SD Chicago column on Macy's

[barbitu8]

In "Why are people still so upset about Marshall Field's?
January 7, 2010"
(http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100107.php), Cecil stated:

On the other hand, some southerners have never accepted that the Civil War's over and they lost.

Well, not quite. Some southerners don't accept that they lost that war, but they call it "the war of northern aggression."

[C K Dexter Haven]

Mod note: I've changed the thread title from just the url, to a description that is a bit more comprehensible.

* * * * *

We never called it either Civil War (it wasn't very civil) nor war of northern aggression, but the War of Southern Idiocy.

[samclem]

I have great sympathy for the people who lost Marshall Field in Chicago. Listening to a Stan Freeberg tape, when he says

Bang Gunleigh, U.S. Marshall Field

just won't make any sense any more.

I live in Akron, and when our O'Neil's(1877), became the May Company1989)/Kaufmann's(1993)/Macy's(2006), I had sleepless nights. This isn't the way life's supposed to work.

[whet]

I wonder if customer service has actually gotten worse there. I never got the chance to shop at the original Marshall Fields, and I had no occasion to use customer service when it was still called Marshall Fields.

But I (and my wife) have had a couple rotten experiences recently - nothing worse than typical customer service mismanagement that I've had at other retailers, i.e. nothing that caused me to do anything but shrug and try to remember that people are fallible. Still, the brand used to have a lot of cachet (as does Macy's), so I'm inclined to hold them to a higher standard. FWIW, I worked customer service for a somewhat pricey retailer and we went out of our way - to an extent that could be frustrating behind the scenes - to be nice to customers.

I have a couple points (I think). The first is that the brand change theoretically could be coinciding with an actual decline in quality, though I don't have enough actual experience to tell. The second is that changing brands, especially from a famously beloved and trusted company, could make people like me think that quality has declined, because of the suggestive power of brands.

Really vague, I know, but just a couple theories.

[Broomstick]

If I had wanted to live in New York City I would have moved there when I was 18 instead of moving to Chicago.

I like Chicago. I used to even love Chicago, that was why it was my home for 15 years of my life. I enjoy what makes Chicago unique, even if some of those things are now gone (...sigh... Meigs Field.... sigh...)

Marshall Field's was as iconic a store for Chicago as Macy's was for NYC. Prior owners of Marshall Field's understood that, which is one reason they kept the name intact. Then, when Macy's bought them out and changed the name I remember some Macy's owned talking head talking about how people would get over it and "people really do want to shop at Macy's!" and bringing the glamor of New York City to Chicago ---

I was just aghast at how this woman Did Not Get It. I did NOT want NYC, I wanted Chicago. I have zero desire to ever visit NYC (well, OK, maybe the statue of liberty). I don't want to be a pseudo-New Yorker! I want to be an authentic Chicagoan! What a slap in the face! Why didn't she just come out and state than any city other than NYC is inferior and it's distinctiveness should be wiped from the face of the earth, to be replaced by NYC brand items? The husband and I started referring to Macy's as The Borg Store and we still do. Just erase 150 years of history, because it's just not important, not being NYC.

No, I have never, in my life, ever had a desire to shop at Macy's. As of this time, I never have shopped at a Macy's. Og willing, I never will. Macy's is just another department store, at best. The Marshall Field's State Street Store, was unique to Chicago. Seriously, they could have avoided a lot of ill will by keeping the Field name on just that particular building, even if they changed the name of other other Field's branch in the world. They could have said "MARSHALL FIELDS (owned by Macy's)" or "Macy's at Marshal Field's" - just something to acknowledge that there was some history and the status of icon there but, oh no, it's not New York enough, therefore it's as disposable as a used tissue.

I don't want to be in New York City. Screw you, Macy's. You'll get no money from me. The only sad thing is that, inevitably, when they do close the State Street Store the building will probably fall into ruin and Mayor Daley will probably come up with some BS excuse to bulldoze yet another Chicago landmark in the middle of the night so his buddies can get richer skimming the contract to build something else there.

Yes, I'm bitter... and you kids, get off my lawn! I'm off to my rocking chair to be old for awhile...

[ScatteredFrog]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Marshall Field's was as iconic a store for Chicago as Macy's was for NYC. Prior owners of Marshall Field's understood that, which is one reason they kept the name intact. Then, when Macy's bought them out and changed the name I remember some Macy's owned talking head talking about how people would get over it and "people really do want to shop at Macy's!" and bringing the glamor of New York City to Chicago ---

So...they want Chicago to be massively overcrowded, smell like urine, and have litter all over the streets???

I have zero desire to ever visit NYC (well, OK, maybe the statue of liberty).

Good news -- the Statue is actually located within the boundary of New Jersey.

good post, btw.

[djailer]

The quality of general customer service (as opposed to the customer service department) had been going down at the State St. store for several years prior to the change to Macy's. To be honest, it actually seems better now than it was 5-7 years ago. Although I was always very impressed with the level of attention back in the late 80s/early 90s, when I shopped there often. It was helpful and knowledgeable without being pushy. Those days are gone for virtually all retailers, however, and I don't think it has anything to do with who owns the joint.

[eleanorigby]

<applauds Broomstick>