Why do people in Chicago hate Macy's so much? (Marshall: house, bankruptcy)

[nana053]

Originally Posted by Nearwest

I recall watching a clip on the local news in 2006 when the Marshall Field's name was retired. The clip featured a group of people who were protesting the name change and were marching in front of the State St. store. One of the protestors, who was interviewed, claimed that Macy's would turn Field's into "a Kmart with chandeliers."


LOL

Actually, that is precisely what they did. And, in 2017, they closed 63 stores due to declining sales. They were set to close another 30 stores in 2018 and 2019.

[Hiruko]

A close relative of mine served on the board of Macy's for nearly two decades—we own a lot of stock in Macy's. The reason that Marshall Field's was retired along with some of the other nameplates is that Macy's executives believed that streamlining all of their stores into one brand would reduce costs and create a national brand with unified promotions, credit cards, web pages, and inventory. It's difficult to say whether or not this strategy worked or did not work because it has occurred amidst a broad decline among U.S. department stores.

Chicagoans dislike Macy's because Marshall Field's was an iconic and relatively upscale brand. Target/Dayton started to bring the brand downscale, and many of the luxurious suburban outlets in places like Evanston and Oak Park closed down (Lake Forest, the last one closed down after the Macy's acquisition). However, Macy's took the brand down even further to a glorified clearance store. You walk through any Macy's and it is an abomination. I think many of the Marshall Field's stores would have been a better fit as Bloomingdale's, but unfortunately, many of Macy's acquisitions (including Marshall Field's) already coexisted alongside Bloomingdale's stores (see Old Orchard). Bloomingdale's is also about as expensive as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus (a very narrow segment).

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

A close relative of mine served on the board of Macy's for nearly two decades—we own a lot of stock in Macy's. The reason that Marshall Field's was retired along with some of the other nameplates is that Macy's executives believed that streamlining all of their stores into one brand would reduce costs and create a national brand with unified promotions, credit cards, web pages, and inventory. It's difficult to say whether or not this strategy worked or did not work because it has occurred amidst a broad decline among U.S. department stores.

Chicagoans dislike Macy's because Marshall Field's was an iconic and relatively upscale brand. Target/Dayton started to bring the brand downscale, and many of the luxurious suburban outlets in places like Evanston and Oak Park closed down (Lake Forest, the last one closed down after the Macy's acquisition). However, Macy's took the brand down even further to a glorified clearance store. You walk through any Macy's and it is an abomination. I think many of the Marshall Field's stores would have been a better fit as Bloomingdale's, but unfortunately, many of Macy's acquisitions (including Marshall Field's) already coexisted alongside Bloomingdale's stores (see Old Orchard). Bloomingdale's is also about as expensive as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus (a very narrow segment).

We are hardly living in the "age of department stores". These institutions left center stage years ago and may well be headed for dinosaur status. That said, if we choose to look at them with having viability and relevance to the public, Macy's Inc could have taken another approach:

Instead of two national brands, how about three.

Macy's Inc could have three brands, all different from each other (though, of course, overlaps would exist):

Macy's: middle market to slightly above that. Full service department store where you find everything you need. The true workhorse of the chain insofar as it fits into far more markets than Bloomingdale's and Field's. Its size and spread already give it fantastic advantages in making their ad's truly national.

Bloomingdale's: high middle to high end. Differs from Macy's in being (1) less full service (although Bloomingdale's still qualifies as a department store far more so than Nordstrom....which is largely devoted to clothing), a lot fewer departments, and (2) being the department store most interested in being "trendy"

Marshall Field's: high middle to high end. Macy's Inc's newest division. Shares with Macy's being that "complete department store", but one serving a higher market. Internal reorganization in Macy's Inc could shift a number of Macy's stores into Marshall Field's (there are...strangely..a number of malls nationally that contain two Macy's stores...why not convert one of them to Field's). Field's could replace some Bloomingdale's stores, but probably few if any warrant such a move. But Field's could go into more higher end markets that are not "trendy" and definitely "middle American"......a much better fit than Macy's.

Macy's Inc killed a very successful brand in terms of brand name with Field's. They didn't see the value of keeping the Field's name on their stores and expanding it elsewhere. Rather short sighted. And the downtown flagship, the most marshall fieldest of any Field's store, could only garner a small piece of the profitability that store has under the Marshall Field's moniker. And other stores.....WTP, Nbk Ct, OO, OB, etc. are far more environmentally compatible with Field's than Macy's.

Macy's Inc had a number of options to consider. They wen with, IMHO, the worst options possible.

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Bloomingdale's: high middle to high end. Differs from Macy's in being (1) less full service (although Bloomingdale's still qualifies as a department store far more so than Nordstrom....which is largely devoted to clothing), a lot fewer departments, and (2) being the department store most interested in being "trendy"

Bloomie's is absolutely 'full service' depending upon what you mean by that. They've got you covered with everything you could need. Bloomie's does aspire to be trendy and that appeals to their shoppers. It's definitely not for preps. Nordstrom's continued success in this environment is very interesting. Retail is not my forte, but I did want to chime in with what Macy's was thinking all those years ago. For what it's worth, I don't shop at Macy's—ever.

[kitty_nina1]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

All true. And Macy's struggling around the country. Their national homogenizing plan has failed.

The reason is simple. Their quality is down and prices went way up. The sales (25% off, hardly ever 40% off) are laughable.
Lots of poorly made cheap clothes priced through the roof.
The stores are more organized now than 10-15 years ago, but there is nothing there that catches my eye. I still do shop at Macy's online, and occasionally I find good items, however my rate of return with them is 80-85% (meaning that's how much I return because things are just subpar).

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by kitty_nina1

I still do shop at Macy's online, and occasionally I find good items, however my rate of return with them is 80-85% (meaning that's how much I return because things are just subpar).

Don't worry. You'll be banned soon...

[kitty_nina1]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

Don't worry. You'll be banned soon...

Why? I return shortly after receiving the order. All items are unworn with tags and have a receipt.

[damba]

Originally Posted by kitty_nina1

Why? I return shortly after receiving the order. All items are unworn with tags and have a receipt.

Because that’s how it works with many e-tailers. They don’t make enough profit from you if all you mostly do is return items on their nickel (or sometimes, even if you pay shipping). YMMV

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

Bloomie's is absolutely 'full service' depending upon what you mean by that. They've got you covered with everything you could need. Bloomie's does aspire to be trendy and that appeals to their shoppers. It's definitely not for preps. Nordstrom's continued success in this environment is very interesting. Retail is not my forte, but I did want to chime in with what Macy's was thinking all those years ago. For what it's worth, I don't shop at Macy's—ever.

I wasn’t suggesting ng that Bloomngdales wasn’t of the full sevce variety. I merely stated that it is less so than Macy’s and Fields why ch attempted to touch all bases
You can get a sense of belonging ng among the most full service by the size of their flagship...both Fields and Macys were among the three largest dept store along with h Hudsons downtown Detroit stor

[Atlanta_BD]

I wish that, if Marshall Field's just had to go, that Chicago would have gotten Dillard's instead. Dillard's is so much better than Macy's in my opinion.