Chicagoist: Frango Goes Organic

joseph_dunphy_in_chicago

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:22:41 -0600

billymax85 writes; "I'm not sure Fields was as loved as you think, Laura. Well, maybe the *concept* of Fields was loved, but that wasn't enough. Had people *really* loved Fields as they've been claiming, I think more people would have shopped there." I know that this is heresy in the eyes of a neoconservative, which is what I'm guessing that you are, but a lot of locals in Chicago are really short on cash in these supposedly prosperous times. Love or not, one can not spend that which one does not have.

billymax85

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:16:57 -0600

Amy - No problemo. And you hit it on the head. People will deal with this how they see fit, but I don't think it will actually do anything. Even if people griping do end up driving out Macy's, I can't imagine Field's will be back on State Street. Spook made a good point, too, I think. Driving away Macy's will only hurt Chicago. Macy's employs Chicago people at the State Street store and other area stores. It's better if the money that folks would have spent at Field's gets spent somewhere else in Chicago, rather than at an online retailer or auction site like eBay.

Amy Mikel

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:26:57 -0600

billymax- thanks for the quick response. yes, target dumped marshall fields because comparatively, the target brand discounter was more profitable than the department store. fields was then bought by may company (macys) BECAUSE of its value, not despite it. anyways, that was then, this is now. people will address the macys situation how they prefer to, but chicagoans are not identifying with macys the way they did with fields, and that is represented by the declining sales there. TO ME (note emphasis) it has become just a store, just another product, and that is the saddest part of all.

JasonM

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:38:41 -0600

Field's was making money up to when it was acquired. They always say... If you want to get someone's attention "Hit Them In The Wallet." That's exactly what Chicagoans have done to Macy's! Sales figures have plummeted since the "converstion." Not even organic Frangos will change that.

Slaphappy

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:36:09 -0600

Hey, I hate to be a poop, but you're misusing the phrase "begs the question." It's a common mistake. Read on. And yes, Frango mints will sell regardless of who is selling them, because they're Frango mints.

billymax85

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:33:55 -0600

Amy, Target's high-end stores - Fields and Mervyns - were weighing the company down as far back as 2004, while the discount stores were really thriving: http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/23/news/companies/target/ That said, Macy's isn't doing any better. I found a ton of links with a quick Google search to articles saying their stocks are in the tank. I'll try to find a couple more links when I get my lunch break.

Spook

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:02:58 -0600

I personally love my new none bling bling Swiss Army watch purchased from Macey's. Yea I paid more than I wanted 215.55, but I'd rather support Chicago workers than ebay sellers. And I'm glade that Macy's still sells draft beer in the basement!

Amy Mikel

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:01:47 -0600

billymax- can you provide evidence to that claim?

billymax85

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:49:46 -0600

I'm not sure Fields was as loved as you think, Laura. Well, maybe the *concept* of Fields was loved, but that wasn't enough. Had people *really* loved Fields as they've been claiming, I think more people would have shopped there. Fields was not sold to tick off Chicagoans. It was sold because it wasn't making money. Had more people spent money there, the sale would not have been necessary.

Laura Oppenheimer

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:35:43 -0600

That's a very Chicago-centric view. No one wants to shop at Macy's within Cook County because people love[d] Fields so much. People outside of the area have no problem spending time and money at Macy's, because there's no such allegiance.

Spook

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:37:14 -0600

Here we go again