Apple Stores are extremely popular and attract a large number of people regardless of where they are, and based on this argument, Apple has forced mall owners to rethink the way they charge rent for commercial spaces. More precisely, Apple managed to get much better prices than other chain stores in malls, most of them paying rent that represents about 15% of sales, while Apple pays only 2%. Yes, you read that right, Apple pays 7 times less rent than other companies for commercial spaces occupied in malls, and this is based on the traffic brought to the locations.
Daca it seems to you incorrect for Apple to have such benefits, well they are based on the very high sales generated by the company in various countries around the world. In some malls in Great Britain, Apple Stores represent a third of the total sales generated by the stores in the mall, so in total they could pay more than other stores. In general, the presence of an Apple Store in a mall would generate a 10% increase in the total sales of all stores, mall owners having the habit of increasing the rents of stores close to Apple's.
This last measure does not please the tenants, some of them even asking for the exclusion of Apple's receipts from the total calculation of the mall's sales at the time of setting the rents. Basically, Apple generates traffic and revenue for malls and the stores in them, and this brings them benefits for rent, and with Apple Watch his "neighbors" in the big stores could have even more to gain.
