August 15, 2008
Macy’s Wants to Relate Better to Shoppers
Macy’s wants to better understand its customers. That’s why the department store has hired dunnhumbyUSA to analyze its sales data, develop customer segmentation models and help the chain develop more targeted programs to drive same-store sales.
Interestingly, dunnhumby has signed a deal that will make Macy’s its one and only department store client in the U.S.
“We are delighted to be partnering with Macy’s, an iconic American brand with unprecedented marketing and merchandising prowess,” said Simon Hay, CEO, dunnhumbyUSA, in a joint press release with the department store. “We are passionate about helping Macy’s win the lifetime loyalty of their customers. We understand the complexities that face the department store shoppers today and seek to apply our data-driven insights and keen understanding of shopper behavior patterns to create more meaningful connections between Macy’s and their customers.”
Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s, said, “For Macy’s to continue to build a sustainable competitive advantage, we need to fully understand our customers and mold our offering to satisfy each customer’s specific needs. The insights culled from our work with dunnhumby will support our new My Macy’s localization initiative. Our intention is to leverage knowledge of customer segments to drive same-store sales, profitability, customer loyalty and, ultimately, shareholder value. Leading retailers worldwide have benefited from the insights developed through dunnhumby’s expertise, and we believe that experience will be invaluable to Macy’s.”
Discussion Question: What has prevented Macy’s from better understanding and responding to its customers’ needs up to this point? What will Macy’s need to do if it is to achieve the lofty goals put forth in its joint announcement with dunnhumbyUSA?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
When Macy’s killed off the regional names, it was supposedly because their future was as a national brand–with the attendant buying power and national advertising benefits.
That flopped, so they’ve started talking about localization, except that they’re closing the regional buying offices.
They remind me of Sears all through the Seventies (and up to today, to some extent)–a strategy du jour. Some of the strategies may be OK, if properly executed, but poor execution and constant changes of direction add up to failure.
Why do companies feel the need to spend big bucks with consultants to tell them what they should already know? Why are the CEOs and top management afraid to leave their offices and spend time in their stores? Why won’t companies like Macy’s listen to their customers? Simple questions that have simple answers. Oh, and one other question, why aren’t their results surprising?
I’d love to know what that “exclusive” contract is worth. Oh the games consultants play! I can say that because I am one. Is it really all that hard to help customers who come into a store with the intention of giving away their money to actually do so? Why is it that ‘salespeople’ (often a misleading term) actually disable people spending their money rather than enable it?
Bob is right on with his comments. Salespeople listen up: Pay attention! Help customers give you their money! The customer is perfectly capable of expressing what they need all you have to do is ask them.
We’re getting it all wrong. Retailers don’t need to understand the customer more, they need to understand the disconnect within and among their employees! All the customer research in the world can be negated by one self-focused uncaring sales person.
dunhumby is GOOD. The process is people-intensive, but Tesco isn’t complaining, and neither is Kroger.
What has prevented Macy’s from better understanding and responding to its customers’ needs up to this point? They don’t listen to their customers. And they have poor customer service. Macy’s needs to retrain their staff. They need to empower their staff to solve customer problems. You don’t need dunnhumby to properly execute the basics.
What has prevented Macy’s from better understanding and responding to its customers’ needs up to this point? They don’t listen to their customers. And they have poor customer service. They need to empower their staff to solve customer problems.
Macy’s also needs to develop a strong brand story. What does Macy’s stand for? Is the only message they are able to communicate that of items being on sale?
This headline could have also been titled, “Macy’s Wants to Be Relevant to Customers.”
This should be (and I’m sure is) about more than just localization but as Bob points out above, customer focus (and the insights that dunnhumby helps produce) must not only drive merchandising and marketing communications but the brand experience across all channels. dunnhumby knows how to do this–I’d recommend reading Scoring Points which chronicles the legendary loyalty work done at Tesco.
One thing that is disappointing, however, is the reference to same-store sales. True data-driven customer marketing should be more focused on comp-customer sales, which is a much more insightful measure than same-store sales.
It’s one thing to get the data from dunnhumby. But you have to turn it into usable information and follow through at the store level.
I’m not so sure I’d go so far as to call it BS. Companies like Kroger and Tesco are perfect examples of how a retailer can use this information to their advantage.
However, I certainly agree that all the data in the world isn’t going to fix a human resource issue. It’s getting to look a little like Chinese retailing. They think that throwing more people at a problem will fix it. The result is big stores with a lot of people standing around doing nothing. Sound familiar?
I’d also like to give Macy’s and other retailers fair warning. If I see another staffer ignoring customers while they stand there and text on their cells, I’m going to take that phone and throw it across the store. Fix your staffing! That will be the next “Miracle on 34th Street.”
Macy’s has struggled since the May Company acquisition to drive same-store sales. Changing the regional nameplates was arguably a mistake, but changing the stores’ value position was clearly an error. Downsizing the number of regional buying offices will make it more difficult to cater to local preferences–unless Macy’s is committed to both a new mentality and the systems to support it. Its new strategic partnership may provide Macy’s with more insights, but the commitment needs to come from within its own culture and organization.
Why is it that CEOs continue to pour more money into more BS in hopes of the NBT [Next Big Thing]–while looking the other way to how their business is actually being performed?
I’ll tell you why. It’s tougher. It’s more complicated. And it isn’t sexy.
Case in point. I went to Macy’s Herald Square to look for a tie last week. That’s when I noticed the power of threes. Everywhere you looked, there were three employees gathered and talking. Three in front of the Clinique counter, three in back of the Levi’s counter, three in jewelry and two sets of three in ties.
Mind you, the store was FILLED with shoppers. I had to ask one of the three leaning on the tie table to please move so I could look at one. Their response? Not a word.
You want to know how to find the NBT? Get out and work on your floor, mystery shop, or try shopping your store. I’ll guarantee some surprises.
Because only if you are willing to connect the dots from the promise you pay megabucks for agencies to create and the actuality your customers experience, is your money wisely being spent?
If not, you’re just Macy’s with a different widget to sell–putting lipstick on a pig.
I don’t want a data-driven lifetime relationship with Macy’s. I want just one onsite staff person who knows if they have a shirt in my size.
Clearly there are disconnects all over. Management to the lower levels, staff to the customer and data to coordinate action. Many companies are bad and lazy at segmentation, analysis and implementation. The new economy forces their hand to get better or die.
Many companies should not need consultants but they do. The issue is many cannot fix their own problems without consultants. I am glad this is the case otherwise we would be out of business.
I want to offer sourcing consultancy now they have cut back on their buying functions!
This consultancy announcement as much as confesses to the world what many of us on this site having been saying for several years: that Macy’s does not know what market segment it represents, who its customers are (and aren’t), or why it even exists in the retail pantheon other than to keep several high level executives employed.
I confess I’m a bit surprised at the undercurrent of disappointment expressed by so many in this discussion. From this I draw two main conclusions: First, the RW commentators seem to care a lot about what happens at Macy’s. Second, there have been too many incidents of indifferent service at its stores.
Macy’s evidently has a customer service challenge on its hands that is exacerbated by the scale and complexity of its business. Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues here today, I do not believe, however, that Macy’s can simply hire and train its way to success. Like any retailer, it must create an environment for service success by establishing a system of sound practices, enabling its employees to deliver on them, and measuring their compliance. “Have a better attitude,” simply doesn’t cut it in this day and age as a customer service strategy.
So what does this have to do with Macy’s announced engagement with dunnhumbyUSA? It comes down to how well its My Macy’s localization initiative can perform. Tailoring regional and local store assortments begins with understanding shopper segments, that’s where dunnhumby’s expertise will be invaluable. Once targeted merchandising and marketing plans are devised, Macy’s will have to implement against them successfully at store level.
This requires pushing both capabilities and authority out to the field, as Terry Lundgren said at the Global Retailing Conference here in Tucson last April. It requires the proverbial “loose-tight” grip at headquarters, backed by culture of compliance at store level that encompasses implementation planning, action and measurement.
I am 63 years old and have been immersed in the world of retail since the age of 5 when I began working in my uncle’s stores (and they couldn’t get me to leave). I have been an executive for two different corporate retailers, I started and successfully operated my own chain of specialty shops for twenty years and I have taught Retailing at Bentley College for the past 14 years as well as consulted to hundreds of operating and start up retail stores in that period. I give this information as background to give some context to my reaction to Macy’s action which is that it may been the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard…how bad off are they if they need to hire an outside firm to understand their own customers and analyze their own data…who are these people and what are they doing???!!!
In this day and age, not knowing who your customers are is not knowing what business you’re in. Retailing STARTS with knowing who your customer is and then tailoring your assortments and services to her. This, however, is symptomatic of the department store industry, as it strives to find relevance. Salespeople ignoring customers, as was noted above, doesn’t just start on the sales floor, after all.
When Macy’s purchases a successful local company, the local company’s policies were changed to become Macy’s policies. Then Macy’s would be surprised when local consumers weren’t happy. Listening to what the local consumers want and then providing it would be a successful strategy but that wouldn’t necessarily be a unified strategy.
Maybe dunnhumby will be able to find some common needs and interests among consumers in all the different locations to create a unified strategy. The current strategy needs improvement.
90% of Macy’s problems are people problems: Their people. They have mercilessly gotten rid of the mature, career salespeople who catered to their best customers in favor of dull-eyed teenagers talking on their cellphones or to each other while the stores look like pig pens and customers wait on themselves. What has happened at the former Marshall Field’s locations could make you cry.
My biggest mistake this year was convincing a friend who moved to the area to check out Macy’s furniture department before he made a purchase. The merchandise was well-made and stylish and there was even a “real” salesperson who helped him ultimately spend several thousand dollars on furniture. Then the Macy’s corporate culture came into play:
“Credit” refused him the $100 new customer discount promised by the salesperson because he had had a charge card at one of the purchased May Company affiliates, 1200 miles away.
“Delivery” called the morning of his delivery, when he had already taken a half-day vacation, to advise the merchandise was not available as promised.
“Customer Service” sent back a form e-mail when he contacted them about the problem and has never contacted him since (3 weeks).
An automated message call-out to confirm the second delivery, “TOUCH 1 to acknowledge you will be on-site in two days, and we will call you the day before to let you know what time” or something similar.
Finally going back to the store and getting the salesman involved got things arranged, but he will never buy anything from Macy’s again and is very angry about the delay, which impacted visiting family members and required them to stay in a hotel.
In the “old days” of merchandising the salesman would have owned the customer relationship and tracked the delivery and been the single point of contact with the customer, building loyalty and good relations. No more.
Macy’s shareholders should insist the company be broken up and sold into regional pieces, there is no market for a bad national anything, let alone department store.
Right on to Bob Phipps’ comments leading this segment off!
Macy’s doesn’t need more research, they need their executives to ‘secret shop’ their own stores! That would be moving through one of their own stores without an entourage of staff members…you know, like actual customers do.
Another thing Macy’s execs need to do is get out to their stores in the ‘fly-over’ states like Ohio and take a peek at the conditions they’re facing on the mass level. Bob, if you think Herald Square is bad, you should come to Columbus Ohio.
No amount of research will substitute first hand knowledge.
What makes you think they haven’t gone through exactly the same exercise before? This isn’t new. It’s just another company being hired to provide data that will then get used in starts and fits. I guarantee you there are shelves lining the Macy’s offices in New York, San Francisco and other markets that are all about getting to know the Macy’s shopper. It’s a worthy goal. It’s not an easy task to execute upon.
Perhaps what they should spend money on is getting to know the Macy’s management and the way it operates. There is something inherent in the culture that creates a block between intentions and execution.
dunnhumby is a great company doing great things with data. But that is the key point. They understand data, and they understand how companies can use data to better understand the buying habits of their customers. But they can’t help you better understand your customers if you aren’t willing to listen.
Macy’s has had numerous opportunities to listen to their customers, and to hear what they have to say. But Macy’s chooses not to hear what their clients have to say. All they really want to know is how to get more money out of their clients’ wallets. And they continue to lose the loyalty that their stores have built over the years. No data firm will help fix the problems that Macy’s currently has.
Macy’s is shuffling deck chairs. The last time I entered a Macy’s–more than a year ago–made me realize that they didn’t want my money. I was just looking for underwear, but the gum-popping teenager that rang up my purchase made me feel as though I was ruining his day by interrupting his conversation with the two other teenagers working the men’s departments that day. The conversation–gossip about other employees–continued through all stages of the purchase. I should have just walked out. I’d expect indifferent, perhaps even vaguely hostile service like this at a low-end store, but not at a department store. This Macy’s, by the way, was less than a year old and nearly devoid of other customers.
I’m hoping Macy’s gets their money’s worth, especially in Chicagoland.
And it might finally understand that it has to resurrect the Marshall Field’s nameplate.
That said, Macy’s has thrown customer service right out the window.
I remember not too long ago, the early 1990s when furniture sales staff from Kaufmann’s would personally call my Mom to notify her when her new furniture was to be delivered.
Woodard and Lothrop did the same for me.
Seems like the lack of customer service and follow-up is the main reason the department store is dying off quickly. It definitely has lost its original focus of customer service and selection.
Retailers need to get their customer service house in order. And it ain’t rocket science. Customers don’t want to be “badgered” over and over while shopping and sales associates don’t like being told “no thanks” over and over. The end result of which is customers think the retailer doesn’t care and sales associates view the customers as annoyances. Making associates available and giving customers technology to easily access the associates when they want service is the key. I think everyone’s attitude would improve.
Although I can’t speak for Macy’s in other markets, they have been a disaster here in Chicago. In spite of huge local outcry, they discarded what was arguably the most valued name in retail and replaced it with the “Macy’s” nameplate that had no history or resonance among Chicagoans. The flagship Field’s store on State Street was one of the top tourist destinations in the city–not anymore–it’s virtually a ghost town. And Macy’s is decidedly out-of-place in the upscale suburban malls where Field’s once was. All of their stores here are losing money. It is also my understanding that certain MBA courses are studying the Marshall Field’s-to-Macy’s conversion as an example of what NOT to do in an acquisition!
Macy’s has faced an uphill battle attracting customers in Chicago who are understandable upset over the loss of Marshall Field’s, a store that has been an important part of their lives for generations and has played a leading role in Chicago’s growth and cultural appeal for more than 154 years.
In order to demonstrate that customers weren’t really upset with Macy’s, Macy’s polled customers inside Chicago area Macy’s stores about their experiences and their feelings about losing Marshall Field’s. Macy’s then boasted of the results to the media and told the public that things weren’t that bad at Macy’s. Of course the fact that customer traffic inside the stores had dropped substantially after Marshall Field’s name came down and Macy’s went up wasn’t something that Macy’s wanted to talk about. It wouldn’t support their claim that things were going great, while at the same time Macy’s failed to disclose the approximately 40% drop in revenues and customer traffic during those first six months after the transition.
What Macy’s missed with their in-store polls is that very few Marshall Field’s customers were actually inside Macy’s stores. The reduced number of customers were principally shopping for deeply discounted sale items–often discounted by more than 75% off original prices–and these were clearly not the same customers who crowed Marshall Field’s and made Field’s profitable and growing in 2004, 2005 and 2006 up until the change to Macy’s. Of course those customers polled didn’t report any terrible aversion to Macy’s, nor were they the tourists looking for something special from a famous Chicago store or the long-time customers lost.
There’s clearly not much value in a poll conducted inside a store when trying to understand why the Chicago community at large still holds such an aversion to Macy’s two years after losing Marshall Field’s. Perhaps the new efforts to gain insights into why Chicago and tourists still won’t shop at Macy’s will finally convince Macy’s management that the customers are telling them the truth when they say that they want Marshall Field’s restored.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
When Macy’s killed off the regional names, it was supposedly because their future was as a national brand–with the attendant buying power and national advertising benefits.
That flopped, so they’ve started talking about localization, except that they’re closing the regional buying offices.
They remind me of Sears all through the Seventies (and up to today, to some extent)–a strategy du jour. Some of the strategies may be OK, if properly executed, but poor execution and constant changes of direction add up to failure.
Why do companies feel the need to spend big bucks with consultants to tell them what they should already know? Why are the CEOs and top management afraid to leave their offices and spend time in their stores? Why won’t companies like Macy’s listen to their customers? Simple questions that have simple answers. Oh, and one other question, why aren’t their results surprising?
I’d love to know what that “exclusive” contract is worth. Oh the games consultants play! I can say that because I am one. Is it really all that hard to help customers who come into a store with the intention of giving away their money to actually do so? Why is it that ‘salespeople’ (often a misleading term) actually disable people spending their money rather than enable it?
Bob is right on with his comments. Salespeople listen up: Pay attention! Help customers give you their money! The customer is perfectly capable of expressing what they need all you have to do is ask them.
We’re getting it all wrong. Retailers don’t need to understand the customer more, they need to understand the disconnect within and among their employees! All the customer research in the world can be negated by one self-focused uncaring sales person.
dunhumby is GOOD. The process is people-intensive, but Tesco isn’t complaining, and neither is Kroger.
What has prevented Macy’s from better understanding and responding to its customers’ needs up to this point? They don’t listen to their customers. And they have poor customer service. Macy’s needs to retrain their staff. They need to empower their staff to solve customer problems. You don’t need dunnhumby to properly execute the basics.
What has prevented Macy’s from better understanding and responding to its customers’ needs up to this point? They don’t listen to their customers. And they have poor customer service. They need to empower their staff to solve customer problems.
Macy’s also needs to develop a strong brand story. What does Macy’s stand for? Is the only message they are able to communicate that of items being on sale?
This headline could have also been titled, “Macy’s Wants to Be Relevant to Customers.”
This should be (and I’m sure is) about more than just localization but as Bob points out above, customer focus (and the insights that dunnhumby helps produce) must not only drive merchandising and marketing communications but the brand experience across all channels. dunnhumby knows how to do this–I’d recommend reading Scoring Points which chronicles the legendary loyalty work done at Tesco.
One thing that is disappointing, however, is the reference to same-store sales. True data-driven customer marketing should be more focused on comp-customer sales, which is a much more insightful measure than same-store sales.
It’s one thing to get the data from dunnhumby. But you have to turn it into usable information and follow through at the store level.
I’m not so sure I’d go so far as to call it BS. Companies like Kroger and Tesco are perfect examples of how a retailer can use this information to their advantage.
However, I certainly agree that all the data in the world isn’t going to fix a human resource issue. It’s getting to look a little like Chinese retailing. They think that throwing more people at a problem will fix it. The result is big stores with a lot of people standing around doing nothing. Sound familiar?
I’d also like to give Macy’s and other retailers fair warning. If I see another staffer ignoring customers while they stand there and text on their cells, I’m going to take that phone and throw it across the store. Fix your staffing! That will be the next “Miracle on 34th Street.”
Macy’s has struggled since the May Company acquisition to drive same-store sales. Changing the regional nameplates was arguably a mistake, but changing the stores’ value position was clearly an error. Downsizing the number of regional buying offices will make it more difficult to cater to local preferences–unless Macy’s is committed to both a new mentality and the systems to support it. Its new strategic partnership may provide Macy’s with more insights, but the commitment needs to come from within its own culture and organization.
Why is it that CEOs continue to pour more money into more BS in hopes of the NBT [Next Big Thing]–while looking the other way to how their business is actually being performed?
I’ll tell you why. It’s tougher. It’s more complicated. And it isn’t sexy.
Case in point. I went to Macy’s Herald Square to look for a tie last week. That’s when I noticed the power of threes. Everywhere you looked, there were three employees gathered and talking. Three in front of the Clinique counter, three in back of the Levi’s counter, three in jewelry and two sets of three in ties.
Mind you, the store was FILLED with shoppers. I had to ask one of the three leaning on the tie table to please move so I could look at one. Their response? Not a word.
You want to know how to find the NBT? Get out and work on your floor, mystery shop, or try shopping your store. I’ll guarantee some surprises.
Because only if you are willing to connect the dots from the promise you pay megabucks for agencies to create and the actuality your customers experience, is your money wisely being spent?
If not, you’re just Macy’s with a different widget to sell–putting lipstick on a pig.
I don’t want a data-driven lifetime relationship with Macy’s. I want just one onsite staff person who knows if they have a shirt in my size.
Clearly there are disconnects all over. Management to the lower levels, staff to the customer and data to coordinate action. Many companies are bad and lazy at segmentation, analysis and implementation. The new economy forces their hand to get better or die.
Many companies should not need consultants but they do. The issue is many cannot fix their own problems without consultants. I am glad this is the case otherwise we would be out of business.
I want to offer sourcing consultancy now they have cut back on their buying functions!
This consultancy announcement as much as confesses to the world what many of us on this site having been saying for several years: that Macy’s does not know what market segment it represents, who its customers are (and aren’t), or why it even exists in the retail pantheon other than to keep several high level executives employed.
I confess I’m a bit surprised at the undercurrent of disappointment expressed by so many in this discussion. From this I draw two main conclusions: First, the RW commentators seem to care a lot about what happens at Macy’s. Second, there have been too many incidents of indifferent service at its stores.
Macy’s evidently has a customer service challenge on its hands that is exacerbated by the scale and complexity of its business. Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues here today, I do not believe, however, that Macy’s can simply hire and train its way to success. Like any retailer, it must create an environment for service success by establishing a system of sound practices, enabling its employees to deliver on them, and measuring their compliance. “Have a better attitude,” simply doesn’t cut it in this day and age as a customer service strategy.
So what does this have to do with Macy’s announced engagement with dunnhumbyUSA? It comes down to how well its My Macy’s localization initiative can perform. Tailoring regional and local store assortments begins with understanding shopper segments, that’s where dunnhumby’s expertise will be invaluable. Once targeted merchandising and marketing plans are devised, Macy’s will have to implement against them successfully at store level.
This requires pushing both capabilities and authority out to the field, as Terry Lundgren said at the Global Retailing Conference here in Tucson last April. It requires the proverbial “loose-tight” grip at headquarters, backed by culture of compliance at store level that encompasses implementation planning, action and measurement.
I am 63 years old and have been immersed in the world of retail since the age of 5 when I began working in my uncle’s stores (and they couldn’t get me to leave). I have been an executive for two different corporate retailers, I started and successfully operated my own chain of specialty shops for twenty years and I have taught Retailing at Bentley College for the past 14 years as well as consulted to hundreds of operating and start up retail stores in that period. I give this information as background to give some context to my reaction to Macy’s action which is that it may been the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard…how bad off are they if they need to hire an outside firm to understand their own customers and analyze their own data…who are these people and what are they doing???!!!
In this day and age, not knowing who your customers are is not knowing what business you’re in. Retailing STARTS with knowing who your customer is and then tailoring your assortments and services to her. This, however, is symptomatic of the department store industry, as it strives to find relevance. Salespeople ignoring customers, as was noted above, doesn’t just start on the sales floor, after all.
When Macy’s purchases a successful local company, the local company’s policies were changed to become Macy’s policies. Then Macy’s would be surprised when local consumers weren’t happy. Listening to what the local consumers want and then providing it would be a successful strategy but that wouldn’t necessarily be a unified strategy.
Maybe dunnhumby will be able to find some common needs and interests among consumers in all the different locations to create a unified strategy. The current strategy needs improvement.
90% of Macy’s problems are people problems: Their people. They have mercilessly gotten rid of the mature, career salespeople who catered to their best customers in favor of dull-eyed teenagers talking on their cellphones or to each other while the stores look like pig pens and customers wait on themselves. What has happened at the former Marshall Field’s locations could make you cry.
My biggest mistake this year was convincing a friend who moved to the area to check out Macy’s furniture department before he made a purchase. The merchandise was well-made and stylish and there was even a “real” salesperson who helped him ultimately spend several thousand dollars on furniture. Then the Macy’s corporate culture came into play:
“Credit” refused him the $100 new customer discount promised by the salesperson because he had had a charge card at one of the purchased May Company affiliates, 1200 miles away.
“Delivery” called the morning of his delivery, when he had already taken a half-day vacation, to advise the merchandise was not available as promised.
“Customer Service” sent back a form e-mail when he contacted them about the problem and has never contacted him since (3 weeks).
An automated message call-out to confirm the second delivery, “TOUCH 1 to acknowledge you will be on-site in two days, and we will call you the day before to let you know what time” or something similar.
Finally going back to the store and getting the salesman involved got things arranged, but he will never buy anything from Macy’s again and is very angry about the delay, which impacted visiting family members and required them to stay in a hotel.
In the “old days” of merchandising the salesman would have owned the customer relationship and tracked the delivery and been the single point of contact with the customer, building loyalty and good relations. No more.
Macy’s shareholders should insist the company be broken up and sold into regional pieces, there is no market for a bad national anything, let alone department store.
Right on to Bob Phipps’ comments leading this segment off!
Macy’s doesn’t need more research, they need their executives to ‘secret shop’ their own stores! That would be moving through one of their own stores without an entourage of staff members…you know, like actual customers do.
Another thing Macy’s execs need to do is get out to their stores in the ‘fly-over’ states like Ohio and take a peek at the conditions they’re facing on the mass level. Bob, if you think Herald Square is bad, you should come to Columbus Ohio.
No amount of research will substitute first hand knowledge.
What makes you think they haven’t gone through exactly the same exercise before? This isn’t new. It’s just another company being hired to provide data that will then get used in starts and fits. I guarantee you there are shelves lining the Macy’s offices in New York, San Francisco and other markets that are all about getting to know the Macy’s shopper. It’s a worthy goal. It’s not an easy task to execute upon.
Perhaps what they should spend money on is getting to know the Macy’s management and the way it operates. There is something inherent in the culture that creates a block between intentions and execution.
dunnhumby is a great company doing great things with data. But that is the key point. They understand data, and they understand how companies can use data to better understand the buying habits of their customers. But they can’t help you better understand your customers if you aren’t willing to listen.
Macy’s has had numerous opportunities to listen to their customers, and to hear what they have to say. But Macy’s chooses not to hear what their clients have to say. All they really want to know is how to get more money out of their clients’ wallets. And they continue to lose the loyalty that their stores have built over the years. No data firm will help fix the problems that Macy’s currently has.
Macy’s is shuffling deck chairs. The last time I entered a Macy’s–more than a year ago–made me realize that they didn’t want my money. I was just looking for underwear, but the gum-popping teenager that rang up my purchase made me feel as though I was ruining his day by interrupting his conversation with the two other teenagers working the men’s departments that day. The conversation–gossip about other employees–continued through all stages of the purchase. I should have just walked out. I’d expect indifferent, perhaps even vaguely hostile service like this at a low-end store, but not at a department store. This Macy’s, by the way, was less than a year old and nearly devoid of other customers.
I’m hoping Macy’s gets their money’s worth, especially in Chicagoland.
And it might finally understand that it has to resurrect the Marshall Field’s nameplate.
That said, Macy’s has thrown customer service right out the window.
I remember not too long ago, the early 1990s when furniture sales staff from Kaufmann’s would personally call my Mom to notify her when her new furniture was to be delivered.
Woodard and Lothrop did the same for me.
Seems like the lack of customer service and follow-up is the main reason the department store is dying off quickly. It definitely has lost its original focus of customer service and selection.
Retailers need to get their customer service house in order. And it ain’t rocket science. Customers don’t want to be “badgered” over and over while shopping and sales associates don’t like being told “no thanks” over and over. The end result of which is customers think the retailer doesn’t care and sales associates view the customers as annoyances. Making associates available and giving customers technology to easily access the associates when they want service is the key. I think everyone’s attitude would improve.
Although I can’t speak for Macy’s in other markets, they have been a disaster here in Chicago. In spite of huge local outcry, they discarded what was arguably the most valued name in retail and replaced it with the “Macy’s” nameplate that had no history or resonance among Chicagoans. The flagship Field’s store on State Street was one of the top tourist destinations in the city–not anymore–it’s virtually a ghost town. And Macy’s is decidedly out-of-place in the upscale suburban malls where Field’s once was. All of their stores here are losing money. It is also my understanding that certain MBA courses are studying the Marshall Field’s-to-Macy’s conversion as an example of what NOT to do in an acquisition!
Macy’s has faced an uphill battle attracting customers in Chicago who are understandable upset over the loss of Marshall Field’s, a store that has been an important part of their lives for generations and has played a leading role in Chicago’s growth and cultural appeal for more than 154 years.
In order to demonstrate that customers weren’t really upset with Macy’s, Macy’s polled customers inside Chicago area Macy’s stores about their experiences and their feelings about losing Marshall Field’s. Macy’s then boasted of the results to the media and told the public that things weren’t that bad at Macy’s. Of course the fact that customer traffic inside the stores had dropped substantially after Marshall Field’s name came down and Macy’s went up wasn’t something that Macy’s wanted to talk about. It wouldn’t support their claim that things were going great, while at the same time Macy’s failed to disclose the approximately 40% drop in revenues and customer traffic during those first six months after the transition.
What Macy’s missed with their in-store polls is that very few Marshall Field’s customers were actually inside Macy’s stores. The reduced number of customers were principally shopping for deeply discounted sale items–often discounted by more than 75% off original prices–and these were clearly not the same customers who crowed Marshall Field’s and made Field’s profitable and growing in 2004, 2005 and 2006 up until the change to Macy’s. Of course those customers polled didn’t report any terrible aversion to Macy’s, nor were they the tourists looking for something special from a famous Chicago store or the long-time customers lost.
There’s clearly not much value in a poll conducted inside a store when trying to understand why the Chicago community at large still holds such an aversion to Macy’s two years after losing Marshall Field’s. Perhaps the new efforts to gain insights into why Chicago and tourists still won’t shop at Macy’s will finally convince Macy’s management that the customers are telling them the truth when they say that they want Marshall Field’s restored.