Chicagoist: Roller Coaster Week for Macy's

anonist

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:56:43 -0600

Final note on this long-dead thread: I think it's a shame the boycott folks aren't giving the consumer more credit. I'm not boycotting Macy's. I don't know anyone that is. However, I also don't know anyone that shops there anymore either. The stores are failing because of the economy, as Spook mentioned above, and the "product" they're providing.

Spook

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:15:24 -0600

Greetings Long ago corporate branded robots. Every department store in the country is hurting economically, from Sears, to Macy's, Target, Walmart, Sacs fifth, Bloomingdales, ect. While the “media” has finally saw fit to officially call it recession,we have been in a recession for a long time. But congratulations for boycotting a major employer during a recession. You people reminded of Royal Order of Water Buffalos- of the Flintstones-, a bunch of adults acting like kids. IT’S A STUPID STORE PEOPLE! THERE IS A WAR ON! MARSHALLFIELDS GAVE YOU THE FINGER ALONG TIME AGO! But you folks don’t care, so show me that secrete handshake!

jimmack

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:10:03 -0600

MACY'S HAS ELIMINATED NEARLY 10,000 JOBS! Macy's is just bad business. -Jobs lost during conversion to Macy's: 6,200 (per retail analysts) - Jobs lost when food service elimiated: 1,000 (Macy's press release) - Jobs lost during regional conversions: 2,550 (Macy's press release) Macy's put 9,750 out of work in a year. If even you don't care about the elimation of Field's in terms of style, quality and service; you got to admit the conversion to Macy's has a negative impact to the economy. In addition, their lower sales/revenue picture means less sales tax for local and state governments. Macy's has also changed many employee benefits ...and not for the better. Shop at Macy's? Never.

JasonM

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:30:30 -0600

Macy's has failed in Chicago, plain and simple. For the shareholders to "maximize" their wealth and "unlock the wealth of their many trademarks" it would be in their best interests, and the interests of Chicagoans to sell off the Field's trademarks and the former Field's stores. Yeah, so what Macy's doesn't end up having a Chicago presence... but maybe it could get some much needed cash! Macy's Lake Forest - Closed Chicago Warehouse - Closed Northbrook Court - Closing (announcement soon) Vernon Hills - Closing (announcement soon) Dozens and dozens of stores to close in 2008. Macy's the biggest failure in the Midwest and beyond!

Former Employee

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:30:11 -0600

While I understand the worries that come with unemployment for those who are losing their jobs, I can see a positive aspect to this. As Macy's is not welcome for the most part in the former Marshall Field's market, the "trimming down" of Macy's brings us closer to their complete exit. This gives me hope for the return of Marshall Field's as well as a resurgent movement on the part of consumers to actively participate in their respective communities as Fields Fans Chicago has done in leading the way. It seems like Macy's is slowly but (hopefully) surely going away. I honestly hope so.

JimMcKay

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:31:18 -0600

In response to the first post by Anonist, I am a co-Organizer at FieldsFansChicago.org. We hold that we are working for the return of Marshall Field's in quality and service as well as in name. Many retail analysts have been pointing out that the shopping experience is what will make or break the traditional department store. Business Week featured such an article on their website a couple of days ago. CBS Sunday morning also had such a story about a year ago. There are others. In couple of years right before the purchase and conversion by Macy's, Marshall Field's was achieving new success with a new store within a store concept--Dolce & Gabbana, French Connection UK and others are such examples. These complemented the Field's branded merchandise. Field's own literature pointed out in 2005 that the store was Chicago's number three destination. This largely was diminished when Macy's took over and made it much more like other Macy's. No longer unique, sales have plunged. The current CEO/President/Chairman, Terry Lundgren is pals with Donald Trump and, in a front page story of the Wall Street Journal it was pointed out that he even designed his wife's wedding dress without allowing her to see it. So it's not surprising that he'd be audacious enough never to plan on returning Field's. For that reason, Field's supporters feel he needs to be ousted or Field's needs to have new owners or management. His former plan--"Macy's as a national department store"--comes across to many as failing. His plan to "localize" store seems pretty much a half-hearted admission of that. Field's can be viable by offering an experience that is not offered elsewhere at your average Macy's, Sears, Kohl's Penneys, etc. As pointed out, until Macy's converted it, Field's was on the road to doing just that, ahead of all the other department stores. Finally, and most importantly, I wish to point out we don't like to see Macy's stores do poorly so much as we see it as a sign our boycott is working and that a change for the better back to Field's can be forthcoming for shoppers, employees and Chicago.

spector

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:51:25 -0600

Yeah, Frank Guzetta "retired".... Terry Lundgren and the rest on that board need to "retire" as well.

Ward Up

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:33:46 -0600

Macy's has hurt so many employees. And so many employees' families. They have also hurt the cities where they killed much-loved local stores, some of which were cultural landmarks for generations. They are reaping what they have sown. And this round of layoffs is just the beginning. When hundreds of millions are being lost, there is no doubt that a slew of stores are going to be sold or closed. In Chicago, citizens are killing the weaker Macy's locations simply by shopping elsewhere. The boycott is definitely working.

Scooter Libbby

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:14:39 -0600

Macy's statement about Frank Guzzetta's retirement makes no sense! If he was given $10 million last fall to invest in a three-year plan to make the State Street store fashionable again, then why would he “will retire as [he] had previously planned in spring 2008.”? Why isn't he completing the plan? Is it because the plan had no chance of success & has already is known to have failed? He's paying the price for Lundgren's incompetence & stubbornness! And I agree, Federated's stockholders are stupid beyond belief!

spector

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:06:59 -0600

"Could someone clarify the position of the pro-Field's folks? Do they want the name back, or the service? Because slapping the Field's name on the shit service @ Macy's won't really accomplish much. Then these folks will demand the same Field's service, which I'm not sure Macy's would even know how to deliver[....]" Federated ran Field's for months as the same old Field's before they turned it into "Macy's" and ruined it. So they do know how to run a higher-end establishment. They just chose not to. Macy's still owns and operates Bloomingdales, which is head and shoulders above the quality and service offered by its lower end Macy's brandmate. So if Federated, now Macy's Inc., really wanted to, and had the available cash, they could indeed 're-convert' or somehow re-establish some of its Macy's or Bloomingdales locations as "Marshall Field's" locations with proper service and products. Alternatively, the could sell the Macy's North/East [Marshall Field's] Division like they had done with Lord and Taylor. That way another buyer could fix this mess. Also, if Macy's kept the stores, I think that once the name issue is resolved, the people will start returning, and the quality will eventually follow. One step has to happen before the other, however without the name, nothing can happen. They simply must change the name. They were so warned this would happen yet they still, arrogantly, ignored it. The word amongst employees is that the State Street store alone has lost over 70% of its business since the name was changed, and the other Field's-now-Macy's in the Midwest have lost an average of 30-40% of their business since the conversion. One person has told me that the [Field's] stores survive on cash from their "West Division" which is operating better on the West Coast. As everyone knows, the historic Lake Forest Field's [Macy's] just closed at the end of January because of abysmal sales levels and because the landlord forced them out with a special rent increase. Rumors are that Northbrook Court wants Macy's out also due to sales losses at the mall, and that the location may next be eliminated. The formal (and informal) Boycott is definitely working here in Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul. What is most astonishing is why the Macy's shareholders have not demanded that their Chairman Terry Lundgren and the rest of the Board be fired for what they have done. This New Coke experiment has been a total failure and Macy's stock is now worth LESS than when they first bought and converted all the May Company stores including Field's and ruined them. What other corporation would tolerate leadership as intransigent and wrongheaded as this? Apparently their shareholders are just morons....

Bronto

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:53:26 -0600

They can't keep the clock on Randolph running correctly. That bothers me. It's a local landmark.

happygrl

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:56:59 -0600

I think the key here is the arrogance of Macy's and the slap in the face to Chicago with the "we know what you like, what you will buy, and what you are sentimentally attached to better than you" attitude. Personally, I have shopped at Macy's since it took over Marshall Field's. The service simply isn't the same. And I'm sure I'll do it again when I have to (e.g., you just can't get Frango's anywhere else). Since the demise of Marshall Field's, I have made Nordstrom my first choice. It's my personal belief that had Macy's left the name intact, at least in some way, maybe with "Marshall Field's by Macy's" or "Macy's Marshall Field's" or something like that, it would have gone a long way towards keeping goodwill in Chicago. It certainly would have taken a lot of the strength of Field's Fans Chicago's arguments away.

anonist

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:51:43 -0600

Could someone clarify the position of the pro-Field's folks? Do they want the name back, or the service? Because slapping the Field's name on the shit service @ Macy's won't really accomplish much. Then these folks will demand the same Field's service, which I'm not sure Macy's would even know how to deliver. Don't get me wrong, I was bummed about the whole Field's thing, too, but I can't in my wildest dreams imagine how the Field's of old could ever be recreated -- and sustained -- in 2008. Am I wrong?