As the deal isn't going to be any more done than it is now as the name Field's comes off the stoes and Macy's (dare I say Macy*s?) goes up, I can't think of any more appropriate questions to ask than the following:

1. Is Macy's a New York store or a national store?

2. Are there any true "local" department stores out there today?

My answer: Macy's is a national chain, no different than Sears or Penny's in the sense that it doesn't rely on any one city to be its focus. Sure it started in New York, but Federated has operated it from Cincinnati for years. And many cities, such as San Francisco, have had Macy's for so long it seems home grown. Macy's is no more New York than was a Dayton Hudson run Marshall Field's, with Mpls HQ, the real Chicago. In essence, the only connection left to the grand old stores is (was) the names. Period.

Local department stores, and local specialty stoes, are as dead as a door knob. It didn't take Macy's to hammer in the last nail. They don't exist. The Carsons that will close its doors on State is so far removed in ownership and structure from the original Carson Pirie Scott that its hard to see a relationship at all. Rare was the local department store with the local name run differently than a corporation's chains in other cities, still operating under their local name. For years, Dayton Hudson ran Field's, Dayton's and Hudson's identically, only the names on the stores different (even the merchandise tags contained all three stores).

Marshall Field's, Carson Pirie Scott, Wieboldts, Boston Store, the Fair, Sears, Wards, Goldblatt's all lined State Street, a collection of department stores that no site in the world came close to equally. With the closing of Carsons and the conversion of Field's, not a one of those buildings will bear the name of the stores mentioned above (although a smaller version of Sears still precariously remains). We weren't shocked when Wiebolt's shut its doors, when the Fair became part of Wards, when Goldblatt's succumbed to the discounters. Why should we be surprised to see what happened to Field's and Carsons?

It's a different Chicago and a different State Street today. One would have to be insane to say it was a worse Chicago and a a worse State Street based on the changes to what were always the street's two shining lights and chief attractions: Marshall Field & Co. and Carson Pirie Scott & Co. Time didn't pass Chicago by, but it certainly did the grand age of department stores.

We'll survive.

I know we will, but will you?

FIELD'S FINAL DAYS
Hard-core fans stay loyal to brand
In Chicago, Marshall Field's devotees are planning rallies, cutting up Macy's credit cards and vowing never to shop at the stores again

By Sandra Jones
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 5, 2006

Gail Heriot is taking the demise of Marshall Field's to heart.

The California lawyer dug into her own pocket this summer, spending more than $2,000 to print and distribute 25,000 "Keep It Field's" lapel stickers to similar-minded Field's fans. She mailed thousands of decals from her home in San Diego and flew to Chicago last month to hand out more near Field's State Street flagship--slated, along with the rest of Field's 61 department stores, to become Macy's on Saturday.

Few brands have inspired such a public outcry. But every once in a while folks who might never attend a political protest or campaign fundraiser rally together when a favorite product is taken away.

It happened with the Ford Motor Co.'s Thunderbird, and twice to the king of brands Coca-Cola Co. with Coke and Tab colas.

The prospect of losing a beloved soda or car can strike deep for true fans. To them, the loss seems terribly unfair and unreasonable, and they don't take it sitting down.

"Part of what drives people to rally or protest is when they feel there is a big power or corporate behemoth behind it," said David Ruder, managing director of Chicago-based risk assessment firm Adaptive Alpha LLC. "It's not just that something is going away, it's being taken away. The only power they have left is to protest."

With Field's, a relentless chorus of disenchanted shoppers has voiced its objections ever since owner Federated Department Stores Inc. disclosed its decision in September 2005 to mothball the Field's name along with about a dozen other regional department store names in an attempt to create a national brand.

In Chicago, Field's devotees are planning rallies, cutting up Macy's credit cards and vowing never to shop at the stores.

"It's been hard to explain to Californians, but I love Marshall Field's," said Heriot. "Some people love baseball teams. I love Marshall Field's."

Heriot developed her affection for Field's while living in Chicago for a decade after college. She has also lived in Washington, D.C., home of Hecht's, which Federated is also converting to Macy's. And she has lived in Philadelphia and shopped at Wanamaker, before it became Hecht's. But neither store struck a spark with her the way Field's did.

"Marshall Field's is special for a lot of reasons," she said. "It's unusual for a department store to be so intertwined with a great city."

On the day the name changes, a grass-roots organization called FieldsFansChicago is planning to rally at 9:30 a.m. at the corner of State and Washington Streets outside the Field's flagship.

Since founding the organization through a Web log, or blog, in November, James McKay says there have been thousands of posts from disgruntled Field's shoppers. McKay has never organized a rally and "sometimes feels like kind of a nut" as the reluctant leader of the Field's fans. But as the pressure built from the blog's posters to hold a rally, he stepped up. Changing the Field's name to Macy's is like calling the New York Yankees the Chicago Yankees or Wrigley Field Shea Stadium, McKay said.

Pat Craven, another fan, joined McKay in making 150 T-shirts inscribed with the motto "Chicago Shops at ... Marshall Field's (not Macy's)" and selling them for $20 through the FieldsFansChicago.org Web site and for up to $45 on eBay.

Craven hopes to convince a group of friends to ride their motorcycles to State Street and circle the Field's store wearing the T-shirts and carrying signs to protest the name change.

"We're standing up as free Americans exercising our right to say we are mad about the change," Craven said. "Field's is Chicago and Macy's has always been New York. My feeling is they don't care what the customer wants."

Macy's, for its part, is taking the dissent in stride and banking that once the name is changed, shoppers will discover that they like Macy's after all.

Frank Guzzetta, chairman of Macy's North, the Minneapolis-based division that operates Marshall Field's and other stores in the upper Midwest, estimates less than 1 percent of the Field's credit card holders have sent back their Macy's cards so far. Almost all of the complaints have come from the Chicago area, he said.

Guzzetta read and responded to most of the angry letters and in about 30 cases said he called customers himself.

Macy's isn't taking anything away, he said, but simply changing the name. The building, traditions and merchandise assortment will remain "fundamentally" the same, he said.

"When customers come to the store and see that we have what they want and see that they like it, that's the only way to win loyalty," Guzzetta said. "There are probably a number of people who won't give us a shot because to them it was about the name. It's not rational, it's emotional, and I can't change people's emotions. Our wish is the next generation will become emotionally attached to Macy's."

Such intense emotional attachment to a brand name is hard to come by, but when it happens, it's powerful. The quintessential example, say brand experts, is the New Coke marketing blunder in the 1980s.

Coca-Cola was losing out in blind taste tests to PepsiCo. Inc.'s sweeter Pepsi and feared losing market share to its No. 2 rival. So Coca-Cola shelved Coke and came out with New Coke, a sweeter recipe that beat Pepsi in blind taste tests.

Coke drinkers rebelled. Even though a new set of blind taste tests proved consumers still preferred the sweeter recipe of New Coke, their attachment to the old brand remained. A grassroots group formed claiming 100,000 members in a call to bring back the old Coke.

Coca-Cola reported receiving 1,500 calls a day to its consumer hotline, more than triple the typical rate. Eventually, Coca-Cola brought back the old formula under Coke Classic and shelved New Coke for good.

Similarly, thousands of Tab lovers called and wrote Coca-Cola in the 1980s when it changed the formula of the hip '70s cola in the pink can. Coca-Cola eventually relented.

Car lovers did the same with the Thunderbird a decade ago. Ford stopped production in 1998 because of declining sales but brought the car back three years later amid consumer outcry. It finally retired the model last year.

"Brand equity takes years and years and years to fully develop and flourish," said Torrey Foster, managing partner at Heidrick & Struggles' global consumer practice in Chicago. "A brand can't be created overnight and it can't be killed overnight."

----------

smjones@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Federated hopes to convince customers that Macy's change is good
LISA CORNWELL
Associated Press
CINCINNATI - The original Marshall Field's - a name as synonymous with Chicago as Filene's is with Boston and Kaufmann's is with Pittsburgh - is about to switch to the Macy's nameplate, and longtime customer Bob Gottlieb is down about it.

"Marshall Field's is a venerable name in Chicago," said Gottlieb, of Deerfield, Ill., as he left the store in downtown Chicago this week. "It's too bad."

Gottlieb is not alone in his disappointment. Even Federated Department Stores Inc., Macy's Cincinnati-based parent company, acknowledges that the change of more than 400 stores to the Macy's brand will be difficult for patrons accustomed to shopping those stores under different signs.

But the nation's largest department store retailer is confident it can convince customers of Marshall Field's and the other stores that the change will benefit them.

"We will be able to provide better products and a better shopping experience," Federated spokesman Jim Sluzewski said. "Our research has consistently shown that it's the merchandise, service and shopping environment that make the difference."

Federated announced Wednesday that it is launching its biggest promotional campaign as it prepares for the official conversion Saturday of stores acquired when Federated purchased May Department Stores Co. last year.

"Our advertising will drive home the message that Macy's has the latest fashions, an exciting shopping experience and values that appeal to consumers who love to shop," said Anne MacDonald, president of Macy's Corporate Marketing and the company's chief marketing officer.

The switchover of the stores will be marked by block parties, ribbon-cutting ceremonies and gift-card giveaways. On Thursday, the company will start advertising online, on TV and radio and in newspapers, magazines, and billboards.

The company also will send 54-page catalogs to 3.8 million people in markets new to Macy's as part of its efforts to build a nationwide brand while luring customers of the former May stores that include such longtime retailing names as Foley's, Filene's, Kaufmann's, Robinson-May, Strawbridges and Marshall Field's.

"I think people are used to what they had in the past and it takes time to adapt, but ultimately they do," said Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys Inc., a New York-based customer research marketing firm. "No one likes to see icons disappear, but the real test of a brand and its ability to engage customers is whether it's making money and people are shopping there."

Kurt Barnard, president of Barnard's Retail Consulting Group in Nutley, N.J., thinks that the Macy's campaign will mute most of the protest.

"What they have to be careful about is merchandising strategies," Barnard said. "They need to be sure that what they come up with will meet with customers' approval."

The switch to the Macy's nameplate will give Federated more than 800 Macy's stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Shares of Federated were down 21 cents to close Wednesday at $39.03 on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares have traded between $28.78 and $39.70 in the past year.

Federated completed the $11 billion buyout of May in August 2005. Its plan for a national retail strategy for Macy's began before that as it changed its regional department store nameplates - including Bon Marche, Burdines, Goldsmith's, Lazarus and Rich's - to the Macy's brand.

"Across the country, it's no secret that they have upset some consumers by bringing in the Macy's name, but this campaign is saying that time marches on and here is an opportunity to bring shoppers some fabulous products as a nationwide brand," said Jim Dion, founder and president of the Chicago-based retail consulting firm Dionco Inc.

Gottlieb says he understands that Macy's can make advertising dollars go farther with a single name, but that doesn't mean he has to completely accept the change.

"I'll just call it Field's," he said.

---
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/15455063.htm

I walked past Marshall Fields on State yesterday and saw the Macy's on State signs. It feels weird and strangely not right.

I agree with the above post.

Macy's executives have said that critics "don't understand" the reality of the situation.

It might turn out that Macy's executives don't understand the reality of Chicagoans potentially not shopping at the Macy's on State Street.

Some respected retailing consultants have stated that Macy's may be making a revenue-plunging mistake in changing the name, especially that of the State Street Store.

Anyway, to add one more insult to the whole thing, Macy's now has a national TV commercial spotlighting its new role as a national chain. The commercial uses the song "Dancing in the Streets," the second verse of which is:

They'll be dancin' in Chicago
Down in New Orleans
In New York City
All we need is music
Sweet music
etc.....

Guess what? Here are the altered lyrics on the Macy's commerical:

They'll be dancin' in St. Louis
(Gateway Arch shown behind dancers)
Down in New Orleans
etc.....

Are these commercial makers the same guys as the photo editors who trimmed 30 pounds off Katie Couric?

Who knows what the next few years holds for the Macy's on State Street?

If shoppers don't materialize, the building will stay. It's an official landmark. The building could be used by another store (or stores) if this Macy's isn't successful. I won't feel a bit sad it that happens.

Anyway, for anyone who wishes to express themselves about the change, there is a rally this Saturday, as noted in the Tribune article above.

Here is the information that I found on the website www.fieldsfanschicago.org


IT'S ALL ABOUT CHICAGO PRIDE!
Keep it Field's—Keep it Chicago!

9:30 am, Saturday, September 9, 2006
(Field's Fans should start gathering at 9:00 am)
111 N. State St, Chicago starting at the State & Washington Clock

Wear your Marshall Field's Best or something dark green (please no profane t-shirts).
Bring signs and placards with Field's slogans.
Carry a Field's Shopping Bag.
Carry a City of Chicago Flag.
Please be peaceable and dignified in the spirit of Marshall Field's.
Please do not obstruct traffic.
Please do not stand in or block the street.
Check back for last minute news or email ChicagoPride@fieldsfanschicago.org to be on our list.

:

I am bumping this because I want everyone to know about the rally tomorrow morning.

As I mentioned before, our city will not suffer if the Macy's on State Street goes under.

That building can be reborn as something else if Macy's doesn't make it. At the very least, there needs to be consequences for actions such as those taken by Macy's.

If Macy's makes it, that's OK. I won't mourn forever. I plan to enjoy the time with some fellow Chicago fans tomorrow morning.

It's hard to believe that tomorrow the Field's name will be gone forever.

But while I won't shop there anymore, I don't think Macy's failure at State Street would be positive either. There are very few department stores left that would take such a huge space, and most of those are probably outside the US anyway.

as the guy who started the thread, it's clear I believe that the Field's/Macy's issue was probably not as great as we first thought, that things change and we will survive.

I do.

But I will tell you this:

if the shoe were on the other foot, and Bloomingdale's or Macy's were going to be converted to Marshall Field's,

1. New York would have gone through the roof.

2. And the deal would have been called off.

3. No doubt about it.

So, yes, we'll make it through this transiton....but this is definitely a case where the playing field between Chicago and New York is not exactly even.

A few of us who post regularly in this forum were at the protest earlier today. It was very spirited and well-attended.

It went on for three hours. Over 160 people, the majority in green, were standing, chanting, circling the block, and having a good time. I personally counted 117 marching around the block but the organizers said they gave out over 160 flags to attendees.

A lot of people came and went during the three hours so it is hard to have an exact number of attendees.

I have already seen news reports on four of Chicago's local TV stations. Also, there are already Associated Press reports and Reuters news reports about the protest on the websites of newspapers and television stations all over the country.

Below is the Associated Press story. It's on a lot of sites around the country. The link below is to the Houston Chronicle's site.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4174857.html

^ Great article. But that Michael Moran guy, his commentary was WAY OFF BASE!! ;)

I saw that Macy's commercial, and I couldn't believe they cut Chicago out of it...

I don't think Chicago and Macy's will be a very fruitful relationship...

From the Sun-Times

Protesters wear green, see red

September 10, 2006

BY RUMMANA HUSSAIN Staff Reporter


It's not easy being green.

That's what 200 faithful Marshall Field's shoppers learned Saturday as they watched the iconic Chicago institution officially transform into Macy's in spite of their protests and vows to never step foot in the department store.

"I hate to see Chicago lose something that helps it be a city and not just a collection of streets," said 66-year-old Diane DiGregorio, who traveled four hours by car and train from Downstate Lowell to attend the demonstration at the State Street flagship store. "They destroyed something wonderful for no reason."

While hundreds of Macy's customers lined up early for the inauguration inside, the diverse group of protesters -- many in Marshall Field's signature green -- mourned the loss of their beloved store outside on the sidewalk.

'Just the beginning'

None of the loyalists were comforted with Macy's promise to keep the flagship Field's historic nameplate, Walnut Room, holiday window displays and Great Tree.

And they weren't buying Mayor Daley's assertion that the Federated Department Stores' acquisition of Marshall Field's is only a "name change."

"This is just the beginning of changes to come. I say stop it now," flight attendant Kent Kzeski, 41, said, marching with his 7-year-old daughter Alexandra.

The group waved small Chicago flags and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" in a nod to what they said is Field's prominent role in the city and the United States.

"Two, four, six, eight, Marshall Field's is really great. One, two, three, four, we won't shop here anymore," they chanted, holding "Boycott Macy's, Field's is Chicago" signs.

A few in the crowd held posters that read "Hell No, Not My Dough" and "Macy's, Way to Slop." One woman hoisted a sign that paid homage to Field's trademark slogan: "Give the Lady What She Wants and She Wants Marshall Field's."

Protest co-organizer Paul Fine said it was a disgrace that Marshall Field's was "downgrading" into a retail operation where designers like Prada, Dolce & Gabbana and Miu Miu are not available.

"It's like someone from Chicago going to London and into Harrods and making it a JCPenney and then saying, 'Deal with it,' said Fine, a 32-year-old attorney and DePaul University adjunct law professor.

"Macy's is not as sophisticated and classy as Marshall Field's," agreed Erick Johnson, a 38-year-old engineer from Morton Grove.

Daley: 'Life has to go on'

Macy's threw out the welcome mat for its new Windy City clients Saturday with workers handing out doughnut holes and coffee to all customers and $10 gifts cards to the first few hundred walking through the door. A jazz quintet entertained shoppers as they browsed State Street's latest addition. A few blocks away, Daley called Macy's a "great corporate citizen."

Traditionalists keen on keeping Field's simply have to move forward, he said at the dedication ceremony of the new green rooftop garden at the Chicago Cultural Center.

"If we stay in the past, America would never be where it is today. ... Life has to go on," the mayor said.

But Jose Tovar sees things differently. To him, Marshall Field's was a magical place where his low-income parents would shop for him and his two brothers on special occasions like birthdays and graduations.

"It was where we'd come to feel rich for a day," the 30-year-old Northwest Side pipe fitter said, holding up a sign. "I feel like a part of our childhood has been taken away."

Contributing: AP

From the Tribune

FAREWELL TO FIELD'S
Field's green fades to red
Nostalgic shoppers snatch almost anything with the famed name and logo from shelves, trying to stop time and buy some memories

By Sandra Jones
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 9, 2006

Tote bags, mugs, key chains, tumblers, trays, coasters and the collectible clock. Just about anything with the Marshall Field's name was selling fast on Friday.

In its last hours as a Marshall Field's, nostalgic Chicagoans poured into the store's Vintage shop at the State Street flagship, purchasing all manner of Field's souvenirs in hopes of holding on to a piece of the 154-year-old emporium that for generations embodied Chicago.

After surviving the Chicago Fire, the Great Depression, the Great Chicago Flood and five separate owners, Marshall Field's disappears Saturday from the Chicago landscape and officially becomes Macy's.

It's a makeover that Macy's owner says must happen in order to revive the department store as a shopping destination. But it's one that many Chicagoans have lamented, characterizing the New York store's takeover of a Chicago landmark as an affront to Chicago's identity.

Laurie McGovern, who works in the Loop, stopped into the store for what she expects to be the last time in order to buy a $50 Field's collectible clock, the most popular item on the floor, according to Field's officials. McGovern had already given a clock to her retired aunt, a former Field's employee, as a memento. On Friday, she decided she needed one for herself as well.

"I have a lot of great memories here with my grandmother and my mother and my aunt," said McGovern, who said she wouldn't shop at the store once it changes over to Macy's. "I've always shopped at Field's. I want a little piece of the memories I've had here."

The seventh-floor Field's souvenir outpost was packed with shoppers all day, keeping sales associates busy restocking merchandise. One sales associate, who asked not be named, said he had never seen so much elbowing and shoving among shoppers worried there were no more souvenirs to be had.

But there were. And they kept coming. Several sales associates said the Field's clocks and the tote bags were moving as fast as they could get them on the floor.

By the end of the day, most of the stock, including tote bags with the store's signature saying "give the lady what she wants," was gone.

The Frango mint department was swarmed as well, as shoppers stocked up on Frango boxes that sported the Marshall Field's name.

Macy's will continue to make Frangos, but will no longer put the Marshall Field's name on the boxes. The existing stock of Frangos with the Field's name is expected to last at least another few weeks, said Macy's spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara.

Mother and daughter Ruth and Barb Wendel have been shopping at the State Street store for several years and came downtown from the Western suburbs Friday just to experience Field's one last time. With most of the Field's merchandise gone, the women bought three boxes of Frangos. They plan to use the containers as jewelry boxes.

"I am very sad," said Barb, the daughter. "I came here every Christmas to the Walnut Room. Each year my father would bring each of us down to the Walnut Room and the toy department and each of us got to pick out a toy."

Megan McKeon, a native Chicagoan whose arms were filled with Field's coasters, key chains and other merchandise, was taking photos of the changes with her cell phone and sending the photos to her mother in Schaumburg.

"It's kind of sad, but it's not going to make me stop shopping here," she said.

The souvenir shop at State Street will remain after the conversion. Similar Field's memorabilia is available at other former Field's stores including those in Oak Brook, Lake Forest and at Water Tower Place in Chicago.

More than 400 regional department stores nationwide will officially become Macy's, expanding the New York chain to more than 800 stores nationwide. Besides the Field's names, other longtime regional brands will also be mothballed, including Boston's Filene's, Houston's Foley's and Los Angeles' Robinson-May.

The decision by Macy's owner Federated Department Stores, which acquired Field's and several other regional stores through its acquisition of May Cos., comes as people have left behind traditional department stores for Target, Kohl's and J.C. Penney, among others.

Now unified under one brand, Federated hopes that Macy's will have the marketing and buying power to compete more effectively on price as well as merchandise.

"We look at this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Federated Chairman Terry Lundgren told investors Wednesday at the Goldman Sachs Global Retailing Conference in New York. "We intend to bring affordable luxury and fashion to America with this launch."

Macy's, which had eyed State Street before taking over Field's, plans to host a series of events on Saturday, literally rolling out the red carpet at State Street and bringing the Macy's parade to Woodfield Shopping Center in Schaumburg.

The retailer is handing out gift cards to the first 500 shoppers to arrive at all the Macy's stores starting at 9 a.m. All but one of the cards given away at each store will be valued at $10. One card at each store will be worth $1,000.

Remembering Marshall Field's
A Look Back At The Legendary Store Name As It Vanishes
Get breaking news alerts
(CBS) CHICAGO It became official on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 9 – the legendary Marshall Field’s name is but a memory.

The State Street flagship remains, with its iconic clock, the Walnut Room, and the windows that feature intricate craftsmanship during the holidays, but they are all now part of Macy's.

In this edition of the Vault, we look back at some of the people who worked and shopped at Marshall Field’s, and we hear Mayor Richard M. Daley’s comments from when the State Street store’s candy kitchen closed six years ago.

Marshall Field’s start in downtown Chicago goes back to the 1852 opening of a dry goods store by businessman Potter Palmer. Four years later, a young man named Marshall Field joined Palmer in the dry goods business, and later bought it out with partner Levi Leiter, according to the Web site Jazz Age Chicago.

Field and Leiter moved their store in 1868 to its current location at State and Washington streets. The original building was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, and a replacement structure built on the same site also burned down two years later. But a third building was constructed between 1893 and 1915. That building is the legendary flagship store, at 111 N. State St.

Marshall Field’s became the first American department store to start a European buying office, open a dining room restaurant in-store, and start a bridal registry, according to the former Marshall Field’s Web site. Field’s own name is seen across the city – most notably at the Field Museum – and the John G. Shedd Aquarium is named for one of Field’s successors at the store.

Field’s later expanded throughout the suburbs, beginning in the late 1920s with branches in Evanston and Oak Park. Those stores both closed at the end of 1986, but dozens of others were opened in malls throughout the suburbs, and later in other states.

Dayton Hudson, later renamed Target, purchased Marshall Field’s in 1990, and in turn sold it to Macy’s parent company Federated in 2004. Just before the Macy’s name change, the Marshall Field’s name was attached to 61 stores in seven states, including another flagship in Minneapolis.

Until the very end, Field’s ran commercials with catchy jingles for two-day and 13-hour sales. And on some occasions, they even held a sale offering mannequins and other display props.

But like any other major retail chain, Marshall Field’s was the subject of an occasional controversy.

One of Field’s most beloved traditions was Frango mints, which for decades were made in a candy kitchen high atop the State Street store. When former CBS 2 reporter Bob Wallace visited the kitchen in 1979, most of the candy was still made by hand, with the confectioners working by taste and feel.

But 20 years later, in March 1999, Field’s closed their candy kitchen and moved production of Frango mints to Pennsylvania. That left many Chicagoans furious, including Mayor Daley.

“This is the candy capital of the United States,” Daley said at the time. “You cannot find a candy company here to make Frango mints? This is the candy capital of the United States right here, in Chicago. Why do you have to go someplace else?”

But as part of the Macy’s takeover, a return of Frango mint production to Chicago is still being pursued.

"We are actively pursing a candy company or factory (in the Chicago area) that can produce our Frango mints," said Macy's public relations manager Andrea Schwartz.

Further, the mints are being sold nationwide.

Field’s is not the only department store name that is vanishing in favor of Macy’s. Elsewhere in the country, Hecht's, Foley's, and Filene's, among others, have also changed names.

What is now the Macy's store at 111 N. State St. is the second largest department store in the country. The first is the Macy's flagship store at Herald Square in New York City.
http://cbs2chicago.com/vault/local_story_252085543.html

To everyone who would like to see the Marshall Field's green colors and the Marshall Field's name restored to the State Street Store, please write a Letter to the Editor.

Please be sure to write in your letter that you support the boycott of Macy's stores. Also, include your address and telephone number after your name at the end of your letter.

You can Email your Letter to the Editor to the Tribune at:

ctc-TribLetter@tribune.com

You can send a similar Letter to the Editor to the Sun-Times at:

letters@suntimes.com

Thank you!!!

Seattle's Bon Marche became Bon Macy's and now it's just Macy's. Do they have those posters in the window that say something like "Chicago knows how to shop"? I can't remember the exact phrase, but there's a panorama of major city landmarks from East to West. It is now a national brandname store, just like JC Penney's, Sears and Target. The only other non-New York based or related department stores I can think of that are still headquartered in their original home cities are Neiman-Marcus and Nordstrom. I'm sure there are others, but none come to mind. Oh, and I'm making my first visit to Chicago, next month. Can't wait to see your great city and yes, I will be stopping by the landmark State Street building. It's hard to lose an icon of your city, we did lose a part of Boeing to Chicago, but life shuffles on.

I'm not from Chicago, so I don't have the emotional attachment, but I find the whole uproar a bit curious. Up here in Green Bay, for decades the local, downtown department store was Prange's. Eventually, Prange's sold out and became a Younker's. I suppose Younker's colud have kept the Prange's name, but that wouldn't really make much sense. It was a loss up here, but I'd blame those who ran Prange's and sold out (they probably would have closed eventually if they didn't) as much as the folks from Younker's who bought the store and were just doing their best to run their business successfully.

When I hear about Field's closing, I don't blame Macy's. They bought a whole chain, and it makes sense for them to change to one name and have a national brand. It's a better business decision, even if the State St. location closed, to change the name than to market for two brands. Macy's has no obligation to preserve the Field's name. If there's any one to be mad at, isn't it the people who sold Field's down the river to Macy's?

It's sad to lose an iconic name. But it seems odd to me to protest against the buyer when all their doing is trying to run a store in Chicago and maximize profit. This is the world we live in today.

I'm not from Chicago, so I don't have the emotional attachment, but I find the whole uproar a bit curious. Up here in Green Bay, for decades the local, downtown department store was Prange's. Eventually, Prange's sold out and became a Younker's. I suppose Younker's colud have kept the Prange's name, but that wouldn't really make much sense. It was a loss up here, but I'd blame those who ran Prange's and sold out (they probably would have closed eventually if they didn't) as much as the folks from Younker's who bought the store and were just doing their best to run their business successfully.

When I hear about Field's closing, I don't blame Macy's. They bought a whole chain, and it makes sense for them to change to one name and have a national brand. It's a better business decision, even if the State St. location closed, to change the name than to market for two brands. Macy's has no obligation to preserve the Field's name. If there's any one to be mad at, isn't it the people who sold Field's down the river to Macy's?

It's sad to lose an iconic name. But it seems odd to me to protest against the buyer when all their doing is trying to run a store in Chicago and maximize profit. This is the world we live in today.

Dan, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response but let me disagree. It is not odd to protest against Federated about the loss of the Marshall Field's name from the State Street store. That store was actually doing well under the Target ownership. In fact, the Marshall Field's stores in the Chicago area were doing fine. There was no need for "rescue," especially when that rescue was simply the killing of a terrific civic asset, the Marshall Field's State Street Store.

I have been in plenty of other cities and I can tell you that the tradition and emotional attachment of Chicagoans to the State Street store far exceeds the attachments of citizens in other cities to their downtown anchors. That is a fact and you would have to live here in Chicago to understand it.

Dumping the Marshall Field's name and colors from State Street would be as if Marshall Field's went to the Macy's Store in New York and converted it to a Marshall Field's. It trashes a local icon and a potential source of enjoyment for future generations. Preserving the Marshall Field's name and colors on State Street is about the FUTURE, and that is a very important point.

As far as the change to Macy's being a good "business decision," that might be correct for the suburban stores, but I don't think so. Marshall Field's has a much better reputation, especially for higher quality goods, than does Macy's.

At State Street, Federated's chances are even worse. You can be sure that sales there are going to plummet. It seems that Federated is going to learn the hard way that converting the State Street Store will be a very bad "business decision."

I am supporting the boycott, because the State Street Store can come back with the Marshall Field's name. If Macy's goes under and Federated, for some reason, refuses to switch the name back and the colors back, then the State Street building will be reborn in another function. Thus, to anyone reading this, please do not think you are hurting State Street by boycotting Macy's.

The Macy's people tried to woo me with candy today on State Street. I just kept on walking...

NearNorthGuy, thanks for the response, I can see why Chicagoans mourn the loss of the local brand, but let me put my question another way, I'll use an analogy to make my point.

My uncle works for Breyer's/Good Humor. Some time ago Breyer's bought Ben and Jerry's. To the people in Vermont, especially the employees, Ben and Jerry were highly revered. Evidently they'd give people extra days off and do things to treat their employees and the community really well. So Breyer's buys the brand, and implement their existing corporate practices in the Vermont facility. People didn't lose their jobs, and the new practices weren't unfair, but people were really upset with Breyer's for the changes. The thing is, all Breyer's did was buy a brand from a willing seller. The former ownership of Ben and Jerry's made millions (as is their right) selling the company... selling all these poeple who looked up to them down the river for a pile of cash (again, it was their company to sell). So, my uncle never understood why the folks in Vermont gave a pass to the owners who sold them down the river, but were angry with the company that just tried to run their business for the maximum profit and in the process bought an available brand.

In the same way, people are mad at Macy's, but all they did was buy an available brand and apply their business practices (rebranding the Field's stores) to their new property. The previous ownership took the successful store that was an important symbol for the people in Chicago and sold all you guys down the river. It seems to me that if Chicagoans should be mad at someone, it would be the previous ownership who cashed in on your loyalty, and not Macy's who is just running a business and bought an available brand. Where's the boycott of Target?

Heck, if people want to boycott in hopes that Macy's will cave and sell the State St. store or revive the Field's brand, go for it. My guess is that in the long run the State St. location will be profitable, and even if it's not Macy's will view any loss as worthwhile because there is value in the cachet of that location.

Good luck to y'all. I wish the Field's brand would still be around too, much as I wish we in Green Bay still had our Prange's, but I guess times change.

^ It's not so much about the "brand" as it is just the Field's name. It's just been for so long one of the iconic Chicago things. Macy's crime is in treating it merely as a business decision and not seeing how much attachment Chicagoans have to the name. I'm not so sure what is comparable to this, though. Maybe renaming Times Square? It's just unhappy situation where something treasured by the collective Chicago identity has been destroyed. It's really not a big mystery.

Very interesing discussion. However, what happened in Vermont and what happened with Prange's are each different from what is going to happen with Macy's.

What has happened, especially with the State Street Store, is that many Chicagoans will simply not shop at Macy's. Furthermore, Macy's is dragging the former Field's buildings down to what retailers call the middle market, where the former Field's/now Macy's stores will get wallopped by Target and others.

At the same time, Macy's (actually, Federated) is throwing away (1) all of their upmarket customers and (2) all of their loyal-to-Field's-only customers.

Also, Dan, you are talking about the inevitability of companies making decisions that are good for business. I am hitting that same point, but with coming to the conclusion that the Marshall Field's extinction strategy by Macy's, at least at the State Street Store, was a very BAD business decision.

Chicago losing Marshall Fields is simply not parallel to other cities losing their anchors. We are at the beginning of low revenue for Macy's in the Chicago market, especially on State Street.

I again ask all readers here to support the boycott of Macy's stores. Any loss of sales at Macy's will mean a well-deserved increase in sales at other stores, with the associated benefits to employees at those stores. So do not feel the least bit guilty about staying away from Macy's. Thanks!

Very interesing discussion. However, what happened in Vermont and what happened with Prange's are each different from what is going to happen with Macy's.

What has happened, especially with the State Street Store, is that many Chicagoans will simply not shop at Macy's. Furthermore, Macy's is dragging the former Field's buildings down to what retailers call the middle market, where the former Field's/now Macy's stores will get wallopped by Target and others.

At the same time, Macy's (actually, Federated) is throwing away (1) all of their upmarket customers and (2) all of their loyal-to-Field's-only customers.

Also, Dan, you are talking about the inevitability of companies making decisions that are good for business. I am hitting that same point, but with coming to the conclusion that the Marshall Field's extinction strategy by Macy's, at least at the State Street Store, was a very BAD business decision.

Chicago losing Marshall Fields is simply not parallel to other cities losing their anchors. We are at the beginning of low revenue for Macy's in the Chicago market, especially on State Street.

I again ask all readers here to support the boycott of Macy's stores. Any loss of sales at Macy's will mean a well-deserved increase in sales at other stores, with the associated benefits to employees at those stores. So do not feel the least bit guilty about staying away from Macy's. Thanks!

Chicago losing Marshall Fields is simply not parallel to other cities losing their anchors.

May I add "in the history of retailing" to the above. It's true. No city had the relationship with its premiere department store as Chicago did with Marshall Field's. And if you factor in Field's role in developing the department store concept and the importance of the city in which it was located (in particular, it's late 19th and 20th centuries histories), there is no parallel to Chicago losing Field's.

However, Near North, I think you might be gettng something of what you want but not the way you think you are going to get it.

The boycott won't work. We're a diverse population and there are a lot of people who don't care about the change of nameplates. Also, even diapponted Chicagoans may give Macy's a shot. But what I think will happen is, after this initial hoopla is over, is that Macy's doesn't deliver anything special to the market, underlying feelings about the name change do not go away, and Chicago ends up being a poor Macy's market and a big mistake for Federated.

To start with, the company truly hurt itself with the convesion of the huge State Street store to Macy's. They've eliminated it as a destination for Chicagoans drawn by tradition and for tourists the chance to visit Marshall Field's. This is too big a store to operate without those factors.

Meanwhile from the two (State & WTP) downtown locations to throughout the suburban area, Macy's doesn't appear to be offering anything very special to the customer and the ill will it generated cannot and will not go away. So despite the closing of Carsons on State, many in suburbia (where the differences between the two chains will be somewhat flattened) will choose Carsons over Macys. C&B will increase its dominace in home furnishings over Fields-turned-Macy's and lifestyle centers (and others that carry their type of stores) will run rings around Macy's in clothing and other areas as well.

My sense is that Chicagoans will go from "I'm mad" to "Give it a peak" to ulimately "Why bother" on the whole Macy's issue.

To edsg25, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, I have to respond to your prediction that "...The boycott won't work."

I would reply that this issue is far, far from over. If Macy's receipts are terrible, as they likely will be at State Street, then the issue of the name will certainly be revisited.

Regarding pessimism in civic causes, remember that there have been many urban planning and neighborhood development issues in Chicago that were considered "done deals." However, neighborhood groups and otherwise uninvolved individuals stepped forward, worked tirelessly, and turned the whole situation around. I have seen it with my own eyes in many neighborhoods, having helped with some of these efforts.

It starts with committed individuals like the leaders of fieldsfanschicago.org (by the way, I am not one of those organizers but an admirer of them) and with citizens, like many of us, who will stick with the fight.

I have learned that when someone says, about a sensible action, "it won't work," that is exactly the time to start working harder. Because when you win, the victory is that much sweeter.

Please tell your family and friends to support the boycott.

Hmmm, I think there's kind of parallel arguments going on here.

From the Chicago perspective, I couldn't agree more that the impact of Marshall Field's on the city and the relationship between the two is different and greater than that between a city and a retailer in almost any other city. I am absolutly not debating that, because it's true. My preference in all of this is that Chicagoans can bring the Field's name back to State, as that is a Chicago institution.

However, from Macy's perspective, the comparisons between Field's and the examples I've use of Ben and Jerry's and Prange's are much more valid. In essence, Macy's doesn't care about Chicago (this is obvious). They care about executing their business plan, and by their calculations they'll save hundreds of millions from consolidating the operations into one brand. Much of this savings is from marketing costs, so consolidating the brand names is neccessary to achieve the savings they're planning for.

Now, Macy's business plan may be crap. But they're looking at this from a national perspective and gambling that any loss of revenue in Chicago will be made up by savings from the single brand nationwide. It's thier business and their right to run it how they want.

That leaves me with two questions, one of which has been partially answered and one that I haven't seen addressed:

Question 1: Given that Macy's is a non-Chicago business with a national plan, and given that Field's was bought from a willing seller, does Macy's have a moral obligation to retain the Field's name for the benefit of Chicago? I say no, even if chaging the name is a bad decision long term, as it's their business to run.

Question 2: Doesn't the seller (Target) deserve at least an equal portion of the blame here? After all, they did just make a big chunk of change from selling Field's down the river to May, ultimatly profiting from Chicago's loyalty to the brand name.

To edsg25, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, I have to respond to your prediction that "...The boycott won't work."

I would reply that this issue is far, far from over. If Macy's receipts are terrible, as they likely will be at State Street, then the issue of the name will certainly be revisited.

Regarding pessimism in civic causes, remember that there have been many urban planning and neighborhood development issues in Chicago that were considered "done deals." However, neighborhood groups and otherwise uninvolved individuals stepped forward, worked tirelessly, and turned the whole situation around. I have seen it with my own eyes in many neighborhoods, having helped with some of these efforts.

It starts with committed individuals like the leaders of fieldsfanschicago.org (by the way, I am not one of those organizers but an admirer of them) and with citizens, like many of us, who will stick with the fight.

I have learned that when someone says, about a sensible action, "it won't work," that is exactly the time to start working harder. Because when you win, the victory is that much sweeter.

Please tell your family and friends to support the boycott.

needless to say, I'd be absolutely delighted to be proven wrong on this one!

Last hurdle for Macy's signs

3 groups oppose 2 lighted signs at zoning board meeting

By Tony C. Yang
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 16, 2006

Chicago's skyline--it may be a changin'.

Marshall Field's recent transformation into Macy's is complete, but some downtown residents think that Macy's owner, Federated Department Stores Inc., is going too far by planning to post its flagship department store's name in lights.

At a Zoning Board of Appeals committee meeting on Friday, three groups spoke out against Macy's proposal to put up two store identification signs--each five feet high and 30 feet long--on the former Marshall Field's building on State Street.

"It's a slap in the face to Chicago," said Michael Moran, vice president of Preservation Chicago, about the idea of electric lighting on a historic facade.

The fight was prompted by Federated's nationwide rollout of its flagship Macy's brand, replacing regional department store chains such as May, Filene's, Hecht's, and in Chicago, the storied Marshall Field's.

Zoning lawyer Langdon Neal, who represented Federated at the appeal hearing, presented a series of blueprints to the board explaining the need for signage and arguing that it was "subtle silhouette lighting, not neon lighting."

Macy's regional vice president Ralph Hughes said the signs were necessary to support business. All the Marshall Field's plaques and antique clocks will stay put, he said.

"We've been approved by three civic organizations," Neal said, noting the city council approved the signs June 28. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the final step before Macy's can install the signs.

Protesters argued that in addition to keeping the Marshall Field's building's "historic integrity," the uniquely ad-free Chicago skyline must be preserved.

James McKay, founder of www.fieldsfanschicago.org, a Macy's critic, said approving the measure would set a precedent that would be bright and intrusive in a historic part of the city. He criticized the idea of a "New Yorkish" skyline full of lighted signage.

"Initially there was concerns about the light output of the signage," said George Bergstrom, a resident of nearby Heritage at Millennium Park.

"But now, if this is approved, it opens up the door for many other signs."

It would ruin the rooftop panorama, which currently only features Chase and Unitrin signs, said Bergstrom's wife, Karen.

Board member Donald Hubert asked if Federated had informed neighboring tenants of the proposed signage.

Neal said he assumed they had been, after a series of local committees had unanimously approved the signs.

The council's decision won't be formalized until a resolution is sent out in a few weeks, but the results of the vote should be available by Monday.

----------

tyang@tribune.com


Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Now that Macy's with its new acquisitons is finally the national chain it has always dreamed of being, perhaps now would be the ideal time to prove this is far more than a New York landmark.

Macy's says it has 3 anchor stores across the nation. So let's spread the wealth. How about moving the Thanksgiving day parade into a three year cycle with each anchor serving as a host:

Broadway
State Street
Market Street

New Yorkers won't mind a bit having the parade only once every three years. I'm sure they would consider it totally "fair play" considering Chicago lost the name Marshall Field's in the process. Manhattan would never consdier such equaiity to be a slap in the face.....rigth? :bash: :bash: :bash:

Don't forget that Field's sponsored the Thanksgiving Day Jingle-Elf Parade. I assume Macy's will sponsor some kind of parade, at least this year, as a good will gesture.

I don't think that a parade of Federated execs passing out gold bullion will be enough to help them succeed on State Street.

Marshall Field's was MAKING money, not losing it. That fact is one that Federated wants to bury. With the ill-conceived killing of Field's, they are going to reap what they have sown. There are already reports of low traffic in Macy's stores in the suburbs. At the State Street store, the situation is even worse.

These low sales is a problem that Federated has caused for itself. They have thrown away a lot of customers by dumping Field's. By the way, the slow death of the Macy's store on State Street will occur over the next two Christmases. A parade won't slow that decline.

For those who would like to see Field's name and colors return one day to the State Street Store, with the associated higher quality that Macy's offers, there is a way to work towards that goal. That way is to boycott Macy's. Even a partially successful boycott will eventually drive Macy's out of the State Street Store.

For those who think that a return of the Field's name is unlikely, think of the long haul. Remember that those large Marshall Field plaques will always be mounted all over the building, since they are protected by the buiding's official landmark designation. Some future retailer will likely choose to capitalize on that legacy. Furthermore, the boycott will be able to drive the Macy's name out of that building. That will allow a more worthy tenant (or tenants) to enter.

As for any guilt about the boycott hurting the Macy's employees, remember that every dollar that you spend elsewhere with help employees elsewhere. Thus, you are not going to be causing a net-harm our economy or to Chicago's families. Furthermore, we should do what we feel is best for our City. To me, that means boycotting Macy's.

The boycott effort has only begun, with a more visible presence planned for the Christmas season. I am not one of the organizers, but I am happy that they are working on this effort.

There are already reports of low traffic in Macy's stores in the suburbs. At the State Street store, the situation is even worse.

And that, Near North, is the the true issue and the true absurdity. Macy's national expansion strategy might work for the upper middle west. It might even work in parts of Chicagoland. It cannot work in Field's State Street store.

Nobody shops at such a store strictly for the merchandise. The store is far too large for that. It is the tradition, its role as a Chicago icon, that drew people into its doors. Change the name on the door and make that name New York and not Chicago, you've lost before you've even begun.

More than a store, Field's on State was a destination, something Macy's could never be (even if it is on Hearld Sq). And here the name counted. If Walmart became The Big Bluish Grey Box, if Target became Off Base, if Best Buy became Great Deal, and if Home Depot became the House Station tomorrow, I'd walk in to each with not one moment of regret. But don't change Field's to Macy's on State and expect me to walk in.

Some names do count. Imagine the effect on booked vacations if Walt Disney World suddenly became the Orlando World of Family Entertainment. Names count.

THE ONLY STORE THAT COULD BE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT CLOSE-TO-A-MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AT STATE, WASHINGTON, WABASH, AND A RANDOLPH IS/WAS MARSHALL FIELD'S.

I will never shop Macys if i can help it. They could have kept it Fields at the State Street location as it has been since 1902. Yes, things change, as they should. But not everything should be subject to it. Putting into perspective the meaning and history of this store to the city of Chicago, this crosses the line.

I will never shop Macys if i can help it. They could have kept it Fields at the State Street location as it has been since 1902. Yes, things change, as they should. But not everything should be subject to it. Putting into perspective the meaning and history of this store to the city of Chicago, this crosses the line.

If this had been Leningrad in 1955 and our beloved People's Store #1 was changed by the Kremlin to People's Store #2 (and there was no People's Store #3 or other places to shop), I guess would had to go along and shop at People's Store #2 for my state brand pants #182884.

But Chicago ain't Leningrad. And this isn't 1955. I have endless choices of where I can spend my money. And i realized: I want no part of Macy's. I'm not boycotting it. If there was an entrance to a suburban Macy's that was closest to my car as I enter the mall, I'd take it.

It's just...I want no part of Macy's. i have no interest in Macy's. Macy's gave my town such a rotten and incredibly dumb deal that I don't need Macy's. Protest and making a statment won't kill the idiotic idea that is Macy's-not-Marshall-Field's. Disgust and apathy will.

As much as I hate what Federated has done, I actually don't want to see the Macy's on State Street Store go down hill. If sales slide, I don't think they'll close down (resulting in a possible Marshall Fields "conversion"); they'd just reduce the amount of retail space in the building. It'd make a sad situation even sadder.

There are already reports of low traffic in Macy's stores in the suburbs. At the State Street store, the situation is even worse.

Where'd you hear this?
(^I'm not disagreeing, just wondering)

I don't see how the MF situation in Chicago is different that what has happened with retail anywhere else in America. Not being from Chicago, I don't understand the difference with the Marshall Field's name in Chicago vs. the local retailer in any other city. For example, we had Gimbel's, a nationally-known name that originated in Milwaukee. The store was 700,000 square feet and a local icon. And that name is gone now, just like Field's. I understand that MF was around back in Chicago's early days, and has been around ever since. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. But my point is I can't see how Chicago losing Field's is any different than any other city that lost their local retail institution. Macy's (or Federated) has been expanding nationally for years, buying local names and adding the Macy's name to it. Why would anyone have expected something different when they bought MF? Macy's bought the store and brand and they should be able to do whatever they want with it, even if that pisses everyone off and winds up resulting in lower sales or closings. They took the opportunity to create a single, nationwide brand. I agree if there is someone to be mad at, its those who sold the MF name down the river for a little profit. MF hasn't been Chicago-based since 1982, so it stands to reason whenever you have someone from outside controlling, the local interests will not always be protected or even considered. I love going to the store on State St anytime I'm in Chicago, and I love shopping at the one left here in Milwaukee. But retail has been changing for years, just like the rebranding of Daytons in Minneapolis and Hudsons in Detroit to the MF name. I'm sure those cities were quite pissed at losing their local icons too.

No offense, but Field's was one of the biggest names in retail history in the US and even the world. So there is a difference between Marshall Field's and your typical city department store (which Chicago has lost many of as well).

lil pc, how would you like it if Anheuser Busch bought out Miller and got rid of the Miller name and renamed Miller park to Budweiser Field? And everywhere in town where you used to see Miller it now says Budweiser? Would you be OK with this?

I think this may be comparable to what we going through here.

People who are interested in the Macy's-Field's issue, be sure to visit www.fieldsfanschicago.org.

You can read updates about the boycott effort there and you can also check out the blog, which has some pretty enlightening posts.

I am not connected in any way with that website, by the way.

I don't see how the MF situation in Chicago is different that what has happened with retail anywhere else in America. Not being from Chicago, I don't understand the difference with the Marshall Field's name in Chicago vs. the local retailer in any other city. For example, we had Gimbel's, a nationally-known name that originated in Milwaukee. The store was 700,000 square feet and a local icon. And that name is gone now, just like Field's. I understand that MF was around back in Chicago's early days, and has been around ever since. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. But my point is I can't see how Chicago losing Field's is any different than any other city that lost their local retail institution. Macy's (or Federated) has been expanding nationally for years, buying local names and adding the Macy's name to it. Why would anyone have expected something different when they bought MF? Macy's bought the store and brand and they should be able to do whatever they want with it, even if that pisses everyone off and winds up resulting in lower sales or closings. They took the opportunity to create a single, nationwide brand. I agree if there is someone to be mad at, its those who sold the MF name down the river for a little profit. MF hasn't been Chicago-based since 1982, so it stands to reason whenever you have someone from outside controlling, the local interests will not always be protected or even considered. I love going to the store on State St anytime I'm in Chicago, and I love shopping at the one left here in Milwaukee. But retail has been changing for years, just like the rebranding of Daytons in Minneapolis and Hudsons in Detroit to the MF name. I'm sure those cities were quite pissed at losing their local icons too.

lil,it would be virtually impossible to explain to an out-of-towner how special Marshall Field's was to Chicago. Years and years ago, Field's was running an ad campaign that claimed "Marshall Field's Is Chicago". It sounds like an exageration; it wasn't.

Here's something that may clear up your unerstnading, if only a bit: Field's Mayfair was built in reactin to how much Milwaukeeans loved our State Street store. That was the basis of the Field's longest owned and most important out-of-state operation.

I don't think Macy's cares about the State St. location (obviously), it's not their job to. Their job is to turn a profit for the whole comapany, not just one store (no matter how prominant that store is), just as Field's didn't care when they bought the iconic stores of other cities and put the Field's name up there. Maybe the State St. location will never be as profitable, in fact, I'd say that's likely. But I'd also wager that A) over time, the State St. store won't lose money either, and B) even if it did lose, sales won't be much affected in stores throughout the midwest. Macy's is looking at, according to their numbers, saving 100s of millions in costs by consolidating the brands. They aren't about to market a second brand and lose some of those savings for the sake of one store, nor will they want to give up the marketing value of having the Macy's name on that prominant and historic location. The consolidation of brands is almost certainly, across the entire chain and regardless of the effect on one store, a winner for Macy's.

This is exacly what's happened in other cities, relative to those cities size. Chicago institutions are, becuase of the power of the Chicago economy, more likely to be prominant national names than comperable institutions in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, or smaller cities. But don't underrate the impact on those communities when they lose what is to them an icon to a brand from a bigger city. It may not be a national story, it may not effect as large of a population, but to that community it's a big deal, just like Chicago. The size of Chicago's economy has somewhat insulated it from these sorts of loses, but it's the same basic process that has been playing out in smaller communities for decades.

To me, not matter the city, it isn't the job of a non-local comapny to preserve a local historic identity. That was the job of, if anyone, the local company. But when the local comapny sells out, and then that buyer sells, and then the next buyer sells, the final, national, bigger city owner can't be expected to alter it's business plan because the feelings of people in a smaller city will be hurt, no matter if the smaller city is Chicago or Milwaukee or Green Bay. It's sad, but it's business.

^oh, I think they care about the State Street store. It's one of their three national flagships, and it sounds like Federated is pretty dedicated to the flagship concept (...when it comes to their brands, atleast).

^^ You are right. I shall re-phrase my point. Macy's doesn't care about the historical context of the State St. store as relates to psyche of Chicago beyond how the cachet and visibility of that location helps to further the bottom line of Macy's.... they are willing to risk lowing the profitability of that location in the short term (and possibly the long term, we'll see) to further their plan for the national brand. That's what I was attempting to get at. Clearly you are right, by designating the store as a flagship, it's clear that they value the property.

^^ You are right. I shall re-phrase my point. Macy's doesn't care about the historical context of the State St. store as relates to psyche of Chicago beyond how the cachet and visibility of that location helps to further the bottom line of Macy's.... they are willing to risk lowing the profitability of that location in the short term (and possibly the long term, we'll see) to further their plan for the national brand. That's what I was attempting to get at. Clearly you are right, by designating the store as a flagship, it's clear that they value the property.


Here's the problem:

if department stores are difficult business to run in this era so far past their prime, the large, downtown department store is even more difficult to run.

Thus you can take a huge, huge store, like Marshall Field's on State and realize that with all that space, with its huge size, profitability is intricately tied to MARSHALL FIELD'S UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHICAGO. Thus you can't switch department stores, Fields-to-Macy's and think Chicago will see this as interchangeable. It won't work. You have to figure that that name "Marshall Field's" on the door and the two clocks on State that stood for it was responsible for a good 50% of the traffic through the doors.

The Fields-on-State store is just plain "too big" for another retailer.

Look, Chicago is not San Francisco. Macy's goes way back in the city by the bay, so it is well ingrained to the Bay Area. Besides, Macy's didn't replace a SF icon...the Union Sq store was its alone (although expansion did take place with the acquistion of I. Magnin's old building). Shopping at Macy's, the last full line SF department store to survive, is an SF tradition and a guiltless one. That is not the case here in Chicago.

Macy's won't be successful on State because Macy's can't be successful on State. It is not a Chicago insitution and without that connection, there is just too much space to be a draw.

Chi649, I couldn't care less if Anheuser Busch bought Miller. If people are going to get so worked up about issues of companies buying other companies and doing stupid things, then they should get involved with the company. Buy some stock so you can vote, or figure a way to influence them. If Budweiser wants to take some of the burden of paying off Miller Park off my back....by all means I'm for it! I don't care what the name of something is...I care more about the service I get, cost, etc. A name is a name. To me this is the same thing as people who complain about government but don't vote. Don't complain unless you are actually doing constructive, positive things to make a change. Sitting around and complaining about things you have no control over is pointless.

Here's the problem:

if department stores are difficult business to run in this era so far past their prime, the large, downtown department store is even more difficult to run.

Thus you can take a huge, huge store, like Marshall Field's on State and realize that with all that space, with its huge size, profitability is intricately tied to MARSHALL FIELD'S UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHICAGO. Thus you can't switch department stores, Fields-to-Macy's and think Chicago will see this as interchangeable. It won't work. You have to figure that that name "Marshall Field's" on the door and the two clocks on State that stood for it was responsible for a good 50% of the traffic through the doors.

The Fields-on-State store is just plain "too big" for another retailer.

Look, Chicago is not San Francisco. Macy's goes way back in the city by the bay, so it is well ingrained to the Bay Area. Besides, Macy's didn't replace a SF icon...the Union Sq store was its alone (although expansion did take place with the acquistion of I. Magnin's old building). Shopping at Macy's, the last full line SF department store to survive, is an SF tradition and a guiltless one. That is not the case here in Chicago.

Macy's won't be successful on State because Macy's can't be successful on State. It is not a Chicago insitution and without that connection, there is just too much space to be a draw.

You're missing my point altogether. It is likely that Macy's on State will be less profitable then Field's on State becaue Macy's ins't a Chicago institution and many of the people who shopped there just because Field's was an institution won't shop there any longer (some people will still go there to see the historic building, but I'd guess that number will be measurabley lower now).

I get that, I'm not disagreeing with that. But Macy's didin't just buy one store. If all they bought was the State St. store, then yes, buying it and changing the name would be foolish. But they didn't just buy one location, they bought a whole chain. They have somthing llike 730 (!) stores nationwide to worry about, and if by consolidating the brand nationwide they can save a few hundred million across those stores, they will.

As I said, they don't care about preserving the history of one location out of 730, even if that's a prominant location. They care about maximizing their profit. And as I've said before, the people who owned the Field's name lined their pockets by selling Chicago's landmark name down the river (I don't begrudge them that either, as it was theirs to sell),

So, I'll once again aske the two questions that I'm curious to hear answered:

Question 1: Given that Macy's is a non-Chicago business with a national plan, and given that Field's was bought from a willing seller, does Macy's have a moral obligation to retain the Field's name for the benefit of Chicago?

And more importantly:

Question 2: Doesn't the seller (Target) deserve at least an equal portion of the blame here? After all, they did just make a big chunk of change from selling Field's down the river to May, ultimatly profiting from Chicago's loyalty to the brand name.

The answer to neither of these quesions is a variation on "This is financially bad for one location (State St.) out of 730." Or even, "This is bad for all Chicagoland locations."

I get that, I'm not disagreeing with that. But Macy's didin't just buy one store. If all they bought was the State St. store, then yes, buying it and changing the name would be foolish. But they didn't just buy one location, they bought a whole chain. They have somthing llike 730 (!) stores nationwide to worry about, and if by consolidating the brand nationwide they can save a few hundred million across those stores, they will.

Right. Macy's wasn't interested in State Street. It was interested in Chicagoland. And it may have easily had it.

There was no law that Field's on State needed to be converted to Macy's or Bloomingdale's. Federated could have run this cherished institution (as I suggested in an earlier) post as Marshall Field's with a mix of Macy's, Bloomingdale's, and existing Marshall Field's departments and the outside venders like Barbara's Bookstore it had for years)....

while still converting the rest of the Chicagoland Field's into Macy's. In doing so, WTP could easily have been Macy's Chicago flagship. Nobody was going to raise hell over the conversion of suburban Field's stores. None have the tradition of the downtown store. In fact, I can think of only one Field's suburban location that has been truly cherished down through the years...Old Orchard....and even that one with Oakbrook, Woodfield, and Northbook Court could have converted with few tears.

Federated made this mess for itself in Chicago because it could not get creative in how to use the State Street store. I honestly believe that if they had, it would have smoothed the way for a whole slew of suburban Macy's stores.

One of the writers above said that people should not be "sad" about something over which one has "no control."

In general, that is reasonable. However, that concept does not apply to the Macy's-Field's issue. Why not? Because those of us who are supporting the boycott actually have some control over what happens.

Fatalists like to suggest that citizens should just "give up" when something wrong is done to their city.
However, I have seen, time and time again, that groups can be successful with urban planning issues in Chicago. Similar people will soon kick the Macy's boycott into higher gear.

The State Street Store will steadily mount more and more losses. It will take about two Christmases, and perhaps a new executive team at Federated, for them to realize their mistake. To have Macy's fail on State Street would not be a bad thing at all for our city. In fact, it would allow a more appropriate tenant for that historic building and leave open the option for the return of the Field's name one day.

Federated made a bad business decision in the Chicago area. The citizens of Chicago actually have plenty of "control." Everyone who dislikes what Federated has done, please tell your family members that you do not wish to receive anything from Macy's this holiday season. Also, please check out www.fieldsfanschicago.org, and by the way, I am not an organizer of their effort, just a follower.

To have Macy's fail on State Street would not be a bad thing at all for our city. In fact, it would allow a more appropriate tenant for that historic building and leave open the option for the return of the Field's name one day

If the State Street Macy's does horribly, do you really think Federated would totally withdrawl from the location? It seems more logical to me that they'd just reduce the size of the store.

Any of you guys been to Marshall Fields/Macy's recently? Was it busy, slow?

I shopped at Macy's this past weekend and it seemed to be just as busy as it was when it was Marshall Field's. Same feel, same clothing brands/designers, and same building. The only difference I noticed was that the bags, receipts, and banners said "Macy's on State Street." I wish it was still Marshall Field's but I honestly think it doesn't matter what the store is called, as long as the traditions and building stay the same.

I shopped at Macy's this past weekend and it seemed to be just as busy as it was when it was Marshall Field's. Same feel, same clothing brands/designers, and same building. The only difference I noticed was that the bags, receipts, and banners said "Macy's on State Street." I wish it was still Marshall Field's but I honestly think it doesn't matter what the store is called, as long as the traditions and building stay the same.

urban addict:

Thankfully, there are countless Chicagoans who disagree with you. Please realize that the boycott is just starting. That's right. This is an issue that is simply not going away. Furthermore, the word of mouth I have heard is that Macy's on State Street is doing badly and some of the suburban stores have likewise seen a downturn.

Please take a look some of the posts above about the rationale for continuing the boycott. By the way, I am not one of the boycott organizers. However, I ask that anyone reading this, if you believe that citizens should stop a company from cheapening our city, then please help with the leafleting. The leafleting will begin this Saturday and continue every Saturday INDEFINITELY.

We will see what happens during the next eighteen months. Visit www.fieldsfanschicago.org and you will that this group is in this for the long haul.

The Fieldsfanschicago group is starting weekly leafleting this Saturday, Oct. 28th. The leafleting will be at the State Street store and, if manpower allows, at the Water Tower store.

The leafleting will be from 12:00 Noon until 5:00 PM every Saturday. Can you participate? Any time would be appreciated. They will have green Bookmarks filled with "Fields' Facts" and bumper stickers saying reminding people that "Field's is Chicago" and we should "Boycott Macy's."

Tell anyone who you think might be interested. Thanks!

I don't think they'd give up the location if it didn't do well. It's a much different company from Bon-Ton. I don't think it's the same deal with WTP though.

^^ You are right. I shall re-phrase my point. Macy's doesn't care about the historical context of the State St. store as relates to psyche of Chicago beyond how the cachet and visibility of that location helps to further the bottom line of Macy's....

I suspect you may be right. Then the same would be said for the Union Square store. And perhaps the same may even be said about their Hearld Square store, too. To a degree, Macy's stopped being New York and became generic America long before Marshall Field's ceased to be Chicago.

One question might be: has the department store, as an institution, lost some of its luster and its appeal because it has gone from local to national? Are the advantages of a consolidated national system and what they means for pricing and advertising off-set by the former mode of serving a community, being community oriented in sales, as a corporate citizen, in its ability to put a flair in to local stores, particularly the flagship?

Have department stores paid a price for no longer having local roots?

I had a gift card I had to get rid of. I went into MF two Fridays ago. It is dirtier. That red rug on the first floor that runs the entire length of the store north to south was horrible. It didn't smell good in the store. People were leaning on the counters not in suits but black shirts.....

And worse yet. As I left I went through the north atrium. Each floor has those tacky long red light around each floor as you look up...it show no regard for that building!

Well if we all decided to stop shopping at Macy's on State, it'd just eventually became a profit loss for the company that I see sending the building into disrepair, consolidating the departments into a "cheap suburban styled department store" and becoming an embarassment for our city and local economy. Rather than cry about a slight change in ownership and branding, why not continue supporting the location it serves rather than damning it. It's a great building that I'd love not to see go into oblivion because some feel that by "boycotting" Macy's they'll get their Marshall Field's brand back. If anyone really knew how branding worked they'd see my point. Macy's might not be the best brand choice but it's better than a Wal-Mart on State Street.

Well if we all decided to stop shopping at Macy's on State, it'd just eventually became a profit loss for the company that I see sending the building into disrepair, consolidating the departments into a "cheap suburban styled department store" and becoming an embarassment for our city and local economy. Rather than cry about a slight change in ownership and branding, why not continue supporting the location it serves rather than damning it. It's a great building that I'd love not to see go into oblivion because some feel that by "boycotting" Macy's they'll get their Marshall Field's brand back. If anyone really knew how branding worked they'd see my point. Macy's might not be the best brand choice but it's better than a Wal-Mart on State Street.

Or they could sell it leave it and it could be turned into a Casino or a wonderful world emporeum (like the one they had planned on building on the MOMO sight).

If I had money to spend...it would be at Nordstroms....

I'd like to stand back for a minute and look at the difference between what you can do and what you should do. Corporate America is greedy and much of that greed is perfectly legal.

A company can say that if we buy a property in a given city, it is ours to do what we please with. And in a sense, they would be right. They can say that.

But should they?

Marshall Field's was an integral part of Chicago and its region. It was in no danger of going belly up either under Dayton-Hudson, Target, or briefly May. Marshall Field's from its inception as a trend setter in how the concept of department stores developed to that certain something special that came with it being the major department store in an incredibly major city.

Federated made all decisions about what should be done with Field's strictly on the basis of what was good for Federated....not what is good for Chicago.

Did the firm have to take Chicago's need to keep its special relationship with Field's? No. Was it incumbant on them to do so? No.

But if decency and a concern for its customer base that transcends profit had mattered, Federated could have easily looked for a win/win situation rather than the Federated wins/Chicago loses scenerio we got.

It is sad to live at a time when a treasured local institution can be destroyed by little more than greed. Field's to Chicago was like a professional sports franchise...loyalty and love were both part of our draw to it.

It was legal to convert Field's to Macy's; moral it wasn't.

It's been interesting reading the various comments and arm-chair recommendations about Macy's take over of Marshall Field's, especially the landmark and iconic State Street store. To respond to all the points listed in the three pages (so far) of this thread is impossible, but suffice to say, Marshall Field's does not typify most traditional department stores (like from Sears', Ward's and Penney's to Wieboldt's and Goldblatt's).

Field's is not only a department store, but an icon of service, quality and culture, and indeed, at the root of many of Chicago's best known and most internationally renowned institutions. Perhaps non-Chicagoans don't know of all the connections but the Shedd Aquarium, University of Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, the Merchandise Mart, State Street, Palmer House, the namesake Field Museum, and much more are among the top tourist attractions and institutions that were either founded as a result of Marshall Field's or at least have major ties. While the East Coast has its colonial heroes and founding fathers in Washington, Franklin and Jefferson (just to name a few), Chicago's counterpart is Marshall Field. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but for many years, Chicago Public School children actually had to study Marshall Field's throughout the one year of required City of Chicago history class.

Those critical of this may say, "So what, a business can't sustain itself on old laurels of past owners." They may say, "That was then, this is now. How does a business sustain itself?" Some might argue that some of the newer stores in the Chicago area or the stores in Detroit or other far-flung locations might not have measured up the standards and caché of the established stores at like at State Street, Water Tower, Old Orchard, Oak Brook and Lake Forest.

But the point is these established stores were indeed profitable. If, as critics suggest, that the stores were no longer up to the standards of Field's in the mid-20th century (or that other stores had caught up), they still not only made money but also are deeply revered. There's a lot of people who shop at Field's because of what it means, their deep emotional connections to the store, and the fact it is so intertwined with Chicago. On the ledger sheets, it looks like Field's sells things and, according to Federated, emotional attachment isn't supposed to matter in this case but in fact that emotional attachment is these store's biggest asset and what it deals in in a big way. And Macy's is desposing of of that huge asset.

I personally believe Field's still stood for all that was best about Chicago, countering any bad rep because of machine politics, gangsters, the Cubs (just kidding about the last one, maybe). Marshall Field I said, "Good will is the one and only asset that competition cannot undersell or destroy." I don't agree that Field's was coastin for the past 25 years, but for those who do think it was, then the coasting was on the decades of immense good will that Field's effused.

Macy's is a name still identified with New York City, despite the fact that California is their biggest and most profitable region. What good will has Macy's brought to Chicago? What have they positively contributed beyond what any newcomer retailer would do? Not much. What Macy's claims to have done for Chicago is really just a revisionist history of what Field's did for Chicago. Saving on bags, advertising, etc may look good on paper won't make up for all the good will Field's has implanted in Chicagoans' hearts. It's obvious that sales are down dramatically at these stores and ultimately that is what matters. The ledger books say it is supposed to work, but ultimately it is what is in Chicagoan's hearts and that's where Macy's has miscalculated. Macy's behaves like a step mother who wants to eradicate from her stepchildren's memories any trace of their true mother. (" I want you to call me 'mother' now.") Any child would naturally resist and resent such an attitude. And that is what we are witnessing now in the case of Macy's in Chicago. Whoever heard of a store being bought out and having its customers protest, boycott and stay away in double-digit percentages? I've heard of stores changing and people staying away but the level and the degree to which Macy's is being rejected in Chicago is unprecedented in terms of a retail store. Macy's cannot sustain their current model in Chicago. They may occupy the State Street store but they will never come close to occupying Field's place in a significant number of Chicagoan's hearts. Their business plan is fraught with arrogance and ego. For some reason, Macy's thinks they have every right to insist what we want, what emotionally we want in a store experience. They have this so backwards. They will not succeed and it is their arrogant miscalculation and disregard of common sense. In twisted revision of famous quote, they basically seem to be saying, "Ask not what Macy's can do for you, ask what you can do for Macy's. I do not expect the current, foolish management to admit their mistakes, but there will be new management and Field's will come back.

It's been interesting reading the various comments and arm-chair recommendations about Macy's take over of Marshall Field's, especially the landmark and iconic State Street store. To respond to all the points listed in the three pages (so far) of this thread is impossible, but suffice to say, Marshall Field's does not typify most traditional department stores (like from Sears', Ward's and Penney's to Wieboldt's and Goldblatt's).

Field's is not only a department store, but an icon of service, quality and culture, and indeed, at the root of many of Chicago's best known and most internationally renowned institutions. Perhaps non-Chicagoans don't know of all the connections but the Shedd Aquarium, University of Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, the Merchandise Mart, State Street, Palmer House, the namesake Field Museum, and much more are among the top tourist attractions and institutions that were either founded as a result of Marshall Field's or at least have major ties. While the East Coast has its colonial heroes and founding fathers in Washington, Franklin and Jefferson (just to name a few), Chicago's counterpart is Marshall Field. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but for many years, Chicago Public School children actually had to study Marshall Field's throughout the one year of required City of Chicago history class.

Those critical of this may say, "So what, a business can't sustain itself on old laurels of past owners." They may say, "That was then, this is now. How does a business sustain itself?" Some might argue that some of the newer stores in the Chicago area or the stores in Detroit or other far-flung locations might not have measured up the standards and caché of the established stores at like at State Street, Water Tower, Old Orchard, Oak Brook and Lake Forest.

But the point is these established stores were indeed profitable. If, as critics suggest, that the stores were no longer up to the standards of Field's in the mid-20th century (or that other stores had caught up), they still not only made money but also are deeply revered. There's a lot of people who shop at Field's because of what it means, their deep emotional connections to the store, and the fact it is so intertwined with Chicago. On the ledger sheets, it looks like Field's sells things and, according to Federated, emotional attachment isn't supposed to matter in this case but in fact that emotional attachment is these store's biggest asset and what it deals in in a big way. And Macy's is desposing of of that huge asset.

I personally believe Field's still stood for all that was best about Chicago, countering any bad rep because of machine politics, gangsters, the Cubs (just kidding about the last one, maybe). Marshall Field I said, "Good will is the one and only asset that competition cannot undersell or destroy." I don't agree that Field's was coastin for the past 25 years, but for those who do think it was, then the coasting was on the decades of immense good will that Field's effused.

Macy's is a name still identified with New York City, despite the fact that California is their biggest and most profitable region. What good will has Macy's brought to Chicago? What have they positively contributed beyond what any newcomer retailer would do? Not much. What Macy's claims to have done for Chicago is really just a revisionist history of what Field's did for Chicago. Saving on bags, advertising, etc may look good on paper won't make up for all the good will Field's has implanted in Chicagoans' hearts. It's obvious that sales are down dramatically at these stores and ultimately that is what matters. The ledger books say it is supposed to work, but ultimately it is what is in Chicagoan's hearts and that's where Macy's has miscalculated. Macy's behaves like a step mother who wants to eradicate from her stepchildren's memories any trace of their true mother. (" I want you to call me 'mother' now.") Any child would naturally resist and resent such an attitude. And that is what we are witnessing now in the case of Macy's in Chicago. Whoever heard of a store being bought out and having its customers protest, boycott and stay away in double-digit percentages? I've heard of stores changing and people staying away but the level and the degree to which Macy's is being rejected in Chicago is unprecedented in terms of a retail store. Macy's cannot sustain their current model in Chicago. They may occupy the State Street store but they will never come close to occupying Field's place in a significant number of Chicagoan's hearts. Their business plan is fraught with arrogance and ego. For some reason, Macy's thinks they have every right to insist what we want, what emotionally we want in a store experience. They have this so backwards. They will not succeed and it is their arrogant miscalculation and disregard of common sense. In twisted revision of famous quote, they basically seem to be saying, "Ask not what Macy's can do for you, ask what you can do for Macy's. I do not expect the current, foolish management to admit their mistakes, but there will be new management and Field's will come back.


WOW! Asolutely stellar and eloquent commentary, Hoops. Loved the part about colonial history in the east and how that differs from our history. Yet I don't believe that is a more/less situation. You see, our coastal counterparts in NYC, Boston, Philly may have that strong colonial history we lack, but Chicago is the ultimate city in truly American history. For a country that developed and came of age in the 19th century, it is important to realize that Chicago was THE ultimate US city in the 19th century....and Marshall Field's and the development of the department store was a contribution not only to our town but to the US in general.

Your spin on Chicago's reaction to Macy's......right on. Here it is, a fait accompli, and I still wince when I see those Macy's ad's in the papers. I've driven by Old Orchard, Nbk Ct, WTP, and made sure my eyes averted the Macy's signs.

And if others are like me in this respect, it is almost the opposite of what one would expect...rather than grudging acceptance, more revulsion than when the name change was first announced.


And here's the dumbest, stupidest, most ignorant part of all:

Federated didn't need a Macy's presence in Chicago to make a profit; Federated needed a Federated presence in Chicago to make a profit. And that could have been done by leaving Field's name on the door and realized that (as I observed in a previous post) a three department store stragegy, each with its own niche (trendy Bloomingdale's, upscale and traditional Marshall Field's, middle market Macy's) could have done well...and I'm talking about nationally (the Field's name could have been taken coast to coast). Even Macy's desire to expand into the upper middle west could have been accomplished by the conversion of Field's to Macy's in Mpls and Detroit and the inclusion of, for example, a Macy's (as previously considered) in Block 37 and a couple of other Macy's (let's say Old Orchard, Oakbrook, and Woodfield) in new buildings in those existing complexes to add Chicago to the upper midwest mix.

Hoops' observation ("If, as critics suggest, that the stores were no longer up to the standards of Field's in the mid-20th century (or that other stores had caught up), they still not only made money but also are deeply revered") carries this irony with it: there have been some recent predictions in the paper, based on current trends, that the department store can and is reinventing itself and appealing to a younger market. What a crime that if that revival takes place, it won't be under the proud name of Marshall Field's in Chicago.

It was legal to convert Field's to Macy's; moral it wasn't.

I'd argue that Macy's has no moral obligation to the Field's name, nor did Field's have a moral obligation to any of the stores it bought in other cities and converted to Field's stores. Department stores are businesses, businesses exist to make money, I don't believe they have a moral obligation beyond that. Was changing the name good business? We'll see (my guess is yes), but as owners of the stores Macy's is not IMO amoral in changing the name.

Saving on bags, advertising, etc may look good on paper won't make up for all the good will Field's has implanted in Chicagoans' hearts. It's obvious that sales are down dramatically at these stores and ultimately that is what matters.

It's more than saving on bags and paper, it's saving 100s of millions on consolidating brands and having a consistant brand image so that when people see Macy's on State they make a connection with the brand.

Beyond that, do you have any stats to support that the change has hurt sales across all stores nationwide (which is really the number most important to Macy's), or even any objective data to support that sales are down "dramatically" in Chicago?

Beyond that, do you have any stats to support that the change has hurt sales across all stores nationwide (which is really the number most important to Macy's), or even any objective data to support that sales are down "dramatically" in Chicago?

http://www.suntimes.com/business/122295,CST-FIN-retail03.article

Sales lag at Macy's
Federated denies shopper anger involved in slowdown at new stores

November 3, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter

The grinch stole holiday buildup from Federated Department Stores' efforts to win over shoppers to Macy's in Chicago and nationwide.

Federated representatives insist that shoppers' anger at Marshall Field's and other regional stores' changeover to Macy's has nothing to do with disappointing sales reported Thursday. The weakness was concentrated in Field's and other department stores formerly owned by May Department Stores, including L.S. Ayres, Famous and Barr, Hecht's, Meier & Frank, Robinsons-May and Strawbridge's.

Federated bought Marshall Field's and the other former May Department Stores for $11.9 billion in August 2005.

Those stores continue to lag in sales, according to Federated, which declines to be more specific or to disclose figures by chain.

In contrast, the original Macy's and Bloomingdale's department store chains showed strong sales results in October from a year ago, with same-store sales jumping 7.7 percent, Federated announced on Thursday. The increase was higher than analysts' forecast for a 6.1 percent gain.

Marshall Field's loyalists have made plans to protest outside Macy's flagship store at 111 N. State St. every Saturday throughout the holidays.

Macy's spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara said Thursday that customers are pleased with the improvements Federated has made to former Marshall Field's and other stores.

She noted that the National Retail Federation on Thursday named Macy's for the first time among the top 10 retailers in the nation for customer service. Macy's brick-and-mortar stores ranked No. 10.

Macy's expects more than 4 million people will view the State Street store's holiday windows theme of Mary Poppins, McNamara said.

Federated's total revenue declined 7.9 percent, to $1.86 billion for the four weeks that ended Oct. 28, because Federated closed 79 stores that were too close together and would have impeded competition after it acquired the May department stores.

Third-quarter sales grew 6 percent to $5.89 billion.

Federated CEO Terry Lundgren remained optimistic about the holidays, saying same-store sales should increase 3 percent to 5 percent in November and during the entire holiday season. But analyst Carol Levenson of Gimme Credit research firm told investors that Federated might find it more difficult than executives expect to issue new bonds in order to back up a tender offer for up to $750 million because of billionaire corporate raider Carl Icahn's increased stake in the company.

Other department stores continued to see strong sales, outperforming discount stores in a reverse of a long-held trend. The stars included J.C. Penney and Nordstrom. Discounters Target and Kohl's same-store sales fell short of analysts' expectations.

Analysts believe shoppers motivated by lower gasoline prices and cold weather will boost retailers' sales by 5 percent nationwide this holiday, slightly below last year's 6.1 percent increase.

Interesting, thanks for the article. I'll be curious to see if this trend continues over the long haul, and if the effect is significant enough to outweigh the savings Federated expects to see from the consolodation. But clearly the short-term trend in the former May stores has run against the national trend the article described for department stores.

I got a kick out of this quote, "Macy's spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara said Thursday that customers are pleased with the improvements Federated has made to former Marshall Field's and other stores." What a crock. I'm not against Macy's in all this per say, but that's statment runs contrary to common sense. I find it hard to beleve many people are better then indifferent to the changes, and it's obvious that there's a population of people who very clearly are the opposite of "pleased with the improvements Federated has made to former Marshall Field's and other stores."

The wife and I just walked by there and looked at the windows (today was the first day). There were no protestors there. We were very dissapointed with the windows. So nice of them to pick a theme based on the NY musical (it referenced it once). The Mary Poppins windows were random and did not have a story like they usually do. Plus the first window wasn't working. A door opened and Mary Poppins was supposed to drop in. Instead all you saw was her dangling feet - it looked like she hung herself. Probably cuz of the disgrace she was a part of. We did not go inside as we have decided never to step inside the place.

^The windows had actually been planned before the Macy's conversion.

I was in Macy's (ouch) WTP yesterday. What a dump! IT doesn't even belong on Michigan Avenue.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=22858

^??

"Chicago proved to be one of the strongest sales markets for Federated Department Stores Inc. in September due, in part, to a store conversion that had many loyal Marshall Field’s shoppers seeing red."

"Earlier this month, Federated reported that slow sales at 400 stores recently converted to the Macy's nameplate"

Contradictory, or am I reading this wrong?

^??

"Chicago proved to be one of the strongest sales markets for Federated Department Stores Inc. in September due, in part, to a store conversion that had many loyal Marshall Field’s shoppers seeing red."

"Earlier this month, Federated reported that slow sales at 400 stores recently converted to the Macy's nameplate"

Contradictory, or am I reading this wrong?

safe to say it was "one of the weakest sales markets for Federated...

no need to go back to school or take a reading class, spyguy

safe to say it was "one of the weakest sales markets for Federated...

no need to go back to school or take a reading class, spyguy

Yes this is all playing with statistics by Terry Lundreon to make it sound like the former marshall field store is helping federated. Think about it,..Macy's has just converted hundred of fields stores to macys in september, it would only make sense that september and october was Macy's biggest months of gross intake just for the simple fact that they have that many more stores but it doesnt mean sales are doing well overall per store.

Ya know, I still think Macy's has every right to change the brand, and nobody has yet explained to me why everyone is mad at Macy's but not at all mad at the people who sold you guys down the river.

But that said, it seems that Macy's could probably save themselves a lot of trouble by keeping their strategy of only advertising for Macy's, but at at the one location that matters putting up some green awnings that say Marshall Field's with a smaller line like "by Macy*s" in the corner, and having that location print their own bags as long as doing so was cost-effective for that store. Everything else can say Macy's. I mean, Marshall Fields as it used to exist is just gone and lost forever, but by just doing the building's exterior and bags more like the old way, they may still be able to promote the Macy's brand and yet keep the store as a greater attraction. Then again, I'm no expert on marketing national brands either.

Ya know, I still think Macy's has every right to change the brand, and nobody has yet explained to me why everyone is mad at Macy's but not at all mad at the people who sold you guys down the river.

But that said, it seems that Macy's could probably save themselves a lot of trouble by keeping their strategy of only advertising for Macy's, but at at the one location that matters putting up some green awnings that say Marshall Field's with a smaller line like "by Macy*s" in the corner, and having that location print their own bags as long as doing so was cost-effective for that store. Everything else can say Macy's. I mean, Marshall Fields as it used to exist is just gone and lost forever, but by just doing the building's exterior and bags more like the old way, they may still be able to promote the Macy's brand and yet keep the store as a greater attraction. Then again, I'm no expert on marketing national brands either.

downtown, Macy's refused to think creatively on the whole Macy's/Field's issue....unlike you, me, and innerable posters on the Chgo board.

Why pull the trigger so soon. Why not say the following (when Federated bought Field's):

We recognize that Marshall Field's is a special store in an incedibly large and important market. Our bottom line is such that we are unable to operate Marshall Field's differently than Macy's. However, we are in position to keep the name Marshall Field's on our Chicagoland stores, while converting those in Detroit and Minneapolis to Macy's. In essence, we are not breaking new ground here: Dayton Hudson (Target) had different names on the doors of what was essentially one chain: Dayton's, Marshall Field's, Hudson's. The merchandise was the same; the return policy unaffected (made easy by tags with all three names).

In retaining the name "Marshall Field's" on the doors of our Chicagoland Macy's stores, our expense changes would be minimal: Chicago newspapers would see the name "Marshall Field's" in the exact same ad's that in other cities would appear as "Macy's". The cost which Macy's spends on buying merchandise would be unaffected as Field's would still be having the same degree of Macy's merchandise as all Macy's stores.

If ten years down the road, Chicago's attachment to the Marshall Field's name lessens, we would always have the option of putting Macy's on the door of our Chicago stores.

Federated cutting Chicago jobs

By Sandra Jones
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 16, 2006, 7:29 PM CST

Federated Department Stores Inc. said Thursday it plans to eliminate as many as 200 jobs in Chicago.

Up to 174 of those positions will be eliminated in February as the retailer consolidates its distribution network.

The company, which converted Marshall Field's to Macy's in September, said it is looking to hire an outside contractor for delivery and merchandise transportation, and as a result plans to cut about 85 delivery and driver positions and 89 merchandise processing and furniture customer service positions in Chicago.

It also plans to cut 9 interior designers at its Macy's furniture store in Schaumburg and eliminate 16 employee scheduling jobs at area stores between January and March. Scheduling is being centralized at Macy's North headquarters in Minneapolis, the company said.

Chicago's cuts are part of Federated's plan to eliminate as many as 760 jobs in the Midwest: 545 at distribution centers and 215 at Macy's North, the division that comprises the 60 former Field's stores throughout the Midwest.

Macy's North spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara said the cutbacks are not related to its recent quarterly earnings report, in which it reported a loss of $3 million, or 1 cent a share, but rather are part of the cost savings Federated originally planned with its $11.9 billion acquisition of St. Louis-based May Department Stores.

Federated, headquartered in New York and Cincinnati, also plans to close three distribution centers in Kansas City, Kan.; Warren, Mich.; and Minneapolis early next year, eliminating 296 jobs. An additional 75 job cuts are slated for distribution centers in the St. Louis area.

"The difficult decision to consolidate facilities was necessary because we simply have too much distribution capacity for the company's needs going forward," said Tom Cole, vice chairman of Federated. "In addition, the work performed in some facilities no longer is needed."

Other cuts include 67 administrative and finance jobs at Macy's North headquarters, store schedulers at all 60 former Field's stores, 60 alterations workers in Minneapolis and an unspecified number of interior designers.

Macy's North employs about 23,000 workers.

It doesn't matter what they call the store. Management descisions will still be made from Ohio. Local control will be lost and the feelings of the inhabitants of Chicagoans will be ignored. The only way to actually keep Fields as it was would be to get a local group together and buy the business. This will probably never happen. Its a shame. Going down to State Steet in December to look at the windows, meet Uncle Mistletoe, and see the toys was a great thing to do in the fifties.

i've deleted a bunch of posts in this thread. this thread is about macy's and field's, not the tribune and the LA times. i've seen that douche bag parade of a thread about that issue in the LA sub-forum and i can tell you in no uncertain terms that i will not allow that cancerous idiocy to spread to the chicago forum.

It doesn't matter what they call the store. Management descisions will still be made from Ohio. Local control will be lost and the feelings of the inhabitants of Chicagoans will be ignored. The only way to actually keep Fields as it was would be to get a local group together and buy the business. This will probably never happen. Its a shame. Going down to State Steet in December to look at the windows, meet Uncle Mistletoe, and see the toys was a great thing to do in the fifties.
^^^^maybe svs but seeing that macy's sales in and around the chi area are down big......they may be having second thoughts on their wisdom

sales reportedly down over double digits....ouch!

^^^^maybe svs but seeing that macy's sales in and around the chi area are down big......they may be having second thoughts on their wisdom

sales reportedly down over double digits....ouch!

Forum, at this point we don't have enough data to connect the dots: how does one determne how the variable of name change has figured into the bottom line?

^^ Well Macy's sales are up everywhere else outside of Chicago. That would seem a pretty strong indication.

^^ Well Macy's sales are up everywhere else outside of Chicago. That would seem a pretty strong indication.

Does anyone know how they are doing in Detroit and Twin Cities??

Bon-Ton kept the Carson's identity for all the good it did for the State St. location. I expect Macy's will follow. Those old barns are expensive to operate, condo conversion too profitable and State St. has long since been usurped by Michigan Ave for retail visibility. Macy's will just shift the "flag" over to the Water Tower location.

Bon-Ton kept the Carson's identity for all the good it did for the State St. location. I expect Macy's will follow. Those old barns are expensive to operate, condo conversion too profitable and State St. has long since been usurped by Michigan Ave for retail visibility. Macy's will just shift the "flag" over to the Water Tower location.

There is no way that Macy's can close the State Street store as a unilateral action and keep open its Hearld Sq. and Union Sq. stores. If Chicago was under revolt on the Field's-to-Macy's conversion, how do you think the city would react to NY and SF being left on pedestal, a pedestal that Chgo got knocked off.

how do you think the city would react to NY and SF being left on pedestal, a pedestal that Chgo got knocked off.

Proud! :banana: I'm sure it's the same way the French would have felt about blowing up the Eiffel Tower if Hitler were atop it at the time.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but...

I recall reading once that when Apple opened their retail stores they were careful to place them in trendy locations within major cities. The entire purpose of the stores was (is?) marketing. As such, Apple felt that the entire expense of operating the store was worthwhile as a marketing expense even if the store never made a single sale. Any sales those locations made beyond zero were then gravy for Apple, they just wanted to be visible in the locations in which they opened stores.

In the same way, my guess is that Macy's views the State St. location in much the same way. Obviously that is a much more expensive opperation to run than one of the Apple stores, so they can't have zero sales, but I doubt they'd ever be interested in closing one of their flagship locations because the marketing value of just existing at those locations is so high. No other location in Chicago can, for a department store, match the cachet of that location... they'll keep it open.

I recall reading once that when Apple opened their retail stores they were careful to place them in trendy locations within major cities. The entire purpose of the stores was (is?) marketing. As such, Apple felt that the entire expense of operating the store was worthwhile as a marketing expense even if the store never made a single sale. Any sales those locations made beyond zero were then gravy for Apple, they just wanted to be visible in the locations in which they opened stores.

They had always intended to make a profit from their stores. Which by the way have had gangbuster sales in the billions. They just realized that they had to promote their product as a lifestyle product and not a comodity so as to not have the dismal results that Gateway and Dell have had with their retail operations. Hence their stores look more like trendy boutiques than a nerdy computer store. I also heard from someone that works there that they have their customer service training done by the same company that does the training for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.

It has been suggested--elsewhere, not here--that if only the Field's name returns to the State Street Store, with everything else being Macy's-style, then the change back would be rather superficial.

I agree. However, such an outcome is not sought by pro-Field's activists nor is it likely. The people working to boycott Macy's have the goal of bringing bring back a Field's-level store to the building with the Field's name, the Field's colors, and the Field's traditions.

Such a store may only require part of the current building, which can be converted in part to residential or to a shopping atrium mall-like setting. Our goal is achievable. Macy's success at the site is not. People working on the boycott, along with countless citizens, will see to that. The depth of the anti-Macy's sentiment is not fading. It is growing.

For those of you with female friends and relatives who would help protest in support of the boycott, please tell them to visit the fieldsfanschicago.org website to join the many sharp young ladies who will be wearing elaborate 1890's dresses and 1890's hats on Friday at 1:00 PM. They need more volunteers and it will be one heck of a good time. Thanks!

I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but...

I recall reading once that when Apple opened their retail stores they were careful to place them in trendy locations within major cities. The entire purpose of the stores was (is?) marketing. As such, Apple felt that the entire expense of operating the store was worthwhile as a marketing expense even if the store never made a single sale. .

I would think that is similiar marketing for American Girl in Chgo, NY, LA

- edit

All right: let's play "What if....."...however, it must be played in a rational, pragmatic world (not what we would like to see, but what actually could happen):

what would happen if Macy's Chicagoland stores are showing disasterous results one year from today, way below expectations and well below any other market that was converted to Macy's in 2006?

• Would Federated seriously consider bringing back Marshall Field's, reconverting all Macy's to Marshall Field's?

• Could Federated see a need for a partial decison: State Street and certain select stores (Old Orchard? Northbrook? Woodfield? Oakbrook?) converted back to Field's, the rest kept as Macy's?

• Internal move: Convert some former Field's in the right locations to the more attyractive Bloomingdale's name (Oakbrook would be a likely place, while still keeping its home furnishing store there)?

• Look to see off all or part of the Chicago properties?

IF PROFIT IS THE MOTIVE, COULD ANY OF THE ABOVE OR SIMILIAR TAKE PLACE?

I think only the State Street store has any chance of becoming Field's again, and maybe then only partially.

I think only the State Street store has any chance of becoming Field's again, and maybe then only partially.

and you know, spyguy, if that happens I think a lot of us could life with it. It really is about State, isn't it?

and you know, spyguy, if that happens I think a lot of us could life with it. It really is about State, isn't it?


To edsg25, I agree that it is mostly about State Street. Federated could save themselves so much misery if they just do the right thing on State Street. In response to your question, the move to a middle-to-low market dept store (Macy's) does not make sense on State Street. Middle-to-low market dept. stores need large parking lots so people can do some volume-buying.

Only a middle-to-upmarket (or upmarket) dept. store can make it on State Street, where smaller size "carryable" purchases were made at Fields, and where many items at Field's where purchased with the delivery planned simultaneously with the purchase.

Furthermore, this is the Loop, a tougher place to draw shoppers than is North Michigan Avenue. Only a store with a local tradition and mystique can make it in a Loop location without convenient parking. The bottom line is that we are not going to have a 500 car surface parking lot in front of the State Street store any time soon (sorry, Block 37 is taken!).

One thing is for sure, the boycott is only going to get worse for them. The folks at FieldsFansChicago.org are getting more volunteers each week. Even I am surprised that the anger of people is not dissipating, but actually increasing. That is very unusual.

I also happen to know some Macy's on State employees and they are staggering from the reduced sales volume. They don't need Wall Street analysts to tell them what is going on. They see it with their own eyes.

This whole effort is an example of Chicago acting in a way that shows it is different from any other city.

^If they did change the State Street store back to Fields, how would they deal with the advertising?

^ That's a great point. How exactly would Marshall Field's function as a stand alone department store? Federated would have to go out of its way to advertise and stock merchandise particularly for this place.

To Near North Guy: have you gotten any feedback from city leaders about this? How do they feel about the protests?

Also, I wonder what percentage of Chicagoland sales (Macys, MF) the State St. store accounts for.

Only a middle-to-upmarket (or upmarket) dept. store can make it on State Street,

This whole effort is an example of Chicago acting in a way that shows it is different from any other city.

The first statement should have been so obvious to Federated. Nobody is going to shop at a store the size of Field's unless it is a real institution, offering the type of merchandise that makes it a destination. Macy's give no reason to go up the full 7 floors.

Chicago is different from other cities, Near North, and Field's was different from other cities' department stores.

Here's where I think they really screwed up:

there are certain institutions that, by nature, build a public/private relationship that the individuals or corporations that hold them at the moment should be viewing themselves in a caretaker role (in a caretaker role that will make them money, howeve).....the most obvious kind: a sports franchise.

But when a department store is so interwound with the history of a city, when that department store transcends the names of other such greats in that field (pun intended), when that department store once ran a (long) ad campaign saying "Marshall Field's Is Chicago", then such a business is being a poor corporate citizen when it tears the heart out of the city it is trying to serve. That's what Macy's/Federated did.

To my mind, Field's was more Cubs, Sox, Bears than it was Wrigley gum, Fannie Mae candie, and Motorola t.v.'s.....and ingrained part of our city whose business was built through the loyalty and acceptance of the city's citizens.

How much advertisement is needed for one store? MF has been in the same general location for over a 100 years..

Really all you need is a big push in the beginning to remind people that Field's is back and that the service and merchandise is now top-tier, then just some general print ads in newspapers or local magazines. You could continue to promote most events with the Macy's name too. The website should look a little different, but have the same general layout as Macy's.

See
http://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/

and

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/

for examples.

How much advertisement is needed for one store? MF has been in the same general location for over a 100 years..

Really all you need is a big push in the beginning to remind people that Field's is back and that the service and merchandise is now top-tier, then just some general print ads in newspapers or local magazines. You could continue to promote most events with the Macy's name too. The website should look a l\

Spyguy,

Please give me your feed back on a previous proposal of mine (with a few added features):

• State Street remains as Marshall Field's only store

• The State Street store structured with four component parts. Two of those parts would be existing Macy's and Bloomingdale's departments. These obviously would be covered in national and local Macy's and Bloomingdale's advertising.

• The third component would be Field's departments such as 28 Shop, Field's Afar, Frango shops throughout store. These would include the very best of the old Marshall Field's departments

• The private venders (i.e. Barbara's Bookstore) that lined the lower level are increased throughout the store.

• The stores logo (it would be the existing green Field's logo) make it clear that this is Marshall Field's. However, using exisitng logos in smaller letters, the shopper still sees what they are getting. I'll do my best to reproduce below without using logos:

Marshall Field's
(macy's, bloomingdale's, and More)

•*City of Chicago includes Field's among its promotional issues to compensate Federated for returning Field's name.

• City works with private developers (including Federated and B37 builders) to create a major link under State between Marshall Field's and Block 37 in an impressive underground space of its own.

Spy (others, as well): is this a compromise situation that you like on any level? Is it the type of proposal that should be shared with the city and federated (No pipe dreams here...just as a possiblity that someone would listen)???????????????

Only a middle-to-upmarket (or upmarket) dept. store can make it on State Street, where smaller size "carryable" purchases were made at Fields, and where many items at Field's where purchased with the delivery planned simultaneously with the purchase.

Interesting point. I guess we'll find out if this is true or not.

If they did change the State Street store back to Fields, how would they deal with the advertising?

That's a great point. How exactly would Marshall Field's function as a stand alone department store? Federated would have to go out of its way to advertise and stock merchandise particularly for this place.

This is the problem. Macy's is highly unlikely to change back to Marshall Field's A) because of the cost in advertising and purchasing for another store that only has one or just a few locations (the whole point of consolidating brands was to save on these costs), and B) because Macy's wants to be located at that prominant location to build their brand. Yes, you could argue that this is foolish and hurts their brand, but they are betting not.

Because of the importance of this location, my guess is it would have to really bleed money for Macy's to change direction. If it's even close to even, they'll keep it open, maybe reduced in size, in order to keep their name on the building. If it totally failed, they'd probably close or sell the building because that would be cheaper than operating as two brands, but even then it wouldn't be able to be re-opened as Marshall Field's because I doubt Macy's, who now owns the name Marshall Field's ( :wallbash: ), would allow use of a name they own to compete against themselves. But my guess is that the locations will do well enough over time to stay open as Macy's

Here's where I think they really screwed up:

there are certain institutions that, by nature, build a public/private relationship that the individuals or corporations that hold them at the moment should be viewing themselves in a caretaker role (in a caretaker role that will make them money, howeve).....the most obvious kind: a sports franchise.

But when a department store is so interwound with the history of a city, when that department store transcends the names of other such greats in that field (pun intended), when that department store once ran a (long) ad campaign saying "Marshall Field's Is Chicago", then such a business is being a poor corporate citizen when it tears the heart out of the city it is trying to serve. That's what Macy's/Federated did.

To my mind, Field's was more Cubs, Sox, Bears than it was Wrigley gum, Fannie Mae candie, and Motorola t.v.'s.....and ingrained part of our city whose business was built through the loyalty and acceptance of the city's citizens.

I agree, to a point. But this gets to something I've been asking on this thread all along and nobody will address: why is it Macy's job to uphold the public/private realtionship and not the previous owners? Why is all the hate on Macy's and not May or Target or all the way back to the original owners?

Here's my point, and this is a somewhat bad example because the Packers can't EVER be sold because of the ownership situation, but bear with me:

Nothing is more Green Bay than the Packers. Lets pretend that they didn't have finacial trouble way back when and never sold stock, but instead were owned by a Green Bay man named Joe Packer. Because of public passion for the team, Joe's franchise built quite a large value, but one day Joe decides to sell the team to Fred Manhattan, who promptly changes the team name to the Manhattan*s and ruins the product on the field in Green Bay to fund his own team back in New York.

Now, I wouldn't obsolve Fred in this situation, it probably isn't nice to do that to the GB fan base's team. But it's also Fred's team to run how he pleases, why should he be expected to care about Green Bay when everyone knew going in that he was more concerned about his team in New York and bought the team only to boost his profits across his entire business.

By contrast, Joe Packer built a ton of value on the basis of the loyalty of the people of Green Bay. For years Joe talked about how the Packers Were Green Bay. Joe even did a lot of good public works in Green Bay. But in the end, Joe took all that good will and sold it to an outfit from New York who everyone could have guessed would care little about Green Bay. In doing this Joe made a huge profit and went of to a happy retirement in the multi-million dollar condo he bought in Burj Dubai (Okay, I admit Burj Dubai has little to do with the analogy :nuts:).

In this scenario, I'd blame Joe a hell of a lot more than I'd blame Fred. So why is everyone so mad at Macy's and villifying them but nobody seems to want to blame previous owners who violated the public trust?

Look, I wish it was still Marshall Field's, and if the group that's trying to bring the name back can somehow succeed against the odds, that would be great. But I still fail to understand how Macy's is the villain in all this for running their business how they see fit while nobody seems upset with Target/May/whoever that sold you guys down the river for a nice, tidy sum. To me, Target/May tore "the heart out of the city" much more than did Macy's/Federated.

^^ You underestimate the signifance of a name.

^^ You underestimate the signifance of a name.

How so?

The protest rally last Friday against Macy's was all over the TV News. However, the Tribune and Sun-Times, major recipients of Macy's advertising money, barely mentioned the protest.

The word from my Macy's on State contacts is that receipts are down and that the Walnut Room is nowhere near as crowded as in previous years. The Tribune and Sun-Times have reported misinformation about the Walnut Room, of course.

The boycott is going very well. Even better than expected, in fact.

The protest rally last Friday against Macy's was all over the TV News. However, the Tribune and Sun-Times, major recipients of Macy's advertising money, barely mentioned the protest.

The word from my Macy's on State contacts is that the Walnut Room is nowhere near as crowded as in previous years. The Tribune and Sun-Times have reported misinformation about the Walnut Room.

The boycott is going very well. Even better than expected, in fact.

^hopefully it won't all just result in them greatly reducing the size of the State Street store. But I suppose business in the suburbs is down quite a bit too.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/168719,CST-FIN-retail12.article

Macy's faces the music
Shoppers tuning out since name change; Sears outlook better

December 12, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter

Holiday shoppers' spending mood is anybody's guess, but Marshall Field's-as-Macy's is looking like a tough sell, and Sears is looking better in retail and real estate assets, according to separate analyst reports issued Monday.

The shock of Federated Department Stores CEO Terry Lundgren's decision to eliminate beloved names such as Marshall Field's, Kaufmann's and Famous-Barr is proving a more difficult and time-consuming fight than expected for Macy's owner, wrote analyst Dana Cohen at Banc of America Securities.

Cohen estimated that sales plunged 11 percent in November from a year earlier at Field's and the other former May department stores, all now Macy's.

Another analyst, Carol Levenson of Gimme Credit, has put the stores' sales decline at anywhere from 20 percent to more than 30 percent for the three months that ended Oct. 28.

Cohen lowered her rating for Federated to neutral and cut her holiday-season and 2007 earnings forecasts based on the Macy's revamp decision and four other Federated missteps.

Cohen cited a "sharp reduction" in the cadence of promotions at the new Macy's stores; "dramatic" changes in merchandise assortments; a lack of compelling marketing, and "not enough change in the store environment and service levels."

"Federated tried to do too much too quickly" at Field's and the other department store chains previously owned by May Department Stores, Cohen wrote in a report to investors.

Chicagoans are increasingly bitter at what they see as lower levels of merchandise and customer service at Macy's compared with Field's.

Cohen sees no upturn in the fortunes of the newly minted Macy's stores until spring at the earliest, but she believes Federated's executives will turn things around eventually.

A Federated spokesman said the company's third-quarter sales and earnings were within its forecasts, and the balance sheet and cash flow have remained strong.

A sharp contrast was an analyst's glowing report about Sears Holdings Corp., whose Sears and Kmart stores have failed to attract shoppers.

Bill Dreher at Deutsche Bank said Sears Holdings could spit out an extra $6 billion in cash -- $5 billion by borrowing money through issuing debt, using its real estate as collateral, and another $1.1 billion from selling or leasing brand names such as Kenmore, Craftsman, Lands' End and Die Hard.

Dreher praised Sears Chairman Edward S. Lampert, a billionaire hedge-fund guru, as "one of the greatest investment minds of our time," who could spin the assets into earnings gold.

Dreher said Lampert's investing smarts could add 93 cents to $7.97 to Dreher's forecast of $11 in earnings per share for fiscal 2007. Dreher believes Sears' real estate is worth $8.8 billion.

Dreher also applauded Lampert for improving store profitability, cutting costs and trying to improve shopper traffic by putting Lands' End boutiques and Internet cafes in stores.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/168719,CST-FIN-retail12.article

Macy's faces the music
Shoppers tuning out since name change; Sears outlook better

December 12, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter

Holiday shoppers' spending mood is anybody's guess, but Marshall Field's-as-Macy's is looking like a tough sell, and Sears is looking better in retail and real estate assets, according to separate analyst reports issued Monday.

The shock of Federated Department Stores CEO Terry Lundgren's decision to eliminate beloved names such as Marshall Field's, Kaufmann's and Famous-Barr is proving a more difficult and time-consuming fight than expected for Macy's owner, wrote analyst Dana Cohen at Banc of America Securities.

Cohen estimated that sales plunged 11 percent in November from a year earlier at Field's and the other former May department stores, all now Macy's.

Another analyst, Carol Levenson of Gimme Credit, has put the stores' sales decline at anywhere from 20 percent to more than 30 percent for the three months that ended Oct. 28.

Cohen lowered her rating for Federated to neutral and cut her holiday-season and 2007 earnings forecasts based on the Macy's revamp decision and four other Federated missteps.

Cohen cited a "sharp reduction" in the cadence of promotions at the new Macy's stores; "dramatic" changes in merchandise assortments; a lack of compelling marketing, and "not enough change in the store environment and service levels."

"Federated tried to do too much too quickly" at Field's and the other department store chains previously owned by May Department Stores, Cohen wrote in a report to investors.

Chicagoans are increasingly bitter at what they see as lower levels of merchandise and customer service at Macy's compared with Field's.

Cohen sees no upturn in the fortunes of the newly minted Macy's stores until spring at the earliest, but she believes Federated's executives will turn things around eventually.

A Federated spokesman said the company's third-quarter sales and earnings were within its forecasts, and the balance sheet and cash flow have remained strong.

A sharp contrast was an analyst's glowing report about Sears Holdings Corp., whose Sears and Kmart stores have failed to attract shoppers.

Bill Dreher at Deutsche Bank said Sears Holdings could spit out an extra $6 billion in cash -- $5 billion by borrowing money through issuing debt, using its real estate as collateral, and another $1.1 billion from selling or leasing brand names such as Kenmore, Craftsman, Lands' End and Die Hard.

Dreher praised Sears Chairman Edward S. Lampert, a billionaire hedge-fund guru, as "one of the greatest investment minds of our time," who could spin the assets into earnings gold.

Dreher said Lampert's investing smarts could add 93 cents to $7.97 to Dreher's forecast of $11 in earnings per share for fiscal 2007. Dreher believes Sears' real estate is worth $8.8 billion.

Dreher also applauded Lampert for improving store profitability, cutting costs and trying to improve shopper traffic by putting Lands' End boutiques and Internet cafes in stores.

Please interpret for me.

I am not a religious person.

Does this article mean there is a God?

Please interpret for me.

I am not a religious person.

Does this article mean there is a God?

:lol: Good one. It will be interesting to see how this trend plays out over the long haul, but those of you who have been fighting to get Field's back should get a nice moral boost from this. My guess is that the CEO would need to get the boot before a change would be made, but in any case hopefully this will be a lesson to companies in the future that they should tread carefully when they mess with people's cities.

Now, aside from what the change Macy's made in Chicago means, what on earth has Macy's done to the Beatles in their TV ads. Good God that's a disgrace.

:puke:

:lol: Good one. It will be interesting to see how this trend plays out over the long haul, but those of you who have been fighting to get Field's back should get a nice moral boost from this. My guess is that the CEO would need to get the boot before a change would be made, but in any case hopefully this will be a lesson to companies in the future that they should tread carefully when they mess with people's cities.

Now, aside from what the change Macy's made in Chicago means, what on earth has Macy's done to the Beatles in their TV ads. Good God that's a disgrace.

:puke:

thanks, downtown. And I am convinced that if God shops, He uses green shopping bags!

To those of you who support the boycott, you can get more people to participate by writing a Letter to the Editor.

Your Letter can go to Tribune and the Sun-Times. It can be in response to the recent articles in the Tribune and Sun-Times about the problems Federated Department Stores (Macy's owner) is having because of their mistake.

Your Letter can be important in influencing the public's actions.

Send it to the Tribune at:
ctc-TribLetter@tribune.com

Send it to the Sun-Times at:
letters@suntimes.com

And I am convinced that if God shops, He uses green shopping bags!

I've always thought that too.

Maybe it would be better if Federated changed all the Macy's (except the one in Manhattan) to Marshall Field's. I would certainly enjoy going into a fields in Beverly Hills or Santa Monica. of course it would be nice if they kept the Field's management as well.

Maybe it would be better if Federated changed all the Macy's (except the one in Manhattan) to Marshall Field's. I would certainly enjoy going into a fields in Beverly Hills or Santa Monica. of course it would be nice if they kept the Field's management as well.

svs, for all of Macy's renoun, Field's has always been considered a better department store. No reason why it wouldn't have done wellin Bev Hills, SM....or some new location in mid-town manhattan.

I've been saying the samething all along; Federated blew it. I still think my original idea would have worked. Three major department stores for Federated:

Trendy and flashy Bloomingdale's

Mid-market, sale-ladden Macy's

Traditonal upper-middle to high end Marshall Field's

Such a strategy could have created a major presence of Macy's throughout the US (including some converted Field's locations outside of places like WTP, OO,Okbk, Wfd, Nbk....in fact L&T at WTP could have been the flagship for Macy's Chicago, Bloomingdale's in high profile locations in the nation (where it currently is located), and Field's in other monied locations.

Is it save to say that metropolitan areas like NY, Chgo,LA, SF, Boston, Miami, DC, etc., could support Macy's, Field's, and Bloomie locations....with each of those stores offering its own special appeal.

svs, for all of Macy's renoun, Field's has always been considered a better department store. No reason why it wouldn't have done wellin Bev Hills, SM....or some new location in mid-town manhattan.



I think you miss my point. I know that Fields was a better store than Macy's. Remember I grew up in Chicago and frequently visit New York. That's the whole point of my suggestion that Federated abandon the MAcy's label in favor of the Field's label.

I think you miss my point. I know that Fields was a better store than Macy's. Remember I grew up in Chicago and frequently visit New York. That's the whole point of my suggestion that Federated abandon the MAcy's label in favor of the Field's label.

svs, actually i think you missed my point. my comments were made in agreement of what you said,not to refute it.

svs, actually i think you missed my point. my comments were made in agreement of what you said,not to refute it.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Could we all please stop agreeing! :)

Could we all please stop agreeing! :)

I agree to that.

Could we all please stop agreeing! :)

i really appreciate the respectful way you made the request. I would have done it the same way.

awwww....

:grouphug:

Please respond:

There is undoubtedly a trivial side to the whole Field's-Macy's issue. Admittedly it is "just a department store" and it has really been Field's, the real Field's, for an eternity. And sure there's tradition, but times change....etc., etc., etc.

But is it possible for us to see the Field's issue in a different light, a far bigger and more important light.

Corporations, large corporations, control the United States. They have managed to have gained "citizenship" through friendly courts and now these citizens, not us, call the shots. We all are aware that their money speaks loud to Republicans and only slightly less loud (if even that much) to Democrats.

These corporations control our lives, our jobs (which they may shift overseas), where we live (they move us, if necessary), what we buy, and numerous other aspects of our lives.

By no means do I tink that the movement to return the Field's name to Chicago will happen, but is there something very refreshing about a movement that says to corporate America, "we're sick of the moves you make in your board rooms for your good and with no consideration about what is good for the rest of us."

Is boycotting Macy's, perhaps on a trivial level, not so different from throwing the British East India Company's tea into Boston Harbor?

Yes, it is so different. The folks who participated in the Boston Tea Party put thier lives at stake (literally) to make a public protest against a monarch who denied them self-rule. The people protesting against Macy's are giving up some hours of their time to protest the change of a name on a building and a downgrade in the quality of some of the merchandise sold in that building. That's not to demean the folks protesting against Macy's, they love their city and want an icon back, but to compare that to the effort of the revolutionary generation far, far, far overstates the case.

It is important to remember too that local control of the Field's name was lost a long time ago to large, non-Chicago corporations who themselves would have changed the name if they thought it would have made them money (to be fair, they didn't change the name, which is sort of the point here, but not for alturistic reasons). Yes corporations have a lot of control. But is it as bad as during the industrial revolution where children were working in sweatshops (now we outsource out child labor, how progressive), or working for the Pullman company, living in the company town and shopping at the company store?

The truth is that politics have always been controlled to a large degree by a powerful elite, and always will be. The good news is that in the end the powerful still need to get "regular people" to vote for them. So while the free market dictates that we can't control all of our cherished icons, we can dictate the major direction in which we want things to go.

The boycott is working extremely well. My sources within Macy's, especially at State Street, have told me about the low sales during this Christmas season. The decrease is obvious.

What's more, there were some inaccurate news stories suggesting that lines for Walnut Room this December were just as long as in previous years. I have accounts from long-time employees that directly contradict that claim. In fact, lines were WAY down from previous years and sections of the Walnut Room were closed down during parts of many afternoons due to lack of need. This was a big change from past years.

Please continue to tell your friends and family about the boycott. The FieldsFansChicago.org people are in this for the long haul. It may take another year and a half, but the numbers will eventually eject the Macy's name from the State Street location. Also, please write a letter to the editor supporting the boycott.

Send a Letter to the Editor to the Tribune at ctc-TribLetter@tribune.com.

Send a Letter to the Editor to the Sun-Times at letters@suntimes.com

The boycott is working extremely well. My sources within Macy's, especially at State Street, have told me about the low sales during this Christmas season. The decrease is obvious.

What's more, there were some inaccurate news stories suggesting that lines for Walnut Room this December were just as long as in previous years. I have accounts from long-time employees that directly contradict that claim. In fact, lines were WAY down from previous years and sections of the Walnut Room were closed down during parts of many afternoons due to lack of need. This was a big change from past years.

Please continue to tell your friends and family about the boycott. The FieldsFansChicago.org people are in this for the long haul. It may take another year and a half, but the numbers will eventually eject the Macy's name from the State Street location. Also, please write a letter to the editor supporting the boycott.

Send a Letter to the Editor to the Tribune at ctc-TribLetter@tribune.com.

Send a Letter to the Editor to the Sun-Times at letters@suntimes.com

Near North, please share a scenerio here for us. We know corporate America is hell bent on not admitting a mistake. We also know that Federated feels it can wait this thing out, put up with low margins in Chicago with the sense that in a year, or two, or five, Marhall Field's will be long forgotten and Chicago will be a happy provincial stop in the Macy's empire.

What good thing (realistically good) do you see happening from the boycott and low interest in Macy's. What could we believably see happen with this....and what will it look like.

Thanks; and I hope you are right in your optimism. Marshall Field's was far more than a department store; it was a treasured Chicago institution.

In Chicago you don't turn....

Wrigley Field into Tribune Field
Navy Pier into Wharf-Along-The-Lake
Sears Tower to K-Mart/Sears Tower
Museum of Science & Industry to High Tech Museum
Water Tower Place to Magnificent Mile Mart
Greektown to Athens-on-Halsted
The Loop to River South
Grant Park to Robert E. Lee Park
Field Musem to Macy Museum

-or-

Marshall Field's to Macy's

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=5858966

Stores count on post-Christmas shopping to meet sales goals

The nation's retailers ushered in the post-Christmas shopping season today by slashing prices on holiday items and stocking up on full-price merchandise.
With the 2006 pre-Christmas season falling short of sales expectations for many merchants, the retail industry hoped that shoppers armed with gift cards would spend freely in the weeks ahead on discounted items.

A poll conducted for the National Retail Federation shows consumers are expected to spend nearly 25 (b) billion dollars on gift cards this holiday season.

Shoppers at Macy's on State Street in Chicago faced little competition for sale items.

Rebecca Simantz of Schaumburg says she was surprised that traffic was slow at the former Marshall Field's store. She says her family often shops there after the holidays and its usually much busier.

Greektown to Athens-on-Halsted

I kinda like that one, actually. ;)

I kinda like that one, actually. ;)

Then you'll love my other renamed neighborhood:

"Went-Worth-Itself-A-Fortune-Cookie"

Near North, please share a scenerio here for us. We know corporate America is hell bent on not admitting a mistake. We also know that Federated feels it can wait this thing out, put up with low margins in Chicago with the sense that in a year, or two, or five, Marhall Field's will be long forgotten and Chicago will be a happy provincial stop in the Macy's empire.

What good thing (realistically good) do you see happening from the boycott and low interest in Macy's. What could we believably see happen with this....and what will it look like.

Thanks; and I hope you are right in your optimism. Marshall Field's was far more than a department store; it was a treasured Chicago institution.

In Chicago you don't turn....

Wrigley Field into Tribune Field
Navy Pier into Wharf-Along-The-Lake
Sears Tower to K-Mart/Sears Tower
Museum of Science & Industry to High Tech Museum
Water Tower Place to Magnificent Mile Mart
Greektown to Athens-on-Halsted
The Loop to River South
Grant Park to Robert E. Lee Park
Field Musem to Macy Museum

-or-

Marshall Field's to Macy's

All good points. In response to your question, the good thing that will likely happen in the next 18 months or so is that there will be announcement that Macy's will no longer operate at the State Street location. The numbers will simply not support the continuation of a debacle in that huge space.

The result could be one of several options for Federated Department Stores, and I'll just limit my predictions to State Street, since some of the suburban stores may make it as Macy's stores.

Option #1: They could keep the State Street building and remake it as a Marshall Field's, with the Marshall Field's level of service, the Marshall Field's colors and the Marshall Field's name. Using some volume-buying savings and contracting that parallels their Bloomingdale's stores is one possibility.

Option #2: They could keep the State Street building and break up the building into an atrium mall-like setting with different retailers on different levels. This does not fit their business model, though. They are not a manager of shopping malls.

Option #3: They could sell the store and some future owner could eventually bring it back as a Marshall Field's, though perhaps with some other retailers also operating in the building.

Option #4: They could sell the building and some future owner would remake the building with a theme that does not bring back Marshall Field's.

Of the above four choices, it seems that someone, at some time, will find the Marshall Field's brand to be worth resurrecting. If Option #4 happens above, I personally won't be happy, but it would be better than what it is in the building right now. No matter what happens, the building will remain standing and will be used. The boycott will not create a dead building. Quite the opposite. The boycott will eventually lead to a more successful retailer in the space. Let's hope that this retailer is, at least in a good portion of the building and perhaps in all of the building, Marshall Field's.

Option #3: They could sell the store and some future owner could eventually bring it back as a Marshall Field's, though perhaps with some other retailers also operating in the building..

Probably won't happen considering that they would have to get Federated's permission to use the name, which is highly unlikely.

All good points. In response to your question, the good thing that will likely happen in the next 18 months or so is that there will be announcement that Macy's will no longer operate at the State Street location. The numbers will simply not support the continuation of a debacle in that huge space.

The result could be one of several options for Federated Department Stores, and I'll just limit my predictions to State Street, since some of the suburban stores may make it as Macy's stores.

Option #1: They could keep the State Street building and remake it as a Marshall Field's, with the Marshall Field's level of service, the Marshall Field's colors and the Marshall Field's name. Using some volume-buying savings and contracting that parallels their Bloomingdale's stores is one possibility.

Option #2: They could keep the State Street building and break up the building into an atrium mall-like setting with different retailers on different levels. This does not fit their business model, though. They are not a manager of shopping malls.

Option #3: They could sell the store and some future owner could eventually bring it back as a Marshall Field's, though perhaps with some other retailers also operating in the building.

Option #4: They could sell the building and some future owner would remake the building with a theme that does not bring back Marshall Field's.

Of the above four choices, it seems that someone, at some time, will find the Marshall Field's brand to be worth resurrecting. If Option #4 happens above, I personally won't be happy, but it would be better than what it is in the building right now. No matter what happens, the building will remain standing and will be used. The boycott will not create a dead building. Quite the opposite. The boycott will eventually lead to a more successful retailer in the space. Let's hope that this retailer is, at least in a good portion of the building and perhaps in all of the building, Marshall Field's.

Interesting. I'm not sure you ever commented on the proposal I have made here a few times (I'm make a quick summary):

The State Street store (alone) would be Marshall Field's.

The mix of merchandise would be made up of the following:

Successful and iconic Field's departments: i.e. 28 Shop, Walnut Room, Field's Afar

various Macy's departments

various Bloomingdale's departments

independent venders like those that lined the lower level: such as Barbara's Bookstore.

As stated the store would be Marshall Field's and would have in large letters Marshall Field's on its doors. Underneath would appear in small letters...
"Marshall Field's, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, and More"

All good points. In response to your question, the good thing that will likely happen in the next 18 months or so is that there will be announcement that Macy's will no longer operate at the State Street location. The numbers will simply not support the continuation of a debacle in that huge space...

This is one of the greatest exercises in wishful thinking I have seen. Federated has deep enough pockets that they aren't about to close one of their flagship stores after 2 years of trying as Macy's. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that. Could the boycott work over 5 or 10 years if it keeps momentum, maybe.

Even if it does work, as spyguy noted, Federated isn't about to allow use of the Marshall Field's name so someone else can compete with them. Odds are if Macy's totally fails, that would be the end of department-store retail at that location. To me, the best result is more along the lines of what edsg wrote where Macy's operates the location back under some sort of Marshall Field's nameplate.

This is one of the greatest exercises in wishful thinking I have seen. Federated has deep enough pockets that they aren't about to close one of their flagship stores after 2 years of trying as Macy's. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that. Could the boycott work over 5 or 10 years if it keeps momentum, maybe.

Even if it does work, as spyguy noted, Federated isn't about to allow use of the Marshall Field's name so someone else can compete with them. Odds are if Macy's totally fails, that would be the end of department-store retail at that location. To me, the best result is more along the lines of what edsg wrote where Macy's operates the location back under some sort of Marshall Field's nameplate.

Oh ye of little faith. If Chicagoans had kept that defeatist attitude Milwaukee would be the premer city on Lake Michigan and Chicago would be no bigger than Waukegan.

Keep the faith Chicago, we WILL win this one! :cheers:

This is one of the greatest exercises in wishful thinking I have seen. Federated has deep enough pockets that they aren't about to close one of their flagship stores after 2 years of trying as Macy's. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that. Could the boycott work over 5 or 10 years if it keeps momentum, maybe.

Even if it does work, as spyguy noted, Federated isn't about to allow use of the Marshall Field's name so someone else can compete with them. Odds are if Macy's totally fails, that would be the end of department-store retail at that location. To me, the best result is more along the lines of what edsg wrote where Macy's operates the location back under some sort of Marshall Field's nameplate.

I love comments like that. They will make the victory that much sweeter.

Oh ye of little faith. If Chicagoans had kept that defeatist attitude Milwaukee would be the premer city on Lake Michigan and Chicago would be no bigger than Waukegan.

Keep the faith Chicago, we WILL win this one! :cheers:

I love comments like that. They will make the victory that much sweeter.

Look, I'd love to be wrong on this, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To claim that a company with the resources behind it like Federated is going to just give up on one of their flagship locations within 2 years of the name change is an extraordinary claim. So if you have some proof that this is so, I'd love to hear it, but until then, I just don't buy that they'll give up that easily.

2006 was a bummer. I'm starting a campaign to make 2007 a better year: a "Bring Back Wielbolt's" campaign. Green Stamps anyone?

Look, I'd love to be wrong on this, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To claim that a company with the resources behind it like Federated is going to just give up on one of their flagship locations within 2 years of the name change is an extraordinary claim. So if you have some proof that this is so, I'd love to hear it, but until then, I just don't buy that they'll give up that easily.

Why do you have to be such a bummer with your "reason" and "logic"? You obviously use blind faith in believing Green Bay will ever have a vital downtown. :jk: If it weren't for people like myself who dare to dream for a perfect world, Chicago would never have rebuilt after the fire, velcro would never have existed, and Pong would just be a figment of our imaginations.

LONG LIVE MARSHALL FIELD'S!

Why do you have to be such a bummer with your "reason" and "logic"? You obviously use blind faith in believing Green Bay will ever have a vital downtown. :jk: If it weren't for people like myself who dare to dream for a perfect world, Chicago would never have rebuilt after the fire, velcro would never have existed, and Pong would just be a figment of our imaginations.

LONG LIVE MARSHALL FIELD'S!

Amen! I was in the general area of M*cy's yesterday and it is just so painful that Marshall Fields is no more. I also find it somewhat sad that Carson's is closing soon. What next?

Why do you have to be such a bummer with your "reason" and "logic"? You obviously use blind faith in believing Green Bay will ever have a vital downtown. :jk: If it weren't for people like myself who dare to dream for a perfect world, Chicago would never have rebuilt after the fire, velcro would never have existed, and Pong would just be a figment of our imaginations.

LONG LIVE MARSHALL FIELD'S!

Ya know, after my past couple of posts, I was wondering if I was becoming one of those pain in the ass posters who becomes hell-bent on "keeping it real" and annoys everyone else on the thread. Perhaps I have become that. I got into this thread because of the title, and I had a couple of questions of my own that nobody ever seemed to answer. I also find this whole issue/process very interesting.

The truth is, I've traveled a fair bit, and besides probably Paris and Florence, Chicago is my favorite city that I've been to (and I've been down there more times than I can count). I genuinly wish you guys would succeed in getting Field's back as it sucks when cities lose historic icons, especially in great cities like Chicago. So while my personal view is that some people seem overly optimistic about the ease with which you'll succeed in your fight, I admire that you're fighting the fight to begin with. I shall try to limit my input to encouraging ideas and constructive questions. Good luck!

Oh, and yes, Green Bay needs a lot of work to have a vital downtown (and for that matter, what would constitute vital up here is a relative term compared to Chicago). But if it weren't for people like myself who dare to dream for a perfect world, Green Bay would never have kept an NFL team in such a small market, and the toilet paper you use wouldn't be as quilty soft! :)

Amen! I was in the general area of M*cy's yesterday and it is just so painful that Marshall Fields is no more. I also find it somewhat sad that Carson's is closing soon. What next?

Danville/Decatur Bag & Seed recently has purchased Marina City and will be kicking out all condo owners, covering all windows, and created the ultimate site for quality grain storage: Silo City.

On the plus side, they will be openning a 210 sq ft outlet store just inside the silo entrances that will be selling Wheat Frango's.

Exit, I hope you are shedding those tears at Mayfair for us, too.

But if it weren't for people like myself who dare to dream for a perfect world, Green Bay would never have kept an NFL team in such a small market, and the toilet paper you use wouldn't be as quilty soft! :)
That's some funny shit!:lol:
Thanks for the input, you bring up very good points about this perhaps being an uphill struggle, and we definitely need that to "keep it real" in our efforts to bring back Field's. But the only difference between an uphill struggle and one that is level is that it takes a bit longer to reach your goal, and when you do reach it you'll have bigger calves. :)

Macy's replaces chief of State Street store

Tribune staff report
Published January 2, 2007, 2:14 PM CST

Macy's today announced a shake-up of management at its big State Street store in the wake of a lackluster campaign to woo back former Marshall Field's shoppers during the just-ended key holiday shopping season.

Macy's North, the Minneapolis-based division of Federated Department Stores Inc., named Linda Piepho as its new vice president and store manager of its flagship State Street store that changed from Marshall Field's last fall.

She replaces Ralph Hughes, who currently oversees operations on State Street. He was named regional vice president of corporate communications for Federated, a new post. Both changes are effective Feb. 9.

Piepho comes to Macy's following a 23-year career with Lord & Taylor where she most recently served as vice president and general manager of Lord & Taylor in New York and Water Tower Place in Chicago.

The move comes as sales at the 400-plus stores, including Field's, that Federated converted to Macy's have disappointed company executives and Wall Street during the past several months. Macy's North, which includes about 60 former Marshall Field's stores, has been especially troublesome.

The name change from Field's to Macy's, unfamiliar merchandise and a change in promotions has reportedly taken a toll on sales.

The problems at the former Field's stores prompted Macy's to take unusual steps last month during the key shopping season to try to lure shoppers back, including making phone calls, mailing letters and handing out $10 coupons.

Today's announcement is the first major shakeup in the Field's organization in the wake of the name change.

"Linda is a great talent and we're thrilled to bring her back to Chicago to lead Macy's on State Street -- the grandest store in Chicago and one of the most beautiful stores in the world," said Frank Guzzetta, chairman and chief executive of Macy's North. "Linda's proven expertise in department store retailing, particularly in Chicago, will continue to keep the legacy of this store alive and make it even better for Chicagoans and visitors alike."

Since joining Field's in 1992, Hughes served as regional director of stores and store manager for various stores and divisions throughout the company. He was appointed by Mayor Richard Daley to serve as a commissioner and chairman for the State Street Commission, and will continue to represent Federated and Macy's on a number of initiatives including community and government relations, the company said.

Interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.

Macy's replaces chief of State Street store

Tribune staff report
Published January 2, 2007, 2:14 PM CST

Macy's today announced a shake-up of management at its big State Street store in the wake of a lackluster campaign to woo back former Marshall Field's shoppers during the just-ended key holiday shopping season.....
......The problems at the former Field's stores prompted Macy's to take unusual steps last month during the key shopping season to try to lure shoppers back, including making phone calls, mailing letters and handing out $10 coupons.... .

This isn't exactly shocking, given that they seemed to think that by shoving a splintery 4x4 up the backside of Chicagoans with the name change, sales would improve. Now they are blaming Hughes for low sales.... Go Figure...

I can accept the loss of the M. Fields name, but Federated could have gone about it in a much gentler way, instead of forcing it down our throats. Sometimes it takes a lot more than a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

We Chicagoans don't easily forget when we have been burned.

"She replaces Ralph Hughes, who currently oversees operations on State Street. He was named regional vice president of corporate communications for Federated, a new post."--------Tribune, Jan. 2, 2007

I feel sorry for Ralph Hughes. He never had a chance. Federated created a huge problem by dumping Field's and then told Mr. Hughes "Make it work." How could Mr. Hughes possibly get Field's customers back?

Now they have canned him from State Street and put him into a job with a corporate-speak title. That could be just a holding spot for him while he looks for a job elsewhere. Mr. Hughes is suffering because of Federated's goof.

The new head at State Street is also in for some tough times. She'll likewise suffer because of this corporate blundering. This change-at-the-top is a extremely public sign of distress. It seems that Federated would have preferred to avoid this sign at all costs. The fact that they did it anyway shows that they are really hurting at State Street.

Sometimes it takes a lot more than a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

:lol:

Be sure to read the respective articles in the today's Tribune and Sun-Times about Ralph Hughes losing his job at Macy's on State Street. These two articles are yet another of many examples of how the Tribune and Sun-Times have differed in their coverage of the Macy's debacle. The difference is startling.

There have been several articles in the past few months in the Sun-Times that were slanted in a pro-Macy's way. Also, the Sun-Times t print any Letters about the Macy's/Fields issue despite having received many such Letters submitteed for publication. In contrast, the Tribune has printed over twenty such letters.

Note in today's Sun-Times article, i.e., the one about the change of leadership that there is NOTHING about the fact that the store is in trouble. There is NOTHING about any customers protesting or staying away from the store. There is NOTHING about the fact that the move is anything but a great thing. The article is like a press release from Federated.

That is poor journalism by the Sun-Times. That poor journalism may be related to the huge Sun-Times revenue from the Macy's many weeks of multiple-full-page-ads-per-day advertising in the paper.

Be sure to read the respective articles in the today's Tribune and Sun-Times about Ralph Hughes losing his job at Macy's on State Street. These two articles are yet another of many examples of how the Tribune and Sun-Times have differed in their coverage of the Macy's debacle. The difference is startling.

There have been several articles in the past few months in the Sun-Times that were slanted in a pro-Macy's way. Also, the Sun-Times t print any Letters about the Macy's/Fields issue despite having received many such Letters submitteed for publication. In contrast, the Tribune has printed over twenty such letters.

Note in today's Sun-Times article, i.e., the one about the change of leadership that there is NOTHING about the fact that the store is in trouble. There is NOTHING about any customers protesting or staying away from the store. There is NOTHING about the fact that the move is anything but a great thing. The article is like a press release from Federated.

That is poor journalism by the Sun-Times. That poor journalism may be related to the huge Sun-Times revenue from the Macy's many weeks of multiple-full-page-ads-per-day advertising in the paper.

advertising influencing what we read in newspapers. Unheard of! To think that newspapers would be so influenced must be absurd! In America? NearNorth, please tell me it ain't true. what's next: there is no Santa Claus? there is no Easter Bunny? Politicans don't always act out of what's in the public's best interest? Haliburton actually made money on the Iraq war? The Tribune doesn't love the Sox and Cubs equally?:) :) :)

PS: 25% all men's jockey shorts; additonal 5% savings on purchases of 20 or more pairs.

Men's Underwear, First Floor State, adjoining the atrium fountain.

PS: 25% all men's jockey shorts; additonal 5% savings on purchases of 20 or more pairs.

Men's Underwear, First Floor State, adjoining the atrium fountain.


I'll go commando before I buy any briefs from Macy's. I don't care how desperately, beggingly low the price may be.

Would anyone accept changing the Field's stores in Water tower place and downtown to Bloomingdales?

^Two Bloomingdale's on Michigan Avenue?

^Two Bloomingdale's on Michigan Avenue? Why not,two Field's worked for years and Field's is much more comparible to Bloomingdales than to Macy's

Although Bloomingdale's would be more acceptable than Macy's, it's still a matter of having no Marshall Fields. More coverage of the leadership change. I want in on the focus groups.
----------------------

Crain’s) — Proclaiming that her goal is to “get business and make sales happen,” but offering no specifics on how she’d do it, a former Lord & Taylor store manager is taking over Macy’s State Street store.

Linda Piepho, who was general manager of a Lord & Taylor in New York, hopes to apply the lessons she learned during a 23-year career with Lord & Taylor to draw shoppers to the former Marshall Field’s flagship store on State Street.

Between 1998 and 2004 Ms. Piepho was general manager of Lord & Taylor’s Water Tower Place store.

“It’s a huge dream and a wonderful opportunity for me,” she said of her new job, in which she will be vice-president of Macy’s North and manager of the State Street store.

When asked how she’d grow sales, as well as bring back customers who defected after the controversial name change, Ms. Piepho, who started with Macy's on Tuesday, declined to discuss details.

“It’s too soon to tell on my first day,” she said, though she did acknowledge she’d discussed the matters during her interview process.

Ms. Piepho will work for about a month with her predecessor in the role, Ralph Hughes, to learn her new responsibilities. Mr. Hughes will become regional vice-president of corporate communications for Macy’s parent company, Federated Department Stores Inc. Their new titles take effect Feb. 9.

Federated bought Field’s parent, May Department Stores Inc., for $11.9 billion in 2005. Federated consolidated a number of May’s regional department stores, including 62 Marshall Field’s locations, under its nationwide Macy’s brand in September.

Macy’s has been trying to lure back former Field’s shoppers who may have turned away from the rebranded store due to unfamiliar merchandise and anger at removal of the iconic Field’s name.

In a November visit to Chicago, Federated CEO Terry Lundgren acknowledged that other markets in which the company rebranded stores as Macy’s have been “much easier to break into,” the Chicago Tribune reported.

Keven Wilder of retail consulting firm McMillan Doolittle LLP in Chicago recommends that Macy's establish focus groups of "loyal Field's shoppers" in an attempt to "reconnect with the warm and fuzzy aspects of the (Field's) brand."

At the very least, establishing focus groups "would give the impression that they're listening to these people," she said.

But like most retailers, Macy's success will essentially be determined by the products on its shelves and racks, she said.

"If they have great merchandise, their people will come," Ms. Wilder said.

Federated does not release sales information pertaining to individual stores.

Federated’s stock price is down about 15% since late October, when it approached its 52-week high of around $45. It closed 2006 at $38.13.

Problems integrating May stores may have contributed to Federated’s lagging share price.

“The change of pace at the May (stores) may have been too rapid and the resulting issues are likely to take time to work through,” Banc of America analyst Dana Cohen wrote in a December note to investors.

----------------------
I don't think products matter at all, you can get the same products at any number of other stores in the area. I think they need a lesson in branding and need to understand how strong of a brand Field's is.

i ducked into macys to cut out of the cold . i felt sick to my stomache as i passed through to the other side. but i was plesantly surprized to se the place was eeeeeemmmptttyyyyyy!!!

All right: let's play "What if....."...however, it must be played in a rational, pragmatic world (not what we would like to see, but what actually could happen):

what would happen if Macy's Chicagoland stores are showing disasterous results one year from today, way below expectations and well below any other market that was converted to Macy's in 2006?

• Would Federated seriously consider bringing back Marshall Field's, reconverting all Macy's to Marshall Field's?

• Could Federated see a need for a partial decison: State Street and certain select stores (Old Orchard? Northbrook? Woodfield? Oakbrook?) converted back to Field's, the rest kept as Macy's?

• Internal move: Convert some former Field's in the right locations to the more attyractive Bloomingdale's name (Oakbrook would be a likely place, while still keeping its home furnishing store there)?

• Look to see off all or part of the Chicago properties?

IF PROFIT IS THE MOTIVE, COULD ANY OF THE ABOVE OR SIMILIAR TAKE PLACE?


I hope they are seriously considering some of these options now.:)

^Two Bloomingdale's on Michigan Avenue?

You seem to miss the logic here. It gives the folks living in the southern portion of the Hancock their Bloomingdale's and the ones in the northern portion theirs.

I personally don't know the buying habits of Presbyterian, particularly old money Presbyterians, and whether they shop after they pray.

i ducked into macys to cut out of the cold . i felt sick to my stomache as i passed through to the other side. but i was plesantly surprized to se the place was eeeeeemmmptttyyyyyy!!!

wicked, you'll appreciate this observation: what i've seen of Macy's is it being shlocky and empty!

For all that is said and done, here is the most significant fact that totally escaped Federated and Macy's:

Chicago, like so many metro areas, is over-retailed. it is also living in an age when department stores have long since lost their luster.

So....

with all the options for shopping and with that bad taste that is still inside our mouths, why would we shop at Macy's?

For a lot of people, it is not a statement they are making, not a protest move, not something they even feel a need to share with others. It's more an internal discussion: "I don't like what happened. I'm not happy with the replacement. I feel uncomfortable about going in. there are too many other choices. Why should I give them my business? What need has Macy's created inside of me"

a protest may not kill Macy's Chicago...but apathy (and disgust) may do the trick.

I wrote to Nordstrom the other day to ask them if and how their sales have gone at the Michigan Avenue store since Macy's changed the name of Marshall Field's. I was curious considering the reports of slower sales at the old Marshall Field's on State St. Here is what the manager of the Michigan Avenue store had to say:

Dear Mr. *********,

My name is Greg Holland, and I'm the Store Manager of Nordstrom Michigan Avenue. Your e-mail was forwarded to me today, and I would like to try to satisfy your curiosity.

We have been fortunate to serve our customers downtown for the last six and a half years. Thanks to folks like yourself, we have grown our business each and every year. With all the changes in department stores this past year, we have held to our mission of serving our customers the way we would like to be served ourselves.
We have increased our market share again this year. I can't tell you how much, but I can tell you that it was our best year ever.

I appreciate your patronage and inquiry. Have a happy New Year!

Greg Holland
Store Manager Nordstrom Michigan Avenue
312-464-1515

Here is a longer Associated Press article that went out on the AP wires today. It has already appeared on many newspaper websites around the country. Again
Please note the quote from Jim McKay of FieldsFansChicago.org in the article below.


AP Centerpiece: Federated faces challenges to keep May customers
By LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer, The Associated Press
01/04/2007
Email to a friendPrinter-friendly
Federated Department Stores Inc. still hasn't sold shoppers at former May stores on their new Macy's replacement.

Local loyalists to regional chains such as Filene's, Marshall Field's and Kaufmann's remain cool to the rebranded Macy's stores that replaced them, some analysts say. Cincinnati-based Federated changed the nameplates of 400 former May Department Stores Co. locations to Macy's in September, along with product selection.

The retailer's decision to switch the Macy's moniker for the 155-year-old Marshall Field's name still draws angry reactions in Chicago, and some shoppers in other cities say they miss their familiar stores. Some analysts estimate sales at the converted stores have declined over the past few months.

Federated acknowledges its strategy of building Macy's as a national brand will take time. The company has not been releasing sales figures on the former May locations, but said on Thursday that those stores improved in December from the October-November trend. Federated reported same-store sales rose 4.4 percent in December, below company expectations of 5 to 8 percent, hurt by unseasonably warm weather.

C. Britt Beemer, chairman and founder of America's Research Group, said his research indicates that former May locations may have lost 10 percent to 20 percent of the shopper base from a year ago.

"Clearly, Macy's stores have not won over the May customers to the degree that I thought they would," Beemer said. "They need to rethink how they can attract customers."

A Dec. 19 report to investors from Dana Cohen, a retail analyst with Bank of America, estimated that sales at newly converted Macy's stores dropped 11.3 percent in November.

The report said some possible contributing factors included the sudden conversion of all May nameplates and changes in product assortments emphasizing Macy's private brands and downsizing some national ones.
Cohen stressed that Federated's long-term strategies aren't wrong, but said management underestimated the effect of the changes.

Some analysts say J.C. Penney Co. and Kohl's have benefited from the May conversion problems, though Beemer doesn't think any one store has managed to "gobble up" May customers. "They're scattering like the wind," he said.

Store environment and pricing also may be creating more challenges than expected. "Some of the May stores were struggling for years, so just slapping on another nameplate doesn't solve all the problems," Beemer said.

Wendy Liebmann, president of WSL Strategic Retail, said Macy's still faces emotional challenges.
"They are asking shoppers around the country to give up a brand that a lot of them have had for a long time and have been emotionally attached to, whether it's a store or product brand," she said.

Jim McKay, who runs a Web site opposing the change from Marshall Field's in Chicago, said he believes his group's boycott of Macy's is working. "Field's is synonymous with Chicago and people are annoyed at the arrogance of Federated making this change," McKay said.

James Walton, 51, of Pittsburgh, shopping in a bookstore housed in the former Kaufmann's flagship store in Pittsburgh Wednesday, thinks Macy's has lost Kaufmann's appeal. "It just doesn't have the Kaufmann's feel or touch to it," said Walton, who says he's more likely now to shop at Penney.

However, Kirk Rice, 47, disagreed with Walton. "Most people are stubborn to change, but they will, eventually," he said in Pittsburgh.

A national marketing campaign that heralded the nameplate changes and launched Macy's as a national brand seemed "a little mundane" and not as bold as she would have expected, Liebmann said. "To succeed nationally, Macy's must be consistent in its message and in bringing the excitement that people familiar with Macy's have come to expect. It's not enough to have the Macy's parade," she said.

Macy's has undertaken some merchandising initiatives, including a deal with Martha Stewart to sell a new home furnishing collection this year. Lundgren said in the sales statement Thursday that Federated's results in December indicate that consumers are responding favorably to the nationwide strategy and "we remain confident that our future direction is sound."

Marshal Cohen, chief analyst at NPD Group Inc., a market research company, said Federated appears on track with its scheduled plans. "The good news is that they've done a very good job of maintaining the integrity of the brand and have closed some weaker stores," he said. "The bad news is that the challenges to retail as a whole are much greater."

Megan Fugate, 25, of Cambridge, Mass., who left Macy's downtown Boston store empty-handed Wednesday, thinks department stores may have too much for shoppers pressed for time. "People are getting more specific over what they are looking for and a lot of the brands that Macy's is carrying even have stand-alone stores now," Fugate said. "So, you don't necessarily have to have a department store."
___
Associated Press Business Writer Ashley M. Heher in Chicago and Associated Press writers Daniel Nephin in Pittsburgh and Rodrique Ngowi in Boston contributed to this report.
___

I wrote to Nordstrom the other day to ask them if and how their sales have gone at the Michigan Avenue store since Macy's changed the name of Marshall Field's. I was curious considering the reports of slower sales at the old Marshall Field's on State St. Here is what the manager of the Michigan Avenue store had to say:

Nordstrom success is built on service. On making the customer happy. On saying, I'll delliver that pair of shoes to your house when it comes in if you like. Can you imagine Nordstrom trying to go into any city and convert its treasured department store to Nordstrom.

The name of the game is competiton. I gladly give my business to Nordstrom. As for Macy's....

Regarding that AP story, it concludes talking about how one of Macy's big problems is that retail is down in general and department stores are down in particular. Now, I'm no market analyst, but from what I've heard departments stores have been making something of a comeback lately. So if I'm right, what the former May stores are experiencing is running counter to the trend for their type of business. Now, whether that's due to the shock of the new name and will fade over time, or whether it's a long term trend for Macy's remains to be seen, but from what little I know about retail the problems are less systemic for department stores and more directly related to the change of nameplates/merchandise.

I have to agree in so far as it is becoming quite apparent that Macy's is having problems because of reduced quality of service, merchandise, and overall an attitude that arrogant towards locals.

Today's Tribune had a number of items in Voice of the People with very specific complaints against Macy's.

I'll plead ignorance on the working of major corporations, so perhaps one of you can answer this for me:

there is question that the Fields-to-Macy's move was a PR and financial disaster. there has been more than enough press on how bad the move was. and it's not going away. Chicagoans are not avoiding Macy's out of protest as much as disgust. They resent Federated's cavalier move on a store that made its fame as "giving the lady what she wants". It has delivered an inferior product. It has hurt central Chicago by destroying the concept of one of its major tourist attractions: Field's on State.

the question is: What can Federated and Macy's do about this situation if it doesn't turn around? Can Macy's write off the loses of the changeover? If so, for how long? And if the Macy's store in Chicago and elsewhere in the middle west continue to struggle, WHAT OPTIONS DOES FEDERATED HAVE TO CHANGE THE SITUATION?

Could Macy's be reconverted to Field's or would that leave the company with too much egg on its face?

****

This was a suggestion that I made earlier regarding Federated and its department store divisions. Any idea of this would have worked:

Create a national network of three distinct department store chains:

1. Macy's: the work horse for the company with by far the largest number of stores. Middle market, value oriented, heavy into sales

2. Bloomingdale's: trendsetting, avant guarde, cutting edge; image conscious. definiteively NY. far fewer locations

3. Marshall Field's: ultimate upper middle to upper market, traditional department store. a wide variety of departments offering innumerable services. far fewer locations than Macy's but ideally more than Bloomingdale's.

Under such a plan in Chicago:

Field's retains State Street, WTP, Oakbrook, Woodfield, Nbk Ct,. Macy's goes into Block 37 (flagship) and acquires all other Chicagoland Field's properties. Bloomingdale's stays unchanged at 900N, OO, and home furinshing at Medinah and Oakbr.

Don't Mention It
The Sun-Times went easy on Macy's over the holidays
By Michael Miner
Chicago Reader January 12, 2007

Among America's major newspapers, the Chicago Sun-Times enjoys an unusual reputation for not reporting news. For instance, President Bush's decision to transfer national intelligence director John Negroponte to the number-two job at the State Department was the top story in the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times on January 2. The Sun-Times ignored it.

But that was national--OK, international--news. The Sun-Times earns its bones on the home front. One big local story these days is its own precarious health, and the Sun-Times has gamely tried to keep up with it. Last month the parent Sun-Times Media Group announced that its board had canceled the quarterly dividend. The corporate announcement cited a "significant shortfall in operating performance and cash flow due to ongoing weakness in the Chicago advertising market." The Sun-Times reported this decision in an easily overlooked business-section news brief--but the paper reported it.

Another Media Group paper, the Daily Southtown, went the Sun-Times one better, reminding its readers that former CEO Gordon Paris had said earlier that the company was considering what the Southtown called a "complete overhaul" of the flagship Sun-Times "amid a continuing steep decline in advertising and circulation revenue." The Sun-Times took a small step in that direction just last weekend, dropping its TV magazine.

Given this dire backdrop, the Sun-Times surely welcomed the bountiful Macy's Christmas advertising budget. For a solid week in mid-December the paper carried a thick red Macy's promotional band across the bottom of page one. Inside on some days were full-page Macy's ads designed to resemble news coverage--of Macy's shopping opportunities. Only a tiny notice at the bottom of each page, "Niche Advertising Supplement," identified it as an ad.

Editor in chief Michael Cooke told me it was "regrettable" and "awful" that those ads weren't better labeled. "But the fact they wren't was not part of a plot," he said. Some readers think there was a ploy, one that involved the Sun-Times laying off a big local story--Macy's.

Like the Sun-Times, Macy's limped into the holidays. Federated Department Stores got off to a terrible start in Chicago by announcing it would turn Marshall Field's on State Street into a Macy's--along with all the other stores it had just bought from May Department Stores. The change struck traditional-minded Felds's patrons as stupid and offensive--imagine the Tribune Company renaming the Los Angeles Times the Los Angeles Tribune. The Tribune Company has made more than its share of mistakes, but none that dumb.

How bad a Christmas Macy's suffered on State Street isn't clear, as Federated hasn't broken out sales figures by store. But on Decemeber 12--just two days after the Sun-Times reported that analysts were estimating sales at the former Field's stores and other newly renamed Macy's stores had dropped 11 to 30 percent from 2005 figures. A day later, on December 13, the Tribune told a similar story. "We're trying to find the people that were customers and didn't come back," Frank Guzetta, chairman of Federated's new Macy's North division, told the Tribune.

Soon after the Marshall Field's name came off, I began hearing from lost customers Guzzetta didn't have a prayer of retrieving. They'd spent the Chirstmas shopping season leafleting outside the State Street store, hoping to stir up a massive boycott. In the beginning spokesman Mike Moran focused on the Tribune, complaining that the papaer "cheered on the Macy's opening" and gave short shrift to the estimated 100 or so protoesters outside the store on opening day. "This is an example of journalism entering the twilight zone," Moran e-mailed me.

At least the Tribune printed the protesters' letters. The Sun-Times didn't, Moran reported, and so the focus of his wrath shifted. If you read the Sun-Times," he e-mailed me on January 8, "you would not know that people were unhappy with the arrival of Macy's and you would not know that sales were down and you would think that the change of leardership at the State Street store had nothing to do with any problems." He was overstating his case. Sun-Times business stories on November 3 and December 1 as well as the one on December 12 said sales as lousy.

But Moran was far from totally wrong. At various turns the Sun-Times pulled its punches when covering Macy's--or never punched at all.

For example, this month Macy's announced that a new manager was takeing over the State Street store--the 'change of leadership' Moran spoke of. On January 3 the Tribune ran the story on page one, under the heading "Macy's learning it's what's in a name." The backdrop to the change, the Tribune told its readers, was a weak Christmas, an estranged public, and a critical Wall Street. It quoted a retail consultant who lives across the street from the State Street store observing that "you could shoot a cannon through there most of the time."

The Sun-Times story--back in the business section--read like a personality profile of the new manager, Linda Piepho. Readers learned that she'd gone to Evanston Township High School and studied education and communications in college and that her mother had worked part-time at Field's on State Street. "I walked into the store," Piepho told the Sun-Times, "and said 'Oh, my God. How lucky I am to be coming home to run this facility.' "

This heartwarming tale didn't hint that Piepho was coming home to trouble. And whereas the Tribune wrote neutrally that the old store manager was taking a newly created post of "regional vice president of corporate communications"--a title with a kicked-upstairs ring to it--the Sun-Times called the move a promotion.

As 2006 ended, both papers listed the years top local business stories. The Macy's deal was "done in 2005," reported the Tribune, which ranked the Macy's saga as second, "but local angst intensified this year when Federated rebranded the stores...The disappearance of the Field's name and flood of unfamiliar merchandise were so traumatic for some Chicagoans it prompted them to cut up their new credit cards and boycott stores."

Sun-Times business editor Dan Miller topped his list with the Macy's story, which in his telling was all about Federated's "strategy to infuse new life into its recently acquired Marshall Field & Co. by spiffing up its infrastructure, reorganizing its merchandise and changing its name." Miller said Federated CEO Terry Lundgren "is determined not only to rejuvenate Field's (as Macy's) to its former splendor, but to demonstrate that the department store concept itself will play a central role in America's retail business." Macy's own PR department couldn't have given the transition a cheerier spin.

"Holiday sales fail to dazzle" said the headline to a retail wrap-up in the January 5 Tribune. "Holiday sales fail to heat up" was the headline to an AP story the same day in the Sun-Times. Both noted that Federated didn't release sales figures fo the 400-plus stores (Field's included) that became Macy's stores in September. But the Tribune story was easily the tougher of the two, quoting a bond analyst slamming Federated for its "soft shoe" and calling its sales results "an enigma wrapped in a mystery."

Last week Jim McKay, who runs the pro-boycott Web site fieldsfanschicago.org, forward me copies of about a dozen letters that had been written to the Sun-Times in the previous few days. They assailed Miller's story and hammered the Sun-Times for what one letter (by Moran) called "slanted coverage." A Mount Prospect woman threw Miller's words back at the Sun-Times, writing, "Federated knows nothing about Marshall Field's 'former splendor' or they'd know for one thing, they can't come into Chicago and shove something New York down our throats."

Michelle Stevens, who edits the letters page at the Sun-Times, told me on December 21 she wasn't publishing letters from Macy's boycotters because she hadn't gotten any. Perhaps more to the surprise than the delight of the protesters, she picked a letter out of the latest batch and published it in last Sunday's paper. Sharon Kalinoski of Romeoville called the Field's takeover and name change "possibly the biggest business blunder in the history of Chicago." It was one of the more temperate letters.

Cooke told me he gave no one instructions not to print critical letters. "Any suggestion that there's a mixture of church and state is nonsense," he said hotly. If they're making the suggestion we shut up and volutarily or otherwise gagged ourselves for the advertising, that's simply wrong. [Publisher John] Cruikshank would not accept that for a second. He would never pass [such instructions] on to me."

He continued, "The problem with the people with the placards is they're not getting enough attention, and they're pissed. I don't know where they come from. I don't know who they are. But 20 people with placards do not make a movement, do they?

No, but they can make a point.

2007 Chicago Reader
For more, see Michael Miner's blog at chicagoreader.com

Miller said Federated CEO Terry Lundgren "is determined not only to rejuvenate Field's (as Macy's) to its former splendor, but to demonstrate that the department store concept itself will play a central role in America's retail business."

Hahahahaha. How can you rejuvenate something by eliminating it? This is like if someone claiming to be an environmentalist stated that as part of a strategy to rejuvenate a population of endangered dolphins, they were going to first kill all of the dolphins and replace them with seals, and furthermore that such a strategy would not only be good for the dolphins, but for the marine mammal concept itself. The whole premise of rejuvinating something by killing it is absurd on its face.

i've been to both Macy's stores at Hearld Square and Union Square and it appeared to me that Macy's was far more invested in their east and west coast flagships than they are on State. Anyone had any similiar experiences?

The New York Times

Loss of a Beloved Department Store Breeds a New Kind of Superfan

The Marshall Field’s flagship store in Chicago became a Macy’s last September. Since then, some residents have boycotted Macy’s and signed a petition to keep the old name.

By LIBBY SANDER
Published: January 17, 2007

CHICAGO, Jan. 16 — Bundled in a puffy black coat, a navy blue Chicago Bears hat pulled tightly over his ears, Jim McKay worked a corner along State Street.

With an “I want my Marshall Field’s” button pinned to his shoulder, Mr. McKay was handing out green leaflets — “Marshall Field’s green,” he pointed out — urging passersby to boycott Macy’s, the new tenant at 111 North State Street.

The debut of red-clad Macy’s and the loss of green-clad “Field’s,” which presided over a city block bounded by Wabash Avenue and State, Washington and Randolph Streets for more than 150 years until September, has unleashed a flood of nostalgia and spirited protests from Chicagoans like Mr. McKay who intend to reverse recent retail history.

“We think it’s reasonable to have Field’s back for Christmas 2008,” said Mr. McKay, 43, an architecture professor and a vocal critic of Macy’s. “I think things can change.”

A few people sidestepped Mr. McKay and his leaflets. But some, in a response perhaps symbolic of this city’s ambivalence toward the presence of Macy’s, read the handout, smiled and nodded — and then walked right past Mr. McKay into the store.

Four months into Chicago’s wary acceptance of the department store many here unequivocally associate with New York, the outcry over the demise of Marshall Field & Company continues to rage. It is a public discussion, carried out in the pages of the city’s newspapers, on crowded rush-hour buses and in line for morning coffee.

“We’re all kind of surprised at the deep, emotional, gut response it caused,” said Gayle Soucek, 52, who works for a global aircraft sales company and lives in the suburb of Westchester.

Even though Macy’s is owned by Federated Department Stores of Cincinnati, Ms. Soucek and others still blame the rival city back East. “There was a sense of New York coming here and cramming something down our throat,” Ms. Soucek said.

Not everyone is sentimental. Business is business, many say, and life goes on whether the store is green or red.

But the most fervent, and the most vocal, of the believers are determined to send Macy’s and its little red stars packing. The arrival of Macy’s, they say, wiped out a landmark store founded by a retail giant who was also a benefactor to many of the city’s cultural and educational institutions.

Fueled by a mix of nostalgia and civic pride, 60,000 or so people signed an online petition last year urging executives at Federated — which in 2005 bought out Marshall Field’s parent, the May Company — to keep the name Marshall Field’s for all the stores.

Some Field’s loyalists have printed T-shirts, sweatshirts, lapel stickers and bumper stickers reading “Boycott Macy’s” and “Forever Marshall Field’s.”

Patricia Craven, who lives on the city’s southwest side, is one. “If you were looking for something special, it was Field’s you went to,” said Ms. Craven, 56, who does inventory control for a car dealership and wears a “Boycott Macy’s” sweatshirt. “That’s how Chicago was.”

For others, it was not so much the arrival of Macy’s but the displacement of Field’s that disturbed them.
“Chicagoans would have welcomed Macy’s to our market alongside Field’s,” said Grant Paplauskas, 28, who works in marketing and lives in the southwest suburbs. “But there is resentment because in coming to Chicago, they took away what was ours. We miss what was here.”

Federated executives have taken pains, particularly in Chicago, to lure former Field’s shoppers back to the stores that they grew up with but that now have a new name, a new owner and a new look. Federated’s chairman and chief executive officer, Terry J. Lundgren, has responded personally to e-mail messages from disgruntled shoppers. Next month, Linda Piepho, a native of the Chicago area and a veteran retail administrator, will begin as the new manager of the State Street store.

“We know how attached people were to Marshall Field’s,” said Ralph Hughes, the State Street store’s current manager, who was an executive with Marshall Field’s before the merger and is being promoted to regional vice president of corporate communications. “We knew we had some work to do. We understand the emotions.”

Inside the State Street store, a string of red neon now snakes around the interior railings of a 12-story atrium. Shopping bags, once dark green and adorned with the white script of Marshall Field’s, now sport red stars. Scarlet rugs anchor tables displaying the signature Marshall Field’s Frango mints, still sold in green boxes.

But aside from the color shift, most of the State Street building’s famous flourishes have not changed. The giant cast bronze clocks jutting from the store’s two western corners remain, as does the glass ceiling designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany and the historic “Marshall Field and Company” plaques affixed to the exterior walls. Even the elevator button for the seventh floor, home to the famed Walnut Room and its chicken pot pie, is still green.

“We’re still here,” insisted one Macy’s employee, who declined to give his name, as he watched Mr. McKay distribute leaflets. “They didn’t fire anybody. They tweaked the store, and they’re making it better,” said the employee, who worked for Marshall Field’s for 16 years before the change.
Ms. Craven, however, is adamant. Field’s, she says, is irreplaceable.

“I don’t know what they could do to make us go in there again and buy anything unless somebody wanted to re-buy and name the store Marshall Field’s again,” she said.

But since that prospect seems unlikely, many say they have reached their own uneasy peace with the change.

“I’ll speak for every Chicagoan and say we’re all heartbroken,” said Gayle M. Schor, 40, a lawyer, as she left the store recently. “But,” she added, holding up a Macy’s bag , “we’re still shopping.”
.
The New York Times 2007

Let's play (for those interested) "let's pretend". The pretending may seem off the wall, but considering it's about Federated, nothing they do is surprising.

So let's suppose that one of the corporate genuises at Federated decides and is able to implement a name change: to further make the name "Federated" known nationally, all Macy's stores across the nation would change their name to "Federated".

Goofy, I realize. But hardly any more goofy than changing the name of Marshall Field's to Macy's.

The pretending part (and I am interested in a double standard): HOW WOULD N.Y.C. REACT TO THE NAME CHANGE AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE COMPANY IF IT TRIED TO ERASE THE NAME MACY'S FROM NEW YORK????

I think they shouldve combined the names,

how about Marshall Macys?
or Macys/Fields?

I just lucked out and got an Andrew Marc coat at the Macys at northbrook at a much reduced price just in time for this brutal weather.
I have noted that hardly anything is different in the store, except that the products are a bit better.

I like Marshall Macys,
or MM,
why cant the glutton that swallows up the old stores atleast leave the old signage up,
that would be interesting to see the progression of what was there before.

Frangos are still sold there.

I think Marshall Fields should have its own line of clothing now,
its a great name that chicagoans love
and now that it isnt a dept store,
its should be developed into a clothing line or other things.

Here's an update on the boycott as seen at the State Street Store. Sales are abysmal. The Christmas sales results, none of which were made public, were estimated to be down over 30 per cent at State Street, according to two sources whom I know who work at the store. The Walnut Room had sections closed down for parts of the day during the Christmas Season, a fact that was not reported by the media.

Since Christmas, the store has been dead. However, January has always been a slow month. When the Spring shopping season arrives in April, Federated is going to see that the boycott, which includes boycotting suburban stores, is stronger than ever. In fact, the FieldsFansChicago.org people have more volunteers than last year.

That is the thing about this boycott. Rather than trailing off, as hoped by Federated, it is instead picking up steam. There is no way that the low sales will be tolerated forever by Federated stockholders. Chicago is making its choice and that is a great thing. Once the Macy's at State Street fails, there will be the opportunity for Federated or some other owner to bring back the Marshall Field's name, colors, quality, and way of doing business.

Here's an update on the boycott as seen at the State Street Store. Sales are abysmal. The Christmas sales results, none of which were made public, were estimated to be down over 30 per cent at State Street, according to two sources whom I know who work at the store. The Walnut Room had sections closed down for parts of the day during the Christmas Season, a fact that was not reported by the media.

Since Christmas, the store has been dead. However, January has always been a slow month. When the Spring shopping season arrives in April, Federated is going to see that the boycott, which includes boycotting suburban stores, is stronger than ever. In fact, the FieldsFansChicago.org people have more volunteers than last year.

That is the thing about this boycott. Rather than trailing off, as hoped by Federated, it is instead picking up steam. There is no way that the low sales will be tolerated forever by Federated stockholders. Chicago is making its choice and that is a great thing. Once the Macy's at State Street fails, there will be the opportunity for Federated or some other owner to bring back the Marshall Field's name, colors, quality, and way of doing business.

More than protests, what seems to be happening is avoiding shopping at Macy's has become part of our culture. What Federated never banked on was that their cavalier move to remove the most cherished name in Chicago retail (and render one of our great landmark institutions, Field's on State, dead in the water) would leave such a sour taste in our mouths that we just feel uncomfortable about anything associated with Macy's.

With no desire to put down other cities, I still have to feel that Federated underestimated Chicago, treated like just another US city (which it isn't) and felt we would buy in to the homogenized coast-to-coast Macy's like anyone else, disregarding that there was something so incredibly special about the Marshall Field's name in Chicago that the link was as strong as any city-store relationship could be.

Federated blew this one. But good.

I'd like to test out a theory here. Any imput on this would be greatly appreciated:

What if... instead of acquiring the entire Marshall Field's chain and converting it to Macy's......

Federated has done something else. Like...

Converting all Marshall Field's stores in Detroit and the Twin Cities, selling off Marshall Field's in Chicago to another dept store company, and...

completed its coverage of Macy's in the upper middle west by bringing in Macy's to available locations in the Chicago area. Examples would have included:

Turning Lord & Taylor at WTP into Macy's
Turning one of either two stores that are going or gone (Saks, L&T) at Old Orchard into Macy's
Having another additon to Oakbrook with a new Macy's
Having another additon to Woodfield with a new Macy's

etc.

IF FEDERATED HAD ALLOWED FIELD'S TO BE SPUN OFF AND OPENED UP MACY'S IN CHICAGO WITH NO BAD PUBLICITY AND NO ILL WILL, WOULD THEY, IN FACT, HAVE BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL HERE THAN THE FIELD'S-TO-MACY'S CONVERSION HAS PROVEN TO BE?????????

IF FEDERATED HAD ALLOWED FIELD'S TO BE SPUN OFF AND OPENED UP MACY'S IN CHICAGO WITH NO BAD PUBLICITY AND NO ILL WILL, WOULD THEY, IN FACT, HAVE BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL HERE THAN THE FIELD'S-TO-MACY'S CONVERSION HAS PROVEN TO BE?????????

Yes.

Here's an update on the boycott as seen at the State Street Store. Sales are abysmal. The Christmas sales results, none of which were made public, were estimated to be down over 30 per cent at State Street, according to two sources whom I know who work at the store. The Walnut Room had sections closed down for parts of the day during the Christmas Season, a fact that was not reported by the media.

Since Christmas, the store has been dead. However, January has always been a slow month. When the Spring shopping season arrives in April, Federated is going to see that the boycott, which includes boycotting suburban stores, is stronger than ever. In fact, the FieldsFansChicago.org people have more volunteers than last year.

That is the thing about this boycott. Rather than trailing off, as hoped by Federated, it is instead picking up steam. There is no way that the low sales will be tolerated forever by Federated stockholders. Chicago is making its choice and that is a great thing. Once the Macy's at State Street fails, there will be the opportunity for Federated or some other owner to bring back the Marshall Field's name, colors, quality, and way of doing business.


If all this is true this post made my night.

If all this is true this post made my night.

I have to admit that this Macy's boycott is about the silliest, most self-defeating thing I have every heard, especially coming from a bunch of supposed pro-Chicago boosters. Why you would take pride in harming State Street and the Loop in favor of malls in Schaumburg is beyond me.

I don't care for Macy's or Marshall Field's. I hate malls and big mid-range department stores. Heck, I can't stand shopping in general. But this is idiocy.

If the childish boycott "succeeds", the ultimate result will be a shrunken or even closed State Street store. This means that the protestors would have succeeded in shrinking or shutting the biggest, grandest department store in Chicago and one of the great stores of the world. Why? Because they couldn't get their way and the store name changed.

Once the store closes, there will be no new department store entering the space. It will be converted to office, with street-level retail. You'll end up with a Walgreens and a Chase where you once shopped for the holidays. Why would another operator take a chance on a failed location? There aren't many American department store companies left, and every one already jhas a Michigan Avenue store.

Are the protestors under some delusion that Marshall Field's name can be resurected? Excuse me, the entity you're fighting (Federated) IS Marshall Field's. They own everything related to the name.

The only winners in such a protest are Michigan Avenue (which hardly needs help) and suburban malls.

^Why is it exactly childish? Federated didn't care, some of the newspapers didn't care (like the Sun-Times) for certain reasons, the city didn't care except for landmarking parts of the store. The battle to keep the name, and history and tradition, was left only to loyal customers.

So why is it wrong for people to protest Macy's? It's their right to choose where to spend their money, and they're choosing to spend it at other stores in hopes of creating change.

^Why is it exactly childish? Federated didn't care, some of the newspapers didn't care (like the Sun-Times) for certain reasons, the city didn't care except for landmarking parts of the store. The battle to keep the name, and history and tradition, was left only to loyal customers.

So why is it wrong for people to protest Macy's? It's their right to choose where to spend their money, and they're choosing to spend it at other stores in hopes of creating change.

It's one thing to protest. It's quite another to wish that the store shuts down.

Essentially people are saying that if the store can't be called Marshall Field's, then it shouldn't exist. Sounds pretty childish to me.

It's one thing to protest. It's quite another to wish that the store shuts down.

Essentially people are saying that if the store can't be called Marshall Field's, then it shouldn't exist. Sounds pretty childish to me.

you may be missing the point. without the name "Marshall Field's" on the door, the State Street store can't survive. This is the second largest department store bldg in the US (only Macy's Hearld Sq is larger). The attrraction for all that space was that it was Marshall Field's. Without that name on the door and the traditon that went with it, nobody in their right mind would want to trudge through some 2,000,000 sq ft of space.

I find it far more "childish" for Federated to come in and shut down a local institution of pride and sticking a Macy's label on it, totally disregarding the shoppers of the very city that it allegedly wants to serve.

Let's add one to the "adding insult to injury" category. It might seem like a minor point, but it sure is telling:

It wasn't enough for Federated to slap "Macy's" signs all over our Marshall Field's; they weren't content with that. They wanted to kill the name all together.

They couldn't even throw Chicago a bone. Or, more specifically, a piece of candy. Would it have been that difficult to have left the name "Marshall Field's" on the Frango bars. We used to see "Marshall Field's Frangos" on the bars. Heck, if they really wanted to make it clear where they were bought, even writing "Marshall Field's Frangos from Macy's" or simply sold "Marshall Field's Frangos" at both Macy's and Bloomingdale's. But they couldn't even done that one little thing, that one deference to Chicago, that wouldn't have cost the corporation a cent.

It's one thing to protest. It's quite another to wish that the store shuts down.

Essentially people are saying that if the store can't be called Marshall Field's, then it shouldn't exist. Sounds pretty childish to me.

We can only pray that one day we will have your level of maturity.

It's one thing to protest. It's quite another to wish that the store shuts down.

Essentially people are saying that if the store can't be called Marshall Field's, then it shouldn't exist. Sounds pretty childish to me.

^ Aren't you being a bit of a New Yorker on this one?

If New Yorkers did the same thing (protested) about a New York retailing icon being shut down and replaced with a lower quality store, would you feel the same way?

Sorry Crawford, but I've seen many of your posts in the past, and I think I pretty much have you pegged right on this one.

We can only pray that one day we will have your level of maturity.

meet you in the sand box this morning, NearNorth...and if you throw sand in my face, I will cry and hold my breath until you stop.

I do wish the store would shut down and I don't see anything wrong with that. If it were to close it would probably be replaced by another store and if not, there are plenty of other options for shoppers. Macy's wouldn't be missed.

It's one thing to protest. It's quite another to wish that the store shuts down.

Essentially people are saying that if the store can't be called Marshall Field's, then it shouldn't exist. Sounds pretty childish to me.

You don't believe in capitalism. The market is decided by the consumer. Or should we make an exception for you, one who does not live in Chicago.

I do wish the store would shut down and I don't see anything wrong with that. If it were to close it would probably be replaced by another store and if not, there are plenty of other options for shoppers. Macy's wouldn't be missed.

no single store would ever go into such a large space. however, it might be redeveloped into a Water Tower Place type of mall. Eventually all the huge downtown department stores left across the nation will have to be redeveloped in some way; the era and need for such stores does not make economic sense compared to the service that they offered when they were single destinations in their pre-WWII past.

That basically explains the insantiy of the Macy's move in DT Chgo: the State Street store doesn't need a protest to keep folks from shopping there; there is no need or desire to shop there. That huge space worked because the building sported "Marshall Field's" on its exterior. People shopped the huge store for the tradition and the Chicago experience it was.

Why would anybody in Chicago want to trapse through 2,000,000 s.f. of space in a store called Macy's?

dinomartini says s/he wishes the store would shut down?

What a loss to our city!

I disagree. The fact that people are out there protesting and boycotting actively rather than passively keeps the issue in the public eye. Otherwise, people will slowly get used to the mediocrity and generic style for which Macy's is known. While not every single person who is pro-Field's and anti-Macy's is aware of a boycott or protest, when some of these Field's supporters and Chicago boosters see it on TV or in the Tribune or NY Times or CBS Sunday Morning show, they make a mental note and carry that directly or indirectly to others, actively or passively influencing them not to shop at Macy's. There is a group of people who will settle for mediocrity that is Macy's. Maybe they deserve it but it is not good for our city. Keeping it in the public eye for some has a trickle effect to others. The karma spreads. Having a boycott and protest activities helps Field's not get forgotten so it can come back.

Beyond that, the loss of Field's is a loss for Chicago's identity as an international city. Sure, I've shopped Famous Barr, Lazarus and Kaufman's but when you go to Europe, do more than a token number know what those stores are back in the States? I don't think so. But there are a significantly greater number of people who sure do know what Marshall Field's is in Chicago and know it as destination. That's why Field's literature as recently as a couple of years ago pointed out that Field's is Chicago's number three destination. People in Europe come to Chicago to visit Field's. If they come to American and want to visit Macy's, they are going to visit Herald Square and not the State Street store. With 111 N State a Macy's outpost, why come? They will just wait to visit the ultimate Macy's in NYC.

Even if you personally prefer Macy's, it is Field's that is an institution that is associated internationally with an internationally known city Chicago. As we become more generic and plain, there becomes less reason to make the trek to our City. Chicago teters on being a mid-west town like Indy or Columbus and in other ways, a city like NYC, Paris or London. Field's helped give Chicago an edge in the latter.

dinomartini says s/he wishes the store would shut down?

What a loss to our city!

Ideally, I would like Field's to come back in that space. That's why I support the boycott. I meant to say that if while fighting for Field's, the boycott causes Macy's to close and we lose both Macy's and Marshall Fields, then so be it. Macy's is not needed in Chicago.

Jobs are hardly an issue when it comes to Macy's; there is only so much that will be spent in department stores in Chicagoland. If we don't shop at Macy's, we will shop elsewhere...and the retail jobs will flow to other locations.

There is ntohing immature about wanting nothing to do with a company that literally slapped us in the face. Federated said, "we're taking away Field's and giving you Macy's whether you like it or not". Well, we don't like it and we don't mind if they get screwed in the process. Federated did not destroy a department store in Chicago; it destroyed a cherished institution. As a result, they can go get f-----, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a question I'd love to see answered but Federated would never let us know that in a million years:

How do Macy's and Bloomingdale's compare in Chicago profitability? Are Chicagoans more likely to walk into Bloomie's than Macy's.

*****************

Also, let me throw this out, related to the above:

Federated could easily feel it ended up with egg on its face if it capitulated to Chicago's cold reception by reconverting Macy's to Field's.

Is there a way for the company to safe face on this issue and make a more profitable situation for itself? May I suggest one?:

Announce that Federated is testing a restrucgturing in the Chicago area that could be used conceptually across the nation. It entails:

•*turning select Macy's locations to Bloomingdale's. For example, Hawthorn serves wealthy areas in Lake County and Fox Valley serves wealthy area in western DuPage.

• reinstitute Marshall Field's as the third major Federated department store. I had suggested this one earlier; Federated would thus have three different types of department stores....midmarket, bargain oriented Macy's, trendy, high end Bloomingdale's, traditional, iconic high end Field's. Field's would intiially reopen at State Street, WTP, Old Orchard, Northbrook Ct, Woodfield, Oakbrook. Field's success in Chicago would be used to expand the store to other cities in a limited fashion.

• Macy's would seek its own new flagship downtown; it may not be too late to get in to Block 37 as the planning has not advanced that far. If not, other areas in the State Street and Mag Mile corridors could be considered. Macy's retains stores like Orland, Stratford, River Oaks, etc.

"edsg25": Regarding Macy's and Bloomingdale's in relationship to Field's, it becomes apparent that Federated had two main goals in nixing Field's. In the bigger picture, consider in recent years, Federated also has had the opportunity to purchase Carson's/Younker's/Herberger's/Boston Store/Bergner's but did not. Either Carson's, et al, combination or Field's would have given them about the same coverage that they got from acquiring Field's (now Macy's North). While Carson's et al would have been much less controversial and a better match to Macy's, Federated waited to buy Field's to get it out of the picture.

So Federated's two goals are 1) the obvious, give Macy's a national precense, and 2) the not so obvious, reduce stronger competition to Macy's and Bloomingdale's. A lot has been said about 1) but 2) is not talked about so much. Getting rid of Field's reduces a strong competitor to Bloomingdale's. Federated disliked the competition from Field's. Back in the late 90s, they knew competition would be so great from Field's that they asked for an outrageous $58M in incentives from the city as a condition to be the anchor of Block 37. Furthermore, Field's since the early 90s had something special going in that it appealed to both middle- and upper-markets. By dumping Field's, the middle goes to Macy's and the upper goes to Bloomingdale's. Word is that Bloomingdale's has never lived up to hopes for the Chicago market. Not quite sure how it is doing now. Really, if you want to support the return of Field's, you should boycott both Macy's and Bloomingdale's.

It's really too late for Federated to "save face" under the current management led by Terry Lundgren. Saving face could have been having a press conference back in April to announce that State Street would stay Field's and Water Tower would be the Macy's Chicago flagship. Instead, Terry Lundgren continued his drive, undetracted by the realities of outside polls showing 90% of Chicagoans against the change (Chicago Tribune) and forecasters of what has now come to past. Instead, Lungren choise to announce "Macy's at State Street which shows you how much he knows about Chicago or State Street. I bet he didn't even listen to Ralph Hughes who formerly headed the State Street store until January as well as the State Street Council.

Macy's has created too much bad will and Lungren has too much pride to save face. He'd rather sink with his ship than save face.

I am sure that some of you saw the article by Sandra Guy in the Business Section of today's Sun-Times. The article presented the results of a customer survey of all major department store chains and other retail chains undertaken by the University of Michigan.

This survey found that Macy's ratings have dropped significantly since last year. This is just one more sign that Federated blundered with its attempted Macyization of the country. The University of Michigan study is being quoted in papers nationwide today.

I am sure that some of you saw the article by Sandra Guy in the Business Section of today's Sun-Times. The article presented the results of a customer survey of all major department store chains and other retail chains undertaken by the University of Michigan.

This survey found that Macy's ratings have dropped significantly since last year. This is just one more sign that Federated blundered with its attempted Macyization of the country. The University of Michigan study is being quoted in papers nationwide today.

i wonder how the numbers come in on this one, near north. I can't imagine detroit and mpls reacting like chicago since hudsons and daytons converted to field's years ago. i know other midwestern dept. stores got gobbled up by macy's during the federated acquisitons, but i didn't think there was that same connection as the one between chgo and fields...nothing to get the anomosity working the way it did with us.

i do imagine the drop you described here has to deal with the reorganization of the stores, but i also have to wonder if there are other issues that shoppers have with macy's unrelated to the names on stores. it would have been nice to compare the results of the survey in Chicago with, say, San Francisco or New York, two Macy's strongholds.

True, the U. Mich. study doesn't- break out stats by region or metro area—as best I can tell—but a similar study by consumer economics professors at St Thomas University had similar results. That study focussed only on Minnesota and the former Field's stores that were previously Dayton's stores.

The St Thomas study found that Twin Cities customers were much less satisfied with Macy's than with Field's.

Although it may seem surprising that Minneapolis customers would care about the replacement of Field's after losing Dayton's, further digging reveals citizens of that area basically feel that Dayton's and Field's had already the best of both stores for years; furthermore, it was a NYC store while Field's was a midwest store; also, it was Dayton's that took over Field's but adopted the Field's name; then Minneapolis lost a lot of jobs with the switch to Macy's. But most of all, there was a perceived drop in quality of service, merchandise and overal experience.

As far as I know, there is no study that breaks results for those in Michigan who shop Macy's that were once Field's and before that, Hudson's.

One more point: keepitfields.org, the former petition site that closed up last July had 60,000 signatures in support of keeping Field's. It was run by Minneapolis-area Field's supporters—not Chicagoans—and it was signed by quite a few people from Minnesota and upper great plains including some members of the Dayton family.

Well I do that at least in the Milwaukee area (with our one store :lol:) Macy's hasn't been having much of an impact like Field's was getting right before it closed. When you go shop at Mayfair Mall, you hardly see any Macy's bags, even on sale days. Also, with all of Milwaukee's malls basically going through changes - Macy's isn't brought up to add onto or replace current department stores. Names like Von Maur, Nordstrom, and Bloomingdale's come to mind instead. Last year our business magazine asked readers what department store would you like to see at our new Pabst Farms shopping center in 2009. The minority was Macy's.

I'd like to say that we're standing with Chicagoans on this one, even though we only have one store - but I don't want to push it. I think Milwaukeeians are knowing how it is to fight for something like this - ever since AirTran opened up bids for Midwest Air the entire city has been doing the same things as Chicagoans with Field's. Maybe we could trade!? Boycott AirTran and we'll boycott Macy's! You never know....

Well I do that at least in the Milwaukee area (with our one store :lol:) Macy's hasn't been having much of an impact like Field's was getting right before it closed. When you go shop at Mayfair Mall, you hardly see any Macy's bags, even on sale days. Also, with all of Milwaukee's malls basically going through changes - Macy's isn't brought up to add onto or replace current department stores. Names like Von Maur, Nordstrom, and Bloomingdale's come to mind instead. Last year our business magazine asked readers what department store would you like to see at our new Pabst Farms shopping center in 2009. The minority was Macy's.

I'd like to say that we're standing with Chicagoans on this one, even though we only have one store - but I don't want to push it. I think Milwaukeeians are knowing how it is to fight for something like this - ever since AirTran opened up bids for Midwest Air the entire city has been doing the same things as Chicagoans with Field's. Maybe we could trade!? Boycott AirTran and we'll boycott Macy's! You never know....

why in the world has Von Maur not opened in Milwaukee yet?

Ironically at Mayfair....Gimbels is long gone, replaced across the mall with its old NY rival Macy's; Field's is gone, but across the mall is its old rival Carsons (sporting the Boston Store label). Weird.

why in the world has Von Maur not opened in Milwaukee yet?

Ironically at Mayfair....Gimbels is long gone, replaced across the mall with its old NY rival Macy's; Field's is gone, but across the mall is its old rival Carsons (sporting the Boston Store label). Weird.

Basically this is what's going on with our area malls.

Brookfield Square: Going to be under renovation soon - adding more resturaunts (Johnny Rockets is coming to Milwaukee!!) and they're thinking of maybe throwing in another department store (Bloomingdale's was mentioned as a possibility)

Bayshore Town Center: Just got finished with basically the entire mall being razed and replaced with a wannabe Old Orchard, but instead of all walkway its a damn drive thru that's barely wide enough to fit 4 cars :bash: Anyways they want to eliminate Sears and replace it with a higher end store. Nordstrom was named - and Nordstrom isn't interested in Milwaukee yet. Von Maur wanted the spot - apparently Bayshore thinks its too good for a Von Maur (don't understand that one). So now Bloomingdale's has been named as a possibility.

Pabst Farms: Brand spanking new mall going to be under construction this year, probably will be finished in 2009. No names have been mentioned yet. But it's in one of the wealthiest areas in the area - they have tons of lakes and well you guys bought most of those new homes up.... Macy's was interested I believe, but I don't think the people want a Macy's there. Von Maur, Bloomies, Nordstrom are the ones General Growth is looking at I believe.

Southridge: Just been bought by Simon, the mall and the village its in (Greendale) are in talks of pulling a Bayshore but bigger - since it has the most land for a shopping center (other than Pabst Farms). Von Maur is interested in opening here as well.

Further followup: A report from last night at MarketWatch.com which says Federated admits the switch from Field's to Macy's is not going well in Chicago and Minneapolis.

Federated has admitted that it is having trouble with the store changes in certain markets — such as Chicago and Minneapolis — but has stayed upbeat on the transitions.


The story has the headline, "Macy's 'legacy doors' to pad Federated profit" and can be viewed in its entirety at:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/macys-legacy-doors-pad-federated/story.aspx?guid=%7BB841E69E%2DAA0A%2D4C69%2D8148%2DAF3C924D0486%7D

Further followup: A report from last night at MarketWatch.com which says Federated admits the switch from Field's to Macy's is not going well in Chicago and Minneapolis.

Federated has admitted that it is having trouble with the store changes in certain markets — such as Chicago and Minneapolis — but has stayed upbeat on the transitions.


The story has the headline, "Macy's 'legacy doors' to pad Federated profit" and can be viewed in its entirety at:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/macys-legacy-doors-pad-federated/story.aspx?guid=%7BB841E69E%2DAA0A%2D4C69%2D8148%2DAF3C924D0486%7D

Now let's all say a prayer that Federated can admit that Field's should be the 3rd Federated department store chain, with Chicago and Minneapolis flagship stores.

Basically this is what's going on with our area malls.

Brookfield Square: Going to be under renovation soon - adding more resturaunts (Johnny Rockets is coming to Milwaukee!!) and they're thinking of maybe throwing in another department store (Bloomingdale's was mentioned as a possibility)

Bayshore Town Center: Just got finished with basically the entire mall being razed and replaced with a wannabe Old Orchard, but instead of all walkway its a damn drive thru that's barely wide enough to fit 4 cars :bash: Anyways they want to eliminate Sears and replace it with a higher end store. Nordstrom was named - and Nordstrom isn't interested in Milwaukee yet. Von Maur wanted the spot - apparently Bayshore thinks its too good for a Von Maur (don't understand that one). So now Bloomingdale's has been named as a possibility.

Pabst Farms: Brand spanking new mall going to be under construction this year, probably will be finished in 2009. No names have been mentioned yet. But it's in one of the wealthiest areas in the area - they have tons of lakes and well you guys bought most of those new homes up.... Macy's was interested I believe, but I don't think the people want a Macy's there. Von Maur, Bloomies, Nordstrom are the ones General Growth is looking at I believe.

Southridge: Just been bought by Simon, the mall and the village its in (Greendale) are in talks of pulling a Bayshore but bigger - since it has the most land for a shopping center (other than Pabst Farms). Von Maur is interested in opening here as well.

How is C&B Mayfair doing? I would think that it would be a good model for other high end stores coming into the Milw market.

How is C&B Mayfair doing? I would think that it would be a good model for other high end stores coming into the Milw market.

I think its doing fine. I probably wouldn't go to the excellent mark, but I know a lot of people shop there. Whenever I walk in there's always some lines at the scattered registers they have. If anything their furniture section (the entire upstairs) probably would be suffering the most. That's where it loses my excellent status. I don't think Milwaukeeians are that used to pay over $2700 for a couch/sofa/whatever you wanna call it, and if there is such a thing as a furniture sale or service at C&B, they don't advertise very well, and don't show their smiles that often.

I also would like to add that whoever I talk to is kinda disappointed that Mayfair would be its only location until I don't know when....a lot of people hate the long drive sometimes - and well they could have put one more on the southern half of Milwaukee.

If the building on State we loved as Marshall Field's is destined to never have another department store in it other than Macy's, how would you feel about the following suggestion:

Close Macy's and turn the store into the ultimate vertical mall, one that blow away both Water Tower Place and Block 37. The building's conversion would need to assure all open areas (each attria) remains open air. It would also require each store within it to be respectful of the interior design of the building by leaving wider openings to each store within the structure to protect the overall integrity of the building.

Forget for a moment that the Field's block may be too big for such a massive project, particularly in light of the retail coming in across the street at B37. Focus on the concept of the dept-store-to-mall conversion.

One way or another, Marshall Field's was not going to last forever; the concept of "dept store" as we know it will not last the century. The Field's bldg would eventually have needed some type of conversion.

Is the mall idea a good thought for the bldg if it could not (or should not) be a dept. store.

edsg25: I quibble with at least three aspects of what you have written. With the premise you make, who's to say there will even be bricks and mortar stores where people go shopping later this century? We might as well as ask, "What should happen the Field's store building in 2037 if that asteroid hits as expected in 2036?"

First of all, vertical malls are an even more dead concept than department stores--at least among those who think department stores are on their way out. But I'm not among those who think the department store is dead. Look at Nordstrom, Penney's, Bon-Ton, Selfridge's, Harrod's -- even Macy's on 34th, etc--those are doing well.

I keep reading the big buzz in retail is how the department store has made a huge comback at the expense of the big boxes. Most recently this has been seen in all the stories about why Bon-Ton is wonderful stock and the "return of the department store" segment that was on last Sunday's "CBS Sunday Morning" news magazine show. BTW: the latter showed footage of Chicagoans protesting outside of the State Street store when it was converted to Macy's as part of the "Return of the Department Stores" story.

But as far as shops filling in the space that was occupied by Field's on State, well, that was pretty much what Field's was doing until it was interupted by Macy's. The concept was even about to be expanded to Field's on Nicollet Mall. The shops within the store concept is also what is a huge success at Selfridge's, Harrod's, etc. And instead, in steps backward, a number of those shops got dismantled as a result of Macy's bad business decision.

So, yeah, they could have shops in the bigger store building--that's what was happening in fact. But how would it fare as a mall? Look, people would rather come to Marshall Field's (and the shops within) than some mall that used to be Field's. Look at the mall that has replaced the former Gimbel's flagship near Harold Square. It's never been the same destination as when it was Gimbel's. Field's used to be the number three destination in Chicago, according to Field's publicity literature.

And speaking of other uses, if Federated stays the owner, look for the store to become only something like four floors with the upper floors as a hotel, mixed use, etc.

In the past few days, someone wrote that they prayed Federated would reinstate Marshall Field's as their third brand. I would hope Federated would let someone else buy the former Field's stores. They are all about making money and being merchants is a distant second. Field's deserves better owners.

Which leads to another case of lame logic that "Field's can't last forever." Sure, even the United States probably won't last forever, but does that mean we should push it over the edge now??? People claim that Field's wasn't doing so well or as well as it should be or that it wasn't the same Field's as 50 years ago. (I can't say except I best knew the Field's of the past 20 years and to me Field's was incredible and way better than Macy's in 1990s and 2000s.). A truly good owner would be a steward of that legacy and restore it, not take it further down market. It's ridiculous that people would claim it's OK to reduce the quality and service of these stores, because they were already not as good.

I also don't buy the excuse that it's OK to make these stores Macy's because Field's was losing money--and, personally,, I don't think that was the case with State Street and man. It's pretty clear as Macy's these same stores are much less profitable than as Field's. If they were losing money as Field's, they are losing even more money as Macy's. Guess what?--The economy of same bags, nationwide commericals, etc doesn't mean more profit--it means less profit. There's a lot of spin and "bait and switch" in these arguments.

I think you summed it all up in that argument. Personally I always felt Field's lost money because it was a regional department store. If Field's could have been given the opportunity to expand to other states (around the current region) and even to expand within the states it was situated, I think more people would have shopped at the store.

I don't feel that vertical malls are "dead" or "dying" persay, actually I like the feeling of WTP when I go there every once in a while. It's different and unique, you never see that kind of thing up here. Yes, Chicago probably has 3 or 4 verticals downtown, but I think that attracts as much tourists as the stores inside them!

As for shops inside department stores, look at what JCPenney is doing with Sephora. I know up here we're supposed to be getting Sephora shops inside at least one JCP in the Milwaukee area this summer or fall. Sears has a whole Craftsman shop inside two locations up here, which give both their big profits for the most part. Shops inside stores is a new trend, and I feel it will be a successful trend. It won't affect malls in a negative way IMO - in fact I feel it will strengthen the mall by having more stores in a centralized location. If Sephora wants a bigger storefront than what it would have at JCP, they can always get a bigger slot outside the store.

One thing that Field's always had was its great customer service that I've seen completely deterioriate under Macy's. Macy's replaces service with sales - TONS of sales. I think I get at least one or two e-mails or letters or BOTH a week telling me about some sale or some special or some discount. Nuts.

hoops, i was actually thinking about Field's and the way it sused boutiques in its lower level when i made the suggestion. you are right when you suggest that the way that retail in general is run in the future will differ from today, but my sense is we'll still be shopping at stores even when department stores have run their course.

I will grant you that department stores have shown a revival..and I'm glad they have. I have problem calling Nordstrom a department store because for all its variety of great clothes, it doesn't have much at all in non-clothing products.

As for Macy's contracting to four floors on State, I just don't see it happening. With the Field's acquisiton, Macy's announced it was functioning on the basis of three flagship stores. Can you imagine the implication here in Chicago, already tremendously burned by Macy's replacing Field's, if Macy's Hearld Square and Union Square stores remained at full size and the Chicago store was "contracted" to a former shell of itself?

I agree with edsg25 on that. If Macy's trimmed store space off the State Street store they face more opposition than the current situation they're in right now. They'd be better off leaving the entire Chicago area if they were going to wreck the State Street site. Chicagoans were very proud of their heritage that Federated took away from them. Taking more away would just deepen the wound that will never heal.

I agree with edsg25 on that. If Macy's trimmed store space off the State Street store they face more opposition than the current situation they're in right now. They'd be better off leaving the entire Chicago area if they were going to wreck the State Street site. Chicagoans were very proud of their heritage that Federated took away from them. Taking more away would just deepen the wound that will never heal.

brewcity, they're idiots. they were perfectly welcome in the chicago market, but not at the expense of marshall field's.

if they had bought the marshall field's stores and either retained chicago's field's as field's or sold it to someone who would, incorporated mpls and detroit field's into macy's and then established their own stores in chicago (through conversion of existing space or building new stores), they would have been FAR MORE successful than their obvious lack of success today.

Possible path Macy's could have followed:

• admittedly unknown but maybe suspected at time: convert Carsons on State to Macy's

• convert L&T WTP to Macy's

• convert either Saks or L&T Old Orchard to Macy's

• a space like Wards at Yorktown was once available; I believe it is now being redeveloped as non-dept. store space, but it, too could have been turned into a Macy's

Point is, Macy's could have found enough existing and new space in the city and suburbia and augmented it with new construction. In fact, if Federated had chosen to do so, it could have converted some suburban Field's properties (i.e. Spring Hill, Stratford, Jolliet, etc., to Macy's).

They missed an opporutunity to have had their cake and eaten it too.

brewcity, they're idiots. they were perfectly welcome in the chicago market, but not at the expense of marshall field's.

if they had bought the marshall field's stores and either retained chicago's field's as field's or sold it to someone who would, incorporated mpls and detroit field's into macy's and then established their own stores in chicago (through conversion of existing space or building new stores), they would have been FAR MORE successful than their obvious lack of success today.

Possible path Macy's could have followed:

• admittedly unknown but maybe suspected at time: convert Carsons on State to Macy's

• convert L&T WTP to Macy's

• convert either Saks or L&T Old Orchard to Macy's

• a space like Wards at Yorktown was once available; I believe it is now being redeveloped as non-dept. store space, but it, too could have been turned into a Macy's

Point is, Macy's could have found enough existing and new space in the city and suburbia and augmented it with new construction. In fact, if Federated had chosen to do so, it could have converted some suburban Field's properties (i.e. Spring Hill, Stratford, Jolliet, etc., to Macy's).

They missed an opporutunity to have had their cake and eaten it too.

Not trying to disagree with you because I, too, was a big Field's fan - but Federated I think wanted to do all or nothing concerning Field's. As big of a mistake that was (and should be reversed) that was their own cake that dropped on the floor. What I found amazing was the fact that they made this whole issue about Field's and were absolute on their determination to eliminate the name - when they SELL Lord and Taylor!!! It should have been the other way around, but I know tons of posters will say flat out - "Lord and Taylor wasn't direct competition to Macy's - Field's was" Very sleazy IMO, but that's why they're getting hit with negatives like they are today, and deserve every bit of it. I feel the biggest smack Federated ever gave to Chicago and all Field's lovers was the L&T sale, because that could have been Field's and the world would have been a happier place.

Lord & Taylor stores typically have about 60% of the square footage of a Macy's or a Field's store. Most L & T stores aren't big enough to be what Macy's wanted. That's why few L & T's anywhere were convereted to Macy's, the old Wannamaker's flagship being one of the few exceptions. (They are of course now taking about smaller Macy's in smaller markets.) Also consider that Lungren has respect for Lord and Taylor and Nieman's but is rumored to not especially appreciate Field's. ("Hey, obviously, huh!?")

Again, Field's had to go to reduce competition. They wouldn't enter the Chicago market on their own in large part because they would have to enter fresh in market already dominated by Field's and Carson's, not to mention the national players like Sears, Kohl's, Penney's.

Like I said, Carson's/et al was a better match but Macy's ego is too big to enter as #2, not to mention I don't believe the timing was 100% on the nail. I think Sak's Norther Department Store group came on sale after Federated started the process to buy May.

State St. Macy's appears to be struggling: consultants

(Crain’s) — Earnings rose last quarter for the parent company of Macy’s department stores, but the State Street location appears to be foundering, two retail consultants said.

Macy’s parent company, Federated Department Stores Inc., doesn’t break its sales data out by region or store, a company spokesman said.

Given that fact, it’s difficult to assess the performance of individual stores. And that might be a good thing for the State Street store, considering its apparent troubles luring back shoppers who defected after Federated dropped the store’s iconic Marshall Field’s name.

“From what I hear from the different tenants within the space, Macy’s continues to struggle at the State Street location,” said Keven Wilder, a retail consultant with McMillan Doolittle LLC in Chicago.

“There still continues to be a lot of merchandise on sale and on clearance,” she said. “There continues to be not a lot of traffic.”

Ms. Wilder said Macy’s on State Street did well on Valentine’s Day, but subsequent snowstorms hurt its momentum. “I know the top brass at Federated continue to be worried about this and continue to focus on it,” she said.

Retail consultant John Melaniphy, of Melaniphy & Associates Inc. in Chicago, said “things are going poorly” for Macy’s stores in the Chicago area, a conclusion he bases on sales-tax receipt data from the Illinois Department of Revenue.

As for the State Street store, “The Field’s customers have not come back the way Macy’s would like to see them come back,” he said.

The Federated spokesman declined to comment.

Federated bought Field’s parent, May Department Stores Inc., for $11.9 billion in 2005. Federated consolidated a number of May’s regional department stores, including 62 Marshall Field’s locations, under its Macy’s brand in September 2006.

Federated CEO Terry Lundgren said sales at the former May stores have been growing stronger every month, despite some reluctance by customers who are loyal to their former nameplates.

"We would have preferred seeing the sales at the former May Co. stores perform better, particularly in the home furnishings category, and move faster than they in fact did," Lundgren said.

Federated’s fourth-quarter sales fell 4% to $9.16 billion from $9.57 billion, as the company shuttered 80 “duplicative'' store locations.

Analysts forecast fourth-quarter sales of $9.07 billion. The recent quarter included an extra week of sales — 14 weeks vs. 13 weeks a year ago.

Sales at stores open at least one year, considered a key indicator of a retailer's success, rose 6.1% in the quarter.

The current same-store results include only the Macy's and Bloomingdale's stores that existed before September, when the company transformed most of the former May Co. branches to Macy's units. Federated said it will begin reporting same-store sales for the former May stores for the first time beginning this month.

Federated also said it will ask shareholders to approve changing its name to Macy's Group Inc.

For the quarter ended Feb. 3, Federated’s net income rose to $733 million, or $1.40 per share, from $699 million, or $1.26 per share, in the prior-year period.

(The Associated Press contributed to this story.)

Crain's Chicago Business 2007

They're changing the name to Macy's Group Inc., why not stop wasting time and admit your mistakes and bring back Field's?

They're changing the name to Macy's Group Inc., why not stop wasting time and admit your mistakes and bring back Field's?

It seems Federated is hell bent on Macy's for some reason. I don't think it's THAT grand of a store to be putting so much emphasis on. If anything the shareholders should revoke Lundgren's leadership - it doesn't seem to be going the right way.

Does anyone know the ultimate footprint Field's had? I know they once had stores as far as San Antonio, Toledo, and at one point owned Frederick & Nelson's in the Washington and Oregon.

Does anyone know the ultimate footprint Field's had? I know they once had stores as far as San Antonio, Toledo, and at one point owned Frederick & Nelson's in the Washington and Oregon.

Sam, i'd be fuzzy on dates, but I think i can get the footprint down right:

When Marshall Field's was owned by itself (Marshall Field & Company), outsie of the Chicago area stores, it owned:

• Frederick & Nelson (which you noted), Seattle based but with other (like Portland) NW locations. Fredick & Nelson (F&N Co) gave us the Franco bar which became the Frango bar when Generalismio Franco was doing his damage in Spain

• The Cresent: a Spokane based dept. store chain

• Halle's: Cleveland based dept. store chain

• Field's outside of Chicago: first was Mayfair (Milw) in response to all the Milw customers that used to shop on State Street. Then CherryVale in Rockford. Field's at one point fashioned itself as a type of Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor type of institution, ready to take its brand name to other parts of the US: this strategy rought it first to Texas (Hou, Dal, SA) and then to downtown Columbus

• towards the end of its independent status, Field's purchased a major chain of futurniture stores in the Bay Area, the name of which escapes me

After BATUS (British Tobacco) acquired Field's and gave the company virtually autonomy in running its business (it was BATUS's only retail division), Field's expanded its Wisconsin base with the shuttering of Gimbel's, including 2 subuurban and a downtown Milw (Grand Avenue) store as well as other locations in WI like Madison. Mayfair alone remained of the Milw stores when Macy's took over

And, of course, with Dayton/Hudson-into-Target, Marshall Field's became the name of all Dayton's and Hudson's from the Dakotas on into northern Ohio.

Hope this helped.

Field days here for Macy's rivals
Other high-end stores in the area were quick to offer space when designers loyal to Field's were displaced

By Sandra Jones
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 28, 2007


It's taking longer than expected to win over shoppers to the converted Macy's stores in the Midwest, Federated Department Stores Inc. executives acknowledged Tuesday after the company reported year-end earnings.

But the change has been a boon to some high-end retailers in Chicago.

The conversion of Marshall Field's to Macy's has opened the door for Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom to carry designers that until recently had exclusive arrangements with Marshall Field's.

Federated said net income for the quarter ended Feb. 3 rose 4.9 percent to $733 million, or $1.40 a share, from $699 million, or $1.26 a share, a year earlier.

Sales at the former May stores have fallen since the conversion, but are improving as of December and are expected to improve in the second half, said Terry Lundgren, chairman and CEO of the New York-based retailer, in an interview on CNBC.

"It has taken a little longer than I expected on one single line and that was the new May Co. doors performing to the level that we needed them to perform to," Lundgren said.

In the wake of its 2005 acquisition of May Department Store Co., Federated converted 11 department store nameplates, including Marshall Field's, to Macy's in September.

In doing so Federated more than doubled the size of Macy's to 800-plus department stores nationwide.

But by doing so in Chicago Federated left open the door for other retailers to come in and snag some snazzy designers who had remained loyal to Field's.

Among the biggest coups: Neiman Marcus on Michigan Avenue is offering the YSL designer collection for the first time starting with the spring season. Marshall Field's had an exclusive arrangement with the French fashion house for years. Neiman's carried the YSL handbags, but not the coats, pantsuits and cocktail dresses that made up the apparel collection.

That changed when YSL left when Field's became Macy's.

A Coach shop and an alcove of a small selection of designer handbags replaced the YSL handbag boutique that had operated on the first floor of the State Street store since 2002. Vera Wang dresses now hang in the lush, black-carpeted alcove created for the YSL collection in 2001 at State Street's 28 Shop.

Likewise, Nordstrom had been trying to get jewelry designer David Yurman in its Oak Brook store for a decade with no success. When the designer left Field's during the conversion to Macy's Nordstrom picked up the line, opening an in-store David Yurman jewelry boutique at its Oak Brook store in November.

Nordstrom also picked up shoes from Gucci and Prada, no longer available at the Field's-turned-Macy's, and expanded its Jimmy Choo collection, another designer that departed.

"Macy's is a mainstream store and people are going to expect sales and discounts and commodity items and they're not going to be expecting designers," said Milton Pedraza, CEO of the Luxury Institute, a New York-based retail-consulting firm.

Most of the converted stores acquired from May didn't carry designer lines.

Indeed, Federated executives said customers at the former May stores, including L.S. Ayres and Famous-Barr, are having trouble adjusting to the less-promotional environment of Macy's.

The dilemma has left Macy's without a clear-cut niche, analysts said. Some customers view it as too expensive, others as too cheap.

"They're still trying to figure out who their customer base is because there were so many stores converted," said Jason Asaeda, analyst at the equity research division of Standard & Poor's credit rating agency.

"It could take a year to figure out who's shopping at their stores," Asaeda said.

Asaeda downgraded Federated to a "hold" from a "buy" on Tuesday, saying that "weak sales trend and higher markdown levels imply that customers and employees need more time to buy into changes."

----------

smjones@tribune.com



Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

^Thanks edsg25. So it almost had national coverage at one point or another. If only it had remained independent like Neiman Marcus.

^Thanks edsg25. So it almost had national coverage at one point or another. If only it had remained independent like Neiman Marcus.

sam, i don't know how far field's would have gotten past the TX and OH stores. as for Neimans (and just about all the high end stores that went into a national expansion), they had already lost their independence when they started to spread out georgrapically; most had long scince been part of larger retail conglomorates like Federated or Associated (L&T, I believe, was part of that group)

Don't forget that there were two Field's stores in Columbus, Ohio opening in 1989 and 1997. These both became Kaufman's in 2003 and then Macy's in 2006.

An interesting factoid is that Frederick and Nelson actually approached Marshall Field's about acquiring their stores. They wanted to retire and they believed Field's was the only owner who would operate their stores in the same spirit as they had.

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE ABOUT VON MAUR CHAIN'S EXPANSION PLANS:

"The flap in Chicago over Macy's takeover of Marshall Field's has been a boon for Von Maur.

In the wake of Federated Department Stores Inc.'s conversion of Field's to Macy's in September, (Jim) von Maur said his company's stores have experienced an unusually 'huge' sales jump.

Many Chicagoans loyal to Fields vowed to boycott Macy's.

'We are certainly feeling the effect,' von Maur said."

2007 Chicago Tribune

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE ABOUT VON MAUR CHAIN'S EXPANSION PLANS:

"The flap in Chicago over Macy's takeover of Marshall Field's has been a boon for Von Maur.

In the wake of Federated Department Stores Inc.'s conversion of Field's to Macy's in September, (Jim) von Maur said his company's stores have experienced an unusually 'huge' sales jump.

Many Chicagoans loyal to Fields vowed to boycott Macy's.

'We are certainly feeling the effect,' von Maur said."

2007 Chicago Tribune

Where are there Von Maur's in Chicagoland?? I never see any of them!

Where are there Von Maur's in Chicagoland?? I never see any of them!

they're strictly low profile...no advertising; they pump their advertising budget into service. Two in the western burbs (Yorktown n Lombard and St. Charles) and one in the The Glen in Glenview serving the North Shore.

If you're supporting Chicago for the 2016 Olympics, it's quite obvious that Chicago is better touting:

"Marshall Field's: A world Class institution that was the birth of the modern department store"

as opposed to,

"Chicago has an above average branch of that New York Department store Macy's--It used to be the world-known Marshall Field's that people used to travel from across the world to visit."

If you're supporting Chicago for the 2016 Olympics, it's quite obvious that Chicago is better touting:

"Marshall Field's: A world Class institution that was the birth of the modern department store"

as opposed to,

"Chicago has an above average branch of that New York Department store Macy's--It used to be the world-known Marshall Field's that people used to travel from across the world to visit."

While that is true, Chicago doesn't have Marshall Field's anymore. As much as I want it back, I don't think you can use that quote unless Field's makes a return before 2016.

While that is true, Chicago doesn't have Marshall Field's anymore. As much as I want it back, I don't think you can use that quote unless Field's makes a return before 2016.

somehow i don't get the feeling in 2007 that anyone is going to give a damn about the quality of a city's department stores. If the bid was being made in 1907, that might have been another issue.

While that is true, Chicago doesn't have Marshall Field's anymore. As much as I want it back, I don't think you can use that quote unless Field's makes a return before 2016.

Nobody's going to use that as a quote this year. Give us a little time. Hoops was just making a point with those two potential scenarios. It is clear which scenario is best for our city.

The statement with Marshall Field's back in action is not unrealistic. Macy's sales are in the tank in the Chicago area and many Chicagoans are going to keep working to bring Marshall Field's back. The boycott is working beautifully.

Nobody's going to use that as a quote this year. Give us a little time. Hoops was just making a point with those two potential scenarios. It is clear which scenario is best for our city.

The statement with Marshall Field's back in action is not unrealistic. Macy's sales are in the tank in the Chicago area and many Chicagoans are going to keep working to bring Marshall Field's back. The boycott is working beautifully.

I never said it wasn't. I (as said before) yearn for the day to hear the news that Field's will make a return. I was just saying that if Field's isn't alive in 2016 the phrase wouldn't work as well. Sorry if I hit a nerve.

Certainly they aren't going to hold Olympic events at stores (although I know some shoppers who think there should be such an event :) and their shopping habits are of an "Olympic" nature. :-)

However, Field's was, even according to their own literature, Chicago's third most popular destination. We don't need Field's, Art Institute, Field Musuem, Museum of Science & Industry, Shedd Aquarium and the like to actually have the Olympics. But clearly having these institutions contributes to cultural aspects of Chicago that make it a world class city worthy of selection.

A family member is studying abroad in London and they know what Field's was and a number of those Londoners who have visited Chicago know what it was. They are disappointed it is gone.

Macy's struggles

This is in response to "Field days here for Macy's rivals; Other high-end stores in the area were quick to offer space when designers loyal to Field's were displaced" (Business, Feb. 28), by Tribune staff reporter Sandra Jones.

Jones' well-written article directly addressed some of the many effects of the downgrading of quality designer merchandise at the former Marshall Field's stores by Macy's. Clearly it was not a merger among equals.

Marshall Field's was a unique destination not only for locals but for quarterly and semi-annual shopping for out-of-staters, who would return home carrying bunches of the trademark, forest-green shopping bags.

I have heard many friends say that they have no reason at all to go to Chicago to shop, because Macy's is all over the U.S. now and shopping there is no longer fun nor unique.

Jon Coffey

Iowa City




Chicago style

As one who was raised in Chicago, and who just moved to Dallas after living again in Chicago from 1989 to late 2005, I am not surprised by your article regarding Macy's lost business as Marshall Field's customers flee.

I was in town a few weeks ago, and stuck my head into a Macy's just to see if my predictions were correct. There was almost no one home.

Chicago does not view itself as the Second City in terms of lifestyle, quality, ingenuity or swagger. Chicago did not need New York "culture" to be foisted upon it yet again.

Marshall Field's was a historic company—one with roots, class and "I wish I could afford it" style. Chicagoans viewed the May Co. as a mediocre department store chain.

There is little respect for Chicago's own culture.

When I'm in Chicago, I want to see Chicago culture. In the same way, when I went to other cities, I wanted to see their local flagship stores. Most of them are all gone, and it's a shame. They were different personalities, with variety and style not found everywhere else.

Where the Federated/Macy's people have missed it is by thinking that changing Field's was a good idea, just because it is financially good for them. They could only justify their purchases if they could turn all their stores into the same cookie-cutter retail box, with its New York feel.

It is definitely not Chicago. Chicago customers will continue to reject it, especially now that, as your article points out, Marshall Field's cannot be re-assembled to what it was because its "parts" have gone elsewhere.

There will be a new trend coming. Smart Chicagoans will perceive it, and open new stores. The trend will be that Chicagoans will rebel, and eventually, entrepreneurs will find a way to make Chicago unique again.

Neil W. Nelles

Dallas

Macy's struggles

This is in response to "Field days here for Macy's rivals; Other high-end stores in the area were quick to offer space when designers loyal to Field's were displaced" (Business, Feb. 28), by Tribune staff reporter Sandra Jones.

Jones' well-written article directly addressed some of the many effects of the downgrading of quality designer merchandise at the former Marshall Field's stores by Macy's. Clearly it was not a merger among equals.

Marshall Field's was a unique destination not only for locals but for quarterly and semi-annual shopping for out-of-staters, who would return home carrying bunches of the trademark, forest-green shopping bags.

I have heard many friends say that they have no reason at all to go to Chicago to shop, because Macy's is all over the U.S. now and shopping there is no longer fun nor unique.

Jon Coffey

Iowa City




Chicago style

As one who was raised in Chicago, and who just moved to Dallas after living again in Chicago from 1989 to late 2005, I am not surprised by your article regarding Macy's lost business as Marshall Field's customers flee.

I was in town a few weeks ago, and stuck my head into a Macy's just to see if my predictions were correct. There was almost no one home.

Chicago does not view itself as the Second City in terms of lifestyle, quality, ingenuity or swagger. Chicago did not need New York "culture" to be foisted upon it yet again.

Marshall Field's was a historic company—one with roots, class and "I wish I could afford it" style. Chicagoans viewed the May Co. as a mediocre department store chain.

There is little respect for Chicago's own culture.

When I'm in Chicago, I want to see Chicago culture. In the same way, when I went to other cities, I wanted to see their local flagship stores. Most of them are all gone, and it's a shame. They were different personalities, with variety and style not found everywhere else.

Where the Federated/Macy's people have missed it is by thinking that changing Field's was a good idea, just because it is financially good for them. They could only justify their purchases if they could turn all their stores into the same cookie-cutter retail box, with its New York feel.

It is definitely not Chicago. Chicago customers will continue to reject it, especially now that, as your article points out, Marshall Field's cannot be re-assembled to what it was because its "parts" have gone elsewhere.

There will be a new trend coming. Smart Chicagoans will perceive it, and open new stores. The trend will be that Chicagoans will rebel, and eventually, entrepreneurs will find a way to make Chicago unique again.

Neil W. Nelles

Dallas

Macy's isn't Marshall Field's to Chicagoans any more than Saks is not Neimans to Dallasites.

Macy's isn't Marshall Field's to Chicagoans any more than Saks is not Neimans to Dallasites.

You are correct... Eventhough they will pretend to be for a little while until Marshall Fields is completely macized.

I myself went through many of macy's merger here in Southern Cal and believe me they will impose themselves... So Marshall Fields is completely gone... you can kiss it good buy, and i don't mean this in a bad way, just know how macy's works.

Assuming no revival of Field's, I almost think I'd rather see Federated abandon the store altogether than see Macy's succeed.

If Marshall Fields is gone forever, then screw Federated too. Sell that building off and let it be redeveloped into something else (retaining many key historic elements, of course..)

You are correct... Eventhough they will pretend to be for a little while until Marshall Fields is completely macized.

I myself went through many of macy's merger here in Southern Cal and believe me they will impose themselves... So Marshall Fields is completely gone... you can kiss it good buy, and i don't mean this in a bad way, just know how macy's works.

You guys were far better off when the closest Macy's were up on Union Square and next to the Stanford campus.

Assuming no revival of Field's, I almost think I'd rather see Federated abandon the store altogether than see Macy's succeed.

If Marshall Fields is gone forever, then screw Federated too. Sell that building off and let it be redeveloped into something else (retaining many key historic elements, of course..)

i don't know what will happen to all of Chicagoland's Macy's stores (nothing good, I hope), but I do believe that State Street has become "Mission Impossible" or perhaps more appropriately "Catch 22" for Macy's:

• this huge, overwhelming store can only serve as a destination. And that destination was the original Marshall Field's. There is no point in walking into the building if it is another store. It was the ultimate Marshall Field's that drew folks into it: the flagship, the oldest, the tradition rich. With no Field's, it is a white elephant for any department store chain that used it. That Federated was so stupid to see that is beyond me.

• So why not just close the Field's store on State, similiar to what happened to Hudson's in Detroit years ago? Can you imagine what effect such a move would have on the hornet's nest that Macy's created in Chicago by converting Field's to Macy's? Nobody would walk into its suburban stores if it added this insult to the original injury.

Let's whip one one last cliche and put Macy's somewhere between a rock (State Street) and a hard place (WTP, Old Orchard, Oakbrook, Woodfield, et al).

You guys were far better off when the closest Macy's were up on Union Square and next to the Stanford campus.

When macy's first entered the So Cal market it was under the flagship of macy's Atlanta... that was a complete chaos to say the least... eventually they realized that they needed to align So Cal with No Cal.
Most of the Bullock's and Bullock's Wilshire customers migrated to Nordstroms.
They eventually made a bigger presence in here... I wouldn't be surprised if Nordstroms start showing up in Chicago.

When macy's first entered the So Cal market it was under the flagship of macy's Atlanta... that was a complete chaos to say the least... eventually they realized that they needed to align So Cal with No Cal.
Most of the Bullock's and Bullock's Wilshire customers migrated to Nordstroms.
They eventually made a bigger presence in here... I wouldn't be surprised if Nordstroms start showing up in Chicago.

We already have several sucessful Nordstrom stores in the metro area, including a huge one downtown on Michigan Av..

We already have several sucessful Nordstrom stores in the metro area, including a huge one downtown on Michigan Av..

Then that is where all your Marshall Fields customers will end up.

i would think by now only Fargo doesn't have a Nordstrom

i would think by now only Fargo doesn't have a Nordstrom

Hey now Milwaukee doesn't even have a Nordstrom.....they're not THAT common. Yet.

Then that is where all your Marshall Fields customers will end up.

CITYofDREAMS, you are right on the money. Nordstroms and other higher-end stores have seen a definite increase in business here in Chicago, especially at Nordstrom's downtown store, but also at its suburban stores.

.

Hey now Milwaukee doesn't even have a Nordstrom.....they're not THAT common. Yet.

Didn't you know Milwaukee is part of the "Greater Old Orchard Market"???:)

Didn't you know Milwaukee is part of the "Greater Old Orchard Market"???:)

Good grief! I am beside myself with that one. Even as proud as I am being part of the Greater Old Orchard Market (I love the shopping town!) I would still like seeing some of the department stores Chicago has in the Milwaukee area. When it comes to upscale department stores, don't look at us - we're an embarrassment. :ohno:

Good grief! I am beside myself with that one. Even as proud as I am being part of the Greater Old Orchard Market (I love the shopping town!) I would still like seeing some of the department stores Chicago has in the Milwaukee area. When it comes to upscale department stores, don't look at us - we're an embarrassment. :ohno:

we will seriously consider your request if you put it in writing with the proper documentation. if your application is deemed acceptable, we will consider the possiblity of adding stores in your neighborhood as part of our Waukegan North Division.

either that, or we'll consider giving you a $10 gift certificate to any outlet store in the no-man's-land between our two cities that we affectionately call Gurnosha.

(relax, brewcity, we agree: Milwaukee is major league and deserves to have the full range of department stores. You, however, have to build Pottawatomi South in return somewhere in the West Loop so we can play our own slots)

Good grief! I am beside myself with that one. Even as proud as I am being part of the Greater Old Orchard Market (I love the shopping town!) I would still like seeing some of the department stores Chicago has in the Milwaukee area. When it comes to upscale department stores, don't look at us - we're an embarrassment. :ohno:

Hey brewcityfan... you may not have all the upscale department stores that in honest thruth have been downtrending in the last 20 years, however you're home to one of the most savvy retailer in the country that has redifined how dept. stores ought to operate in order to be successful... KOHL'S. Believe me I had been in this industry for many years and this company it's the envy of many and many as well are trying to copying their formula including federated. I would be proud to have such a shrewd business in my backyard.

we will seriously consider your request if you put it in writing with the proper documentation. if your application is deemed acceptable, we will consider the possiblity of adding stores in your neighborhood as part of our Waukegan North Division.

either that, or we'll consider giving you a $10 gift certificate to any outlet store in the no-man's-land between our two cities that we affectionately call Gurnosha.

(relax, brewcity, we agree: Milwaukee is major league and deserves to have the full range of department stores. You, however, have to build Pottawatomi South in return somewhere in the West Loop so we can play our own slots)

LOL, don't tempt me with $10 gift certificate bull like Macy's always throws at credit card holders to spend needlessly at their shabby shops!

As for Potawotami - you'd have to talk to them about that. I'm thinking they're hell bent on expanding at their current location in the Valley before the Harley Museum opens. Unfortunate for Northern Illinois that the Kenosha casino is pretty much trash now....

And Gurnosha??? Hmmm.....

Hey brewcityfan... you may not have all the upscale department stores that in honest thruth have been downtrending in the last 20 years, however you're home to one of the most savvy retailer in the country that has redifined how dept. stores ought to operate in order to be successful... KOHL'S. Believe me I had been in this industry for many years and this company it's the envy of many and many as well are trying to copying their formula including federated. I would be proud to have such a shrewd business in my backyard.

Well what can we say the Milwaukee area loves Kohl's, always will. They're a great supporter of local events and charities. I believe they're also in the top businesses for great worker/business relationships - they're building a whole new fitness center on the HQ grounds for their employees, as well as a new day care center. If Kohl's get some more brand names from Ralph Lauren you just might see me in there shopping my ass off. F Macy's!

Oh, and I'll also add that Milwaukee is home to the HQ of Bon Ton's northern group, which includes Carsons! So thanks to Macy's - Milwaukee benefited from increasing Chicagoan support of Carsons.... cheers to that! :cheers:

LOL, don't tempt me with $10 gift certificate bull like Macy's always throws at credit card holders to spend needlessly at their shabby shops!

As for Potawotami - you'd have to talk to them about that. I'm thinking they're hell bent on expanding at their current location in the Valley before the Harley Museum opens. Unfortunate for Northern Illinois that the Kenosha casino is pretty much trash now....

And Gurnosha??? Hmmm.....



Well what can we say the Milwaukee area loves Kohl's, always will. They're a great supporter of local events and charities. I believe they're also in the top businesses for great worker/business relationships - they're building a whole new fitness center on the HQ grounds for their employees, as well as a new day care center. If Kohl's get some more brand names from Ralph Lauren you just might see me in there shopping my ass off. F Macy's!

Oh, and I'll also add that Milwaukee is home to the HQ of Bon Ton's northern group, which includes Carsons! So thanks to Macy's - Milwaukee benefited from increasing Chicagoan support of Carsons.... cheers to that! :cheers:

Hey... they already have some brand names...CHAPS which is the entry level Ralph Lauren line... and their cosmetic line is produced exclusively for Kohl's by none other than Estee Lauder.

Below is a post from today on the FieldsFansChicago.org website by Jim McKay, the leader of that group. I took him up on his suggestion to take a look at Ellen Warren's blog. Boy, what an eye-opener. There are many dozens of posts lambasting Macy's. Ouch! Macy's sales are in the tank and now even Ellen Warren, previously a Macy's supporter, is starting to talk about Macy's problems. Anyway, here is the post from FieldsFansChicago.org:

Posted by Jim McKay
It's great to see some of you regulars had your items posted as feedback to Ellen Warren's blog today, where she asked, "How's Macy's doing?"

Check out Ms. Warren's blog at:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/shopping_ellen_warren/marshall_fields_name_change/index.html

Remember that Ellen's two previous blog threads were from September 5 ("Where's Your Ceativity Chicago?") which pretty much poked fun at the idea of us protesting and boycotting and September 9 ("QUIT YOUR BELLYACHING?").

What is significant is that this shows the tide is turning and the boycott is working. Even those who were skeptical of our cause or wondered why this matters are starting to come around and acknowledge what's really happening. The boycott is indeed working! What is especially of note with today's latest in Ellen Warren's blog is that all the points supporting Field's are about more than just bringing back a name or nostalgia or sentimentality. It also points out what we have been saying all along: Macy's doesn't have the quality and service we expect from Field's. This is is about more than a name although that is an important part too. The tide's turning and we can begin to see our goal of returning Field's to Chicago off in the distance. Heck, next thing you know, Ellen Warren and Voice of the People will finally start printing my comments. The boycott is working!

END OF POST (Reprinted from FieldsFansChicago.org)

Please look at the Marshall Field's-to-Macy's conversion in terms of what is happening across State Street from the anchor store. Many of you, I am sure, are following the Block 37 thread on the Chgo Development forum and other places. As more and more pieces fall into place, this project looks more and more like a real blockbuster, a sure fire destination for Chicagoans and visitors alike.

Considering that a well positoned, traditonal downtown flagship can deliver far more to a chain than a suburban branch. It can be a real winner for the company who possesses it, especially when it is a store like Marshall Field's in a city like Chicago.

If Federated had kept the Field's name, couldn't the opening of the Block 37 development been an incredible bonanza for Federated? Few were going to visit this complex withot the logical trip to the grand old dept. store across the street, a logical link between the best of the new and the best of the traditonal.

Wiht Macy's across the street, there is no draw, no need to incorpoate the department store during the trip.


Not much insight on Federated's part IMHO.

^^ To play devil's advocate... If Block 37 turns out to be the draw for visitors, wouldn't Macy's be thrilled to have all of those people see their name on the grand old store across the street. Wouldn't Macy's view that as helping to establish another connection with their brand that they'd hope would translate into sales at a Macy's near where the visitor comes from, even if they never step into the State St. store?

To be honest, I think scenarios like what you have outlined above are EXACTLY why Macy's has insisted on having their name on that store. Even if it hurts sales considerably at that store, my guess is that they're willing to absorb that as a cost of building the brand.

But wouldn't you think that'd build on Macy's negatively instead of positively? Any visitors to Block 37 will be reminded that the building across the street used to be the Historic Marshall Field's building, with the store that had the slogan "The customer is always right." But some corporate giant decided to swallow it and the name and put the generic Macy's name in its place. I say generic because now it's as bad as any Wal-Mart now, with locations throughout the United States - and this one makes it no different.

But wouldn't you think that'd build on Macy's negatively instead of positively? Any visitors to Block 37 will be reminded that the building across the street used to be the Historic Marshall Field's building, with the store that had the slogan "The customer is always right." But some corporate giant decided to swallow it and the name and put the generic Macy's name in its place. I say generic because now it's as bad as any Wal-Mart now, with locations throughout the United States - and this one makes it no different.

Brew, we're talking about the second largest department store in the US (after Macy's Hearld Sq). This was a structure that was built long before the concept of "suburban branch" even existed. Nobody would ever build such a store today since it size has no relationship to its ability to earn a profit. The huge size was reflective of the era when it was built...when it was in essence "the only game in town".

What did that mean prior to Macy's takeover and shopping at the State Street store as opposed to all the other Field's stores? It meant Marshall Field's as a destination. Not the building between State and Wabash, Randolph and Washington as a destination. It was a statement that said basically this:

"I am more than happy to make those pilgrimages down to State Street and trapse through a large number of those 8 floors, to buy a frango or two, have lunch at the Walnut Room, check out the boutiques in the lower level, visit departments within the store I have visited for years....because all of this is part of a proud and long Chicago tradition."

Slapping Macy's on the store's facade makes we think why do I want to waste my muscle power in having to navigate that overly huge, spread out piece of property to which I have no attraction or loyalty to institution inside.

Drawing me through 8 floors worth of Macy's would be about as successful as drawing me through 20 floors of WalMart....in both of the case, no bang for the buck.

Field's on State? Well, that was another matter altogether.