CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

T.J. — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:38:42 -0000

It bruised my opinion of Macy's.

Re: Question of the day

shopaholic — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:59:00 -0000

people, let's be real. The low end brands at fields were junk and they were way overpriced, ditto for the high end. You can be upset that the familiar institution is gone, but in terms of plain old department store shopping (keep in mind most people don't shop at the flagship store downtown regularly and stick to the malls) macy's way outranks fields in my book. Yes, the state street store held memories, but now i am getting suits, casual clothes, shoes and purses for incredibly better prices for better quality. Let's not pretend fields was this magic store that always had perfect items at great prices. Particularly near the end it was crap, crap, crap.

Re: Question of the day

Seneca — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:21:49 -0000

I miss Field's. The customer service is not the same.

Re: Question of the day

Cat — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:26:24 -0000

I grew up shopping at Field's/suburbs - all my clothes came from there. Now in Springfield, I don't like Macy's, and buy nearly everything at Von Maur. The service at the Decatur store is very much like the 1970s service at Field's.

Re: Question of the day

Captain America — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:09:49 -0000

Fields went through so many acquisitions that I think it lost its edge and identity. Although I like Target, I thought the decline in quality when Field's was owned by Dayton Hudson was precipitous.

I think it's a shame that Macy's did away with Field's as a distinct brand name with local significance. I think I recently have read that Macy's is not doing very well, and may be a target for acquisition itself.

Merger and acquisiition trends and conglomerates make the good old days irrelevant to Chicago's status as a world class city. If anything, despiute his flaws, Mayor Daley has done everything possible to achieve and manitain the status. But there is nothing he can do about corporate mergers and acquisitions.

Re: Question of the day

The Horse — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:15:07 -0000

Who cares about marshal fields? I WANT MY FAMOUS BARR lol

Face it folks retail has changed and MF didn't. Will consolidation help any upsclae dept store to survive? only time will tell. I dont hear y'all whinning about the fall from grace of that other chicago institution, sears.

Re: Question of the day

NI80 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:48:20 -0000

It's just time to move on. Macy's took over and the world kept turning, time moved forward, and while I most definitely preferred Marshall Fields and am glad they at least kept some of the signifying symbols, it's game over. Time to focus on greater things to boost Chicago's economy.

Re: Question of the day

Angry Chicagoan — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:08:50 -0000

They don't carry what I like. All my favorite brands from Fields have been discontinued. Added to which the staff morale is down the plughole because there are so few customers there. To get in the city what I liked at Fields I'd now have to go to Nordstrom or Nieman Marcus or something and pay twice the price, or else do without.

Maybe Von Maur can come in and show Macy's what retailing is actually about -- talking of firms with a local identity (I'll take an upscale Davenport store over a downscale New York one any day).

I hope Macy's brings back Fields not just on State but at least at select locations around the Midwest. However I fear the company will be broken up given its current putrid sales and share performance, and their attractive properties sold for redevelopment rather than re-branding. And with the long-standing relationships with vendors like Emanuel Ungaro, Paul Smith and so on now broken, it would take a lot of effort to put Humpty back together again. Make no bones about it, the national Macy's branding, and its positioning in the market, are colossal strategic blunders committed by a CEO who has no concept of anything in retail beyond the lowest common denominator of making it a commodity. And that's a strategy that only works in discount stores.

Re: Question of the day

Left Leaner — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:08:37 -0000

I have an additional question. Who are these people who have time to protest the name of a store changing?

I liked Field's, but I also consider [insert subject] a little more important.

Re: Question of the day

anonymous — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:39:41 -0000

I was disappointed when they closed but have found other places with merchandise that's just as nice closer to home. I haven't been to the Macy's downtown but I wouldn't go because the one here in Springfield is awful

Re: Question of the day

so-called "Austin Mayor" — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:26:08 -0000

I care enough that I neither shop at Macy's nor do I take visitors to the State Street store like when it was Marshall Fields.

Rather than having a negative disposition towards Macy's, there is an total absence of the good will I had regarding Fields.

-- SCAM

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous ZZZ — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:33:56 -0000

Frankly, I'm glad Macy's customer service is what it is (in other words, they ignore you). I hated trying to walk from one end of the store to the other when it was Fields, with all of the garishly made-up, heavily-perfumed women ambushing me as soon as I came within 10 feet of the perfume counter. One Marshall Field's saleswoman actually followed me when I stepped away to call a friend about a gift I was thinking of buying.

Re: Question of the day

ZC — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:17:33 -0000

My only annoying run-in with that store came when me and a friend attempted to buy in the Starbuck's on Wabash that's part of the building - or we _thought_ it was a Starbuck's. My friend attempted to buy a coffee using her Starbuck's card, and she was informed that she couldn't use it there, because they "weren't technically Starbuck's" - they were somehow more Macy's than Starbucks, and they didn't have any machine that could read the card for credit.

So my personal gripe is when Macy's doesn't rename things they should. This was a while ago, and perhaps the situation has been resolved.

Re: Question of the day

zatoichi — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:58:15 -0000

I remember going there as a kid with my Mom and Grandmother. The place was packed any time of the year. They loved going and made it a big event by going downtown on the L. I go back now with my kids usually around the Chistmas season and it is a desert. Basically overpriced stuff I can find cheaper at Target or any number of specialized stores that are trying to hang on. Maybe Fields was heading toward Korvettes and Goldblatts land of extinction and Macy's saved them for awhile, but I feel no desire to go back to any of the Macy's stores. It could be any large box store in any mall in any city with equally cut rate service. Nothing about it makes it stand out as a place to go.

Re: Question of the day

Gregor — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:57:05 -0000

I think the smart play is for Macy's/Federated to make a big deal out of returning the flagship store as a "restoration". You know the Water Tower down on Michigan and Chicago ave. hasn't pumped water for many years, but it's a city symbol and a tourist draw. A smart de-renovation of the flagship store could please all the folks who didn't like the takeover as well as create all new shopping buzz downtown. And the secret is, Macys' could still be selling the same thing. Just under the locally preferred banner.

Like Tiffany: it's the blue box wrapping that makes the expensive tchotchkey worth the money.

Re: Question of the day

jerry 101 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:29:17 -0000

I didn't shop there often before the name change, it was a bit out of my price range for most items, but I did go there a few times, and I always enjoyed Fields (relatively speaking - I hate shopping on the whole).
But I won't spend money at Macy's. I found it arrogant the way they swept in and said we're dumping the Fields brand and turning into Macy's - don't like it? Tough. And then when people didn't like it, Macy's started telling people they had to shop there.
It was all very arrogant. And, as some others have mentioned, it's indicative of the homogenization of culture. Marshall Field's is a midwestern thing, and the State Street store is a Chicago institution, every bit as much as the Museum Campus, or the Art Institute or the MSI. To slap the name of a thanksgiving day parade in New York outside was an insult to Chicago.

I don't make a big deal out of it, but I don't shop there either. When I have been in there, things do seem cheaper and scuzzier in general, perhaps its in my head, as macys is a downmarket brand, not much better than Kohl's.

Anyway, rumor on the street is that Field's (state street only, I think) may be sold to a private equity firm, and they've been holding a bunch of sales lately to liquidate the macy's store brand stuff.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:16:47 -0000

===90 percent of the million or so make-up women were standing there looking bored but trendy.===

and spraying passersby with perfume. ugh.

Re: Question of the day

Jacques Strappe — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:11:35 -0000

The food court on 7 is still pretty good and the service hasn't changed up there.

I don't like the selection of men's dress shirts as much as when M. Field's was picking them. The low end still sucks and the high end is too high end...it's like the middle got squeezed out. And so I buy 'em elsewhere now.

Also used the cut-through thing, especially in bad weather...and yeah, your observation is correct. I wondered how they stayed open given that 90 percent of the million or so make-up women were standing there looking bored but trendy.

Re: Question of the day

JonShibleyFan — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:06:58 -0000

- VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 9:02 am:

I care about this only as another sign that Chicago is sliding as a global city.
â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”

Give it a rest, already.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:05:37 -0000

I've brought this up before, but it may be worth broaching the subject again.

When I lived in Chicago, my apartment was very close to Field's. I used to cut through a lot on my way somewhere else, and occasionally even shopped there, particularly at Christmas or when family was in town and they wanted to check it out. The place was almost always nearly empty.

Point being: Chicago stopped supporting that store a while ago.

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:00:23 -0000

I was in a Macy's recently looking through their kitchen wares trying to find some stuff not made in China (heck, if the toys aren't safe, why would their kitchen stuff be?) and had a devil of a time. I finally found a couple items made in the USA (Nordicware) and happily went home with them. The staff was disinterested in my mission. I will probably not shop there again soon.

Re: Question of the day

South Sider — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:48:04 -0000

Only care from the standpoint that Macy's represents the further homogenization of American retail culture and the erosion of quality shopping.

It's no longer acceptable for regions or cities to have their own name brands or their own style of doing things. The "What's good for (name your area/city, etc.) is good for everybody" mentality is epidemic.

Luckily, history is cyclical and I hope that I see in my lifetime American retail return to the concepts of individuality and personal service as the norm.

I also think there is a chance that Macy's may realize they screwed up and return the Field's name to the State street store. However, this year's never-ending legislative session has pretty-much killed the optimist in me, so who knows?

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:39:58 -0000

Fields used to be the gold standard of house brands.

They used to have career sales persons who knew their customer, kept book on them and would call if something that they knew that customer wanted came in.

Fields used to deliver on the same day or the following morning so that one did not have to lug home packages on the train, the el, the bus, the streetcar. That was how they drew their customers downtown.

Field's monthly billing kept the credit card from the door.

All that started to go away well before they sold to Macy's. They turned into a more expensive Sears. All their product was on the shelve, the sales persons retired and changed into cashiers. The stores, excepting downtown, looked like every other.

Fields was trading on memories, sold goods on price, not pure quality. So macy's bought them. It was a small shift. The old girl we loved was long gone and our memories remained.

Only a Nordstrom remains to try to do what Field's always had done. But Nordstrom is privately held and not suhject to the vagaries of share prices. When my wife wants quality and someone to take an interest in her tastes, only Nordstrom will do.

Re: Question of the day

curious — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:26:35 -0000

To be honest, I haven't into the any Marshall Field's store since they changed it. It takes the fun away from being in the store because it is just another chain. I can accept that it sounds stupid but I shop online or by catalog most of the time now and just don't go to stores if I can help it. A big change for a former shopaholic.

Re: Question of the day

Gravitas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:19:28 -0000

Love the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, and shopping at Macy's in New York.

Their arrogance though in having to have their name on OUR Marshall Field's stores probably will and should cost them business. While shopping for, and purchasing, a sterling picture frame for a wedding gift a couple of years ago I mentioned that if the name was actually changed I would not ever walk into these stores again. The salesman replied, "Too bad; the name is being changed. It's as though they didn't listen.

Many who have worked at this formerly great store even part time - have learned so much about both fine products and especially customer service.

Marshall Field's IS Chicago and has been since before I can remember. It was our store and I resent Macy's owner company for imposing their wishes rather than those of the many loyal Field's shoppers.

I haven't and will not spend a cent at Macy's and frequently encourage my family and friends not to either.

The silliest thing is that had they just left it alone, they'd still get the money. It's all ego which is truly unattractive