I wonder if the logic behind this is straight-faced usage ("people will find it useful when shopping") or marketing ("this sets us apart - nobody will really care, but it will grab their attention").
I hope it's the latter, because the former would seem to me to be a hilarious case of trying to compete with etailers at their game, without realising what a flawed strategy that is. But I've met plenty of people I can imagine thinking it's a good idea, so unsure.
Either way, the geek in me loves what they've physically done.
the former would seem to me to be a hilarious case of trying to compete with etailers at their game
You may be thinking of it wrong. Online has advantages, brick-and-mortar has advantages. If brick-and-mortar can start to take away some of the advantages of online, they can out-compete by virtue of their natural advantages.
One of the huge advantages of online shopping is the ability to see customer feedback as you browse. Backporting that to physical stores might not let them beat etailers at their game, but it might help close the gap.
That's one way to look at it, and maybe you're right, but the other side of the coin (and the one I'm leaning towards) is that this is an area where retailers cannot beat etailers, they should be focussing their time and money on USPs, aspects that beat online shopping, not aspects where they can become slightly less behind online shopping.
On the other hand, people who are put off by the idea that thousands of other people bought the same shirt aren't so likely to shop at chains like C&A anyway.
I hope it's the latter, because the former would seem to me to be a hilarious case of trying to compete with etailers at their game, without realising what a flawed strategy that is. But I've met plenty of people I can imagine thinking it's a good idea, so unsure.
Either way, the geek in me loves what they've physically done.