Macy’s In and Field’s Out in Federated Announcement
By George Anderson
Federated Department Stores has a plan and it is heavy on the Macy’s and Bloomingdales and totally
Marshall Field’s free.
Yesterday, the department store operator announced changes that would eliminate about 6,200 jobs with the phase out of divisional operations and corporate headquarters positions from the former May Department Stores Inc. It also announced it would change the banner on all 62 of Marshall Field’s stores to Macy’s and sell off the bridal group business it acquired in the deal with May’s. It has yet to make a decision on what it will do with Lord & Taylor.
Federated said all stores, offices and operations will remain in place through the 2005 holiday selling season and reiterated its pledge that there will be no job cuts until March 1, 2006.
“To better serve our customers in this highly competitive retailing environment, we must concentrate on our best national brands and reduce costs so we can deliver outstanding value to shoppers,” said Terry Lundgren, Federated’s chairman, president and chief executive officer in a released statement. “We believe that continuing to build Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s aggressively across America will accelerate our comp store sales performance and increase profitability, thereby driving shareholder value.
“By announcing these decisions now, we can begin more specific planning for the future. This includes discussing potential career opportunities within Federated for May Company employees and ensuring new merchandise assortments are in place as soon as possible in stores acquired from May. We will begin buying and planning Macy’s assortments this October so goods are in-store during the third quarter of 2006,” he said.
Michael Appel of Quest Turnaround Advisors told The Associated Press, “The moves are a logical extension of Federated’s strategy. Macy’s nameplate is going to take over, and they are streamlining the old divisional operations of the May company and putting them under the Macy’s umbrella.”
Logical or not, many in Chicagoland are not pleased with Federated’s decision to do away with the Marshall Field’s and replace it with the Macy’s banner. In an unofficial poll on the Chicago Tribune Web site, 90.5 percent (as of 7:30 EST) said changing the name would make a difference to them. Nearly 97 percent said the name change would make it less likely they would shop at the store.
Federated’s Lundgren said the decision over the Field’s name was “difficult, challenging and emotional.”
“It’s a hard thing for anyone to accept a big change, but it’s an opportunity for us to move the business forward,” he said.
While the name will change, Mr. Lundgren said the important qualities that made Marshall Field’s what it is will remain the same. “We have complete and total respect for the traditions of Marshall Field’s,” he said. “We’ll protect those traditions. … But we also have a commitment to improve the business.”
Moderator’s Comment: What is your reaction to Federated Department Stores’ announcement? –
George Anderson – Moderator
- Federated Announces Strategic Decisions to
Integrate May Company Acquisition – Federated Department Stores, Inc./Business Wire - Federated plans to cut up to 6,200 jobs – The
Associated Press/Business Week online - Field’s No More – Chicago Tribune
- Field’s name dropped – Chicago Sun-Times
- Federated to trim 1,110 jobs in Boston – The Boston
Globe - The evolution of Federated Department
Stores – St. Louis Post-Dispatch
As important as the Name is the Merchandising! If that gets centralized, the original Marshall Field’s stores could look nothing like the original over time and Chicago could have another Dominick’s on it’s hands!
This is a simple no brainer. Macy’s = New York & Marshall Field’s = Chicago. Chicago is the “Second City” and there is a real rivalry between Chicagoans and New Yorkers. The City of Big Shoulders definitely does not like to be associated with other cities — especially New York; we are an individually unique, great city. This will turn into another Dominick’s debacle. Dominick’s drew customer’s because of good service and a sense of local pride. I shop at Marshall Field’s because of good service and a strong sense of local pride. Furthermore, I would not buy a “Polo” shirt if it had a “Members Mark” icon on it!!! Marshall Field’s name may go for now but I predict it will shortly return when the customers refuse to shop at New York’s’ Macy’s. When the big shots in New York realize their money is drying up, we will welcome Marshall Field’s name back just as Federated says it may bring back the manufacturing of the “Frango” chocolate line back to Chicago. I wonder why they are doing this???
The Chicago Tribune did a poll asking if people would shop at Marshall Field’s if it became Macy’s? 96.9% of people said they would no longer shop there. Did Lundgren interview people from New York in making this decision? You can state all of your business facts and figures on here, but in reality, no one I have talked to here at work, on the train, or in my family will continue shopping at Field’s when it becomes Macy’s…enough is enough! Just read the Chicago newspapers today…disbelief, anger, resentment, annoyance, shock, etc…you name it, Chicago people are ticked off….yeah Mr. Lundgren, that’s a great way to introduce your new store into a new market…upset and tick the customers off!
come on, retail experts here….I dare you to argue with that statement!
I see another flop, similar to the Dominick’s/Safeway debacle happening with Field’s/Macy’s!!!!!!
Albertsons and Safeway did not change the names of Dominck’s and Jewel because they understand that Chicago is really a very local city. Changing the Field’s name in Chicago to a New York name, Macys, will only hurt. The rest of the country might think that anything New York is good — Chicagoans think just the opposite.
When Marshall Field’s became the name that replaced the Michigan tradition of Hudson’s, I may have decried it, the same as being said by those in Chicago. Maybe it is with justification. However, the Hudson’s stores, once Marshall Field’s, actually became better places to shop. Product selection, feel and atmosphere was improved. Most importantly, however, service was improved.
If they can become a better place to shop, then I am all for it. However, there was great respect for the Marshall Field’s name as it also came out of the same long tradition and region. I am not so sure that Macy’s carries that same respect or tradition that Midwesterners can easily grasp.
It’s all in a name? Not necessarily true. But name does stand for something. I am not so sure that Macy’s stood for the same thing. That’s the difference. And yes, there is some rivalry between New York and Chicago, but I don’t think that is the same issue. I think it has to do with consumer expectations that come with a name. A name reflects personality and the expectations to go with it.
In the auto industry a company, now on the verge of bankruptcy, took to the road of standardization years ago. In spite of continued failure, they remain on that path. Consumers expect differentiation. They are looking, even more so today, for differentiation in the personality of retailing as well as their offerings associated with that differentiation. Now comes further standardization. I find it hard to explain how in spite of the consumer trends, Federated would take such a strategy.
The example mentioned of Safeway and Dominick’s is also a good one. There also was an attempt to standardize that was unwelcome and unsuccessful. Are consumer expectations really that hard to understand? It seems so. This appears to be as sound of a decision as was announced by Hewlett-Packard this week as well. It sort of makes you scratch your head and wonder — What were they thinking?
For some reason, I thought I would be the minority in my dismay from changing Marshall Field’s to Macy’s…but its great to see I am not the only one feeling the shock and anger that most of you are feeling. I am a Chicagoan by the way…so I know exactly how importantly the city of Big Shoulders feels about losing its integrity…I am hoping that Lundgren does come to his senses and realize it’s not what we want here in Chicago proper….Change the name in Rockford, South Bend, Minneapolis…but leave it the same in our Chicago area! The news reports have been negative, negative, negative!!!!
Perhaps the Dominick’s example shows that ultimately, in Chicago and elsewhere, it’s more about what’s in the store than the name hanging outside over the door.
Fantasy Scenario:
Chicagoans need not bemoan the loss too loudly, as Macy’s will have just a few years in which to operate in their fair city. After seeing comp sales in the negative high double digits after the switchover, they will pull out of Illinois altogether. The State Street store will become the largest loft conversion project in Chicago history (with a Harrod’s-like Whole Foods Market on the ground floor, naturally). The Water Tower store will become, in a weird reversion to previous ownership, the most elegant Target location in the country. The suburban stores will be bought by Wal-Mart as it tries to go even more upscale (remember, this is a fantasy) and they’re looking for a way to continue to grow after having built as many US locations as Starbucks and McDonald’s combined.
More seriously: I hate the change, and I disagree with Macy’s reasoning (and goodbye, L&T — you too will be history). But despite what they told the Tribune, most Chicagoans will continue to shop there (if they shop in department stores at all).
“To better serve our customers in this highly competitive retailing environment, we must concentrate on our best national brands and reduce costs so we can deliver outstanding value to shoppers,” said Terry Lundgren, Federated’s chairman, president and chief executive officer in a released statement. “We believe that continuing to build Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s aggressively across America will accelerate our comp store sales performance and increase profitability, thereby driving shareholder value.
Perhaps each of the (“new and improved”) rebranded flagships can sport a boutique that specializes in selling clichés… maybe, say, << Platitudes on One >> : way to shop…. NOT!
I believe Federated made a difficult but sound business decision in converting the 62 Marshall Field’s department stores to the Macy’s brand.
To survive as a department store in the face of severe competition from Wal-Mart, Target, and Kohl, who feature low prices, and high-end specialty stores like Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Bergdorf Goodman, Federated has to create one umbrella brand to realize significant efficiencies from centralized buying and a national advertising campaign.
In this fast moving global economy, retailers have to be nimble, smart, and innovative to survive. In the process, an iconic retail brand like Marshall Field’s has outlived its franchise.
I’m not sad about this, I’m incensed. Is nothing sacred? Destroying a brand that’s been around for over a hundred years? I can’t help but wonder what MBA bean counters thought this was a good idea – and I have an MBA from Wharton myself. But it’s certainly clear to me that they didn’t factor into this people’s emotions, and as a lifelong Chicagoan, I can safely say that everyone I know is upset and disgusted by this move. Federated doesn’t seem to understand that department stores aren’t all that different – most people pick one over the other because it’s what they’re familiar with, and because of a sense of tradition and nostalgia. Those fond memories go a long way.
Just yesterday I was at Old Orchard, and after glancing at the merchandise at Nordstrom and buying nothing, I wandered over to Field’s with no specific purchases in mind, yet wound up buying hundreds of dollars in merchandise. But, I will never darken the door of Macy’s, any Macy’s, or any other store they own. I don’t need to shop at department stores – there are more than enough other choices out there for me, a woman in her 30s. I choose to shop at Field’s because the name and tradition and what it all stands for means something to me. The arrogance and disdain for Chicagoans in this decision is shocking to me. Yes, to them it may be “just business” – and for me and many others, it’ll also be “just business” when we take our money elsewhere.
As a Chicago transplant for 5 years, I’m conflicted on the sensibility of this decision. With the contraction of the department store industry, at such a feverish pace, over the past 15 years, most US cities have lost their signature department stores. Even Marshall Field’s changed the name plate of two of its icon nameplates — Dayton’s and Hudson’s. With all of this said, Marshall Field’s is not just a Chicago institution, it is a Midwest institution. Marshall Field’s is to Chicago what Macy’s is to New York.
There are a number of reasons that Field’s has suffered on the sales line over the past several years. A constantly changing marketing message, a product assortment that has been spotty and not targeted with enough mass appeal in the Midwest, as well as C and D locations that are obviously treated like as such.
With all of that said, Marshall Field’s is no longer the Marshall Field’s of yesterday. To move forward, I am sad to say, a name change, may be needed as the new model for Macy’s North takes hold.
Wal-Mart has proven that mass retail works, but the best stores are not mass market. So the questions is: What is the image that Federated is trying to achieve? Chicago doesn’t want to be New York, Minneapolis doesn’t want to be Chicago or New York. I recommend giving each major metro location it’s historical department store name & personality. Find some other way to tie them all together. Maybe Macy’s can have a little beauty boutique in each store.
Marshall Field’s, Wanamaker, Gimbels, Dayton’s, Hudson’s, etc. — must most of the former great department stores be discarded today to accomplish standardization and to reduce competitive workforces? Federated’s Macy’s will still sell MF’s Frango mints and I suspect we’ll see the iconic Marshall Field’s logo reappear on department stores someday either by Federated or when they’re liberated.
Not sure how Marshall Field’s name change to Macy’s will play out beyond Chicago’s city limits. I doubt others are as attached to the name as Chicagoans are. That said, if it doesn’t work for Federated it can always pull a New Coke deal and just go back to the original formula.
Was Marshall Field’s, or for that matter, Jordan Marsh or Strawbridge or A&S or any of them really that much different (or better) than Macy’s? Please!!! They all sell the same things…Polo, Nautica, Liz Liz Liz, DKNY, Hilfiger, the same cosmetic counters over, and over, and over, etc., etc. We are lamenting the loss of the stores gone bye, the great stores of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We may miss the great old buildings but the interiors have been lacking since the Campeau era. We did not need all these nameplates selling exactly the same stuff, exactly the same way. Are you watching and listening — Harrods and Selfridges for “Our nation turns its lonely department store eyes to you”………… now those are real department stores like the ones we used to have!
As a native Chicagoan, I find this very, very sad. This is yet another example of the homogenization of America. All department stores look the same, with the same product no matter where you go and all malls have the same specialty and department stores (a bit of an exaggeration, but not much). Standardization may be more efficient and it may improve margins, but it also reduces potential customer loyalty. It’s no surprise that unique venues like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s are doing so well; customers are tired of the same old/same old.
Sometimes great new businesses can be grown from the ashes of older brands. The best example: Abercrombie and Fitch is an ancient brand, although the most recent incarnation certainly looks nothing like the original. But it’s much harder to re-create a brand than simply recycle the real estate. Macy’s goal is to focus on 2 national department stores: Macy’s for the “upper middle” and Bloomingdale’s for the “high end.” My assumption is that L+T will be divided up between the 2. Macy’s management doesn’t want to spend the time on distractions like the bridal business or growing local brands like MF. Years ago, Macy’s created Aeropostale, couldn’t make it very profitable, and spun it off. After the spin-off, it did fine. If Macy’s licensed the MF name to someone else, it might do fine, but that would enable further competition in the department store arena. It’s a shame that a brand name with great equity has an owner that can’t be bothered.
This morning’s Trib featured comments from locals on the Field’s name change on the editorial page. Two of the best:
“Mayor Daley should bulldoze the State Street store (the icon) in the middle of the night to save it from the insult.” This reference is to da mare’s foray in bulldozing Meig’s Field, a local private airport he didn’t like having in the city, in the name of “Homeland Security.”
“It doesn’t matter what they do with the name — the service left town long ago…”
Sad day. But in the long run the only thing that will matter is whether “Macy’s” turns out to be an improved shopping experience. Odds are….no.
C’mon, retail ain’t for sissies…
MF has many fingerprints on it. It’s been a long time since it was about, “give the lady what she wants.” Today’s mall based stores are nothing special and haven’t been for a long time. While loyalty remains in Chicago, Federated’s challenge is to offer a compelling selling model. The name won’t matter much.
Nordstrom had little to no loyalty in Chicago before it came in during DH multiple personality ownership (Dayton’s, Hudson’s and MF). It has succeeded due to a superior model for the Chicago carriage trade.
Federated switched out the Atlanta market from Rich’s to Macy’s. I imagine they are betting the performance will resemble the same “j-curve.”
The name game only goes so far. It is what’s inside that counts.
As a Chicagoan, I think Federated has made a big mistake changing the name of Marshall Field’s to Macy’s. While Marshall Field’s has struggled under various managements and philosophies, the name has sentimental meaning and traditional prestige here. Macy’s does not. I, for one, will not be visiting the Macy stores. I will be checking with my mother, who is a masterful, skilled and astute Chicago shopper, to see how the older generation is responding and if this will impact her shopping patterns.
I agree with Neil Thall completely.
Federated executives’ grand strategy of ‘1 brand, greater efficiencies and volume’ may pay off in smaller towns where there’s no choice, but Chicago has many upscale department stores for consumers to shop. And the fact is, people aren’t happy about this change. Chicago is a city that thrives on hometown pride. Macy’s simply does not have a good brand reputation here; it’s considered a mediocre New York department store.
I predict Federated will sell the stores within 5 years and the next buyer will restore the Marshall Field’s name.
Shades of Lucky’s gather ’round
Holding hands with the ghosts of Jordan Marsh
While sleey-eyed, the ghost of Sears, neither dead nor alive
Sits in shadow, waiting for a clean death that never comes.
Where are the stores of yesteryear?
Same story, different city, probably the same results.
My parents, lifelong Chicagoans are responding to the change in a way I think many others will. My father stated after having a Marshall Field’s credit card for 56 years, they will send it to Macy’s shredded when the name change is executed. My mother will be shopping at the new Midwest carriage trade department store, Von Maur.
You would think retailers would learn and benefit from history. A recent example is the conversion of the Lucky’s name in California to Albertsons.
The Lucky’s name and operation was well received and had a much larger share of market than the successor with the Albertsons name.
When you have a franchise name or brand such as Marshall Field’s you work on improving the internal operations. A name change in this case will only erode sales in the Field’s stores. This is another classic case of the “tail wagging the dog!” Management making decisions on what is best from an operational point of view versus the consumer’s viewpoint.
Yes, it is sad when great retail names like Marshall Field’s, Rich’s, and other regional retail department store chains go away. Mr. Lundgren has said for several months the goal is to create a national department store brand. He wants that brand to be Macy’s. This decision shouldn’t be a surprise. In today’s fiercely competitive environment it is impossible to economically operate a true national chain under separate nameplates.
Over the next few years maybe if Mr. Lundgren and his people can revitalize the department store segment or maybe they will create another national chain of ordinary, boring stores that fail to inspire customers and create excitement. In the prime years of the department store segment, dynamic stores and exciting special events brought customers into the stores. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Macy’s became the catalyst for revitalizing a retail segment that has become moribund?
I for one hate to see the Marshall Field’s name go away. It really is leading though, to, as Neil said, the homogenization of America. Here in Boston we have some experience at this. In 1996 local icon Jordan Marsh became Macy’s and all of the goodwill and brand value was lost in the transition. Boston lost their own department store and even worse was replaced by a New York one at that. Did it make financial financially for Federated to do this? Of course, but it didn’t make it any easier. Now Boston is losing Filenes. Does it make financial sense too? Of course. Without these mergers these department store would have continued on their slow spiral into insolvency.
When the Filenes stores in Boston are closed — because of their proximity to current Macy’s stores — are replaced by Target and Wal-Mart, we’ll all be reminded of the true reasons these changes had to happen. Today’s retail is more and more about customer value and incredible efficiencies, and because of that, there is limited space for the department stores of today. This isn’t your parent’s retail anymore and the “good old days” are gone.
The announcement by Federated spells the end of the department store and does significant damage to three industries that have contributed enormously to the retail landscape: fashion, newspaper, and regional advertisers.
Three things stand out:
Divesting the Bridal group is insane. Federated should be rebranding David’s Bridal and After Hours, and integrating marketing efforts across channels using the Macy’s brand. Federated’s biggest marketing challenge is its lack of relevance to young professionals. They just don’t get department stores. Why not use the wedding event to score big points with that prime demographic when they are young? The synergies of wedding gown, tux and wedding gift are overwhelming. Think of all those young couples who could become loyal Macy’s customers thanks to the great job they did with their wedding.
Eliminating the great brand of Marshall Field’s. Marshall Field’s to Macy’s is a come-down. It will hurt them in key markets like Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis, where Macy’s has historically been very weak. It would have been much smarter to move some of these stores to Bloomingdale’s.
Lord and Taylor is left in limbo. Why? You might as well kill it off.
The entire strategy seems driven by the desire to scale their Macy’s private label business nationally. Also, they must be very eager to consolidate advertising from print to national media such as TV. These consolidations will have a dramatic and extremely negative effect on local newspapers and on small fashion designers. More local newspapers will fail as a result. Our media choices will be left with watered down versions of USA Today and National editions of NY Times. And the once-vital and innovative fashion industries will dry up.
In a few years, after destroying the newspaper with their local advertising houses and significant parts of the fashion industry, the Federated board will announce that it is divesting itself of department stores and selling off the assets as real estate.
I went to work for Marshall Field’s right out of college. A big part of my training focused on the tradition of the company. The merchandising at that time was more creative and upscale than what Federated and May were offering. I only spent 18 months at Field’s before I returned to the family business, but I was always proud to tell people that I worked there. I don’t think that I would be as proud to say that I worked for Macy’s.
Unfortunately, this just gives Chicago consumers one more reason to not shop at its department stores. Department store sales have been slipping for years due to their mall locations and suffering from the increased competition from Wal-Mart and Target. The merchandising at Marshall Field’s used to be something that set it apart and made it a pleasure to shop at and worth going out of your way and paying a premium at times. From the Frango Mints to the green shopping bags it was an overall pleasurable experience.
In an era where differentiation is a highly desirable thing and something that all successful merchants should aspire to, this seems like a big step in the wrong direction unless you are trying to see how much you can alienate your customers.
Marshall Field’s will now become a “lower end” store just like Famous-Barr, Dillard’s, Robinson May and of course Macy’s. Great brands like Prada, Dolce & Gabbana, Thomas Pink, etc. will probably not exist in the stores anymore. Those “high end” brands are what set them apart from the others. Nordstrom does not even carry some of these great brands. Federated, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot and loose your loyal MF customers.
Take a look at the grocery industry and see where problems like this have occurred. When Albertsons bought the Lucky’s chain in California and changed it to the Albertsons banner, they lost big time. Kroger did the right thing when they bought Fry’s in AZ, Fred Meyer in the Northwest and Food 4 Less in the West. They kept the banner name and did not run off the customers.
I just wish Federated the best of luck. I can see Saks and Neiman Marcus picking up the customers that like to drop a lot of cash in department stores.
As a past Chicago resident (5 times), Marshall Field’s brought
a very different personality, and service level than most
department stores to its shoppers. And it had special
events to include Holiday window displays for children to
rush to…second to none. Frango mints is an example of the
difference in Field’s!
The tea and meal room is, or should it be… ‘was’, an afternoon
gathering for many.
Macy’s will do what with the charming, elegant, and historic
Field’s? Hopefully, it will not be NYC-ized, if you will. This is one department operation that Macy’s should leave “untouched”!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I agree with all the comments from readers who appreciate the heritage and legendary name of Marshall Field’s. The comments by mjunius reflect so, so many people’s opinions. Being an Iowan, I want to agree with mjunius’s comments that Von Maur, the midwestern upscale department store based in Iowa, but rapidly expanding, provides the fine customer service previously known decades ago. There are already three fine VM stores in Chicagoland.
I also want readers to go to www.fields.com and click on GUEST ASSISTANCE in the bar at the top of the home page. You will be shocked at how Federated has added a display of a female seductress in a slinky red dress in a suggestive pose in front of the portrait of Marshall Field, the founder. Federated/Macy’s is using flashiness and sex to sell! Marshall Field’s is known for its dignity and class. This use of Macy’s RED color to dominate the traditional forest green trademark color of Marshall Field’s and the woman in that suggestive pose with the eyes of Mr. Field looking, bring Federated to a new all-time low!
It’s nice to see a company that isn’t afraid to make major changes and has the sense to retire a dinosaur like Marshall Field’s. Once Target divested of this capital intensive fossil, it was clear that its days were numbered.
The emotions in many of the previous comments speak to the irrational nature of people to hold on to the past even after it’s dead and buried. It’s time to move on to a contemporary and modern retailer that will breathe new life into Chicago!
Now that the fate of Marshall Field’s has been settled, I wonder about the fate of Lord & Taylor. I think Lord & Taylor has the most aesthetically pleasing stores and a unique corporate logo. However, I know Federated will make a decision whether to keep L&T open based solely on profits and not to please die-hard fans of this chain, just as Federated doesn’t consider Marshall Field’s rich heritage. I wonder why these big retail companies decide to upgrade and/or build these extravagant stores only to close them. Didn’t Marshall Field’s recently upgrade its flagship store (when it was owned by Target)? And I have seen with my own eyes the rise and fall of Lord & Taylor. Living in northern Connecticut, I have seen the May company build Lord & Taylor stores in several malls in the area. Some of these stores replaced defunct New England chains like Steigers and Sage-Allen. All the stores opened around here in the last 10 years are gone. The strategy was to make L&T more affordable. A lot of the 30+ stores closed were open for only a few years, some for less than a year! I even hear Nordstrom wants to buy the Lord & Taylor flagship store in New York. All I can say is I’m awaiting news as to whether this chain will survive, and I can sympathize with fans of Marshall Field’s.
The name change, while painful to Marshall Field’s historians and Chicago loyalists, is probably in the long run irrelevant. True, in Chicago, the Field’s brand is much stronger than Macy’s, but also true is the fact the old, customer centric Field’s of your parents’ day has been gone for decades. True, also, that this decision will be a bad one for Federated. The Macy’s brand will flop in Chicago, I’m certain of that, but realistically at this point to say a department store is doing anything to support their growth is a delusion. They are not poised for growth; they’re poised to put off their inevitable demise. Their core markets are fast entering retirement homes and cemeteries, and they have not attracted a new generation. There is really no reason to shop a department store any more, and look at results; people aren’t.
I’ve been in Chicago for two years and have enjoyed the local culture and flair that you have for your hometown treasures. Macy’s really won’t offer much of a difference than what you are already used to. I’m from south Florida; a true blue Floridian (for those of you who don’t know, it’s really rare to find those). Anyway, we had our own Marshall Field’s down there called Burdines. It was the original Florida store and the place to shop for years. If you were from South or West Florida, that was the place and it was deep rooted in our history. It was around for over a hundred years, like MF, but in 2004 it was wiped away and renamed with Macy’s. Burdines, unlike MF, was already part of the Federated family so the transition was almost miniscule as only the name changed. My point is, everywhere you go, every community has a MF that will one day be wiped away. Rich’s in Atlanta, Bullocks in LA, Proffits in Alabama are some of the stores that have come and gone. All were rooted in the community and had loyal customer bases. So find a little solace Chicago; you are not the first or last community to lose your treasure. To tell you the truth, South Florida feels different without Burdines but Macy’s fills in the void in its own way.
I, too, am from Chicago. I will not be shopping at Macy’s. I shopped at Field’s…simply because it was Field’s and unique to Chicago. My out of town relatives can’t wait to get their special “green box” at Christmastime. I have not heard of anyone here in the Midwest excited about Macy’s coming to town. If the reception is good, it will be short lived. Most shoppers will peak in and be nosy, but that’s about it.
As a European and a retired department store CEO, I am jealous because the big differences in culture, language and family ownership in Europe creates a barrier to increase the long-term continuity of the sector. Of course you can differentiate the concept of the flagship stores and the rest, but in a sense, there is no need to separate buying offices, logistics or other back office activities in 10 or more different countries.
As hard as stores work to develop brand identity and loyalty, it is astounding that they think Macy’s has the same draw and emotional appeal in the Chicago market as Marshall Field’s does…looks like a big mistake to me, as a former Chicagoan, and to the vast majority of Chicagoland folks polled. Want an example of how well the take over company maintains the quality and assortment in a store they take over…just look at Lord and Taylor…totally gutted and homogenized to be just another department store….