Godiva Chocolates to close all 128 North American stores due to Covid pandemic(abc13.com)
abc13.com
Godiva Chocolates to close all 128 North American stores due to Covid pandemic
https://abc13.com/godiva-chocolates-closing-stores/9941539
21 comments
Godiva hadn't been belgian for over a decade. For something I - as a belgian - would consider and is available worldwide, I'd go with Neuhaus.
Exactly right: the pandemic forced the issue but the real problem was taking on expensive locations to sell not much better than Hershey-grade chocolate at premium prices. That was just waiting for the next stress event to hit problems, whatever that would have been.
The governmental response to the pandemic forced the issue. The virus didn’t magically halt economic activity. Governments did, and we need to keep that in mind, because depending on the state, the government response was often far too harsh and not backed by science. Outdoor dining being shut down in California likely caused the spike they are seeing now, by driving people to socializing indoors in private locations.
Saying businesses closed due to pandemic gives the government a pass they don’t deserve. Too often, they could have chosen to require businesses to implement rules and procedures, but instead decided it was easier to just shut them all down.
In the recent court decision that overturned LA County outdoor dining ban, it was discovered that the indoor dining ban was implemented because 10 percent of restaurants weren’t following distancing rules. So they shut them all down as a response. In the same case, it was also discovered that LA County had no scientific evidence of any form to shutdown outdoor dining. Every study they cited was indoor transmission. When the court sided against the county, Gavin Newsom immediately responded by making the outdoor dining ban a state rule, forcing the litigants to challenge the law in state court, still with no science backing him.
A lot of economic damage could have been avoided if governments in the US weren’t filled with quantitatively illiterate do-gooders who say “follow the science” but aren’t capable of understanding it. The age stratification of risk from COVID-19 was essentially absent from public health discussion because of this.
A lot of economic damage could have been avoided if governments in the US weren’t filled with quantitatively illiterate do-gooders who say “follow the science” but aren’t capable of understanding it. The age stratification of risk from COVID-19 was essentially absent from public health discussion because of this.
While the virus is around, people are going to go to restaurants less.
Many states made a reasoned judgment that closing the restaurants now would lead to a faster recovery and less economic damage overall, by reducing the duration and extent of the virus. That means fewer people will die, and people will return to restaurants, stores, and offices sooner.
Even if they were wrong (I'm not sure that's true), that is still a judgment call that is well within a state's right to make as long as it has a rational basis, taking into account the situation on the ground.
The same is true if they weighed the risk of 10% of the restaurants violating the rules and spreading the virus, and the difficulty of enforcement, against the economic and societal harms.
Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else.
(In the LA case, by the way, it looks like the judge found that the county hadn't weighed the risks and made a judgment, not that their judgment was incorrect. I understand that outcome was quickly stayed by the court of appeals.)
Many states made a reasoned judgment that closing the restaurants now would lead to a faster recovery and less economic damage overall, by reducing the duration and extent of the virus. That means fewer people will die, and people will return to restaurants, stores, and offices sooner.
Even if they were wrong (I'm not sure that's true), that is still a judgment call that is well within a state's right to make as long as it has a rational basis, taking into account the situation on the ground.
The same is true if they weighed the risk of 10% of the restaurants violating the rules and spreading the virus, and the difficulty of enforcement, against the economic and societal harms.
Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else.
(In the LA case, by the way, it looks like the judge found that the county hadn't weighed the risks and made a judgment, not that their judgment was incorrect. I understand that outcome was quickly stayed by the court of appeals.)
"Your complaint would be better directed against the 10% of restaurant owners who refused to comply with the rules and ruined it for everyone else."
This begs the question:
Should you be banned from driving because a percentage of drivers on the road are speeding? Because that's what you are advocating for here.
They could have just shut down the 10% of restaurants who weren't compliant.
OR, they can be like the elementary school teacher at recess, who bans football because two kids out of the class break the rules and tackle, and now "nobody gets to play."
That's a lazy, and highly paternalistic attitude to take for a government, and the fact that you defend the policy makes me wonder if you have ever owned or started your own business. I highly doubt you have.
Regarding the judge's ruling, you sound as if you are defending the county's action of shutting down businesses without bothering to do a cost/benefit analysis of any sort. Yes, the judge in the case made that ruling, but if you read the details of the judgement (i did) he pointed out that the county didn't even seek out data, and instead justified it with indoor dining studies. Also, very notable in that case was the admission by LA County that the intention of the outdoor dining ban was to indirectly reduce spread by providing less destinations outside of the home, and therefore keeping people in their homes more.
And yes, it was "stayed by the Court of Appeals" because the County immediately appealed. The court didn't just act on its own. Mark Geragos, the main attorney in the case, has some detailed analysis on the case he discusses in a few legal oriented podcasts.
I've noticed that the people who defend these poorly informed, optically driven government oversteps the most are the people who bought into the paranoid fear of the virus the most in the beginning. The people who wipe down every box that enters their home, and wear masks outdoors in open areas with no people within 15 feet of them...... they are the biggest defenders of this stuff. The cognitive dissonance of admitting they completely overreacted, and the huge cost they incurred of not leaving their apartments for months, well, they couldn't have done that for nothing, could they? No, the science is all wrong, the people not wearing masks while riding their mountain bike in a national park are jerks, and the parents who want their kids in school just want free babysitters.... yeah, that's it.....
And let me emphasize this:
The data clearly demonstrates that California isn't doing well. The policies aren't working. And just like Christian right wingers who institute abstinence only pregnancy prevention, when the policies don't work, they blame the moral failings of the citizens. Prohibition could have worked too, if only the citizens weren't so terrible.
People are going to do drugs. They are going to have sex. They are going to drink. They are going to get abortions. They are going to socialize, and they are going to eat together. Banning the regulated businesses that provide these services, drives the demand underground, and sees the needs met by an unregulated black market.
Everyone in LA is getting their haircut. Look around, you'll see this. The salons, gyms are all open illegally, with plywood or paper blocking out the windows. My buddy owns an MMA gym near LAX, and he's been "open" since October. The California government failed in preventing the spread of the virus because they went full-on abstinence only, just like Puritans always do.
This begs the question:
Should you be banned from driving because a percentage of drivers on the road are speeding? Because that's what you are advocating for here.
They could have just shut down the 10% of restaurants who weren't compliant.
OR, they can be like the elementary school teacher at recess, who bans football because two kids out of the class break the rules and tackle, and now "nobody gets to play."
That's a lazy, and highly paternalistic attitude to take for a government, and the fact that you defend the policy makes me wonder if you have ever owned or started your own business. I highly doubt you have.
Regarding the judge's ruling, you sound as if you are defending the county's action of shutting down businesses without bothering to do a cost/benefit analysis of any sort. Yes, the judge in the case made that ruling, but if you read the details of the judgement (i did) he pointed out that the county didn't even seek out data, and instead justified it with indoor dining studies. Also, very notable in that case was the admission by LA County that the intention of the outdoor dining ban was to indirectly reduce spread by providing less destinations outside of the home, and therefore keeping people in their homes more.
And yes, it was "stayed by the Court of Appeals" because the County immediately appealed. The court didn't just act on its own. Mark Geragos, the main attorney in the case, has some detailed analysis on the case he discusses in a few legal oriented podcasts.
I've noticed that the people who defend these poorly informed, optically driven government oversteps the most are the people who bought into the paranoid fear of the virus the most in the beginning. The people who wipe down every box that enters their home, and wear masks outdoors in open areas with no people within 15 feet of them...... they are the biggest defenders of this stuff. The cognitive dissonance of admitting they completely overreacted, and the huge cost they incurred of not leaving their apartments for months, well, they couldn't have done that for nothing, could they? No, the science is all wrong, the people not wearing masks while riding their mountain bike in a national park are jerks, and the parents who want their kids in school just want free babysitters.... yeah, that's it.....
And let me emphasize this:
The data clearly demonstrates that California isn't doing well. The policies aren't working. And just like Christian right wingers who institute abstinence only pregnancy prevention, when the policies don't work, they blame the moral failings of the citizens. Prohibition could have worked too, if only the citizens weren't so terrible.
People are going to do drugs. They are going to have sex. They are going to drink. They are going to get abortions. They are going to socialize, and they are going to eat together. Banning the regulated businesses that provide these services, drives the demand underground, and sees the needs met by an unregulated black market.
Everyone in LA is getting their haircut. Look around, you'll see this. The salons, gyms are all open illegally, with plywood or paper blocking out the windows. My buddy owns an MMA gym near LAX, and he's been "open" since October. The California government failed in preventing the spread of the virus because they went full-on abstinence only, just like Puritans always do.
Hindsight is 2020 (ha!).
The disease was an unknown for many months. Blamethrowing is a lazy rewriting of events. And useless. This conservative line of secret superior knowledge is wearying.
Get vaccinated. Stay isolated for 2 weeks following vaccination. Be well.
The disease was an unknown for many months. Blamethrowing is a lazy rewriting of events. And useless. This conservative line of secret superior knowledge is wearying.
Get vaccinated. Stay isolated for 2 weeks following vaccination. Be well.
For coffee you add value by having street venues because coffee takes preparation and serving. Chocolate can be found ready to consume in a variety of different venues including markets. Never been to a godiva store but maybe it was bad strategy from the start. For what I know about Starbucks, the expansion was fast in order to hit small local cafes hard and take them off the business.
> Godiva tried to expand too fast in my view and the quality of the chocolate is mediocre (compared to other Belgian chocolate) and priced too high.
I’ve seen it play out so many times, I assume it’s a conscious strategy choice. Build up brand value, and then exchange it for cash by cutting costs while still selling under previous reputation.
I’ve seen it play out so many times, I assume it’s a conscious strategy choice. Build up brand value, and then exchange it for cash by cutting costs while still selling under previous reputation.
For reference, Starbucks is closing 300 stores in Canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/starbucks-closures-1.5871231
https://www.cbc.ca/news/starbucks-closures-1.5871231
There's a Starbucks near a dead-ish mall near me. Whenever I drive by there is a line of about 20 cars whose drivers apparently need their fix. I do not understand.
Habits, brands as personal identity, social signaling are all powerful
Or, better chocolates have eclipsed Godiva? There's a considerable boutique chocolate industry, and our expertise in what constitutes quality chocolate has moved.
How is this article only four sentences long?
USA Today gave it better treatment with added context for those curious as to some of the bets Godiva took in the year before the pandemic that increased their economic exposure to the pandemic. That being said, it's also clear that Godiva itself isn't closing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/shopping/2021/01/22/sto...
USA Today gave it better treatment with added context for those curious as to some of the bets Godiva took in the year before the pandemic that increased their economic exposure to the pandemic. That being said, it's also clear that Godiva itself isn't closing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/shopping/2021/01/22/sto...
Thanks, the context was informative.
> The store closings come less than two years after Godiva announced a large expansion plan in April 2019 to open 2,000 cafes around the world in six years.
> The store closings come less than two years after Godiva announced a large expansion plan in April 2019 to open 2,000 cafes around the world in six years.
I used to stop in at the Godiva store in the mall nearby--mainly went there for gifts and the occasional overpriced drinking cocoa on a date. Personally my chocolate consuming habits shifted to buying bars at stores like Whole Foods. I hate seeing stores that offer something unique close, especially local coffee roasters with a cool vibe, but just don't get too sad about chains like Godiva shifting to online only.
Godiva used to have an awesome loyalty program, when they ended that I figured it was the writing on the wall. The quality of the chocolates declined around the same time.
Same thing with Starbucks - it used to have the most awesome loyalty program and anywhere you went the baristas were the greatest people. But they were never the same after their financial crunch in the early 2000s. Today I get crates of Mr Brown and UCC from Amazon.
Same thing with Starbucks - it used to have the most awesome loyalty program and anywhere you went the baristas were the greatest people. But they were never the same after their financial crunch in the early 2000s. Today I get crates of Mr Brown and UCC from Amazon.
Awwh. They should at least keep the tourist location in SF. Many moons ago, it was a decent shop.
I'm not going to flag this post, because I believe that it is a teachable moment.
What about this post is at all on-topic? It is a TV news station's blogpost, fitting cleanly into the off-topic guidelines.
This is not the first such post from this account, either; they have a history of off-topic submissions. Why?
What about this post is at all on-topic? It is a TV news station's blogpost, fitting cleanly into the off-topic guidelines.
This is not the first such post from this account, either; they have a history of off-topic submissions. Why?
Starbucks made a similar mistake around the 2007 financial crash but seem to have recovered so it’s not a total dead end for Godiva yet...