While this move may seem counter-intuitive in the connected world we live today, for Burlington it just makes sense. The “treasure hunt” category is one of the truly few concepts that simply doesn’t lend itself well to online shopping. In addition to eliminating the distraction associated with managing their e-commerce business, Burlington will avoid horrific costs associated with online retailing like managing logistics, competing with same-day delivery or processing product returns.

Michael O’Sullivan is right on all three counts. Maybe he is earning what he is paid. The industry as a whole has come to preach that every strategy is for every retailer. Here is a good case to the contrary. What is a good model in stores is not by default so good in e-commerce and vice versa. Mr. O’Sullivan makes a tough decision in the face of the entire industry. Kudos to him!

Know your data. Use your data. After an 11-year run, it’s smart to walk away.

I can’t argue with the decision to forego e-commerce at Burlington: the numbers don’t lie. However, I would strongly encourage Burlington Stores to invest in a dynamic, constantly updated website that announces new arrivals, new themes and seasonal assortments. Investing in web content like this could be a great way to engage and excite people and inspire them to embark on another treasure hunt inside their stores. They will save a lot of money by shutting down the commerce side of their website. In my opinion, they would do well to reinvest some of those savings into the content side of their website.

With consumer expectations for free shipping and returns, the low average transaction price, and the lack of growth online, placing a singular focus offline makes sense. But making that leap isn’t easy in today’s world, and many retailers wouldn’t have done it. Bravo Burlington.

I applaud Burlington resisting the peer pressure. I hope this is a well thought-out and data-backed decision.

The move itself makes perfect sense, but how many other other components of a retailer’s online presence will Burlington forgo? As I browse the website for a treasure hunt item, can I verify that it is actually in stock and in my size prior to visiting the store? No. Can I purchase the product online with only the option of picking it up in-store? No. Will new arrivals or close-out deals be advertised or displayed on their Instagram page — with the opportunity to then convert as above? Killing off e-commerce due to the unit economics of their merchandise mix is one thing, but where does that sit within their greater strategy to delight existing customers and attract new ones?

Very bad move Burlington! No retailer can shut down a primary channel of distribution/interaction and live to talk about it. This is a desperation tactic, not a growth-oriented one.

The “treasure hunt” narrative is overrated. I bet that a large percentage of purchases made there are more planned/directed than the result of serendipitous browsing. And I suspect that those purchases are made disproportionately by profitable customers (high CLV). This makes a bad move even worse.

It reminds me of the days when bookstore chain Borders handed the keys to their e-commerce operations to Amazon. That went well, didn’t it?

This may seem like a strange decision but it actually makes a lot of sense in this space. The only thing I would add is that they should consider online for click and collect (or BOPIS as in the U.S.) which could drive customers to their stores.

Simple — if you can’t do it well, don’t do it. Even if the future of retail is online, many, many retailers, should not go online alone. The resources needed for competent online selling are not offset by the revenue generated. For Burlington, if there is an opportunity that their products have incremental online demand, have someone else do it. Hello Amazon.

The three factors driving the decision to leave e-commerce behind make it a smart, prudent and sensible move for Burlington. One additional reason is the cost of trying to run an off-price brand online with the inconsistent influx of merchandise. Merchandising online is a challenge but the added factor of being off-price makes this job very complex and costly. Even by 2023, 85 percent of sales will come from the stores, and while this varies greatly by category of business, e-commerce for off-price is not significant enough to positively impact the profit lines (gross margin and net profit margins). Burlington experience a more negative impact by keeping a faltering channel up and running both from a business and consumer perspective.

While typically the numbers don’t lie, I wonder what data Burlington has comparing browsing vs. buying online. Sure their online e-commerce sales figures are low and based on that data point this is a sound financial decision, however, how much of the browsing on their website was fueling and supporting in-store visits? I hope that while Burlington shuts down the commerce side of their digital presence they do not see this as abandoning that digital presence completely. They have an opportunity to fuel digital engagement in other ways to drive foot traffic to their stores. While the treasure hunt nature of moderate off-price retail can make e-commerce less effective given the poor nature of most discovery processes online, most shoppers still start their journey online or at the very least pass through an online stage at some point in that buying journey. Burlington still needs to satisfy those customers!

While it is easy to say that the off-price category is not a good fit for e-commerce, it appears that the Burlington website lacks a number of best practice-based features that T.J.Maxx has implemented, such as publicizing key issues, promoting product scarcity (while supplies last), etc. T.J.Maxx’s success may reflect a stronger brand name, but I am not sure that brand strength is the issue. Improved execution might solve a host of Burlington’s issues.

It definitely makes sense for Burlington to walk away from e-commerce. If, after 11 years, the sales aren’t there and the margins are too small, there’s no point in trying to force a costly operation shoppers aren’t interested in.

This is a shockingly naive move, repeating a mistake that many retailers have been making for more than a decade — namely being channel-centric in their thinking. Evaluating e-commerce as its own economic unit and being focused on the profitability of a transaction is precisely the same kind of thinking that caused so many retailers to fall behind in the age of digital disruption. As data from Forrester (and others) has conclusively demonstrated, for most legacy retailers, digital channels influence far more physical store sales than result in e-commerce transactions. To try to isolate the profitability of a channel is largely a fool’s errand. Online drives brick & mortar, and vice versa. Shopping is a blur. The customer is the channel. The so-called “treasure hunt” nature of the off-price industry does make for some important differences in how to architect the digitally-influenced customer journey (though, it is more than a little disingenuous for the industry to perpetuate the idea that they don’t do a significant number of programmed buys that could very easily be merchandised… Read more »

Like many off-price retailers, the “treasure hunt” excitement becomes key. In this case, it seems Burlington holds a unique place in their customers’ minds — a place reliable for solid family essentials and an occasional impulse indulgence.

While TJMaxx plays in a quasi-upscale space with just enough well-known brands, they have some clever tricks online to emulate the thrill of the hunt (see “Reveal Designer” on their category pages). That seems to be the luxury of scale and buying power.

I admire a retailer who knows who they are and who their customers are. They are showing growth from their stores and if they redirect resources to making their stores even better at what they do, we might even see some new store openings in the future.

This is one of the craziest things I’ve read lately, but I get it: not really returning for you so stop it. The old proven retail method of testing. Having said that, eCom is here to stay, so the smarter play to me would be to figure out (like every other retailer is having to) how to make it more profitable vs just giving up on it. Most “blue ocean” strategies are admirable, but this one seems misguided to me.

This is a tough one. On the one hand if the transaction numbers aren’t there, then investing in the online transaction engine doesn’t make sense. However, I believe they still need to invest in online marketing and presence to get mindshare with the customers so they will come to the store to treasure hunt. I hope the money saved doesn’t just go to bottom line, but is invested into something that will drive growth. Otherwise it is just masking the problem.

The Burlington decision makes sense in the short term, not so much long term. They won’t feel the fiscal pressure now from commerce, but they will feel it when other off-price stores are better recognized, can drive more foot traffic, and deliver more relevant experiences sometime down the road. Exiting ecommerce completely means removing an entire customer touchpoint. This becomes risky long-term when other retailers offer customers product information, customer understanding and an option to buy. It’s like running your business cash-only. The customers carrying plastic are automatically going to someone else.