We had a saying on the South Side of Chicago many years ago. If you needed something you’d go to 75th Street. If you couldn’t find it there you’d go to 71st Street. Then you’d get on the IC and go to Field’s. They had everything all the time. One left with their dignity unscathed.

Refering to State Street as “Marshall Field’s at Macy’s” is lame. When a brand carries a name such as that the sub-text is that “something’s gone wrong.” It’s a cover like “Cafe 17 at the Berghoff.”

The only solution is that the former Field’s stores get sold off to a good shephard who will do the thing complete and correct.

department store dir

While the entire department store sector lost ground several years ago, Field’s remained profitable and in its worst year in 2002 still earned $107 Million in profits. In the first quarter of 2003 Field’s revenues grew 6.1% and this growth trend continued in 2004, 2005 and up until the month Macy’s took over in September 2006.

Field’s growth trend was shared by Field’s other luxury department store competitors and has continued this last year for Neimans, Saks and Nordstrom, suggesting that Field’s would have continued to thrive had Macy’s left Field’s on course.

It’s only due to Macy’s downgrades of Field’s high-end merchandise and elimination of Field’s prestigious name – valued among the highest in the entire department store sector for good-will, brand loyalty and service – that the stores fare so poorly now.

Marshall Field’s name represents the best of Chicago to the world and Field’s legacy lives in the many world-class museums and traditions Field’s gave to the city and continued to support over the decades. As the city’s third most popular tourist destination, Field’s on State Street attracted more than 9 million customers each year up until 2006 when Macy’s moved in. Now, Chicago, State Street and malls throughout the region suffer from a decline in customer traffic, a decline in tax receipts and a loss of thousands of jobs, salary and commission cuts at Macy’s hands.

Marshall Field’s was one of Chicago’s most valuable assets, yet Macy’s tossed Field’s aside in order to commandeer real estate for the Macy’s brand. It’s no wonder that so many people are so angry with Macy’s and boycotting their stores!

And I be those 200 people that protested never even shopped at the store anyways

Get over it

But that doesn’t mean that the Field name shouldn’t survive. Perhaps keeping the Field name for higher end stores is good. I don’t know the exact answer. That would have to be determined by gathering up all the facts, putting those down to an unbiased outside research team, and having them do focus groups and panels to test out all the options.

The important thing in saving the Field name is that Macy’s needs to go back to the table and openly consider all options. When they investigate all those options, the correct one will become apparent. I know it will include a respectful way of keeping the Field name. And perhaps other regional stores that Macy’s renamed should be revived; Rich’s and Burdines among them.

Lord & Taylor is reducing the size of its New York store and going upscale, after having been owned by Federated. That’s not an ideal situation, but markets change.