post mortem: 6 years after the loss of Marshall Field's (Chicago: wedding, buy)

[Manigault]

What people in Chicago don't realize is that while Marshall Field was the premier department store in Chicago, in NYC, Macy's was kind of middle of the road.

Sure, I shop there and I still cal it 'Field's'.

[edsg25]

there is nothing about the nature of Macy's and the type of store it is that is an issue. Chicagoans generally considered Macy's below the class of Marshall Field's. But if it were the other direction, if by some crazy stretch of the imagination it had been Neiman Marcus that came into town instead (ok. i know. they have 3 stores here already, but imagine they didn't) and took over all Field's location with a more upscale store, it still wouldn't have sat well.

Macy's crime was pulling the plug on Field's; what they did with those stores afterwards is only commentary.

Why the fuss? why does this matter. Simply because Marshall Field's was not the typical department store chain, most of which had already been taken over by the conglomerates and had been converted to other names.

If Macy's had bought Carsons instead of Field's and put its name on the door, it wouldn't have sat all that well in Chicago, but it wouldn't have been the same thing.

Simply put, Marshall Field's was an institution. Field's marketing campaign it had for many years was right:

Marshall Field's Is Chicago

Its roots in the city were deep, it was woven into the culture and the history, and its civic responsibility was great. Yes, it mattered. And it mattered even when it ceased to be Marshall Field & Co. and a part of BATUS or Dayton Hudson.

Marshall Field's was different. More so then Dayton's and Hudson's were in their hay days because Chicago is not Minneapolis or Detroit. Marshall Field's combined a special kind of store with a special kind of city. And Marshall Field's, unlike Dayton's or Hudson's, was a brand that Macy's could have taken nationally. Marshall Field's was a name along with being an institution.

Marshall Field's was iconic.

I as a Chicagoan, we as Chicagoans, realized that the department store era was coming to a close as the 21st century began. But Field's still mattered. And unlike a faded baseball or football star who wisely gets out of the game as he ages and skills decline, Field's could have gone on and rode out its era.

this was an unnecessary cold corporate move that showed Macy's cared about itself but with no interest in the customers or city in which it served. Macy's could have gotten the penetration of the Chicago market it wanted by taking a limited number of Field's stores and turn them into Macy's while keeping State St. and other stellar locations as Marshall Field's (if State St. deserved to remain Field's, so did WTP, Old Orchard, Oakbrook, and Woodfield). Certainly Macy's Inc doesn't worry about carrying both Macy's and Bloomingdale's name in Chicago.

Would it have hurt that much to have made Marshall Field's a part of that list?

[BurbstotheCity]

Originally Posted by edsg25

there is nothing about the nature of Macy's and the type of store it is that is an issue.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this is untrue for some of us. Macy's is notorious for endlessly pushing its private label brands at the cost of stocking "real" brands. While Marshall Field's had brands like 111 State and Field Gear, Macy's puts its private label promotion into overdrive, offering several different labels for a given demographic. The result of this is a decrease in variety and creative offerings that Field's shoppers had grown accustomed to.

On a related matter, Macy's has taken the Field's flagship stores slightly downmarket. Having lived in Minnesota during the transition, I remember walking into the men's designer department in Minneapolis to not only find fewer designers being carried, but even some designers' diffusion (lower tier) lines being offered in place of their signature lines in this department. Granted, in the grand scheme of things, something like this might seem a bit petty, but for those of us who liked browsing the taste of couture offered at the flagship stores, it was quite disappointing.

Long story short, the result of the Macy's takeover has led to former Field's stores having a real generic feel to them.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by BurbstotheCity

While I agree with the rest of your post, this is untrue for some of us. Macy's is notorious for endlessly pushing its private label brands at the cost of stocking "real" brands. While Marshall Field's had brands like 111 State and Field Gear, Macy's puts its private label promotion into overdrive, offering several different labels for a given demographic. The result of this is a decrease in variety and creative offerings that Field's shoppers had grown accustomed to.

On a related matter, Macy's has taken the Field's flagship stores slightly downmarket. Having lived in Minnesota during the transition, I remember walking into the men's designer department in Minneapolis to not only find fewer designers being carried, but even some designers' diffusion (lower tier) lines being offered in place of their signature lines in this department. Granted, in the grand scheme of things, something like this might seem a bit petty, but for those of us who liked browsing the taste of couture offered at the flagship stores, it was quite disappointing.

Long story short, the result of the Macy's takeover has led to former Field's stores having a real generic feel to them.

i agree, Burbs. Macy's did exactly what you described. But the services that Field's provided were part of Field's own path to financial security; the company felt they paid off for them and made them profitable. Field's, if it were self-owned, could have ended if the company felt their unprofitable. and that would have been their prerogative.

"On a related matter, Macy's has taken the Field's flagship stores slightly downmarket."

well, of course they did. Macy's is not Marshall Field's and never was. If Federated had said we want to consolidate our brand under two names and had turned all its stores into bloomingdale's instead of Macy's (with the obvious exceptions of WTP and Old Orchard), we would have ended up with an upscale department store...not better than Field's but just different (same economics, but bloomingdale's was always about the trends in a way that Field's wasn't and Field's always was more committed to the extensive number of departments that bloomie's was not).

"Granted, in the grand scheme of things, something like this might seem a bit petty, but for those of us who liked browsing the taste of couture offered at the flagship stores, it was quite disappointing."

we live with a sense of place, a sense of history, a sense that while we seek change, we do not wish to lose the things that are so much a part of us and that do work. in other words: you have no reason to defend your "it was quite disappointing"; the feelings you expressed here were real and worthy and you have every reason to feel disappointed, to feel even a stronger verb than that.

[chicagocubs]

I don't shop at Macys and tell everyone that I know to avoid them. Even though I live in NC now, I still boycott them over what they did to our beloved Marshall Fields.

[Chi-town Native]

In the long run I'd say Marshall Field founding the Field Museum will be a better legacy than the actual store.

Although I wonder with the store gone how many people even make that connection any more...

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

In the long run I'd say Marshall Field founding the Field Museum will be a better legacy than the actual store.

Although I wonder with the store gone how many people even make that connection any more...

i'm so sorry to break the news to you, chi-town.

the institution recently changed its name to the Macy's Museum of Unnatural History.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by edsg25

i'm so sorry to break the news to you, chi-town.

the institution recently changed its name to the Macy's Museum of Unnatural History.

Cool, that means my old Members' Night buttons are collectibles!

I do think dropping the word "Natural" wasn't very wise, without an actual Marshall Fields store, it's not particularly evident from the name that the museum does focus on natural history.

[plates]

Originally Posted by chicagocubs

I don't shop at Macys and tell everyone that I know to avoid them. Even though I live in NC now, I still boycott them over what they did to our beloved Marshall Fields.

I have not gotten anything from them since and have only walked through them three or four times since the buyout.

Originally Posted by edsg25

i'm so sorry to break the news to you, chi-town.

the institution recently changed its name to the Macy's Museum of Unnatural History.

There would be a riot.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by plates

I have not gotten anything from them since and have only walked through them three or four times since the buyout.

this is funny. my experiences are like yours: in a few times, and each one was a walk through (for the record: only because it is on the pedway and, for what it is worth, going though it is the easies way to get to Millennium Park since there is no south walkway at the intersection of Randolph and Michigan)

plates, I'm not sure if Macy's on State was a store or a morgue. You could roll a bowling bowl straight through from State to Wabash and not hit a customer. Question is, for all the gains was supposed to get from combined advertising through the conversion, didn't they really turn what could have been a profitable store (but only if Marshall Field's was on the door) into a white elephant?