Macy’s Takes Hit Over Name Change
By George Anderson
According to a study by Scarborough Research, the number of customers walking into Macy’s stores in the Columbus, Ohio area have declined 4.5 percent since parent company Federated Department Stores put that banner up in place of Lazarus.
Retail analyst James Dion told The Columbus Dispatch that Scarborough’s research might be pointing to a strategic error on the part of Federated.
“I think it’s a huge warning flag,” he said. “The customers are basically saying, ‘We liked our hometown department store. We liked Lazarus. We trusted it.’ “
While many consumers in central Ohio certainly identified with and shopped at Lazarus, the traffic hit that Macy’s has taken was an acceleration of several years of decline.
In 2000, 28.7 percent of adults in the Columbus area said they had visited a Lazarus store. Since the name change to Macy’s last year, 19.8 percent of area adults did the same.
“Normally, you would not expect that level of decline,” said Mr. Dion. “Lazarus absolutely had value as a name, and the customer is saying one size does not fit all.”
Federated spokesman Jim Sluzewski said the company is taking the transition to the Macy’s banner one step at a time. “There’s always concern when we change names because change is difficult. But customers always tell us it’s what’s inside the store that’s important with them.”
Neva Kraatz, a consumer from Reynoldsburg, Ohio says she has noticed differences. “Since the change, I’m finding less brand-name assortments and more private labels at Macy’s. They tend to get more vanilla.”
Moderator’s Comment: Should the short-term results at former Lazarus locations be a warning to Federated about its
national Macy’s branding strategy? Are stores becoming “more vanilla” under the Macy’s banner? –
George Anderson – Moderator
If it is truly what is inside the store that counts for the consumer then the extra cost of maintaining a Store Name and the Private Label associated with it are worth the extra cost to maintain those names. Certainly Kraft, General Mills, etc. have not played around with the name brands they have acquired ( Nabisco, Oscar Mayer, Pillsbury, etc.). It is also very hard to change a Private Label when consumers have years of confidence in the brand and products.
It appears that the bean counters are beating the marketers in the internal battle at Federated.
Dear Chicagoans:
You are missing the point. And by the way, I lived in Chicago for 12 years. I took my sons at age 2 to the State Street store to see the windows and wander around in fantasyland inside. Those experiences were real, and I valued them.
The point here is not that there are people who have brand identification around the nameplate banner for a department store. Of course there are. The issue is what will their shopping behavior be? The Minneapolis residents still in arms over the previous name change…what happened to market share? What happened to average transaction value and comp store sales?
I’m sorry. The mid to upper range department store landscape is not populated by a great many high value choices in most markets. Carson’s is NOT an effective competitor to Macy’s. Sorry. It’s just not. It was and is the low to mid range choice, and always perceived as downscale to Field’s. It still will be in comparison to Macy’s.
Do you think people will simply stop shopping? And what’s with the hysteria about Federated private label? Vanilla? Have you looked at the assortments recently? Federated’s been so successful with their brands that OTHER retailers buy them!
Look…I liked Field’s. A lot. I like Macy’s. Not so much. I don’t like Carson’s. I never really liked Lazarus or Rich’s. The issue here is whether a single banner approach makes more sense than running regional chains. Yes, it does. And no, it doesn’t mean that a Macy’s in Chicago will look exactly like a Macy’s in NY. FDS has the systems and planning methods in place to merchandise regionally. And they will.
Don –
First of all, I’m not a Chicagoan, but I’m still of the opinion that the name change is a HUGE mistake. I agree that Carson’s will not take the lion’s share of the market that Field’s loses, but they may peal some off of the bottom. But unlike some other smaller markets, Chicago has plenty of upscale alternatives, such as Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Saks, Bloomingdales… The Chicago customer can and will take their pick.
I think Federated is making the right decision in changing all its stores to Macy’s. It will be able to advertise nationally and create an identity for the brand. Before the renaming, all these regional chains basically lured customers in with coupons and sales. These department stores began to commoditize their wares. Macy’s, with its “way to shop” slogan, will be able to market itself as a seller of fashionable goods. Customers will no longer come in just for sales. That being said, I can really understand why people are angry about the loss of the regional names. I myself am really disappointed that Lord & Taylor could disappear.
As a Cincinnati Macy’s (former Lazarus) shopper, I am quite pleased with the store changes since we’ve become Macy’s. It’s definitely what’s inside the store that counts. The Kenwood store has received a total make-over, with better displays, better assortment, expanded square footage, resulting in a greatly improved shopping experience. Perhaps not every Federated store will receive such an extensive make-over, but clearly there are efforts under way to meet the consumer demands in a given market.
And as far as the shopping experience becoming “vanilla” – when moving to Texas after living in Cincinnati for 7 years, I found it comforting to walk into Macy’s and see the same Private Label brands I knew and loved at Lazarus. It’s like taking a little piece of home with you wherever you go.
These guys know what they are doing. Just give it time.
As a professional retail designer, I must admit that when I say Vanilla Box for Macy’s, I am not only referring to their merchandise, but I am also referring to Macy’s store decor, lighting, and fixtures. Dayton Hudson/Target did a wonderful job at remodeling all the Marshall Field’s store to be energetic, classy, elegant and beautiful all at the same time.
From visiting various Macy’s stores throughout the USA, I find the lack of punchy accent lighting to be very boring and Vanilla. I could count the number of incandescent/halogen track lights and recessed accent lights I saw in their store on my hand, while the fluorescent lighting was beefed up similar to Kohl’s, Wal-Mart or Sears.
Now on the other hand, if Macy’s really wants to make a punch with store decor in Chicago, their interiors should be modeled off of Bloomingdale’s, which has a truly beautiful store decor package.
There are presently differences on the inside between Field’s and Macy’s. Those differences will disappear as will some of the customers.
The Field’s we remember had the best Santa, the Best Christmas Tree, a philatelic department, a large assortment of Hi-Fi’s, a great restaurant and delivery trucks roaming the city. Some of us also remember when everybody got dressed up to fly, the flight attendant was called stewardess and she was young, energetic and would smile. Shoes were made in New England or Wisconsin. Most everything was made in the U.S.A. Car hops would bring your order and put a tray on your window. The gas station attendants would fill up your car, wash your windows, hand you a free map and give you some green stamps for twenty-five cents a gallon.
Cost cutting not only cuts out middlemen and costs, it cuts out the joy. That is why internet sales continue to grow.
I can remember and have discussed the same emotion around the change in ownership of J.L. Hudson in Detroit, let alone the closing of the downtown store (once the largest department store in the world). Then came an eventual name change to Marshall Fields in a consolidation of banners by the previous owner. The truth is, many of the locations became better stores as Marshall Field’s. Even myself, packed with emotion from memories of the old name, experiences, etc., could see the positive improvements.
The fact is, they were sold. The new owners can do with them as they wish. The consumer can then do with them as they wish. Many of us can think that Federated is making a huge mistake. They may well be doing just that. However, consumers will dictate whether that be so, or not.
There is a lot behind a consumer’s decision. For the best of Chicago, I hope that they will give them a try, make a fair judgement, and put emotion aside. In many ways, they have an opportunity to do the right thing with regard to the downtown area. Punishing an investor that has made the attempt to keep and invest in a location may not be the best idea. All emotion aside, a visit to Woodward Ave. in Detroit might make them a little bit skiddish about being too down on Federated. After all, why aren’t they upset with the sellers? Are they petitioning Target? Are they boycotting Target?
A thriving Macy’s might be better than the beginning of a downfall.
The change to Macy’s makes sense from a cost savings and efficiency standpoint. It will work if Federated has budgeted for a less than stellar year during the first 12 months. After the transition, results should build, assuming a strong marketing presence.
FEDERATED REPENT!
It’s probably too late to stop this train wreck ( scheduled to crash into the station on 9/11/06 ) but it’s still an important case study. Some points:
1) Lazarus wasn’t “acquired” by Federated: it was one of its founding members (along with Filene’s and A&S); it was actually Macy’s that was acquired by Federated…so much for the logic that being acquired is a sign of weakness.
2) The Macy’s issue has two components: what’s on the outside, and what’s on the inside; though the former is seems to attract all the attention, there seems to be a genuine issue – at least with the Field’s stores – that Macy’s will be an actual decline in quality; a decline both in the merchandise, and in the service; whether or not this comes to pass, only time will tell, but it’s certainly a real issue beyond the “nostalgia.”
3)[Back to what’s on the outside] To my dying day – or double digit increases in SSS, whichever come first – I will claim that Federated should have kept the Field’s nameplate: after all, they have no problem with having both Macy’s and Bloomies; many will argue that the point of this is to maintain product differentiation (with the latter more high-end/trendy), but I would counter that New York/East Coast vs. Chicago/Midwest is no less of an important difference worth recognizing.
Yes, the name change should and will be a hit to traffic and sales short-term. I grew up in Seattle and “the Bon” was a key part of everyone’s life…after Nordstrom of course. When the Bon name went away it took away a key piece of the local connection to the store. In the long-run the name change is the right decision, it’s simply going to take a long-time and a lot of goodwill to make the name change work.
Consumers identify with local companies and names they trust. If it is a name consumers value, why go to the expense of changing it? One size certainly does not fit all. And many companies have found that bigger is not always better.
Federated is certainly taking a big risk in changing valued brand names such as Marshall Field’s in Chicago and Hecht’s in the Washington, D.C. area. It is now up to Federated to show consumers why the name Macys is better in terms of product selection, price, services and overall atmosphere or they will face continuing sales declines.
Oooh! Alfani! Macy’s private label! Available anywhere from University Mall in Carbondale to Northwoods Mall in Peoria to State Street in Chicago! None of the arguments I’ve read stating that a national Macy’s name brand is a good thing have convinced me. These department stores are not Wal-Mart, Sears, or JCPenney. And the customer who shops at these higher end department stores are not the same in each city. If Macy’s can truly, truly differentiate the selection and experience in each store for each city, it might work..but I’m not holding my breath.
The entire department store segment lost a great deal of identity during the consolidation of Federated, May Company, Associated Dry Goods, Allied Stores and all the others. The strength of the department store concept was the strong local and regional identity. Prior to the consolidations there had never been a successful national department store brand because each major city had its own native store with the name of the founder on the door. The department store of the past was able to cater to the needs and local characteristics of their unique customer base. Although it may have been more economical to operate with centralized staffs and a one-name philosophy, they ended up discarding some great brands that were built over decades in the minds and hearts of local customers. They also inadvertently crushed the preferences of countless millions of customers who had grown up doing business with a particular department store and didn’t like the idea of replacing a treasured local identity with a national brand that had little local cache. For example, right in Federated’s backyard, Macy’s means nothing in Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio but Lazarus and Shillito’s were names that customers treasured. There is no way that Macy’s will ever be able to merchandise in all areas of the country to the same extent that the local department store was able to do. As we walk through the center cities and malls of America, we will no longer see great names like: L.S. Ayres in Indianapolis, Bambergers in New Jersey, Carson Pirie Scott in Chicago, Donaldsons in Minneapolis, Foleys in Houston, G. Fox in Hartford, Frederick & Nelson in Seattle, Gimbels in New York (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee), Halle Bros. and Higbees in Cleveland, Hochschild Kohn in Baltimore, J. L. Hudson in Detroit, Jordan Marsh in Boston and Florida, Jones Store in Kansas City, Joseph Horne in Pittsburgh, Maas Bros. in Tampa, McAlpins and H.S. Pogue in Cincinnati, Stewart Dry Goods in Louisville, Prange’s in Green Bay, Sanger-Harris and Titche-Goettinger in Dallas, Rike-Kumler in Dayton, Thalhimer Bros. in Richmond, Wanamaker in Philadelphia, Hecht Co. and Woodward & Lothrop in Washington DC, J.B. Ivey in Charlotte, Goldblatts in Chicago, Emporium-Capwell in San Francisco, Rich’s and Davisons in Atlanta, Denver Dry Goods in Denver, LaSalle & Koch in Toledo, Leonards in Ft. Worth, Meier & Frank in Portland, Sterns in Paramus, Strawbridge & Clothier in Philadelphia, Wieboldts in Chicago.
Did Federated ask their customers what they preferred or did they simply follow the economies of scale? The reality is that one size does not fit all unless Federated intends to make Macy’s into the Wal-Mart of the department store industry. God help us!
There is a fundamental of branding we may be missing in this discussion. Much has been made of “the brand name doesn’t matter as long as what is inside the store doesn’t change”. But the point is that changing the brand name is SUPPOSED to signify “change.” It is a “red alert” to consumers to be on the lookout for change — to expect it. And in this highly sensitized state they become hypercritical of change, real or perceived. So simply “keeping the stores the same” is not good enough to make the Macy’s name change worthwhile. There does need to be real change inside the stores. And it needs to be for the better.
I don’t think people really need to "get over it." Macy’s thought a 4.5% decrease was bad – wait until they see what happens if they change Marshall Field’s in Chicago. There is a web-site called www.keepitfields.org with over 1/2 million signatures.
Plus, if Macy’s takes the road of Safeway and starts to put their brands into distribution, replacing known, existing merchandise, they will suffer the same loss in share as Dominick’s has to Jewel. With a name change, most consumers also expect product changes, and that’s the real killer.
In Detroit, we loved Hudson’s. Then Hudson’s became Marshall Field’s. Many older Detroiters still refer to the stores as Hudson’s, which just confuses their children. Now, Marshall Field’s will become Macy’s. I assume some people will still refer to the stores as Hudson’s, some will insist on calling them Marshall Field’s and most will adjust to calling them Macy’s. Will there be gigantic consumer push-back? Not likely unless the name change is accompanied by a change in merchandising and or pricing. Brands are a lot more perishable than branders like to believe.
American executives are often accused of chasing short term objectives in place of healthier long term goals. No doubt Federated knew before making any name changes that there would be short term damage: disrupted customer loyalty. The major questions: how short is the short term and how much will the damage cost? Had Lazarus, Marshall Field’s, Rich’s, and all the other Federated-acquired names been winners, the brands wouldn’t have been sold to Federated. Federated was the acquirer for a reason: their finances were stronger. One reason their finances were stronger: the brand was stronger. By creating a national brand, Federated gains economies of scale in their advertising and supply chain. Reducing these major expenses has to be important for all retailers.
What has happened to same store sales in the Columbus area since the name change? What has happened to overall department store traffic in the area?
These provincial banner non-issues are silly. Federated determined that whatever short term brand equity loss would be sustained was outweighed by the long term benefits of the single banner. Was this a bean counter decision? No. Certainly economics, synergies, and other financial metrics were considered. But at the core is the Federated belief that the brand values associated with Macy’s are likely to be valuable across the country.
Get over it. The names have changed. Either the assortments and shopping experience will please the consumer or they will not. If the consumer is pleased, word of mouth will be sufficient to offset fear of change. And none of that takes into consideration the advertising Federated will do over the years.
Non issue.
Duh! The Macy’s brand only had value to consumers who lived in or traveled to the New York or San Francisco areas. now that Federated has blanketed the US with Macy’s the brand has diluted value/cache.
Locally, Goldsmith’s was traded out for Macy’s and now nothing really seems special at all. I would be willing to bet that fans of Lazarus and Rich’s feel similar – as will the people of Chicago when they lose their Marshall Field’s. Consumers are still human; they attach and identify themselves with places and names. In this case, throwing out a trusted name is like erasing a piece of someone’s identity.
This is a big deal, and we’re seeing exactly the same thing play out with the Marshall Field’s name-change here in Chicago.
Federated must take note of these signs, and my guess is that within a year, all the executives who are now advocating “stay the course” will be gone, and there’ll be a face-saving way to get back to the old brand equities which, by then, will be less potent than they are today.
Think about the damage done when the Lucky Store brand was abandoned in California a number of years ago.
Also, consider the findings of the newest Coca-Cola Retailing Research Council study on Getting to Great: Mapping Management Practices that Drive Great Performance. That study documents the fact that customer and employee loyalty play a central role in great store performance. How can a name change NOT impact the “loyalty thing”?
Mr. Delzell:
You obviously have not immersed yourself in Chicago news, Chicago media, Chicago culture or Crains Chicago Business. I would like you to take some time to come to Chicago and interview Chicago shoppers and then report back on your findings. This a HUGE issue, not a non-issue.
There was just an article in this past Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, not including the almost bi weekly article about how Chicagoans are ticked off at Mr. Lundgren for this change. Click here to read it.
Like I have said hundreds of times, Macy’s needed to study Chicago better. Bringing Frangos back to Chicago doesn’t cut it.
Again and again I tell you all to observe the Dominick’s/Safeway merger here in Chicago. Safeway was smart enough to keep the Dominick’s name, but they changed all the products to reflect Safeway stores and chased Chicago consumers away. NOW, Safeway is fighting back, opening and remodeling Lifestyles stores that almost resemble Bob Mariano Dominick’s Fresh store and the customers are zooming back to Dominick’s. I think Federated has too much pride and arrogance to admit they are making a mistake and thus they will suffer in the long run.
In comparison and from what I have observed by visiting Macy’s stores nationally, they do not match up to the current feel and atmosphere that customers currently experience at Marshall Field’s.
From what I know, all the brand names and atmosphere that Field’s customers have come to know, are changing at the former Field’s stores as well as a brand name with HUGE equity. Not only are Field’s customers losing their Field’s identity, their Field’s stores are soon to be converted to a plain Vanilla Box with the Calvin Klein, DKNY, Hugo Boss, etc. brand names placed off in corners while INC and Alfani house names sit out in front on the sales floor. So, unlike the Dominick’s Safeway debacle, the name and products are both changing.
It’s a lose, lose for Chicago shoppers and for Macy’s!!!!!
A 4.5% decline in store traffic compared to the efficiencies that should be gained by the consolidation probably still represents a net “win” for Federated. While the majority of their merchandising and marketing programs should be national, Macy’s should have resources on the ground to respond to regional preferences and to develop low-risk initiatives such as the souvenir-type boutique areas found in their flagship store in NYC. Community outreach programs would also build goodwill.
I would also note that the increasing lack of variety and “local color” in the world of department stores does represent an opportunity for regional retailers to identify and cater to the unique tastes of their customer base.
Prior to the decision to rename all the Federated stores Macy’s, I thought the biggest retailing mistake of all times was to rename the Dayton’s stores Marshall Field’s. You would think they would have learned from that mistake! Solidifying Ben’s point about perceived change, the Minneapolis stores were still under the same ownership; they hadn’t even been bought out! Yet they lost market share and received hate mail and cut up charge cards from numerous former customers!
What happened in Ohio is a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen in Chicago. The handwriting is on the wall. Their customer has been screaming and yelling to tell them this is a wrong decision and in Chicago I would hazard to bet they have far more alternatives to shop than Columbus.
Company’s pay millions of dollars to learn about their customers opinions. Federated’s are overwhelmingly telling them for free, but they are refusing to listen.
What’s in a name? — whatever is behind it. Federated wants to label all of its stores “Macy’s.” That’s okay providing the “newly labeled Macy’s stores” will be better that the “old” Marshall Field’s, Lazurus, Rich and others to be affected.
Will there be a great improvement perceived by shoppers once the name Macy’s goes on? I doubt it and, if that is so, a lot of customer loyalists will complain because Federated took away a comfort blanket from their lives in exchange for a new name. Nostalgia can be compelling. But eventually the tide will subside and Macy’s stores will get supported to the extent its future offerings and service deserve. Thus, it’s what’s behind a name that really counts the most.
In recent years, the May Department Stores all started to look the same. Same store fixtures, same in-house brands. The exception is Marshall Field’s. They like to play up on the “Field’s” name–Field Gear, Field’s Afar, etc. I think this will be a problem.
Remember Ivy’s? The same type of customer reaction occurred when they became Dillard’s stores. However the effect was short lived because Americans love to shop and Dillard’s convinced them they were a good store.
It’s not as if there is an alternative for these consumers to switch their loyalties to.
One day there will be Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, JCPenney, Kohl’s and Wal-Mart only…? Perhaps.
I understand the importance in business to look for the best profitability for a company’s bottom line. With M&A being the fashionable thing in finance, companies like Federated are losing the basic consumer understanding, or paying attention to the consumer psyche!
Federated is diluting the Macy’s brand name. I travel throughout the US on business and “listening” to consumers on the street talk about the constant changes that take place in their landscape is the best education you can get on what the consumer (their customer) thinks and feels about it. Change is good, but sometimes it can be exhausting! There are not that many retailers left on the “shopping” landscape, and consumers just like the thought that they have the option to shop elsewhere; it is all psychological. Even if they are getting the same or a similar deal; for the consumer it is the thrill of comparison shopping!
Maybe one day companies will be able to translate this type of thinking into dollars and sense.
To Kroger’s credit, you didn’t see it change the supermarket companies’ names bought West of the Mississippi.
There is Brand Equity in very established local companies.
And, there are marketing ways to connect the Macy’s
acquisitions, under an umbrella, without changing their name.
Corporate egos………….did a no no, again. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Macy’s is in for a big shock in Chicago. I have not spoken to a single Chicagoan that thinks changing Marshall Field’s to Macy’s is a good idea. Very simply put, Macy’s is perceived as a lesser store than Field’s and in fact is. That is what is different than Hecht’s, the Bon, Burdines, etc. While I will admit that Field’s is not the store it was 40 years ago, it had enough cache that you could still bring a gift from Field’s to a wedding and feel good about it. Doubt that will be true for Macy’s, after all it is not the case in New York. The Field’s furniture department is easily the best of any department store in the country. I doubt there will be many Chicagoans who will be buying a $50,000 Baker dinning room set at Macy’s. The plan to restore the 28 Shop with a doorman and reopen the private elevator is admirable, but why would a woman buy at $5,000 designer dress at Macy’s? It will really wow them along Lake Shore Drive when you tell them you got it at Macy’s. Then of course there is the State Street building itself. Both Macy’s other two flagships (NY and SF) are at best utilitarian in their feeling and design. The experience of waking through the State Street store is so superior to any department store in NY, that their talk of upgrading it to a Macy’s is laughable. Even the Water Tower Place store will be one of the nicest Macy’s in the country until they begin to dumb it down as well.
I for one will be sad to see the little touches like quality shopping bags being replaced with thin Kmart like plastic bags. High end suppliers will begin flee within the year. (Why would Baccarat, Pink, Designers Guild, Levenger and Steuben want their names associated with a middle market store like Macy’s?) My prediction is that sales will be off so dramatically at State Street that there will be talk within a year of down sizing it to better serve the customers. Sad indeed.
ChitownShop has hit the nail on the head — The transition to Macy’s appears to lack traction with Field’s traditional core customer as Chitown illustrates. The writer is also correct concerning the merchandise, but it is no longer a matter of “if” some of the great brands depart, some already are departing and can now be found within easy walking distance at Nordstrom and Saks.
Changing Fields to Macy’s was a shock. It is the equilivent of telling those on the East side of Manhattan that Bloomingdale’s will now be known as Macy’s. I can just hear my mother’s “oy vey” cry at the thought of it. I don’t see anyone buying a $5k dress at Macy’s either.
I’ve read stories about Macy’s coming to some small towns. Maybe the local shoppers think they are getting a better store, I don’t know. They’re not getting Macy’s NY or Macys SF- they’re going to get the bland Federated vanilla that the rest of the country gets. I do not understand what the “new Macy’s” stores offer in places like DC, LA, NY State, New England, TX, etc. All of these people had Macy’s before and chose to shop at May/Hechts/Foley’s/L&T/etc., Saks, Nordstrom, etc., instead. I imagine that the former May/Hechts/Foley’s that have become Macy’s will soon be as messy and disorganized as the other Macy’s locations.
I think Federated should have converted surburban, run-of-the mill locations to Macy’s to create their “national brand.” Then they should have created a speciality division, creating upscale, niche stores- Field’s in Chicago and its close in burbs; Hecht Co in DC/Arlington/MD, JW Robinison in LA; etc.
If one takes the time to read and learn about the true GREAT retailers of the past — The Merchants– then you have to admit that what federated is doing makes sense in dollar terms but forgets what makes a Great store a Great store — The TRULY GREAT merchants of our country knew that special was an experience and a show –This was understood by John Wanamaker, Adam Gimbal, Marshall Field, The Strauss’s of Marcy’s – perhaps MORE than Rowland himself! – Benjamin Altman – Morris Rich – Stanley Marcus–I could go on and fill the page, however, the sad point is that Federated and Mr. Lundgren either forgot this or simply don’t care –Macy’s is Not a great store and what they are doing does NOT make a great store — they are creating a safe plain dependable boring store– They are recreating Penney’s and Kohl’s both of whom ALREADY nicely fill this need for the American public – AND Penney’s with its mix of moderate prices-smart in house brands (more affordable than Macy’s) – sales – and clean respectable store atmosphere is FAR SUPERIOR in comparison to Federated’s version. Field’s, from both an analytical as well as a real and personal experience viewpoint, was Far superior to ANYTHING Macy’s could hope to offer to the Chicago consumer and the Chicago consumer will be the last and true word on all of this debacle. And YES — the alternatives in Chicago are many and endless.
Would it have been so hard to produce smaller “by Macy’s” signage to hang below the regional brands Macy’s is “replacing”? This is a very successful marketing technique that has been used for years and completely avoids the “Coca-Cola” syndrome.
Macy’s: it’s not the name – it’s what’s inside. Not at all what I expected it to be. I agree with several of the previous comments; although Field’s wasn’t the Grand Field’s of the past, you could still find quality brands, specialty items, and distinctive service. At Macy’s (former Old Orchard Shopping Towne location) all I found were dumbed down displays, cheap clearance signs on everything, and too much house brand.
If I wanted inexpensive and mass market I would go to Target…now why should I ever go to Macy’s again?
Anyone who works in retail and THINKS he or she knows what the customer wants should read the blog at www.fieldfanschicago.org. The entries come from all over the U.S., not just Chicago, so in my opinion, it must be pretty representative of what the average American wants from a department store.
Christmas 2006 is over and Chicago has spoken. Talk is sales are down 30% (some people say 40%) at State Street and up to 50% at North Shore locations Lake Forest and Northbrook (really, did Macy’s think it could compete head to head with Nieman-Marcus and Lord & Taylor in a mall?). Blogs are filled with anecdotes about Christmas without Field’s. Macy’s hasn’t even been able to sell marked-down Frango mints. Anyone who thinks the drop in sales is just a hiccup doesn’t grasp the Chicago shopper. We’re digging our heels in further because we’d rather shop anywhere else but at Macy’s and we certainly have no shortage of choices. Look for Federated to dump a lot of real estate around Chicago in 2007. I trust VON MAUR is paying attention.
Macy’s did something that looks great on paper or an MBA case study but misses the bigger picture. Why DID they acquire these brands in the first place? Certainly not for the racks of clothes and leases!
In some markets, like Chicago, the loyalty is so great to the Marshall Field’s name and heritage that you lose stature and become just another new name. In other markets, like Charlotte, NC, where Macy’s took over Hecht’s, the general perception is probably positive, as the product line actually improves AND the consumer loyalty is not extremely high.
The more homogenized the world becomes, the more consumers will cling to these small bits of authenticity OR new ones will pop up.
Macy’s may have a big problem with this. Growing up in southern Ohio, my family and I always shopped at Lazarus and I can’t ever see us going to Macy’s…just because there’s that feeling of betraying our beloved Lazarus. Maybe it seems silly, but I think Macy’s is going to see that there is a pattern here in each city they have chosen to take over.