|
Not a Messy shopper
|
It doesn't come as any surprise that LV would be opening a store inside Nordstrom. They've become the new Marshall Field's here in Chicago. Macy's version of low-end private label bags along with offering some Coach isn't my idea of good shopping.
I bet several Macy stores do close in Chicagoland by second half of the year. The stores are so dirty and unorganized. Their sales staff is unknowledgable of the products and averrage about 18 years old more interested in text messaging than actually helping any customers in their stores.
|
|
SLF
|
I agree with above. Nordstrom's is benefitting and gaining former Marshall Field's shoppers. I still haven't found a replacement - sometimes Nordstrom's, Saks, or Neiman's. None quite fit the bill as I was buying gifts, clothes, etc at Marshall Field's State Street and nothing out there comes close. It will be interesting to see what happens to the mess that is Macy's.
|
|
ChiTownShopper
|
I prefer Nordstrom and Von Maur to Macy's. There seems to be a good deal more class at those stores, whereas Macy's strikes me as a poor immitation; high-end prices, but mid/low-tier merchandise. It's very sad what's become of the former Marshall Field's, but at least there are other options out there, whether it be in the department store or specialty store category.
|
|
Where is Andy
|
How did Vuitton ever bypass Macy's. Doesn't he want to be next to the Martha Stewart (formerly of K-Mart) colllection?
|
|
Andy
|
Get real! Fields was a dowdy department store whose attempts to upscale 10 locations (not the entire chain) was such a failure that Target had to sell it before it pulled Target's sales down enough to cause irreparable harm! Field's was NO Nordstrom!!
|
|
Jeff
|
Andy wrote: Get real! Fields was a dowdy department store whose attempts to upscale 10 locations (not the entire chain) was such a failure that Target had to sell it before it pulled Target's sales down enough to cause irreparable harm! Field's was NO Nordstrom!! Actually, if Andy (an admitted Macy's employee in Cincy who trolls Chicago newspaper forums) had any actual knowledge of Marshall Field's history, he'd realize that the very heritage of Marshall Field's was upscale. It wasn't until owners such as Target, May and Macy's decided to dumb things down (in increasing degrees) that the stores had lost some of their cache. Of course, Macy's is completing the destruction by purposefully driving away any remaining discerning customers and instead stocking low-cost and, at least in theory, high-margin schlock such as Alfani, Style & Co. and Martha Stewart. Of course, as Andy actually realizes, that lowest-common-denominator approach isn't working either, as customers of all income brackets still stay away from Macy's, particularly those in Chicago. Kudos to LV and Nordstrom for shrugging off the lowest-common-denominator approach that Macy's prefers and instead setting higher standards for quality, relative price and in-store experience.
|
|
gle
|
Macy's can try to squash all the rumors they want (and so can Andy & co.), but it won't fool people who have looked inside the store and see what they don't want. Nordstrom is benefitting from Macy's mishaps simply by being a better place to shop.
|
|
Average Chicagoan
|
Macy's continues to lose tens of millions in the Midwest.
Here in Chicago, their stores are depressing. Empty. With poor selections.
Perhaps Macy's shareholders will wake up. They should dump Terry Lundgren. Then get new leadership.
Eventually, some new owner will realize that the State Street store can only succeed as Marshall Field's. Until Marshall Field's returns, I will not go into the State Street store.
Many of us will NEVER shop at Macy's ANYWHERE. Keep losing money, Macy's.
|
|
Annie Reader
|
How would someone in Hamilton,Ohio know anything about Marshall Fields? Fields State Street was nothing like Nordstrom--either in its branch locations or the main store in Seattle. It was a full service department store, not just a ladies shoe and fasion emporium. And it wasn't dowdy, either. It had high-end designer brands as well as a contemporary section for younger customers. And Target sold it at a profit to May Co., so the stores must have been doing something right.
|
|
Becky
|
Andy is a Macy's plant. I saw him a few weeks ago answering Macy's-related posts on the Indianapolis Star using the same sort of language. Don't pay attention to him.
|
|
Andrea
|
Annie Reader wrote: How would someone in Hamilton,Ohio know anything about Marshall Fields? Fields State Street was nothing like Nordstrom--either in its branch locations or the main store in Seattle. It was a full service department store, not just a ladies shoe and fasion emporium. And it wasn't dowdy, either. It had high-end designer brands as well as a contemporary section for younger customers. And Target sold it at a profit to May Co., so the stores must have been doing something right. You're quite right... Field's was known for the many high-end designers and in-store boutiques found in the State Street store and other locations. In fact, these internationally respected brands sold quite well at Field's, many were the leading revenue producers in the nation for their respective brands. Anyone who lives in Chicago knows that Field's was generally the most frequent source for high-end fashion used for fashion photo spreads in magazines like Chicago Social. The Dolce & Cabanna boutique is one example of many that understandably moved out when Macy's moved in. It would seem that posters who would have us believe that Field's was a failing brand choose to ignore the truth about what Field's represented in Chicago and the PROFITS Field's produced each and every year. These profits were growing during the two years immediately prior to Macy's moving in, after which the revenues and profits took an nose-dive that has continued ever since. That many of the high-end brands that left Marshall Field's have moved to Nordstrom, Neiman's and Saks - all of which have enjoyed growth attributed largely to the influx of Field's customers - is evidence of Macy's failed expansion strategy that has cost Chicago a renowned and iconic destination department store. LV's move into Nordstrom's further demonstrates that Field's high-end segment is sound, and that another opportunity for a unique Chicago brand to distinguish itself with appeal to tourists and locals alike has been lost. Field's is as Chicago as it gets, but as Macy's the stores have become embarrassing outposts of a generic national mid/discount tier brand. I applaud the many people who continue to call for Field's return to the city it helped make a world-class destination and great place to live!
|
|
flyboyhouston
AOL
|
I think the name on the store really does matter. Marshall Field's, Foley's (our former local Houston "hometown department store"), Lazarus (I am orig. from Ohio), etc mean something to their respective communities. It is city or state pride in shopping at these former local stores. Now all are Macy's and all are pretty dull now.
Reduced customer service, more generic merchandise, more dealing with stupid coupons where the exclusions outnumer the things actually on sale, dumb New York "celebrities" (Donald Trump is NOT a good thing), and more are now the staple of Macy's. Macy's used to be good about 5 years ago, but has steadily gone downhill from there. Now Macy's is on the same level as JCPenny and almost downgraded to a Sears.
Bring back Foley's, Marshall Field's, Lazarus, and other local stores and restore the merchandise to their former higher qualities and bring back customer service and then maybe the sinking ship that is now Macy's can survive.
At least there is Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Nordstrom, and others still here.
|
|
JasonM
|
Macy's Northbrook Court and Vernon Hills should close in 2008.
|
|
Not Again
|
Andy wrote: Get real! Fields was a dowdy department store whose attempts to upscale 10 locations (not the entire chain) was such a failure that Target had to sell it before it pulled Target's sales down enough to cause irreparable harm! Field's was NO Nordstrom!! Go away Andy, no one gives a sh*t what you say.
|
|
Drew
|
Great comments,flyboyhouston! Field's, Foley's, Kaufmann's, Lazarus, Filene's were something special--because they couldn't be found in every shopping mall. In taking over all the regional stores, Terry Lunkgreed has truly constructed macy*mart. A low end (but overpriced) generic, nondescript store full of bland merchandise that can be found everywhere. Sticking a INC or Charter Club label and high price ticket on Kmart style and quality clothing isn't going to drive customer traffic.
McDonald's, Starbucks, macy*mart, Sears, wal*mart--all the same, nothing special, why bother. Just as going out for a special dinner does not mean McDonald's, shopping for something of quality and value does not mean macy*mart.
|
|
Erick
|
Not even the "sensation across the nation" with its 800 stores across the continent can lure a classic luxury brand. What does that say, Andy?
Size doesn't really matter. Quality does.
|
|
Frank
|
macy*s blows
|
|
Rich
|
The Louis Vuitton Store IN Marshall Field's on State Street Was a really nice in store boutique with a nice array of offerings -- Although I visited Field's several times a week, I only visited the LV boutique a few times as I did not often need anything LV, but it was great for it to be there -- I miss Field's -- I used to go there all the time for lunch and usually picked up something I needed-several times a week. Field's was special and GREAT. -- I rely a lot on Nordstrom now but you just cant get everything there the way you could at Field's. I never go to Macy's. I tried but there is nothing there I want to buy and I don't even go to eat there anymore.
|
|
why macys
|
Rich, couldn't agree with you more. Why bother even going into Macy's? What to see more Alphony wear? Please, again I don't even go in their for lunch either since the fruit-fly fiasco last summer.
|
Judge it!
