Our client’s store is situated in a suburban NSW centre that had a major department store as the key tenancy. This department store left the centre at very short notice, and was replaced with a number of major big-box retailers, with existing large networks of stores both in and out of key shopping centres.

Our client’s retail tenancy was under review. Should the store continue in its current location and under the same terms?

By comparing the specific location’s Outside Traffic results vs the Outside Traffic for all Kepler locations scattered throughout the centre, it was clear that whilst the centre was performing strongly, and the new big-box retailers had more than replaced the traffic of the old department store, our client’s specific location had lost significant volumes of Outside Traffic.

Our client’s location should not be continued under the same terms. Significant rental abatement, or a better location are required.

Our client’s was offered a number of locations in an existing suburban centre that they had sought to enter for some time. The locations and sizes varied dramatically. One could be dismissed immediately as too small. Centre level data, and subjective store visits could not sufficiently quantify the prospects of the other stores.

Of the three remaining sites, which one offers the best Passing Traffic, and customer behaviour for our client?

By comparing traffic in a variety of locations in the centre from existing Kepler locations, a traffic pattern was developed. The overlay of client-specific customer behaviour from similar profile stores enabled the creation of a traffic, sales, and likely profit model for each location.

Tenancy 100157 offers the best customer behaviour, driving up sales and profit. Whilst 1000003 and 100027 offer more Passing Traffic, customer behaviour in these locations does not align to maximised sales.