September 10, 2008
Marshall Field’s Loyalists (Still) Want Chain Brought Back
It’s been two years and for many in Chicago and elsewhere in the Midwest it still hurts that Macy’s put its name over stores that once flew under the Marshall Field’s banner.
A few dozen protestors recently marked the day that Macy’s took over, carrying picket signs and calling on fellow consumers to boycott the store that replaced their beloved Field’s.
According to a report by the CBS affiliate in Chicago, protestors shouted, “Field’s is Chicago! Boycott Macy’s!”
Marianne Nathan, one of the protesters, said, “It’s just a tragedy that Macy’s has come and taken over our wonderful store. The quality has dropped, they’re not good stewards of our landmark, beautiful building.”
While diehards keep calling for a return to Marshall Field’s, there appears little likelihood that their wish will be granted.
Anne Brouwer from McMillan and Doolittle said Macy’s has gone too far to turn back now.
“Whether its credit cards, receipts, shopping bags, it’s more than just changing the brand name on the store, it’s everything you do,” Ms. Brouwer said.
Not everyone, however, is looking for a return to the past.
“I like Macy’s,” said Yavonna Hodge. “Marshall Field’s was old school. Macy’s is more modern.”
Rather than considering a name change, the department store has focused its efforts on the My Macy’s program, which seeks to make the chain more responsive to the tastes of consumers in local markets.
Discussion Questions: What would you do if you were put in charge of Macy’s today? At this point, would you return the Marshall Field’s banner to Chicago and other locations where consumers are vocal about the name change? Alternatively, what changes would Macy’s have to make to the store to convince Field’s diehards that they are offering a Marshall Field’s-like experience?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Hardee’s made a similar error when they acquired Roy Rogers years ago (particularly for their fried chicken). Loyalists refused to go to Hardee’s and eventually Roy’s returned.
Marshall Field’s is an institution in Chicago, like many of its acquisitions. Since the Macy’s takeover, quality has suffered tremendously in several markets.
As part of our holiday tradition, we used to go to Hecht’s after-Christmas sale. When Macy’s took over, there was an obvious decline in store appearance and merchandise quality. My husband returned an item in the Chicago market and was treated poorly by one of the Macy’s employees who was reluctant to process an “East Coast” item return.
There are plenty of shared systems that Macy’s could implement without denying local markets their creature comforts. Too bad this was so poorly handled. Give the lady what she wants indeed.
To put it in perspective, imagine that Marshall Field’s had taken over Macy’s or Bloomingdale’s in NYC and changed it into a Marshall Field’s. New Yorkers would be rioting in the streets. Just as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s are synonymous with New York heritage, Marshall Field’s was the same with Chicago. Macy’s made an arrogant and big mistake when they changed the name.
Although it’s too late to entirely return Marshall Field’s to its identity, they could do something like bring back Marshall Field’s brands; at the flagship State Street Store, create an entire floor or two of Marshall Field’s store within a store, hiring Marshall Field’s buyers and sales people in the process.
Overall, Macy’s needs to drastically improve their customer service. It is impossible to find help in Macy’s and when you do, they don’t know much. In the old days of Macy’s, sales people were on draw vs. commission and were trained to provide above and beyond service. Now they are on a minimum wage hourly rate with no commission and no incentive to provide good service.
Changing the name is not the primary issue and really never has been. It was the heavy handed and arrogant way that Macy’s put their stamp on the stores.
They didn’t just change the name of the stores. They tried to stamp out any carryover from Field’s. They sent new Macy’s credit cards to people without any option to decline. They fired the old Field’s employees and replaced them with youngsters. They replaced traditional Field’s brands and merchandise lines with Macy’s brands. They deliberately ignored or denigrated Field’s holiday traditions. They arrogantly proclaimed the new Macy’s as bringing fashion to Chicago.
Now they admit they may have “misread the market.” The fact is they didn’t read the market at all and didn’t seem to care. Now they have to live with their approach and bringing back a name would only add to the hypocrisy.
Before any one comments, I urge you to read a brilliant account of the history of local department store merchandising focusing on Buffalo, NY, titled, Nine Nine Eight, The Glory Days of Buffalo Shopping.
Reading that, you can only shake your head. The people of Buffalo abandoned their downtown and their dozen department stores and countless specialty shops. People of Chicago definitely care more about preserving the institution that was Marshall Field’s and Company. You really have to admire them.
I have shopped Marshall Field’s, and Macy’s is no Marshall Field’s.
I still think all of this has been so blotched up and mishandled by Macy’s, that it can never be reversed.
I forsee the downsizing of the flagship State Street store coming in the next year or two. Macy’s will then [persuade] the city into giving them financial aid to stay downtown in a meaningless attempt by Macy’s to redevelop that huge downtown property.
Field’s loyalists in Chicago are more vocal than their counterparts in other May Company markets where local nameplates were changed to Macy’s. They may not want to admit that “the bloom was off the rose” at Field’s for several years, under the management of Target Corp. and then May Company, and the memories of Field’s in its heyday are mostly nostalgia.
There is no turning back from the strategic decision by Macy’s to position itself as a national traditional department store. In a sense, they own that “brand” to themselves; Nordstrom is positioned as a higher-end apparel store while JCP and Kohl’s have more moderate, promotional positioning. Macy’s is now in a position to run the sort of national advertising that would have been impossible if they kept all the old nameplates.
Macy’s can make a lot of friends in Chicago–and St. Louis, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and so on–if they execute better. Customer service continues to be lacking, private-brand merchandising is lackluster and the in-store experience is bland. The issue is no longer the brand name but what that brand stands for.
Consumers speak with their wallets. This time their speaking with both their wallets and their voice. The most successful retailers today respond to the demands of their customers. Give the customers what they want. What a crazy notion.
Ultimately, the cash register receipts should speak for themselves in driving the right decision.
I would never have changed the name of the store in the first place. They should have kept the institution and done away with the stodgy merchandising within.
But you can’t go home again. Changing it back would be an admission of guilt. Frankly, it would tick off more people that prefer the Macy’s banner. Eventually, the protesters will disappear, or just get a life. Meanwhile, just keep improving the inside of the store to gain the loyalty of a new generation of shoppers.
I don’t know that returning the name Marshall Field’s back to Chicago will satisfy consumers in the long term because it will still be run by Macy’s. The same situation exists in other markets such as in St. Louis, where Macy’s put their name on Famous-Barr stores, which for many decades was the “Marshall Field’s” of St. Louis. The mistake that Macy’s made in judgment was that its name would be welcome with open arms in the markets that previously were served by home town staples. Macy’s has done little to win over local markets.
The switch in name is one issue; taking over the Marshall Field’s store is another issue. Many people are upset about the name change itself; many more people are upset about the name change because it means the loss of their store. Restoring the name may appease the first group but it would not make a difference to the second group.
While there are some consumers who really like the Macy’s store, there is a group that does not like the changes and continues to stay away from the new store. Not only did the name change but the assortment of products changed and consumer policies changed. If Macy’s keeps the product assortment and policy changes then changing the name of the store back to Marshall Field’s would not help.
There must be some way that Macy’s could return all or part of the Marshall Field’s name to appease the diehards. They are searching for marketing ideas that will increase sales and here is one that is being handed, maybe a little forcefully, to them. Management can hold out and win the battle and not give an inch or they can attempt to work with these former loyal customers. What ever happened to the old cliche “The customer is always right”?
Sometime you can never go back and if you do, it is never the same. This is the case with Marshall Field’s and Macy’s.
When the name change happened in all of the markets, the comments on RetailWire basically asked, “Why?” In fact it would be interesting to go back to those comments to see how good the expert panel was at that time.
In answering the question though, I do not think it is the store or the merchandise that is the problem. It is the execution. Until Macy’s figures out how to execute with excellence from the store room to the board room they are going to continue to have problems.
Macy’s is not going back to Marshall Field’s any more than US Airways is going back to America West.
As the article points out, there are some customers that are vocal and not doing business with Macy’s in Chicago but there are plenty of other customers that are. The key is for Macy’s to understand which customers are in which camps and then market to them differentially. There are some that they will ultimately be able to win back and some that will not be worth the investment. This is something that dunnhumby should be able to help them with.
I think it is safe to say that Macy’s will not and should not “change the name back to Field’s.” The Marshall Field’s legacy deserves better than that. Macy’s is failing in the Chicago market. They ruined the store, lost the tourist cachet, forgot what service is, offended most Chicagoans and for sure, stubbornly (some say arrogantly) misread the market. For Macy’s to slap the Field’s name back on their self imposed car wreck would be the final insult.
Casual outsiders may skim Macy’s PR offerings and think that all is well in Macyland, but it is not. Macy’s stock price has tanked, the Chicago area stores are noticeably lacking of shoppers and while Macy’s refuses to publish their sales results, their deepening decline has apparently been publicly captured nevertheless through the lower sales tax revenues being paid by them to the city of Chicago, state and suburbs compared to recent Field’s stores’ sales tax revenues.
Many in this neck of the woods are hopeful (me included) that Marshall Field’s name and elite retail position WILL return to State Street, but only after Macy’s finally exits the Chicago market and sells the former Field’s building, intellectual property, and logo rights to a retailer who understands their value and knows what to do with them.
My compromise: rename ALL Macy’s stores to Marshall Field’s 🙂 Seriously, though, this is a perfect illustration of how hard it is to fix something once it’s been broken; despite the spin attempts of Macy’s execs and (other) apologists who claim the chain is “outperforming its peer group” (Translation: the Titanic’s stern isn’t going down as fast as the bow). The same basic problems remain since the merger (sometimes worse than before): declining sales, loss of market share and little sense of what Macy’s is about or why it’s needed. (Hint: a story on the front page of today’s WSJ hi-lighting the drop in retail pay has more than a little to do with all 3 of these issues.)
The State Street store, of course, is a special case: Chicago is the proverbial world class city, and it should be able to support a stand alone flagship (which certainly won’t be simply a bigger version of what’s found in 834 other places!). It should be sold off/leased to an independent operator who can recognize its potential; and spin-off Bloomies while you’re at it…. I don’t see what Macy’s brings to that marriage, either.
The question today is not “Should Macy’s have obliterated one of the highest equity retail brands in the United States?” so I will not belabor that point.
As far as what to do going forward:
1) Do not further denigrate the MF&Co heritage by converting Macy’s locations to Marshall Field’s in name only, that is the worst possible solution.
2) Consider “Marshall Field’s” a place and not a department store and have the State Street location be “Marshall Field’s” which includes a Macy’s and perhaps even a Bloomingdale’s, if the market could support it (doubtful as Macy’s have taken the location downscale).
3) Have the 7th floor of State Street be the Marshall Field’s floor with the great food outlets, Frango Mints, and other Marshall Field’s logo items. Outsource all food services, including a really great food hall, and have the 7th floor logistically operable as a catering and events venue. Add some space for the Chicago Historical Society to have an exhibit on Chicago’s great merchants.
4) Consider Marshall Field’s as a high-end private label.
5) Have a top mall operator run “Marshall Field’s” and get quality merchants in there much like in the last few years under Target ownership.
One of my favorite topics. If Federated had converted State Street to a Bloomingdale’s but kept all the product lines of Field’s plus the lines Bloomingdale’s offers there still wouldn’t be all this controversy. The protesters wouldn’t have much of an argument. Federated could honestly have said nothing had changed, but it did.
Macy’s is a step down from Field’s. Field’s was a mid to very high end store, Macy’s is, under Lundgren, a low to middle end store. When I am in Chicago, there is no reason anymore for me to go to State, I have a Macy’s near my house and they’re nothing to go out of my way for. Instead of Armani, Prada, Diesel, Choo, Steuben, YSL etc, etc, there’s Alfani, Tommy Hilfiger and Jessica Simpson; hardly product lines that anyone is going to get excited about. Yet the high price points remain.
Also no one ever brings up how poorly maintained Macy’s stores have become, torn dirty carpets, clothes strewn all over the floor, missing floor tiles, logos with missing characters on the walls, few if any associates to help. It’s all rather sad looking, yet we were told that Macy’s was a step up from Field’s, it’s all about “economy of scale” and “affordable luxury.” Hmmm, how’s that working out for them? Bloomingdale’s is a wonderful store, at least the one in San Francisco. It’s hip, elegant, sharp and polished. State Street would have made a wonderful locale. Why can’t Macy’s be that way again, it was.
First, I agree that simply slapping Field’s name onto Macy’s train wreck is a bad idea. The only hope for a return of Field’s would be if they sold it to someone with the vision and class to restore it to its previous glory.
Secondly, the Field’s fans are not a small group of crazies that need to “get a life.” The current group grew off an online petition that garnered 65 thousand signatures from all over the world, and weekly leafletting gains even more support.
I am both a business professional and a high-end shopper. My husband and I spent on average 8-10K a year at Field’s suburban locations. I have not spent one dime at Macy’s, and I’ve been instrumental in preventing the 1.5 billion dollar a year corp that I work for from using Macy’s gift certificates as employee perks.
What I don’t understand is, if they’re obviously targeting a different customer base, why didn’t they open new stores instead of destroying our hometown favorites? Kind of like buying a high-end steakhouse, changing the menu to tofu burgers, and wondering why your customers don’t return. It shouldn’t take a marketing genius to figure this out!
I would like to say that there were only a few dozen people protesting (in a town of over 7 million!) and this blog seems keep saying Macy’s made a mistake and giving them too much credence. Macy’s in no way made a mistake. They made a very good decision based on sound business principles.
The department store is dying. May Company was struggling. Field’s sales and profits had been falling for years (just look at the archive Annual Reports on Target’s site). Dillard’s and Bon-Ton are losing large amounts of money today. The press has clearly noted that sales are down the least (by a large margin) at Macy’s as compared to it’s competitors. They are making money! Bon-Ton bought a chain of stores, which includes Carson’s in Chicago and they DIDN’T change the name and yet their sales were down > than 10% in August alone!
So what’s up here? Macy’s is eating Carson’s lunch! And gaining market share in Chicago. Many more new shoppers have come into Macy’s in Chicago than left irate because of the name change. Macy’s is doing really well in such a bad economy. The May stores are no longer an issue. “It’s the economy stupid!” at this point.
As far as anyone saying Macy’s has not honored any Field’s traditions, I beg to differ. They have gone above and beyond in preserving all traditions.
Finally, the fact that Macy’s quickly changed course with the introduction of “My Macy’s” shows the strength of this organization and their commitment to success. With or without “My Macy’s,” the names all had to change. Operating under multiple names might work in the grocery field, but it no longer does selling clothing, accessories and home furnishings.
Macy’s stores in original Marshall Field’s locations suffered a significant drop in sales revenue the instant the Macy’s name went up and although the decline has slowed somewhat, Macy’s declining revenues have continued each month for nearly two years.
Note that during the two years prior to Macy’s takeover, Marshall Field’s was profitable, having posted more than $107 million in profits in 2004, and that Field’s revenues were trending up. It’s only when Macy’s name went up that the revenues went down and the profits turned to losses. Note also that Field’s high-end peers in Chicago shared this growth trend and that they continued to grow through all of 2006 and 2007 while Macy’s suffered same-store sales declines each month, declines that where only first disclosed after the initial and substantial declines during the first six months.
Local customers have made it clear that they preferred to shop at Marshall Field’s, whether for the higher quality brands, the superior customers service, the generational traditions or simply because Marshall Field’s name is interwoven into the history of Chicago and the city’s many world-class museums and institutions it created through unsurpassed generosity and leadership, Marshall Field’s earned enduring customer loyalty. It’s astonishing that Macy’s disregarded the value of Marshall Field’s extraordinary goodwill in Chicago. Just as astonishing is that Macy’s disregarded the tourism appeal of Chicago’s most recognized department store brand. In fact, Marshall Field’s on State Street was the city’s third most popular tourist destination, featured prominently on city and regional tourism advertising worldwide. Now, the State Street store holds little appeal, except for its architecture, its history and as a destination for deeply discounted sales on generic merchandise available at 800 other Macy’s locations.
Macy’s revenues continue to lag in Chicago and the losses must cost the chain hundreds of millions of dollars. Certainly the cost to restore the Marshall Field’s brand with the distinctive merchandise and service for which Field’s is known would cost Macy’s less than to continue down the stubborn and somewhat arrogant that has earned the Macy’s name so much resentment and disdain. Not only would the return of Marshall Field’s be heralded by customers and celebrated by the city, it would have the added benefit of bringing in some much needed revenue and return the stores to their pre-Macy’s profitability.
Macy’s could have built its own stores in which to create it national brand into the Chicago area, but instead chose to disregard the expressed desires of Field’s customers. These customers made their opinions clear through a petition signed by more than 60,000 people and the Chicago Tribune poll in which 96% of more than 14,000 people responded in less than one week to say they wouldn’t shop at Macy’s if they eliminated and replaced Marshall Field’s. Clearly, Macy’s continued struggles demonstrate that Field’s supporters are not simply a small group of die hard fanatics, but rather millions of customers who would rather shop at Marshall Field’s.
That Macy’s struggles now is the result of Macy’s own reckless decision. The shortest path to turn things around would be to listen to their customers and restore Marshall Field’s.
The damage is irreparable at this point.
What Macy’s should have done is consolidated all back office functions like (most) purchasing, credit card account management, etc. and kept roughly a dozen regional nameplates like Field’s in Chicago and Burdine’s in Florida, Foley’s in Texas, etc. Federated should have changed its name to American Department Stores, advertising national sales on television as such (using its dozen regional logos underneath) while advertising local sales like Field Days and Red Apple Days in newspapers. Think General Motors (different cars for different price points and images), but on a retail level (different regional nameplates for different regional tastes). The extra money spent on different plastic cards and paper bags is not that big of a deal.
But the damage is done. I won’t shop at Macy’s and I won’t shop at a renamed Marshall Field’s. I have found the brands I like elsewhere and have even discovered Filene’s Basement (just a block away from the State Street store, I had never considered stopping by the Basement when Field’s was in business–now it’s my favorite store). High end merchandise I get from Nordstrom and less expensive merchandise I get from the Basement, TJ Maxx and Nordstrom Rack (all within one block of the State Street store).
I’d consider shopping at Field’s if Macy’s sold the flagship store to Harrod’s. Otherwise, quite frankly, I’d rather see the building turned into a hotel or even burned to the ground.
What about a combination name such as “Marshall Field’s AT Macy’s”? Just for the Chicago stores, or even just at the flagship State Street store.
Macy’s should make the State Street store into a Harrod’s-like institution as the one and only Marshall Field’s. That would give the protesters a victory, the department store a point of difference in Chicago without requiring it to scrap its national chain plan.
Yeah, it is obvious that Macy’s made a terrible mistake. The question now is “How long can Macy’s continue down the wrong path?”
I like Macy’s for some things but quite honestly the stores have to be the most blah and uninspiring places I have ever shopped.
Brands are a hugely valuable commodity and iconic brands are a rare thing. Marshall Field’s was one of those. Of all the banners that were merged into Macy’s, there was only one other than Macy’s that was so well known nationally and perhaps internationally. That was Marshall Field’s. The downtown Marshall Field’s store was a tourist destination as well as a shopper destination for Chicagoans.
If I were the decision maker at the time, I would have combined the names to be something like “Marshall Field’s at Macy’s” or the reverse. And while I would have brought in the Macy’s merchandise and feel, I would have determined some elements that were unique, special, and associated with Marshall Field’s.
Today, I might start an advertising campaign titled “Marshall Field’s at Macy’s” and singularly, from time to time, bring back some unique elements of Marshall Field’s to the Chicagoland experience.
If I were put in charge of Macy’s today, the first thing I would do is remove Terry Lundgren from the company. Not only would I get to work bringing back Marshall Field’s (that would be the very first brand to bring back), I would then seek to restore several other regional favorite brands to their respective communities. Out with the trash clothes and jewelry, etc, and restore a truly class act in every way.
America deserves to have diversity in the shopping experience; more so the communities deserve to be able to have and cherish their respective unique identities and legacies.
“Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein…”
It’s time for the new-fashioned greedy gain to go, and the way restored for good old-fashioned honest commerce.
The article was incorrect on big fact. The protest is not just in Chicago. I live in LA and up until the time that Macy’s changed the name, I would travel once a year just to shop at Field’s. I have not done that since the name change nor have I shopped at any Macy’s store near my home.
I do not think that Macy’s management understands the loyalty of Marshall Field’s customers. Remember, Marshall Field’s was original for over 160 years. Field’s is the green bags, the Walnut Room, the Cozy Cottage, the Jingle Elf, the third floor bathroom, uncle Mistle Toe and Aunt Hollie–the Field Museum…the list goes on and on with the tradition.
What is Macy’s? 150 years–younger than Field’s–the Thanksgiving parade…no that was not Macy’s idea but gotten through acquisition.
Someone please explain! The traditions from Marshall Field’s that began 160 years ago have been handed down and continued, and felt comfortable and just so embracing. What has Macy’s done? Nothing. Macy’s has stores through acquisitions and no new ideas or thoughts.
Macy’s had all the resources and experience to know better than to change the name. When the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target Corp) merged with Marshall Field’s in 1990, they did not change Field’s fine name, nor the traditions. There were plenty of people grumbling in Chicago shortly afterward because of the “bland Minneapolis merchandise” but the company listened and hired Chicago buyers who were in tune with the city, re-energizing the Marshall Field’s brand.
Indeed, while some people in Minneapolis complained when Dayton’s Department Stores changed their names to Marshall Field’s, the stores tried to remain true to their memory. For years, people would still refer to the Minneapolis Marshall Field’s store as “Dayton’s.” But nobody makes the same mistake with Macy’s. I think that’s because nobody cares about them at all.
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?
Hardee’s made a similar error when they acquired Roy Rogers years ago (particularly for their fried chicken). Loyalists refused to go to Hardee’s and eventually Roy’s returned.
Marshall Field’s is an institution in Chicago, like many of its acquisitions. Since the Macy’s takeover, quality has suffered tremendously in several markets.
As part of our holiday tradition, we used to go to Hecht’s after-Christmas sale. When Macy’s took over, there was an obvious decline in store appearance and merchandise quality. My husband returned an item in the Chicago market and was treated poorly by one of the Macy’s employees who was reluctant to process an “East Coast” item return.
There are plenty of shared systems that Macy’s could implement without denying local markets their creature comforts. Too bad this was so poorly handled. Give the lady what she wants indeed.
To put it in perspective, imagine that Marshall Field’s had taken over Macy’s or Bloomingdale’s in NYC and changed it into a Marshall Field’s. New Yorkers would be rioting in the streets. Just as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s are synonymous with New York heritage, Marshall Field’s was the same with Chicago. Macy’s made an arrogant and big mistake when they changed the name.
Although it’s too late to entirely return Marshall Field’s to its identity, they could do something like bring back Marshall Field’s brands; at the flagship State Street Store, create an entire floor or two of Marshall Field’s store within a store, hiring Marshall Field’s buyers and sales people in the process.
Overall, Macy’s needs to drastically improve their customer service. It is impossible to find help in Macy’s and when you do, they don’t know much. In the old days of Macy’s, sales people were on draw vs. commission and were trained to provide above and beyond service. Now they are on a minimum wage hourly rate with no commission and no incentive to provide good service.
Changing the name is not the primary issue and really never has been. It was the heavy handed and arrogant way that Macy’s put their stamp on the stores.
They didn’t just change the name of the stores. They tried to stamp out any carryover from Field’s. They sent new Macy’s credit cards to people without any option to decline. They fired the old Field’s employees and replaced them with youngsters. They replaced traditional Field’s brands and merchandise lines with Macy’s brands. They deliberately ignored or denigrated Field’s holiday traditions. They arrogantly proclaimed the new Macy’s as bringing fashion to Chicago.
Now they admit they may have “misread the market.” The fact is they didn’t read the market at all and didn’t seem to care. Now they have to live with their approach and bringing back a name would only add to the hypocrisy.
Before any one comments, I urge you to read a brilliant account of the history of local department store merchandising focusing on Buffalo, NY, titled, Nine Nine Eight, The Glory Days of Buffalo Shopping.
Reading that, you can only shake your head. The people of Buffalo abandoned their downtown and their dozen department stores and countless specialty shops. People of Chicago definitely care more about preserving the institution that was Marshall Field’s and Company. You really have to admire them.
I have shopped Marshall Field’s, and Macy’s is no Marshall Field’s.
I still think all of this has been so blotched up and mishandled by Macy’s, that it can never be reversed.
I forsee the downsizing of the flagship State Street store coming in the next year or two. Macy’s will then [persuade] the city into giving them financial aid to stay downtown in a meaningless attempt by Macy’s to redevelop that huge downtown property.
Field’s loyalists in Chicago are more vocal than their counterparts in other May Company markets where local nameplates were changed to Macy’s. They may not want to admit that “the bloom was off the rose” at Field’s for several years, under the management of Target Corp. and then May Company, and the memories of Field’s in its heyday are mostly nostalgia.
There is no turning back from the strategic decision by Macy’s to position itself as a national traditional department store. In a sense, they own that “brand” to themselves; Nordstrom is positioned as a higher-end apparel store while JCP and Kohl’s have more moderate, promotional positioning. Macy’s is now in a position to run the sort of national advertising that would have been impossible if they kept all the old nameplates.
Macy’s can make a lot of friends in Chicago–and St. Louis, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and so on–if they execute better. Customer service continues to be lacking, private-brand merchandising is lackluster and the in-store experience is bland. The issue is no longer the brand name but what that brand stands for.
Consumers speak with their wallets. This time their speaking with both their wallets and their voice. The most successful retailers today respond to the demands of their customers. Give the customers what they want. What a crazy notion.
Ultimately, the cash register receipts should speak for themselves in driving the right decision.
I would never have changed the name of the store in the first place. They should have kept the institution and done away with the stodgy merchandising within.
But you can’t go home again. Changing it back would be an admission of guilt. Frankly, it would tick off more people that prefer the Macy’s banner. Eventually, the protesters will disappear, or just get a life. Meanwhile, just keep improving the inside of the store to gain the loyalty of a new generation of shoppers.
I don’t know that returning the name Marshall Field’s back to Chicago will satisfy consumers in the long term because it will still be run by Macy’s. The same situation exists in other markets such as in St. Louis, where Macy’s put their name on Famous-Barr stores, which for many decades was the “Marshall Field’s” of St. Louis. The mistake that Macy’s made in judgment was that its name would be welcome with open arms in the markets that previously were served by home town staples. Macy’s has done little to win over local markets.
The switch in name is one issue; taking over the Marshall Field’s store is another issue. Many people are upset about the name change itself; many more people are upset about the name change because it means the loss of their store. Restoring the name may appease the first group but it would not make a difference to the second group.
While there are some consumers who really like the Macy’s store, there is a group that does not like the changes and continues to stay away from the new store. Not only did the name change but the assortment of products changed and consumer policies changed. If Macy’s keeps the product assortment and policy changes then changing the name of the store back to Marshall Field’s would not help.
There must be some way that Macy’s could return all or part of the Marshall Field’s name to appease the diehards. They are searching for marketing ideas that will increase sales and here is one that is being handed, maybe a little forcefully, to them. Management can hold out and win the battle and not give an inch or they can attempt to work with these former loyal customers. What ever happened to the old cliche “The customer is always right”?
Sometime you can never go back and if you do, it is never the same. This is the case with Marshall Field’s and Macy’s.
When the name change happened in all of the markets, the comments on RetailWire basically asked, “Why?” In fact it would be interesting to go back to those comments to see how good the expert panel was at that time.
In answering the question though, I do not think it is the store or the merchandise that is the problem. It is the execution. Until Macy’s figures out how to execute with excellence from the store room to the board room they are going to continue to have problems.
Macy’s is not going back to Marshall Field’s any more than US Airways is going back to America West.
As the article points out, there are some customers that are vocal and not doing business with Macy’s in Chicago but there are plenty of other customers that are. The key is for Macy’s to understand which customers are in which camps and then market to them differentially. There are some that they will ultimately be able to win back and some that will not be worth the investment. This is something that dunnhumby should be able to help them with.
I think it is safe to say that Macy’s will not and should not “change the name back to Field’s.” The Marshall Field’s legacy deserves better than that. Macy’s is failing in the Chicago market. They ruined the store, lost the tourist cachet, forgot what service is, offended most Chicagoans and for sure, stubbornly (some say arrogantly) misread the market. For Macy’s to slap the Field’s name back on their self imposed car wreck would be the final insult.
Casual outsiders may skim Macy’s PR offerings and think that all is well in Macyland, but it is not. Macy’s stock price has tanked, the Chicago area stores are noticeably lacking of shoppers and while Macy’s refuses to publish their sales results, their deepening decline has apparently been publicly captured nevertheless through the lower sales tax revenues being paid by them to the city of Chicago, state and suburbs compared to recent Field’s stores’ sales tax revenues.
Many in this neck of the woods are hopeful (me included) that Marshall Field’s name and elite retail position WILL return to State Street, but only after Macy’s finally exits the Chicago market and sells the former Field’s building, intellectual property, and logo rights to a retailer who understands their value and knows what to do with them.
My compromise: rename ALL Macy’s stores to Marshall Field’s 🙂 Seriously, though, this is a perfect illustration of how hard it is to fix something once it’s been broken; despite the spin attempts of Macy’s execs and (other) apologists who claim the chain is “outperforming its peer group” (Translation: the Titanic’s stern isn’t going down as fast as the bow). The same basic problems remain since the merger (sometimes worse than before): declining sales, loss of market share and little sense of what Macy’s is about or why it’s needed. (Hint: a story on the front page of today’s WSJ hi-lighting the drop in retail pay has more than a little to do with all 3 of these issues.)
The State Street store, of course, is a special case: Chicago is the proverbial world class city, and it should be able to support a stand alone flagship (which certainly won’t be simply a bigger version of what’s found in 834 other places!). It should be sold off/leased to an independent operator who can recognize its potential; and spin-off Bloomies while you’re at it…. I don’t see what Macy’s brings to that marriage, either.
The question today is not “Should Macy’s have obliterated one of the highest equity retail brands in the United States?” so I will not belabor that point.
As far as what to do going forward:
1) Do not further denigrate the MF&Co heritage by converting Macy’s locations to Marshall Field’s in name only, that is the worst possible solution.
2) Consider “Marshall Field’s” a place and not a department store and have the State Street location be “Marshall Field’s” which includes a Macy’s and perhaps even a Bloomingdale’s, if the market could support it (doubtful as Macy’s have taken the location downscale).
3) Have the 7th floor of State Street be the Marshall Field’s floor with the great food outlets, Frango Mints, and other Marshall Field’s logo items. Outsource all food services, including a really great food hall, and have the 7th floor logistically operable as a catering and events venue. Add some space for the Chicago Historical Society to have an exhibit on Chicago’s great merchants.
4) Consider Marshall Field’s as a high-end private label.
5) Have a top mall operator run “Marshall Field’s” and get quality merchants in there much like in the last few years under Target ownership.
One of my favorite topics. If Federated had converted State Street to a Bloomingdale’s but kept all the product lines of Field’s plus the lines Bloomingdale’s offers there still wouldn’t be all this controversy. The protesters wouldn’t have much of an argument. Federated could honestly have said nothing had changed, but it did.
Macy’s is a step down from Field’s. Field’s was a mid to very high end store, Macy’s is, under Lundgren, a low to middle end store. When I am in Chicago, there is no reason anymore for me to go to State, I have a Macy’s near my house and they’re nothing to go out of my way for. Instead of Armani, Prada, Diesel, Choo, Steuben, YSL etc, etc, there’s Alfani, Tommy Hilfiger and Jessica Simpson; hardly product lines that anyone is going to get excited about. Yet the high price points remain.
Also no one ever brings up how poorly maintained Macy’s stores have become, torn dirty carpets, clothes strewn all over the floor, missing floor tiles, logos with missing characters on the walls, few if any associates to help. It’s all rather sad looking, yet we were told that Macy’s was a step up from Field’s, it’s all about “economy of scale” and “affordable luxury.” Hmmm, how’s that working out for them? Bloomingdale’s is a wonderful store, at least the one in San Francisco. It’s hip, elegant, sharp and polished. State Street would have made a wonderful locale. Why can’t Macy’s be that way again, it was.
First, I agree that simply slapping Field’s name onto Macy’s train wreck is a bad idea. The only hope for a return of Field’s would be if they sold it to someone with the vision and class to restore it to its previous glory.
Secondly, the Field’s fans are not a small group of crazies that need to “get a life.” The current group grew off an online petition that garnered 65 thousand signatures from all over the world, and weekly leafletting gains even more support.
I am both a business professional and a high-end shopper. My husband and I spent on average 8-10K a year at Field’s suburban locations. I have not spent one dime at Macy’s, and I’ve been instrumental in preventing the 1.5 billion dollar a year corp that I work for from using Macy’s gift certificates as employee perks.
What I don’t understand is, if they’re obviously targeting a different customer base, why didn’t they open new stores instead of destroying our hometown favorites? Kind of like buying a high-end steakhouse, changing the menu to tofu burgers, and wondering why your customers don’t return. It shouldn’t take a marketing genius to figure this out!
I would like to say that there were only a few dozen people protesting (in a town of over 7 million!) and this blog seems keep saying Macy’s made a mistake and giving them too much credence. Macy’s in no way made a mistake. They made a very good decision based on sound business principles.
The department store is dying. May Company was struggling. Field’s sales and profits had been falling for years (just look at the archive Annual Reports on Target’s site). Dillard’s and Bon-Ton are losing large amounts of money today. The press has clearly noted that sales are down the least (by a large margin) at Macy’s as compared to it’s competitors. They are making money! Bon-Ton bought a chain of stores, which includes Carson’s in Chicago and they DIDN’T change the name and yet their sales were down > than 10% in August alone!
So what’s up here? Macy’s is eating Carson’s lunch! And gaining market share in Chicago. Many more new shoppers have come into Macy’s in Chicago than left irate because of the name change. Macy’s is doing really well in such a bad economy. The May stores are no longer an issue. “It’s the economy stupid!” at this point.
As far as anyone saying Macy’s has not honored any Field’s traditions, I beg to differ. They have gone above and beyond in preserving all traditions.
Finally, the fact that Macy’s quickly changed course with the introduction of “My Macy’s” shows the strength of this organization and their commitment to success. With or without “My Macy’s,” the names all had to change. Operating under multiple names might work in the grocery field, but it no longer does selling clothing, accessories and home furnishings.
Macy’s stores in original Marshall Field’s locations suffered a significant drop in sales revenue the instant the Macy’s name went up and although the decline has slowed somewhat, Macy’s declining revenues have continued each month for nearly two years.
Note that during the two years prior to Macy’s takeover, Marshall Field’s was profitable, having posted more than $107 million in profits in 2004, and that Field’s revenues were trending up. It’s only when Macy’s name went up that the revenues went down and the profits turned to losses. Note also that Field’s high-end peers in Chicago shared this growth trend and that they continued to grow through all of 2006 and 2007 while Macy’s suffered same-store sales declines each month, declines that where only first disclosed after the initial and substantial declines during the first six months.
Local customers have made it clear that they preferred to shop at Marshall Field’s, whether for the higher quality brands, the superior customers service, the generational traditions or simply because Marshall Field’s name is interwoven into the history of Chicago and the city’s many world-class museums and institutions it created through unsurpassed generosity and leadership, Marshall Field’s earned enduring customer loyalty. It’s astonishing that Macy’s disregarded the value of Marshall Field’s extraordinary goodwill in Chicago. Just as astonishing is that Macy’s disregarded the tourism appeal of Chicago’s most recognized department store brand. In fact, Marshall Field’s on State Street was the city’s third most popular tourist destination, featured prominently on city and regional tourism advertising worldwide. Now, the State Street store holds little appeal, except for its architecture, its history and as a destination for deeply discounted sales on generic merchandise available at 800 other Macy’s locations.
Macy’s revenues continue to lag in Chicago and the losses must cost the chain hundreds of millions of dollars. Certainly the cost to restore the Marshall Field’s brand with the distinctive merchandise and service for which Field’s is known would cost Macy’s less than to continue down the stubborn and somewhat arrogant that has earned the Macy’s name so much resentment and disdain. Not only would the return of Marshall Field’s be heralded by customers and celebrated by the city, it would have the added benefit of bringing in some much needed revenue and return the stores to their pre-Macy’s profitability.
Macy’s could have built its own stores in which to create it national brand into the Chicago area, but instead chose to disregard the expressed desires of Field’s customers. These customers made their opinions clear through a petition signed by more than 60,000 people and the Chicago Tribune poll in which 96% of more than 14,000 people responded in less than one week to say they wouldn’t shop at Macy’s if they eliminated and replaced Marshall Field’s. Clearly, Macy’s continued struggles demonstrate that Field’s supporters are not simply a small group of die hard fanatics, but rather millions of customers who would rather shop at Marshall Field’s.
That Macy’s struggles now is the result of Macy’s own reckless decision. The shortest path to turn things around would be to listen to their customers and restore Marshall Field’s.
The damage is irreparable at this point.
What Macy’s should have done is consolidated all back office functions like (most) purchasing, credit card account management, etc. and kept roughly a dozen regional nameplates like Field’s in Chicago and Burdine’s in Florida, Foley’s in Texas, etc. Federated should have changed its name to American Department Stores, advertising national sales on television as such (using its dozen regional logos underneath) while advertising local sales like Field Days and Red Apple Days in newspapers. Think General Motors (different cars for different price points and images), but on a retail level (different regional nameplates for different regional tastes). The extra money spent on different plastic cards and paper bags is not that big of a deal.
But the damage is done. I won’t shop at Macy’s and I won’t shop at a renamed Marshall Field’s. I have found the brands I like elsewhere and have even discovered Filene’s Basement (just a block away from the State Street store, I had never considered stopping by the Basement when Field’s was in business–now it’s my favorite store). High end merchandise I get from Nordstrom and less expensive merchandise I get from the Basement, TJ Maxx and Nordstrom Rack (all within one block of the State Street store).
I’d consider shopping at Field’s if Macy’s sold the flagship store to Harrod’s. Otherwise, quite frankly, I’d rather see the building turned into a hotel or even burned to the ground.
What about a combination name such as “Marshall Field’s AT Macy’s”? Just for the Chicago stores, or even just at the flagship State Street store.
Macy’s should make the State Street store into a Harrod’s-like institution as the one and only Marshall Field’s. That would give the protesters a victory, the department store a point of difference in Chicago without requiring it to scrap its national chain plan.
Yeah, it is obvious that Macy’s made a terrible mistake. The question now is “How long can Macy’s continue down the wrong path?”
I like Macy’s for some things but quite honestly the stores have to be the most blah and uninspiring places I have ever shopped.
Brands are a hugely valuable commodity and iconic brands are a rare thing. Marshall Field’s was one of those. Of all the banners that were merged into Macy’s, there was only one other than Macy’s that was so well known nationally and perhaps internationally. That was Marshall Field’s. The downtown Marshall Field’s store was a tourist destination as well as a shopper destination for Chicagoans.
If I were the decision maker at the time, I would have combined the names to be something like “Marshall Field’s at Macy’s” or the reverse. And while I would have brought in the Macy’s merchandise and feel, I would have determined some elements that were unique, special, and associated with Marshall Field’s.
Today, I might start an advertising campaign titled “Marshall Field’s at Macy’s” and singularly, from time to time, bring back some unique elements of Marshall Field’s to the Chicagoland experience.
If I were put in charge of Macy’s today, the first thing I would do is remove Terry Lundgren from the company. Not only would I get to work bringing back Marshall Field’s (that would be the very first brand to bring back), I would then seek to restore several other regional favorite brands to their respective communities. Out with the trash clothes and jewelry, etc, and restore a truly class act in every way.
America deserves to have diversity in the shopping experience; more so the communities deserve to be able to have and cherish their respective unique identities and legacies.
“Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein…”
It’s time for the new-fashioned greedy gain to go, and the way restored for good old-fashioned honest commerce.
The article was incorrect on big fact. The protest is not just in Chicago. I live in LA and up until the time that Macy’s changed the name, I would travel once a year just to shop at Field’s. I have not done that since the name change nor have I shopped at any Macy’s store near my home.
I do not think that Macy’s management understands the loyalty of Marshall Field’s customers. Remember, Marshall Field’s was original for over 160 years. Field’s is the green bags, the Walnut Room, the Cozy Cottage, the Jingle Elf, the third floor bathroom, uncle Mistle Toe and Aunt Hollie–the Field Museum…the list goes on and on with the tradition.
What is Macy’s? 150 years–younger than Field’s–the Thanksgiving parade…no that was not Macy’s idea but gotten through acquisition.
Someone please explain! The traditions from Marshall Field’s that began 160 years ago have been handed down and continued, and felt comfortable and just so embracing. What has Macy’s done? Nothing. Macy’s has stores through acquisitions and no new ideas or thoughts.
Macy’s had all the resources and experience to know better than to change the name. When the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target Corp) merged with Marshall Field’s in 1990, they did not change Field’s fine name, nor the traditions. There were plenty of people grumbling in Chicago shortly afterward because of the “bland Minneapolis merchandise” but the company listened and hired Chicago buyers who were in tune with the city, re-energizing the Marshall Field’s brand.
Indeed, while some people in Minneapolis complained when Dayton’s Department Stores changed their names to Marshall Field’s, the stores tried to remain true to their memory. For years, people would still refer to the Minneapolis Marshall Field’s store as “Dayton’s.” But nobody makes the same mistake with Macy’s. I think that’s because nobody cares about them at all.