1) i think we should expect the sales per square foot to be high at Apple stores simply because most of what they sell is so expensive; therefore, the rent per sales percentage will be low.
2) I doubt if stores are paying a percentage of sales for rent. I read this artIcal's main content elsewhere, and there were no sources named. Further, I think the wording is highly misleading, suggesting that rent is based on a percentage of sales, instead of just stating that Apple stores pay a lower percentage of rent per sales (probably because the cost of their goods is so high).
3) If Apple is able to cut any type of rent reduction because of who they are, this just shows what is potentially wrong with our system…Apple can well afford to pay whatever the rent may be, whereas other retailers may be struggling. As they can well-afford it, they should not get a discount at the expense of increased rent of others.
That's absolutely insane. Apple should get into owning more of their own retail properties, including mall spaces.
How do you suppose they accomplish that?
The article claims that Apple gets favorable rent prices because of the increased foot traffic, but how does increased foot traffic directly benefit the property owner?
3.5 billion devided by 450 locations is almost 8 milion per location. Doesn't look cheap to me. Especially if the 3.5 billion is for à quarter instead of à year.
3.5 billion in à year or à quarter? Devide this amount by the 450 shops and you get nearly 8 milion per shop per year / quarter? Doesn't look cheap to me
The article claims that Apple gets favorable rent prices because of the increased foot traffic, but how does increased foot traffic directly benefit the property owner?
The property owner benefits by having a renter. Why anyone thinks they deserve anything beyond that is irrational.
I'm not talking about buying the space, I'm talking about buying the whole mall.
There's a company that thought like that... McDonald's. A huge portion of their profit comes from leasing the land the restaurant stands on to franchisors. At points in time, they've made more money on real estate than selling burgers.
I used to operate stores in several malls (not anchors). Rent was ALWAYS based on a base rent AND a percentage of sales,that had to be reported to the mall management, and they had the right to audit my reported sales numbers. This is very common practice.
I used to operate stores in several malls (not anchors). Rent was ALWAYS based on a base rent AND a percentage of sales,that had to be reported to the mall management, and they had the right to audit my reported sales numbers. This is very common practice.
Seems like the recorded number of sales could easily be misreported by a store owner.
It's true. It's called "percentage rent."
I had to pay a percentage of my sales to the landlord, in addition to my monthly lease, when I had a store in a swanky SoCal mall. Ironically, when considering moving my store at the end of my lease, I was able to negotiate an end to the percentage rent in order for the landlord to keep me as a tenant.
It's true. It's called "percentage rent."
I had to pay a percentage of my sales to the landlord, in addition to my monthly lease, when I had a store in a swanky SoCal mall. Ironically, when considering moving my store at the end of my lease, I was able to negotiate an end to the percentage rent in order for the landlord to keep me as a tenant.
It's an outrageous standard for that industry then. A practice that is intrusive and deceptive in my opinion.
There's a company that thought like that... McDonald's. A huge portion of their profit comes from leasing the land the restaurant stands on to franchisors. At points in time, they've made more money on real estate than selling burgers.
It's called Daylight Savings Time. It's the other clocks you need to re-set, not your iPhone....
You have got to be one of the smartest people around here - I said I already checked all settings, that includes making sure that it is the iPhone that is not displaying the correct time. Anyway that problem was solved on its own within 20 minutes after I noticed it, and given that the Apple forum page was not loading at exactly the same time it must have been a server problem, and it was today on the news too.
Comments
It's called Daylight Savings Time. It's the other clocks you need to re-set, not your iPhone....
Its an Android geek trolling , cmon get a grip dude!
1) i think we should expect the sales per square foot to be high at Apple stores simply because most of what they sell is so expensive; therefore, the rent per sales percentage will be low.
2) I doubt if stores are paying a percentage of sales for rent. I read this artIcal's main content elsewhere, and there were no sources named. Further, I think the wording is highly misleading, suggesting that rent is based on a percentage of sales, instead of just stating that Apple stores pay a lower percentage of rent per sales (probably because the cost of their goods is so high).
3) If Apple is able to cut any type of rent reduction because of who they are, this just shows what is potentially wrong with our system…Apple can well afford to pay whatever the rent may be, whereas other retailers may be struggling. As they can well-afford it, they should not get a discount at the expense of increased rent of others.
How do you suppose they accomplish that?
The article claims that Apple gets favorable rent prices because of the increased foot traffic, but how does increased foot traffic directly benefit the property owner?
Doesn't look cheap to me
The property owner benefits by having a renter. Why anyone thinks they deserve anything beyond that is irrational.
Forgive me if someone else posted this:
If I were a merchant in a mall with an Apple Store which accepts Apple Pay -- I'd be damn sure that everyone knew that I accept Apple Pay, too ///
I'm not talking about buying the space, I'm talking about buying the whole mall.
There's a company that thought like that... McDonald's. A huge portion of their profit comes from leasing the land the restaurant stands on to franchisors. At points in time, they've made more money on real estate than selling burgers.
If it's not one renter it's another. I have yet to see a mall with empty spaces. If a store closes it's immediately filled by another one.
Seems like the recorded number of sales could easily be misreported by a store owner.
I had to pay a percentage of my sales to the landlord, in addition to my monthly lease, when I had a store in a swanky SoCal mall. Ironically, when considering moving my store at the end of my lease, I was able to negotiate an end to the percentage rent in order for the landlord to keep me as a tenant.
It's an outrageous standard for that industry then. A practice that is intrusive and deceptive in my opinion.
How is it different from Apple’s app store?
Seems like the recorded number of sales could easily be misreported by a store owner.
Seems like they'd have to lie on their sales taxes as well then (and be prosecuted for tax evasion.)
It's an outrageous standard for that industry then. A practice that is intrusive and deceptive in my opinion.
It's amazing. Your posts seem to alternate between the ravings of a five year-old and an 85-year old.
You may need to get out and see more of the world. ;-)
Do you really think Apple would enter into a deal they didn't want?
There's a company that thought like that... McDonald's. A huge portion of their profit comes from leasing the land the restaurant stands on to franchisors. At points in time, they've made more money on real estate than selling burgers.
McDonalds is a classic B-school case study.
You only wish to have had as many iPhones as I had.