a new idea for Field's/Macy's on State (Chicago, Bloomingdale: real estate, home)

[edsg25]

I've offered ideas on this forum on the Field's-to-Macy's conversion before it was even official. I'd like to offer up a new idea here.

The true age of the department store is over. In some ways, ironically perhaps, it ends more in the suburban branches than it does at the original downtown department stores. Don't get me wrong; those downtown stores can take a hit...we merely have to look at Carsons on State to see that. But the downtown department stores can still offer something the suburban branches cannot, an excitement in a inviting urban, walkable setting. We can still see this on Michigan Avenue. We can see it at Macy's and Bloomingdale's in NYC and SF.

I once thought that it would be a good idea for Macy's, Inc. to turn the State Steet store back to the name "Marshall Field's", but have it mix the old Field's departments with those of Macy's and Bloomingdale's, along with having more outside venders (like Field's did in its lower level) as part of the mix.

But I don't think that would work. The store would still be too big. So....why not divide it?

Here's my idea: split the State Steet store into three separate stores, all under the ownership of Macy's Inc:
Macy's, Bloomingdale's, and the name "Marshall Field's"

I would divide the stores on an east/west access so each had entry on both State and Wabash. Wall space between the parts would only be set up on the State and Wabash parts of the stores. The atrium middle of the store would continue to be open with entrances coming off of it (in two directions) to the three department stores (from this I'm borrowing the concept of how department stores open up to enclosed mall).

What are the advantages:

1. Macy's severely restricts all its unneeded space and improves its image in a way that not only affects the State Street store, but all Macy's in the Chicago area. Macy's doesn't need a super sized store on State, just a good sized one.

2. Bloomingdale's would be an attraction in the Loop, a full service store with everything....all those departments that are in its 900N store, plus the home furnishing of the Medinah Temple store. Both Field's and Macy's operated with 2 department stores in DT Chicago; so can Bloomingdale's. Bloomie's presence would enhance Block 37 across the street.

3. Marshall Field's: Field's would have even more impact on Block 37. More importantly, setting up a one store Marshall Field's on State would be a great idea for Macy's, Inc. With one store only, it is not competing with Macy's and Bloomingdale's throughout the metro area. And the State Street store could be set up as a destination store, something attractive to visitors and tourists, but also draw in Chicagoans and suburbanites. Only the most exciting and innovative of Field's old departments would be included and new ones could be dreamed up. In fact, such a store could serve as a laboratory for Macy's Inc. to try out new concepts.

Macy's Inc. doesn't have to build or occupy an space to pull this off, but by doing so, it gets three department stores instead of one and any of the three could be better than the currently configured Macy's on State.

To me, it seems like a win/win situation.

[chet everett]

Edsg buddy, I loved Marshal Fields. I think the folks from Target were very respectful of the brand and did a ton to reposition the place into a tier way higher than the morons from Batus had let it run down to. When Target sold to the morons that are trying to run Macy's and Bloomingdales those idiots from Ohio way way way overpaid and way way way missed the target as to what sorts of positioning is appropriate. They have their heads stuck to a concept that does not work. The sad fact is that peope gnerally do not have enough time, money or desire to go back to era when shopping was adventurous AT FULL PRICE and no sane person is going to waste effort with "sale prices" on crud you can buy cheaper at Kohls or Costco any day of the week.

The costs of "rebranding" even JUST the Stste St store would be through the roof. The ad buys alone would wipe out the firm. Do you ever see TV or print ads for say "Barney's"? Of course not. A single location cannot afford those expenses. Heck, Lord & Taylor has transitioned basically all their advertising to email and they still have a passel of stores.

As long as the real estate is not more valuable than filling the shelves with generic crap and hawking made in Pennsylvannia "Frango" product at every opportunity keeps the lights on the stupid Buckeyes will not change anything...

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Edsg buddy, I loved Marshal Fields. I think the folks from Target were very respectful of the brand and did a ton to reposition the place into a tier way higher than the morons from Batus had let it run down to. When Target sold to the morons that are trying to run Macy's and Bloomingdales those idiots from Ohio way way way overpaid and way way way missed the target as to what sorts of positioning is appropriate. They have their heads stuck to a concept that does not work. The sad fact is that peope gnerally do not have enough time, money or desire to go back to era when shopping was adventurous AT FULL PRICE and no sane person is going to waste effort with "sale prices" on crud you can buy cheaper at Kohls or Costco any day of the week.

The costs of "rebranding" even JUST the Stste St store would be through the roof. The ad buys alone would wipe out the firm. Do you ever see TV or print ads for say "Barney's"? Of course not. A single location cannot afford those expenses. Heck, Lord & Taylor has transitioned basically all their advertising to email and they still have a passel of stores.

As long as the real estate is not more valuable than filling the shelves with generic crap and hawking made in Pennsylvannia "Frango" product at every opportunity keeps the lights on the stupid Buckeyes will not change anything...

i do realize the advertising issue, chet. in fact, it was that issue that made mace's convert field's in the first place; macy's wanted to make all its stores subject to the same ad campaigns..

yes, i think you'd be right; a single location is very hard to advertise for. and while i am not discounting the power of advertising, i sort of image something (perhaps unrealistic) that if the store were a destination (as example for tourists, visitors, convention folks, etc. as well as for suburbanites coming into the city), than they would come no matter what products are being sold.

let's take it one step further. we know the store is covered now by Macy's advertising and the fact that it is all Macy's works well for them...I mean, it's all under the same umbrella....right?

but here's the deal: a typical Macy's store is probably a fifth of the size of the giant on State Street, so based on advertising's draw, Macy's State Street could become a fraction of its current size without losing anything. I contact this with Field's in the old days when the State Street store was different from the rest, offered services and departments not found elsewhere.

simply put, Marshall Field's could warrant store this size, but Macy's couldn't.

Also, under my idea, isn't Macy's Inc getting a better bang for its buck by including Bloomingdale's in the mix. This means the expense of its Bloomie ad's pay off just like the Macy's ones do.

Don't forget I'm only suggesting Field's in a mere 1/3 of the space. So if you accept my premise that (1) Macy's becomes more attractive in Chicago because it resurrects Field's as well as it benefits from the redundancy of that large store space and (2) Bloomie's ad's get more power to them because of the added State St location, then mightn't Macy's Inc already be ahead of the game, even if ad costs were to be greater for the single Field's store?

Look.....Macy's Herald Sq is not wasted space because that really is Macy's and people go to it because it is, but Macy's State Street has no reason to be as large as it is.....there is no draw to the place like Field's, the great local institution, had.

I think Macy's Inc could make this underutilized property into something more profitable.