Hi all,
Hope you had a wonderful week-end. Coming back from a 3-Day stress test at the Land for Land Basecamp (the first location of the brand), right before the opening. It was awesome.
And looking at our discussions this weekend, I decided to write about what came out from our convo: The location is not perfect.
Sometimes it’s said before opening.
Sometimes it’s said after.
And I get it. Location matters. Of course it does. Foot traffic, visibility, accessibility… it’s real. But I’ve also seen too many places hide behind that idea.
Because location is a very convenient explanation.
If it works, it’s because of the concept.
If it doesn’t, it’s because of the location.
Reassuring and slightly lazy ahah
The more places I see, the more I think we’ve misunderstood something because there are no perfect locations. And each one of us has one to refer to. We all know that kind of places that learned how to create gravity.
And places that wait for it.
This week, in the longer version, I’ll break down what I’ve seen in the field, with concrete examples, and why bad location is often not the real problem. We’ll go through:
- Confusing foot traffic with attraction
- Blaming the location instead of fixing the experience
- Ignoring micro-location
Anyways, if you believe in the myth of the perfect location, you wait.
