Marshall Field's vs. Macy's (Chicago, Bloomingdale: neighborhood, wedding, buying)

[chet everett]

The single biggest problem with Macy's is its completely brain dead CEO, Terry Lundgren. Terry J. Lundgren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From his useless ASU degree to his done headed moves with every solid nameplate he acquired to the pitiful location of Federated Stores HQ in Ohio he has demonstrated nothing but an uncanny knack to make precisely the WRONG decision time and time again. It was as though some one forget to tell him that TECHNOLOGY would make it CHEAPER and EASIER to tailor the advertising and PORDUCT MIX at each of the acquired chains, not that this was the 50's where FACELESS CONGOLOMERATES were the "new wave".

The Marshall Field nameplate was right up their with other vaunted icons of branding and Lundgren was too stupid to realize that. Even the buffoons from Batus Retail knew the value of the brand. Target had so much respect for the brand they deep-sixed their own Dayton-Hudson name to polish Marshall Field's.

The level of "craptacularness" that Lundregren has shoved into the Macy's stores really has dragged them down to about a JCPenney / Kohls level, with a far more unfavorable cost structure. In a race to the bottom the only places that can "win" are friggin' Costco or Sam's Club.

With the rest of the mall based retail in a bad way Lundgren's decision to move down market gave Nordstroms carte blanche to serve the traditional Marshall Field clientele , and they have done quite well.

Oddly Lundgren's stupidity has failed to adequately position Bloomingdale's too -- Neiman Marcus has headed for the "Bugatti Heights" instead of mere Rolls Royce territory, and Bloomingdale's is in limbo -- probably 98% of the merchandise IS available at other merchants and the specialness od Bloomies is completely wasted.

With the shambles that Lundgren has caused it is highly unlikely any investors will be willing to bankroll any "break up" of the Macy's "acme-ized" stores back into the uniquely named brands that truly could revive consumer interest in shopping in varied locales. Further the teetering real estate markets have pushed mall owners into horrible straits -- even if the stores had some appeal the overall damage may be fatal.

So WHEN Lundgren's obituary is written it should mention "Infamous stooge who is singularly most responsible for the collapse of retail shopping malls".

[mattywo85]

The thing about Fields was it was Chicago's store and we were proud of it. Then we heard NY based Macy's was taking over and tried everything, and still are trying, to bring back Fields. As Chicagoan's we like to be as opposite of NY as we can. I have been in both stores and must say Macy's feels like a non-personal corporation while Fields felt more local and less intimidating. When tourists would come in, Fields was a huge stop on the Mag Mile with the green clock, the frango mints, and the window shopping. I personally hope Macy's realizes the mistake it made and fixes it!

[chet everett]

Dude "Marshall's" is some funky discount retailer in strip malls.

Every CHICAGOIAN called the place the Macy's bought FIELD'S!

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I'm not boycotting it, but I've been in there and it's awful. I can't stand Macy's. They did the same thing in St. Louis with Famous Barr and the Macy's are all flopping. Not because people still refuse to shop there but rather because the stores have gone downhill and their selection is poor.

Oh and Neiman's has struggled too - and they've closed several stores in the last couple of years.

The Marshall Field's on State reminded me of Harrod's in London - first rate product sold with 1st rate service.

The Macy's on State reminds me of Target - the same old department store brands with mediocre service. I can find the same product and service at Marshalls TJ Maxx, or Filene's Basement at a fraction of the price.

The service at the restaurants has really deteriorated in teh past couple of years.

[KerrTown]

How much is the sales tax in that part of Chicago? Must be the reason tourists stay away from shopping in Chicago (and maybe Cook County).

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

I am a native Chicagoan and was not sad to see Marshall Field's go. Their service levels and merchandise quality really had made them a shadow of their former selves. With that said, I am all for the boycott of Macy's. They absolutely should have a. kept the Marshall Field's name at the downtown location and b. made every effort to make that location one of their best in the nation.

If the quality (as you said) at Marshall Field's has become lackluster in recent years, why keep the name and another company run it to tarnish its reputation instead of removing it to protect the good memories and blame the poor quality on another name?

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

How much is the sales tax in that part of Chicago? Must be the reason tourists stay away from shopping in Chicago (and maybe Cook County).



If the quality (as you said) at Marshall Field's has become lackluster in recent years, why keep the name and another company run it to tarnish its reputation instead of removing it to protect the good memories and blame the poor quality on another name?

Sales tax may very well hurt stores in Chicago as sales tax is now 10.25 percent in cook county. As for your other question, the reason is name recognition. Marshall Fields was a lot like a wife. She had become ornery, but her beauty and the memories evoked caused people to be in denial of what she had become. Furthermore, everybody in Chicago and the greater midwest associates Marshall Fields with Chicago just as the country associates Macy's with New York. Renaming Chicago institutions with New York names is not smart. You are a realtor in Houston. Now let's say the Royal Oaks subdivison was not as desirable as it once was, however it still was a pretty darned good neighborhood. Now imagine how many houses you would sell if the homeowner's association decided to rename the subdivision "Alief Northwest". On a marketing perspective, it's kind of like that.

[j33]

Originally Posted by hsw

Customers should vote w/their dollars for whatever stores offer best value in a safe, pleasing setting....don't really care what brand of store is...or where's HQ....or City vs suburbs...."capitalist democracy" tends to work best to screen out winning businesses from losers....not blind regional/national patriotism

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. Anyone who studies consumer behavior should know this. This is where Macy's failed in Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I don't see Macy's on state street going anywhere anytime soon, nor have I participated in any large scale boycott of the place (I just bought a bottle of wine there last night to bring to a party), but I was disappointed that they refused to keep on (at least on State Street) the Marshall Field's brand that many of us grew up with. No matter what Macy's does, they will never replace the fond memories I had of going to the Marshall Fields Walnut Room with my Grandmother when I was a child, that is the sort of thing that Macy's, had they been a bit more savvy, might have been able to keep with the proper approach to the Chicago consumer.

Although KerrTown does have a point. Why keep around the name of store that has declined in quality?

So no, this isn't that easy of a question to answer. And of course, in the larger scheme of things, it is not that important of an issue, but it is interesting to think about from an advertising standpoint.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Dude "Marshall's" is some funky discount retailer in strip malls.

Every CHICAGOIAN called the place the Macy's bought FIELD'S!

or,chet, you can try my approach:

when you walk down the east side of State St from Randolph to Washington, you are in a black role (actually a silly red starred hole, but who wants to get technical?) that really doesn't exist on Planet Chicago.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by mattywo85

The thing about Fields was it was Chicago's store and we were proud of it. Then we heard NY based Macy's was taking over and tried everything, and still are trying, to bring back Fields. As Chicagoan's we like to be as opposite of NY as we can. I have been in both stores and must say Macy's feels like a non-personal corporation while Fields felt more local and less intimidating. When tourists would come in, Fields was a huge stop on the Mag Mile with the green clock, the frango mints, and the window shopping. I personally hope Macy's realizes the mistake it made and fixes it!

I'm as nostalgic for the old Field's as much as anyone, especially the State Street store. However, I understand the business decision by Federated (even if it was executed horribly). 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.

If you don't like the substantive changes in terms of the products being sold at the Macy's State Street store, then that's perfectly understandable (and I agree with that notion - it's nowhere near as nice of a product mix as the old Field's). However, if people are boycotting the State Street store just because of the name change, then you're proverbially cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is a lot more horrible for Chicago to have another whole block of space on State Street to lay vacant if that store ever closes down than any type of nostalgia for a name.

[chet everett]

Frank:

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:

• Victoria's Secret
• Pink (Victoria's Secret)
• Bath & Body Works
• Henri Bendel
• C. O. Bigelow
• The White Barn Candle Company
• La Senza

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...