Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a couple old frango boxes as well. This is what happened though, Marshall fields was purchased by Dayton Hudson who owns target. They used the profits from Marshall Fields - to expand the target brand and basically ran Fields into the ground. Even towards the federated buyout... the ads looked like stinkin target ads. Really bad. The brand was weak after DH got hold of it. But instead of purchasing Fields and polishing up the name and reintroducing the famous Chicago brand that had "cachet" they got cheap and went with the Macy's "lower tier" brand. Which really POed a lot of Chicagoans to this day.
Personally I don't like Macy's/Federated and what they are doing to the retail store scene in the U.S. I mourn all the older smaller chains (Chas. A Stevens, Madigans, Bonwits - any others you care to reminisce about?) - now everyone wears all the same clothes.
But I certainly did not like Field's as it was when DH owned them either. Marshall Field's used to be more like Nordstroms. I bought my wedding dress and bridesmaids dresses there - they had a great wedding department. And those Field days sales were great.
Lundgren's folly was not JUST the deep-sixing of the Field's name, but the belief that ANY BODY ANY WHERE other NYC had any affection for Macy's.
While other retailers were actively expanding the range of name plates over which they had control, Lundgren had some bassackwards plan to ram Macy's down the throats of consumers who did not want it in the markets he gained through aquisition.
Places like Gap expanded with Old Navy and Banana Republic. Mike Jefferies (freak that he is...) has expanded Abercrombie & Fitch into Hollister Co. & Gilly Hicks& RUEHL No.925
Limited Brands has a whole stable of mall based retail:
Lundgren swam a different way and the waves are going crash down especially on him. For even nickle he has saved by running the same uninspired ads with the big red star nationally, he has incurred DOLLARS of wasted cash on the pointless "rebranding". Coupled with the massive ill will he was wrought, the foolishness of even TRYING to unify merchandise and the wrong headed belief that the US even NEEDS a national mall based department store, it is only a matter of time that he ends up on an ashheap...
Just to short circuit anyone from arguing "well Chase, BofA, and Citi are national brands of banks" let me point out that the consolidation of SAMENESS of these banks is a primary reason that our financial system went from humming along to a train wreck in record time. There were few or perhaps NO local bankers entrusted with the ability to say "prices are not supportable, lending standards are too lax, I can't stand idlly by as we lend money to people that might ruin MY own neighborhood"... The concept of a national banking brand is also vastly different than that of a homogenous retailer. When many people trave, and have a business that is national, or has national aspirations, the HEFT of a national banking brand is a reassuring thing. Purchasing clothes that are the SAME in Omaha, Tulsa, or Palm Beach is completely different and serves no one well.
Personally I do not "boycot" Macy's. On the rare occiasion when I need something that they might sell I do shop the store(s) if am convenient to their location, but I certainly DO NOT find they exciting, innovative, a good value, or particularly pleasant. A boycott COULD be overcome by making the store answer ANY ONE of the criticisms, to strong retailers, like Target or Nordstrom they often address MULTIPLE of those challenges...
I actually pretty much agree with everything that you've said - I noted that I personally don't like how Macy's product mix has moved downscale from what Field's used to be and, as a result, don't shop there very often at all. On that front, Lundgren did squander a lot of the brand equity that was in the Field's name. I also understand what they've done this with local brands everywhere, although the retail news articles that I've read state that the Chicago market had by far the most negative reaction (possibly because in other markets, Macy's was considered to be an upgrade in quality as opposed to a downgrade).
Generally speaking, the "middle" market is the worst place to be in retail - not inexpensive enough to compete on price with Target and Wal-Mart, and not upscale enough to compete on quality with Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus. Macy's approach has been to occupy that middle market and are now getting hammered for it with lackluster sales. To me, that was Lundgren's biggest mistake over anything else in a "high-low" era where people generally either want the cheapest prices for basic items or splurge for luxury items.
From a marketing perspective, it just didn't make sense to have the Macy's brand name in every major U.S. market with the lone exception of Chicago, especially if they were going to make the same substantive changes in terms of the brands and products that they were going to carry regardless of whether the store name was Macy's or Field's.
We need to face the facts: the name is never ever going to change back, much less the formatting of the stores. Any time protesting this is wasted time and energy.
.
Frank, there is no question that Macy's (or Federated, as it was when the deal went through) owns the property and is the one calling the shots.
But there was more than one way to make a Chicago presence (which, as you noted, makes sense) than the full conversion method. And if Macy's had done that, it could have been win/win all around.
Sometimes you have have to think out of the box for solutions. Macy's didn't do that.
Possible solutions for that win/win?:
1. Pull out State Street from the mix of stores that would be converted to Macy's. Make WTP the Chicago flagship. Recognize that Field's name was the draw on State and nobody else could fill a store that size and grab Chicagoans and most definitely tourists. Keep the State Street store Field's and stock it in four ways: Marshall Field's traditonal lines, Macy's lines, Bloomingdale's lines, and the private vendors that occupy the lower level.
2. Modification of the above. Keep certain stores (State, WTP, Nbk Ct, Old Orch, Oakbr, W'field) as Field's; these are the higher end, high profile stores of the chain. Convert the others to Macy's. Find a new location for Macy's Chicago flagship...like a bldg like CPS on State.
3. Organize Federated (Macy's Inc) as three national chains"....
Macy's: mid-market, total national penetration as by far the largest grouping, keeping it like it is today
Bloomingdale's: High end; trendy: keep it like it is today.
Marshall Field's: High end, traditional: export the name to high end locations coast to coast to augment the Chicago grouping.
Those are just suggesitons. Other things could have (or still could) have worked.
I don't for a minute buy into the idea that advertising had to rule decision making. Macy's could have still had national print and electional advertising and still have clustered its stores as in a national TV ad that would have had both Macy's and Field's name in it.
Frank, you no doubt are right about the store not reconverting. But that doesn't (1) stop our anger and more importantly (2) avoid Macy's all together. They showed us disrespect and contempt and we owe them the same if we so choose. Their decision making was harmful to us and didn't have to follow the course it did. Macy's is an example of what is wrong with American business today and how we the people are not part of the bottom line.
I owe Macy's nothing and, believe me, they will get nothing out of me either.
I work at Macy's. I can absolutely say that the complaints about service are legitimate. The company is so driven by the bottom line that it doesn't pay enough people to service its stores. There is only one person for each department (two or perhaps three at holiday time) to monitor the dressing rooms, put clothes back, price items, and ring up customers. It's pretty ridiculous. When lunch time comes around there usually isn't any back-up, and we simply have to put up a sign saying "Sorry, next register." Customers get pretty tired of wandering around looking for service, and associates get very overworked.
Quote:
Uh, one of the first rules of branding is appealing to those 'intangibles' that result in brand loyalty including (among other things) taping into ones regional, national, etc. identity.
Macy's is a New York staple and has been for 150 years. Some people are simply born and raised to shop there. Brand loyalty is extremely high, and I think the company was too set in that mindset to really see that it may not have been the best business strategy here in Chicago. Maybe Chicagoans won't simply 'adapt.'
State Street has been an underutilized retail area for years now. This is no surprise. It was to Macy's extreme detriment to have purchased property so far away from where people are buying. The sales tax hike isn't helping anything either, as Chicagoans are very capable of traveling to another state or another county for their goods.
In other news, I think Macy's gross underestimated the Chicago spirit. When Chicagoans said they were going to boycott Macy's, they did just that, and the city has by and large forgotten about it now. It's already been put aside.
I think someone else mentioned the possibility that if Macy's were to fail, that gorgeous building could be destroyed. That would be a huge shame.
Well Marshall Field's has been around in Chicago since 1852. Why should WE have to "adapt" to NY brand? Hmmm...
Avengerfire, I think we should be good, obedient, complient boys and girls and do that very adaptation. Of course, I will insist before we do it that The World's Largest Store on Herald Square be renamed Marshall Field's and that I get to be the grand marshall of the first Marshall Field's Broadway Thanksgiving Day Parade. Unless, of course, they decide to run it down State Street in 09 instead.
State Street has been an underutilized retail area for years now. This is no surprise. It was to Macy's extreme detriment to have purchased property so far away from where people are buying. The sales tax hike isn't helping anything either, as Chicagoans are very capable of traveling to another state or another county for their goods.
In other news, I think Macy's gross underestimated the Chicago spirit. When Chicagoans said they were going to boycott Macy's, they did just that, and the city has by and large forgotten about it now. It's already been put aside.
I think someone else mentioned the possibility that if Macy's were to fail, that gorgeous building could be destroyed. That would be a huge shame.
I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. The economy aside, State Street's health has been doing nothing but improving in recent years. If Macy's were unfortunate enough "to have purchased property so far away from where people are buying",you'd have a helluva time explaining Block 37. Indeed, if the economy were not in question, the CPS conversion would be going ahead full speed (instead of suffering some timely loses).
The Loop is still THE place in many ways. The eastern portion is studded with condo conversions of former offices along Michigan and Wabash and new condo towers, many supertalls, rise on Wabash. The South Loop and Museum Park are burgeoning and more hooked in to the Loop than to the Mag Mile. Not to mention Lakeshore East's dense towers. You don't build a store like Treasure Island in such a location if you don't have $$$$$ and density around you. And when you have Millennium Park in your mix, you will never be a backwater.
Besides, although I certainly don't see it in its investment, I think Macy's actually did want its east to west Herald Sq/State St/Union Sq tri-anchors. That the middle of the three is underfinanced comes more from Chicago's aversion to it than how it differs from the other two stores.
Cold, rest assured that nothing will destroy what I will still call Field's on State; it has landmark status. Macy's couldn't even remove the Marshall Field & Company plaques. Besides, with its attria, it could be converted to smaller store space like Carsons is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
