf Goodman, and Neiman Marcus — underscores how fragile the legacy department store model has become when burdened with heavy debt, understocked inventory, and diminishing vendor trust. Saks’ woes reflect both strategic missteps and broader market shifts, where single-brand boutiques, direct-to-consumer platforms, and e-commerce have pulled share and attention from sprawling, multi-brand emporiums. That said, bankruptcy protection does not mean liquidation, and well-executed reinvention — from experience-rich environments to seamless omnichannel integration — can still preserve relevance for those willing to innovate.
Hardcastle’s framing of the goal as “not simply to sell an object, but to occupy memory” captures a timeless truth about luxury retail, one that is particularly salient now. The future of department-scale luxury isn’t about transactions alone; it’s about meaningful experiences, emotional resonance, and cultural engagement that give consumers a reason to choose and remember the brand. Luxury’s enduring strength has always been tied to narrative — heritage, craftsmanship, and aspiration — and department stores that successfully integrate these with bespoke service, events, and immersive moments are more likely to thrive. This aligns with broader shifts in experiential luxury retail, where immersive spaces and storytelling are becoming as important as merchandise.
In my recent experiences shopping at luxury department stores, the difference in service, merchandising, and product standards has been striking when retailers commit to curation and connection rather than breadth for its own sake. When associates are empowered to deliver personalized attention, when assortments feel thoughtfully edited, and when environments feel purposeful rather than generic, the memory of the visit endures — and so does loyalty. Where those elements are absent, the format feels dated and interchangeable with pure e-commerce or single-brand boutiques. Going forward, the department store category that survives and thrives will be the one that reimagines its role — from being a vast house of brands to being a destination where story, service, and experience converge in ways digital channels can’t.
Couldn’t agree more. A clearly focused, well merchandised assortment with some eye contact and friendly social interaction goes a long way…If one can find a sales associate, they tend to hug the register even in a higher end location. Part of the challenge is the productivity measurements given to sales associates. They don’t understand/have the benefit of the feedback that time well spend with clients will ultimately lead to better results. Combine that with skimping on well trained floor coverage and the business ends up with a self fulfilling prophecy.
To generalize the Saks/Neiman failure debacle as proof that there is no place for luxury department stores is an overstatement. What is dying, and should, are poorly run luxury department stores that have lost their way and are being run by private equity firms that could care less and have no idea about what it means to run a luxury department store. I don’t agree with the high-brow statement about “not selling an object, but to occupy memory.” When great service is delivered, it results in a sale. You can’t pay your staff with “memories.” I do agree that luxury department store category has lost its way, and that the consolidation and financial engineering has only led to the demise of brands that at one time defined the category. Retailers like Simons (Montreal based) and Dillards, make clear that department stores still have a place, and so too does luxury and I suspect that sometime in the future a luxury department store player will emerge that proves that it is possible.
The author waited 40 minutes for help on a skirt, then blames the “department store model.” That’s not a model problem. That’s a training problem. Saks didn’t fail because luxury moved to hotels and airports. It failed because private equity stripped the stores of staff, inventory, and any reason for customers to trust them. The fix isn’t philosophical. It’s operational.
Consumer expectations and the marketplace have changed. There is still a place for luxury goods and a shopping experience alongside. However, you have to deliver it how the customer wants it. In some markets, large stores can rock, while other markets require different retail experiences. Saks is just one retailer (with several brands). Large stores with an online presence are their main strategy. There are plenty of luxury retailers out there doing well, but not all of them play like a traditional luxury retailer. They have found their audience and niche. Retailers must understand their customers, the marketplace, and the broader retail landscape. AND… They must change and adapt to the changes outlined above.
So, the author of this article scanned the floor and hoped someone would notice her for nearly 40 minutes at Saks? Rookie move. Anyone who has shopped that Fifth Avenue store knows that unless you’re dripping in obvious wealth, invisibility comes with the territory.
Is it ideal service? Absolutely not, but her experience does not indicate the demise of department stores; a topic I am so tired of reading about. Had she gone to Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Macy’s, Bergdorf’s or any other department store, her experience would have been different. Do I think department stores are headed for extinction? Nope. They are evolving, growing and changing, but will always be part of the retail experience.
(You can read about my own Saks experience here:
http://www.retailadventuresblog.com/2017/02/fashion-is-hard-when-you-are-double.html)
In defense of the store with three names, it sounds like the sales associate was quite helpful, at least up until the price point was mentioned – maybe it’s more the store of five digits? – so while perhaps they flubbed on inventory issues, at least they cleared the trainng hurdle.
The associate was helpful for the less than 10 minutes she was with me. As soon as she heard I wasn’t going to spend thousands on a single dress she bailed. We’re talking service here. Regardless of training, my sale clearly wasn’t worth her time.
Saks is a cautionary tell all right, but it’s one about poor execution and devaluing the core elements of successful retail, which matter more than product itself in luxury. Luxury retail is about high-end products, yes, but even more importantly it’s about high-end service. Luxury department stores need two core elements – curation of luxury brands and high-touch service. The current Saks business has lost sight of that service element, as the 40 min wait by the article’s author demonstrated. Yes, luxury malls can deliver the product – on brand at a time. But is that what the true luxury customer wants? I don’t think so. Luxury customers want that curated selection plus access to knowledgeable staff that can help them buy the looks and styles they want and go above and beyond in effort to provide the best items that customer wants. That’s luxury service. There is still a market for this, but Saks has lost its way, due to poor execution and management that is less interested in delivering on that customer promise and cared more for delivering short-term value to shareholders.
One should not extrapolate the problems of Saks – which was brought down by bad management which loaded the firm with too much debt – to the entire department store sector, luxury or otherwise. It’s certainly true that department stores have issues and need some reinvention but they’re not facing extinction. Indeed, some – like Bloomingdale’s – are doing pretty well.
Online shopping and consumer preferences for convenience and personalization have posed significant challenges to luxury department stores. Customers increasingly prefer boutique stores and online platforms that offer tailored experiences and direct interactions with brands. Due to these changing preferences, luxury department stores may struggle to maintain relevance if they do not enhance their digital presence and offer exclusive in-store experiences.
Luxury will always have a place societally, but the bar has moved. Department stores that evolve into what Hardcastle calls a “luxury operating system” can thrive. Those that don’t will follow and fail not because people stopped wanting beautiful things, but because the experience stopped earning belief.
Luxury department stores can face irrelevance if they continue to rely on a model that no longer earns its place in the customer journey. Historically, department stores reduced risk, curated taste, and delivered service as part of the product. When those pillars erode, as in Hardcastle’s Saks experience, the question “Why am I here?” becomes existential.
Hardcastle’s framing is exactly right. In 2026 and beyond, memory is the real margin. Consumers can buy the same Helmut Lang skirt online in minutes. What they cannot replicate is the feeling of being recognized, anticipated, and effortlessly guided. Luxury retail must justify its physical presence by creating emotional recall, not transactional convenience.
The concept is not doomed to extinction. One store per chain in each major city (probably not more than eight in total) can thrive. The problem, from this perspective, is that the success of a few, well-located, well-performing stores misled executives to believe that the concept could be replicated everywhere. It can’t. Bringing the companies public to stand the scrutiny of the markets also doesn’t help. If we go back in time, the department store was a family-owned-and-operated business. Then, some got greedy or succumbed to investors wanting to expand a business that, in this writer’s opinion, is not elastic.
No, luxury department stores are not facing eventual extinction. Financial and operational incompetance may be incredibly frustrating to the customer, but that doesn’t mean the customer doesn’t still want a luxury shopping experience. There is plenty of margin available at the luxury level to provide the customer with the shopping experience they are looking for. Unless maybe all that margin is being siphoned off to pay for debt. Physical plants don’t get the updates that this century’s shopper expect. Staffing and service levels deteriorate to non-luxury levels. The debt levels taken on to finance the NM acquisition weren’t just stupid, they were insane coming on top of already existing financial stress. It was ego and financial engineering hubris run amok. The outcome surprises no one. How about we suggest the extinction of irresponsible financial engineering instead of the extinction of one of the really fun and entertaining parts of retail…???
Let’s not confuse Sak’s demise with a trend for luxury. Sak’s Global is the result of financial engineering. There was never a sense that once the “deals: were made, there would be a future. There never is.
The pressure the financial engineer puts on the retailer is the antithesis of what is needed to be a successful luxury retailer. While luxury retailing is certainly about luxury products, it is more about luxury service. The customer MUST feel special and unique. That is really what they are paying for. That means the most important assets are the people on the floor. Yes, they should know the customer’s name.
The extinction narrative has haunted department stores for two decades. I remember working with Marshall Field’s chief strategy officer on a turnaround project. His diagnosis was blunt: “Our biggest issue? Our customers are dying and we aren’t replacing them.”
Retail is brutal. The market doesn’t take prisoners, and the luxury department store model as it exists today won’t survive—and honestly, maybe it shouldn’t. Retail has always been about change.
Hardcastle nails the core problem: the experience has collapsed.
I saw what luxury department stores used to deliver. Nordstrom built an empire on customer service—I remember getting thank you cards from clerks who sold me a shirt and tie. The Oval Room at downtown Minneapolis Dayton’s had personal shoppers meeting with affluent customers to show couture pieces buyers had selected specifically for them. As one buyer told me: “I buy outfits we retail for $15K and more. Those don’t come in case packs. You better believe I know my customers by name.”
That was real. But the market moved.
High-end shoppers now go directly to the designers they love. Those brands have figured out direct-to-consumer, they know how to deliver outstanding experiences, and they’ve built real relationships with their customers—everything department stores used to do, but better. They don’t need the middleman anymore.
Meanwhile, middle-class shoppers—where the operational cash flow actually happens—now have a ton of options: fast fashion, online everything, experiential retail that actually delivers. For younger shoppers, the storied department store mystique carries little weight.
Neighborhood department stores drifted into sameness. The market cleared the field, and what replaced it isn’t new department stores—it’s a fundamentally different retail ecosystem. Short of a few brands with strong operational discipline and clear differentiation, the extinction event is well underway. Not because the format is inherently flawed, but because it failed to evolve as aggressively as the market around it.
The customers that many department stores think they’re competing for don’t really exist, at least not enough numbers to support the model. One of the fundamental truths in retail has always been “change or die.” The only variable in that statement- the speed at which the market demands change- accelerates every day.
While I am no expert on US department stores, I can’t help feeling that Saks failure has very little to do with bring luxury…and even less about department stores in general.
It appears to be a badly run business focused on real estate assets rather than enjoyable retail experience.
Here in the UK we have Selfridge’s, Harrods, Liberty and Fortnum & Mason that all offer variants on the luxury department store.
They are still desirable destinations that suggest department stores and luxury experience are alive and well. If you get retail principles right, a department store can thrive. And if you get luxury retail right, it will always appeal to wealthy shoppers.