October 17, 2007
Wards Comes Back – As a Catalog
By Tom Ryan
A 180-page catalog was recently mailed out bearing the Montgomery Ward name, marking the second year that
 |
| The cover of Ward’s 2007 Holiday catalog |
Direct Marketing Services Inc. (DMSI) has come out with a Ward holiday catalog.
“Our holiday catalog debut last year was extremely well-received,” David Milgrom, president of Chicago-based DMSI. “Our second holiday catalog is bigger than last year’s and our Wards.com website will swell to more than 50,000 products during the holiday season, the largest selection Montgomery Ward shoppers will have ever seen in the history of the brand.”
Montgomery Ward launched the nation’s first catalog in 1872 and eventually became one of the largest retailers in the U.S. It also lays claim to introducing the world to Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer. However, the mid-tier department store chain declared bankruptcy in 1997 – ranking as the largest U.S. bankruptcy pre-Kmart – and was forced to close all of its retail stores and catalog operations by early 2001.
In late 2004, DMSI purchased much of the intellectual property assets of the former Ward’s business and has since relaunched the catalog and e-commerce businesses. It also introduced an online juvenile furniture site, wardskids.com, but has not reopened any Wards stores.
Among
the products being offered in Ward’s Holiday catalog are holiday décor, home
and kitchen items, and furniture, as well as apparel, toys and electronics.
These include sofas ranging from $399 to more than $2,000, and dining packages
starting as low as $179.
DMSI, which also operates the Charles Keath and Popular Club catalogs, said many of Ward’s traditional vendors, products and former employees are still part of the new Montgomery Ward. It also claims to be recapturing some former Ward customers.
“Customers are happy to see that Montgomery Ward is back,” said Mr. Milgrom. “Our company adheres to the Montgomery Ward practice of offering affordable merchandise to meet the needs of loyal Wards customers as well as introduce its offerings to new shoppers with unique product selections, compelling finance terms, and ease of shopping experience.”
Discussion Question: What do you think of Montgomery Ward’s return as a catalog and website? Can you think of one or two other defunct retail nameplates that could have a second life as a catalog, website or retailer? How would you position them in the marketplace?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
It isn’t unusual for a single owner to run multiple direct marketing businesses. Hanover Direct owns International Male, The Company Store, etc. DMSI impressed me because when I called the toll-free Wards number, an American answered quickly and enthusiastically. Almost any defunct retail name has value if the folks who revive it don’t just depend on the name, but also use first class skills and customer-driven performance.
“Monkey Wards” as we called it was once a reasonable alternative to Sears. Since Sears today is such a inadequate version of itself, it offers opportunities for anyone offering reliable, efficient, practical hard goods and some interesting products and brands in these categories that aren’t quite so generic and dull as Kmart/Sears offerings.
Gimbels can be resurrected as an alternative to Macy’s. It never did well in that role in the past and consequently failed. But Macy’s today is quite vulnerable and if we gave Gimbel’s to some good “old fashioned” merchants (and 600 locations of the same quality as Macy’s) I would “take Gimbels and the points.”
This may not be the right season to try to raise the dead. In the end I’m a bit skeptical about whether this will work or not, although–given eroding consumer confidence–it may be difficult to ever establish if the idea might have worked in a more robust commercial environment.
Since we’re digging into history, how about resurrecting John Wanamaker’s, the ultimate department store experience of the late 19th and early 20th century in New York, or Bonwit Teller or B. Altman. All of them high quality retailers.
The problem is that you’d have to sell the name all over again. Probably 90% of consumers wouldn’t recognize the names.
Catalog sales have become synonymous with premium and higher end products. It has also become a cash cow for those retailers offering sales through those channels. I don’t really see any plausible resurgence in the revival of defunct companies getting back into the game. They are defunct for a reason. Current offerings should focus on one of a kinds and different products not normally available through a store. In the meantime I will still be ordering my Omaha Steaks and Sharper Image gadgets through the usual catalogs that I get!
Marshall Field’s is not a brand name that failed. It’s a brand name that was first plundered (Target used the profits from Field’s to fuel its namesake store’s growth while neglecting Field’s) and then murdered (Macy’s could have opened a store on Block 37 across the State Street from Field’s, but didn’t because it knew it would never be able to compete). Field’s, Dayton’s and Hudson’s are all brand names that could easily, easily regain dominant market share in Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with the proper execution. The sentiment among shoppers in these cities as they switch to Nordstrom is the same: it’s a nice store, but it’s no Marshall Field’s/ Dayton’s/ Hudson’s.
Watch and see. Macy’s will eventually be forced to sell the Marshall Field’s name as its brand equity (like its real estate) is simply too valuable to let languish. I say sell rather than resurrect because it’s quite obvious to everyone in Chicago that Macy’s does not have the wherewithal to run a quality department store. After all, Bloomingdale’s is somewhat nice, but it certainly is no Marshall Field’s.
I’m not sure whether the better reference is Shakespeare’s “what’s in a name,” or Wolfe’s “you can’t go home again,” but this whole idea of resurrecting an eponymously named company–but it doesn’t really have any meaningful connection to the old one–makes no sense to me. (Marshall Field’s might well be the exception, since the demise was recent, and the renaming had little/nothing to do with the strength of the brand, which was–is?–considerable.)
Even SaveMart’s revival of the “Lucky” moniker, though carefully done, and worlds more logical than a new…say… Gimbel’s, doesn’t quite seem right.
I actually received the catalog last week. I had some memory of them going bankrupt. So I was actually surprised and thrilled to get it.
Brings back memories of childhood trips to Wards, TG&Y, Grants and Roses (still in biz, but nothing like what Roses once was).
I disagree that just because a company didn’t make it the first time that it has no chance for a comeback. It is a different world, there will be different management, employees, marketing practices, etc.
I welcome any challengers to the 800 pound gorilla AKA Wal-Mart.
Nostalgia is big right now. Perhaps they can ride that wave for a while.
Why resurrect brand names that have failed? For the people who recall the brand, the most recent memory that they will have is of a failed retailer. For those that don’t recall the recent history, especially the younger generation, what is the purpose of resurrecting the name? There is almost no brand recall whatsoever.
How successful would the following names be in the US today if they were resurrected:
Wimpy’s
Service Merchandise
Venture
Highland Electronics
Silo Electronics
Do we need to continue? Let bankrupt and failed companies enjoy their rest. There are plenty of new retailers who have taken their place, and are doing a great job at growing their brands.
Marshall Field’s has the unique advantage of a top-quality seller of not just fashion but gourmet items and candy, very strong catalog categories. It also boasts a very strong regional identity, which is growing in importance to consumers as brick-and-mortar locations blanket the nation with a depressing national blandness.
As above, I would also vote that F.W. Woolworth could find a niche, perhaps as a nostalgia-focused vendor of affordable items.
Certainly, if the Montgomery Ward name can be successful at this, virtually anyone on that list can.
My guess is it will flop. “Our company adheres to the Montgomery Ward practice of offering affordable merchandise to meet the needs of loyal Wards customers as well as introduce its offerings to new shoppers with unique product selections, compelling finance terms, and ease of shopping experience.” If Montgomery Ward actually was ever doing any of that, they would not have gone out of business in the first place.
Raising the dead is a difficult venture. Based upon the popularity of former retailer items on eBay, perhaps FW Woolworth might have a shot. Their parent company is Foot Locker which is still in business.
Guess I’m showing my age. A trip to Woolworth’s with its aisle after aisle of complete novelty was right there next to my grandmother’s cinnamon buns in my youthful utilitarian calculus. But then I might also be showing my lack of business sense because part of the charm of Woolworth’s was its prices. There probably isn’t any profit in it. Too bad the feeling of curiosity satisfied for only 5 or 10 cents can’t be mixed with a higher profit.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
It isn’t unusual for a single owner to run multiple direct marketing businesses. Hanover Direct owns International Male, The Company Store, etc. DMSI impressed me because when I called the toll-free Wards number, an American answered quickly and enthusiastically. Almost any defunct retail name has value if the folks who revive it don’t just depend on the name, but also use first class skills and customer-driven performance.
“Monkey Wards” as we called it was once a reasonable alternative to Sears. Since Sears today is such a inadequate version of itself, it offers opportunities for anyone offering reliable, efficient, practical hard goods and some interesting products and brands in these categories that aren’t quite so generic and dull as Kmart/Sears offerings.
Gimbels can be resurrected as an alternative to Macy’s. It never did well in that role in the past and consequently failed. But Macy’s today is quite vulnerable and if we gave Gimbel’s to some good “old fashioned” merchants (and 600 locations of the same quality as Macy’s) I would “take Gimbels and the points.”
This may not be the right season to try to raise the dead. In the end I’m a bit skeptical about whether this will work or not, although–given eroding consumer confidence–it may be difficult to ever establish if the idea might have worked in a more robust commercial environment.
Since we’re digging into history, how about resurrecting John Wanamaker’s, the ultimate department store experience of the late 19th and early 20th century in New York, or Bonwit Teller or B. Altman. All of them high quality retailers.
The problem is that you’d have to sell the name all over again. Probably 90% of consumers wouldn’t recognize the names.
Catalog sales have become synonymous with premium and higher end products. It has also become a cash cow for those retailers offering sales through those channels. I don’t really see any plausible resurgence in the revival of defunct companies getting back into the game. They are defunct for a reason. Current offerings should focus on one of a kinds and different products not normally available through a store. In the meantime I will still be ordering my Omaha Steaks and Sharper Image gadgets through the usual catalogs that I get!
Marshall Field’s is not a brand name that failed. It’s a brand name that was first plundered (Target used the profits from Field’s to fuel its namesake store’s growth while neglecting Field’s) and then murdered (Macy’s could have opened a store on Block 37 across the State Street from Field’s, but didn’t because it knew it would never be able to compete). Field’s, Dayton’s and Hudson’s are all brand names that could easily, easily regain dominant market share in Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with the proper execution. The sentiment among shoppers in these cities as they switch to Nordstrom is the same: it’s a nice store, but it’s no Marshall Field’s/ Dayton’s/ Hudson’s.
Watch and see. Macy’s will eventually be forced to sell the Marshall Field’s name as its brand equity (like its real estate) is simply too valuable to let languish. I say sell rather than resurrect because it’s quite obvious to everyone in Chicago that Macy’s does not have the wherewithal to run a quality department store. After all, Bloomingdale’s is somewhat nice, but it certainly is no Marshall Field’s.
I’m not sure whether the better reference is Shakespeare’s “what’s in a name,” or Wolfe’s “you can’t go home again,” but this whole idea of resurrecting an eponymously named company–but it doesn’t really have any meaningful connection to the old one–makes no sense to me. (Marshall Field’s might well be the exception, since the demise was recent, and the renaming had little/nothing to do with the strength of the brand, which was–is?–considerable.)
Even SaveMart’s revival of the “Lucky” moniker, though carefully done, and worlds more logical than a new…say… Gimbel’s, doesn’t quite seem right.
I actually received the catalog last week. I had some memory of them going bankrupt. So I was actually surprised and thrilled to get it.
Brings back memories of childhood trips to Wards, TG&Y, Grants and Roses (still in biz, but nothing like what Roses once was).
I disagree that just because a company didn’t make it the first time that it has no chance for a comeback. It is a different world, there will be different management, employees, marketing practices, etc.
I welcome any challengers to the 800 pound gorilla AKA Wal-Mart.
Nostalgia is big right now. Perhaps they can ride that wave for a while.
Why resurrect brand names that have failed? For the people who recall the brand, the most recent memory that they will have is of a failed retailer. For those that don’t recall the recent history, especially the younger generation, what is the purpose of resurrecting the name? There is almost no brand recall whatsoever.
How successful would the following names be in the US today if they were resurrected:
Wimpy’s
Service Merchandise
Venture
Highland Electronics
Silo Electronics
Do we need to continue? Let bankrupt and failed companies enjoy their rest. There are plenty of new retailers who have taken their place, and are doing a great job at growing their brands.
Marshall Field’s has the unique advantage of a top-quality seller of not just fashion but gourmet items and candy, very strong catalog categories. It also boasts a very strong regional identity, which is growing in importance to consumers as brick-and-mortar locations blanket the nation with a depressing national blandness.
As above, I would also vote that F.W. Woolworth could find a niche, perhaps as a nostalgia-focused vendor of affordable items.
Certainly, if the Montgomery Ward name can be successful at this, virtually anyone on that list can.
My guess is it will flop. “Our company adheres to the Montgomery Ward practice of offering affordable merchandise to meet the needs of loyal Wards customers as well as introduce its offerings to new shoppers with unique product selections, compelling finance terms, and ease of shopping experience.” If Montgomery Ward actually was ever doing any of that, they would not have gone out of business in the first place.
Raising the dead is a difficult venture. Based upon the popularity of former retailer items on eBay, perhaps FW Woolworth might have a shot. Their parent company is Foot Locker which is still in business.
Guess I’m showing my age. A trip to Woolworth’s with its aisle after aisle of complete novelty was right there next to my grandmother’s cinnamon buns in my youthful utilitarian calculus. But then I might also be showing my lack of business sense because part of the charm of Woolworth’s was its prices. There probably isn’t any profit in it. Too bad the feeling of curiosity satisfied for only 5 or 10 cents can’t be mixed with a higher profit.