DIS!1/2

D1 Marshall Field’s Becomes Macy’s: Understanding Retail Brand

INSTRUCTIONS

When preparing for your discussion post on this case, it is recommended that you read through it several times.

Read through it the first time to familiarize yourself with the prompt.

On the second reading, consider your assigned role in the situation, and let that guide your perspective.

Look deeper at the details: facts, problems, organizational goals, objectives, policies, strategies.

Next, consider the concepts, theories, tools and research you need to use to address the issues presented.

Then, complete any research, analysis, calculations, or graphing to support your decisions and make recommendations.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, Marshall Field’s department stores officially became a part of the Macy’s chain. With the new acquisition came the task of rebranding the Marshall Field’s stores into the Macy’s family. Some critics did not accept this transition gracefully. This case study focuses on the elements of a retail brand and the challenges to rebranding an established institution.

PROMPT

You are the part of a marketing team that has been tasked with rebranding its company’s stores. The CEO explained to your team that he does not want their rebranding experience to mirror the issues faced by Macy’s. Read the Case Study Marshall Field’s Becomes Macy’s: Understanding Retail Brand

(Links to an external site.)

and review the module resources. Answer the following questions and make sure to support your answers with relevant scholarly resources.

Tasks:

In the discussion forum, answer the following:

Analyze customer motivation and behavior in response to the rebranding of Marshall Field’s.

Which rebranding strategies would be most effective for any company to use to avoid the same response that Macy’s received during their transition?

In response to your peers, assume you are the CEO of the Company. Are their proposed rebranding strategies appropriate to avoid resistance from critics during the transition? Why or why not?

Support your answers using relevant, scholarly resources and citations in APA format.

Responses should comprise 200-600 words.

References

Lavin, M. (2009). Marshall Field’s Becomes Macy’s: Understanding retail brand

(Links to an external site.)

. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 37 (11). 993-1007.

Consult the Discussion Posting Guide for information about writing your discussion posts. It is recommended that you write your post in a document first. Check your work and correct any spelling or grammatical errors. When you are ready to make your initial post, click on the “Reply”. Then copy/paste the text into the message field, and click “Post Reply.”

To respond to a peer, click “Reply” beneath her or his post and continue as with an initial post.

Evaluation

This discussion will be graded using the discussion board rubric. Please review this rubric, located on the Rubrics page within the Start Here module of the course, prior to beginning your work to ensure your participation meets the criteria in place for this discussion. All discussions combined are worth 20% of your final course grade.

D1: Working with Constraints

This activity will provide you with an opportunity to engage in discussion on a project management topic that was covered in this module. The class interaction will foster a learning environment in which you will learn from each other’s experiences and opinions. In addition to that, you will practice using the project management jargon and expressing your opinions in a professional manner. The options available in this discussion have ethical considerations that are important to consider as a project manager.

It is always simplest when a project is able to progress from start to finish with no major modifications but when an issue arises, it is essential that the project manager consider all viable options—the culture of the company, the customer’s tolerance for modification, and the impact any change will have on the quality of the project, and the ability to meet future milestones. The project you are managing for UPI has a major problem that could halt production and impact sales. It was discovered by Lee, your liaison to the Chinese manufacturing company, that the raw material used in the production of the game pieces is not available and will not become available for three months due to the chemical process to create the material that is heated, molded, and pressed.

Lee has learned of another company that has large reserves of a similar material that will respond to the manufacturing process similarly to the original material but it is of inferior chemical composition. When heated, the alternate material off-gases a toxic chemical that could be hazardous to workers. You are assured that the chemical has no residual negative effects of off-gassing and the pieces will pass the chemical analysis when finished. The issues you must decide include all of the questions below.

Respond to the following:

Technically, the change in raw material is a change in the scope of the project. Who should you notify, if anyone, and why? Should you make the decision and then alert management or should you wait for someone else to make a determination for how to proceed?

The potential for off-gassing is an element that was presented to you for consideration. Does it matter as the manufacturing process is in China and will not affect US workers? What steps or accommodations should be made, if any and why?

What do you think your level of due diligence is regarding verification of Lee’s claims that the finished product will comply with US regulations for safety? Please explain.

Do you have any alternative suggestions to Lee’s proposal or should you defer to Lee’s opinion considering you are new to the company and new to the team?

To respond to a peer, click “Reply” beneath her or his post and continue as with an initial post.

Evaluation

Marshall Field’s becomes Macy’s:
understanding retail brand

Marilyn Lavin
Department of Marketing, University of Wisconsin – Whitewater,

Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the controversy surrounding the 2006 extension
of the Macy brand to the Marshall Field’s stores. Initial reactions, as well as on-going resistance, to the
re-branding provide a means of understanding of the strength of retail brand, how it is established and
whether “symbols and traditions” may be separated from retail brand per se.

Design/methodology/approach – The effort of Federated Department Stores (later Macy’s Inc.)
to rebrand Marshall Field as Macy’s offers a unique opportunity to understand retail brand. This paper
relies on news accounts for a chronology of events leading up to and following the Marshall Field’s
re-branding as Macy’s. In addition, analysis of postings to the customer-originated fieldsfanschicago
blog is used to understand, from the consumer’s viewpoint, how retail brand is formed and to consider
the strength of retail brand.

Findings – The paper concludes that retail brand may be as strong as product brand, that personal
experience, as well as retailer-controlled variables, is strongly associated with retail brand, and that
retailer “symbols and traditions” are an integral component of retail brand.

Originality/value – This paper examines retail brand in the context of the extension of family
brand. The use of blog posts permits a first-hand account of how customers perceive retail brand and
of how intense their attachment to such brands may be.

Keywords Retailing, Brands, Departments stores, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In August 2005, Federated Department Stores paid $11.5 billion to acquire the May
Company. By adding the 400 May stores to its own more than 450 outlets, Federated
planned to create a national department store chain in the USA that would allow it to
compete more effectively against such operators as Target, J.C. Penney, and Kohl’s.
Central to the effort was Federated’s intention to use the Macy’s brand to create a
unified image for its department store chain. On September 9, 2006, Federated officially
re-named all the former May stores. Not all customers, however, approved the change,
and Chicago, the home of Marshall Field’s, was the market that especially resisted the
transition.

Federated’s experience with the Marshall Field’s name change provides an important
opportunity to understand better the factors associated with retail brand strength
and to examine the issues that contribute to establishing retail brand. The present paper
begins with a review of the literature related to store brand/image and family branding.
It then examines, in detail, customer resistance to Federated, whose name was also
officially changed to Macy’s in June 2007, as it attempted to re-brand Marshall Field’s.
The purpose of this discussion is not to consider whether Marshall Field should have
been re-branded the Field’s stores or to propose better means Federated might have

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s

993

Received 3 May 2008
Revised 23 November 2008

Accepted 27 April 2009

International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management

Vol. 37 No. 11, 2009
pp. 993-

1007

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-0552

DOI 10.1108/09590550910

999

398

employed. Rather this paper uses the Federated experience and customer reaction to
it as a means of considering the strength of retail brand per se, how retail brand is
formed, and whether symbols and traditions associated with one brand can be
transferred to another.

Literature review
Recognizing that “retailer as brand is one of the most important trends in retailing”
(Grewal et al., 2004), the Journal of Retailing devoted a special issue to the topics of
Retail Brand and Customer Loyalty in 2004. The contributions to the issue indicate that
“retail brand” has more than one interpretation. Two articles equated retail brand with
private label merchandise (Sayman and Raju, 2004; Sprott and Shimp, 2004), while a
major portion of an invited article by Ailawadi and Keller discussed the creation of
retailer brand image per se. The latter orientation is in keeping with the purposes of
this study. In that work, Ailawai and Keller updated the earlier research by Lindquist
(1974) and Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) on store image, and concluded that access,
store atmosphere, price and promotion, cross-category product/service assortment,
and within-category assortment were the most important determinants of retailer
image. They also acknowledged that the absence of an explicit focus have left retail
brand issues unresolved.

To the extent that retail “brand” and “image” have either the same or overlapping
meaning, the literature related to the latter construct is pertinent. Matineau’s (1958)
seminal work suggested that image is related to “functional” factors like those
identified by Ailawai and Keller, but he also suggested that “psychological” attributes
such as a sense of belonging are also important. Using a behaviorist approach, Kunkel
and Berry (1969) argued that store image is the conceptualized or expected
reinforcement associated with shopping at a specific store. Hirshman (1981) shifted the
focus to cognitive learning, and defined store image as a “subjective phenomenon that
results from the acquisition of knowledge about a store as it is perceived relative to
other stores and in accordance with the consumer’s unique cognitive framework.”
Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) expanded upon Hirschman’s approach, and offered a
process-focused definition that considered store image to be:

[. . .] a cognition and/or affect (or set of cognitions and/or affects) which is (are) inferred either
from a set of ongoing perceptions and/or memory inputs attaching to the phenomenon and
which represent(s) what the phenomenon signifies to the individual.

The literature on “family brand” is also pertinent to the efforts to extend the Macy
name. Milberg et al. (1

997

) and Lane and Jacobson (1997) all found that more accessible
negative extension information had greater impact on family brand evaluation,
while Loken and John (1993) reported that the salience of both typical and atypical
extensions affected family brand evaluation. Ahluwalia and Gurhan-Canli (2000)
further showed that accessibility of extension information influences both dilution and
enhancement effects. The focus of this literature, however, is the dilution/enhancement
effects on the family brand per se; it presumes strength in the brand being extended,
and does not consider possibility that the family brand itself may be problematic.

Study questions
As noted above, research has associated both functional aspects – access, atmosphere,
price, product/service assortments – as well as subjective inputs – personal

IJRDM
37,11

994

knowledge and memories – with retail brand. In addition, the family brand literature
suggests dilution/enhancement effects that may complicate the extension of one retail
brand to another. These research streams are relevant to Macy’s effort to re-brand
Marshall Field’s.

It might be argued that Marshall Field’s and Macy’s, as mid-range department stores,
offered objectively similar access, atmosphere, pricing and promotion,
service/merchandise assortments, and within-category assortments as suggested by
Ailawai and Keller (2004). However, the earlier work on store image stresses more
subjective experiential and evaluative processes. To the extent that those latter brand
aspects are idiosyncratically associated with one image/brand – in this particular case,
Marshall Field considered a superior brand by its loyal customers – acceptance of the
family Macy brand may be resisted.

In the case of Macy’s and Marshall Field’s the physical flagship stores are
remarkably similar and lay claim to being, respectively, the largest and second largest
in the USA. Both have well-established private labels including Charter Club at Macy’s
and Field Gear at Field’s. Both retailers also use hi/lo pricing strategies that include the
One Day Sale at Macy’s and Field Days at Marshall Field. Each, however, is strongly
tied to a specific home city. Macy’s is one of New York’s major tourist attractions,
and its annual Thanksgiving Day Parade (though televised nationally for many
decades) has heralded the beginning of the Holiday Season in New York. For its part,
Marshall Field’s has similar ties to Chicago. The store on the Loop is considered one of
the city’s landmarks, and its annual holiday windows and the 45-foot Christmas tree in
its Walnut Room restaurant are well-established traditions in the Windy City.

Since Macy’s and Marshall Fields share many functional similarities but also
associated their brands with “traditions” tied to specific cities and childhood memory,
the effort to extend the Macy brand to Marshall Field offers an important opportunity
to learn about retail brand. In particular, this circumstance offers the opportunity of
explore the following issues:

. How attached are consumers to retail “brand” names?

. How important are retail “traditions” such as holiday displays and other
activities to retail brand?

. How easily will established private labels associated with one retail brand be
accepted by customers who are loyal to the brand that has been replaced?

. How easily will pricing promotions that have been associated with one
brand/store image transfer to another retailer?

. How important are historical ties to city/place of origin to store brand/image?

. How easily can subjective experiences associated with retail promotional
activities transfer to another retailer.

Method
Given the prominence of Federated Department Stores and of its stores in most of
the major retail markets in the USA, news organizations closely reported the events
leading up to and following the Macy’s name change. Those stories, while not
specifically focused on the issues of branding/image, do contain factual information
related to the measures Federated undertook to facilitate re-branding its stores. For the
purposes of the present paper, they will serve as the means of identifying those activities.

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s

995

Press accounts related to customer acceptance of the former Marshall Field’s stores that
provide sales estimates for those retail outlets, as well as those that report results of
surveys conducted by industry consultants also serve as important sources of data for
this paper.

In response to Federated’s announcement of its plan to re-brand Marshall Field’s
as Macy’s, the most outraged dissidents started a blog, fieldsfanschicago.org. In recent
years, blogs have become very important to marketers because they bring together
online communities with similar interests and concerns. Many marketers monitor these
postings to discover what consumers like or dislike about their products/services,
to identify new product ideas, and to assess their competitive positions. Marketers’
interest in blogs is understandable; the blogs permit consumers an opportunity to
freely identify and express themselves on matters of importance to them. For that
reason, blogs can also serve as an important resource for understanding topics such as
the one under consideration in this research.

To be sure, the postings to fansfieldchicago.org cannot be taken as representative of
all or perhaps most of Marshall Field’s customers. They do, however, reflect the feelings
of those most upset by Federated’s actions, and they also offer first person accounts of
attachment to Marshall Field’s brand. For this reason, blog postings made between
September 2006 and March 31, 2008 were used as a means of identifying the factors that
the store’s customers believe are most pertinent to the store’s image/brand. Specifically,
the following dates were closely scrutinized: September 7-11, 2006, these are the dates
immediately preceding and following the Marshall Field name change to Macy;
November 24-28, 2006, the first days of the 2006 Holiday sales season; March 1-5, 2007, a
period in the Spring selling season; September 7-11, 2007, the days before and after the
first anniversary of the re-branding, November 23-27, the first days of the second
Holiday selling season after the name change; and February 6 and 7, 2008, the day of and
the day following a Macy’s reorganization announcement. For each of these periods,
blog posts were tabulated as a means of gauging participants’ engagement with the
issue of re-branding, and posts were also classified and counted to determine the issues
related to major sources of dissatisfaction with the change.

Findings
When Federated announced that its former May stores would be re-branded as Macy’s,
Chief Marketing Officer (CEO) Terry Lundgren made clear the reasons for the name
change. He noted “We need to think of being a national retailer [. . .] We were competing
as regional department stores, and not winning.” With a single name, he argued that
Macy’s could use a national advertising campaign, strengthen its negotiating power
with vendors, expand its private label programs, and improve its online presence
(Timberlake, 2006). Federated was well aware of the difficulties likely to accompany
the brand transition, and hired Anne MacDonald, who had overseen marketing for
Citibank and had been vice president of brand management for Pizza Hut, as Macy’s
CEO. When asked about the changing the century – old store names of the former May
stores including Marshall Field’s, MacDonald stated “with an acquisition, you have to
understand what the brand is currently delivering and the emotional connection
consumers have with the brand”. She further commented that customers would accept
the Macy name if the company “were very upfront, very respectful and very involving
of the people in each of the communities” (Bryon, 2006).

IJRDM
37,11

996

Before the re-branding occurred in September 2006, Macy’s singled out Marshall
Field’s stores for special attention. Macy’s announced that it would designate the
Marshall Field’s flagship store on Chicago’s Loop as “Macy’s at State Street,” and
Lundgren pledged “We are fully committed to keeping the legacy of this store alive
[. . .]”. As part of this effort, Federated agreed to retain the Marshall Field brass
nameplates on the four corners of the flagship building, as well holiday traditions
including the animated holiday displays in the store’s windows and the 45-foot
Christmas tree in its Walnut Room restaurant. Federated also promised to provide a
Frango Viewing Kitchen where store visitors could see Frango candies being covered
with chocolate (under May ownership, production of Frango candy – a popular
Marshall Field brand – had been outsourced to a company in Pennsylvania), and to
refurbish the flagship building over a four-year period (Business Wire, 2006).

Federated’s actions were in keeping with Lundgren’s belief that customers are
attached to store symbols and traditions rather than to the retail brand per se. In the
case of the Marshall Field name change, he contended that continuation of the store’s
holiday activities, returning some aspects of Frango production to Chicago, and the
improvement in the condition of the flagship store would compensate for the loss of the
Field’s retail brand. Many Marshall Field supporters did not agree with this stand.
Even after announcement of Federated’s plans for the Field’s stores, 60,000 Chicagoans
signed an online petition asking that the Marshall Field’s name be preserved,
while scores of others sent angry letters to Federated in which they threatened to cut
up their Field’s charge cards. Lundgren discounted these protests, and claimed that
examination of the purchase records of the first 100 letter writers revealed that they
accounted for “incredibly little activity” (Barbaro, 2006).

When the re-naming of Marshall Field’s stores as Macy’s officially took place
on September 9, 2006, store employees welcomed the shoppers with doughnut holes,
coffee and $10 gift cards at Chicago’s State Street store. At the same time, 200 protesters
demonstrated outside the building. The comments of the dissidents suggest how they
associated the Field’s brand with civic pride and loss of identity. One 68 year-old
woman stated, “I hate to see Chicago lose something that helps it be a city and not just
a collection of streets”. A 41-year old man with his seven-year old daughter rejected
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s claim that it was “only a name change;” instead,
he believed that “This is just the beginning of changes to come”. And one of the
co-organizers of the event argued that the re-branding was a “downgrading,” while
another protester agreed that “Macy’s is not as sophisticated and classy as Marshall
Field’s” (Hussain, 2006).

The days leading up to and following the name change was one of the most active
periods on the fieldsfanschicago blog. As can be seen from Table I, unhappy customers
contributed 488 posts during the five days. Comments related to plans to boycott Macy
stores, to the September 9 demonstration at the State Street store, and to concerns that
press accounts related to the re-branding and demonstration were unfairly favoring
Macy’s were the most frequent topics on the blog. However, large numbers of posts
echoed the feelings of those interviewed at the September 9 protest; they noted the fact
that Marshall Field’s was a Chicago institution with strong roots in the city, bemoaned
the substitution of designer and Field’s private labels for what were perceived to be
lower quality Macy brands, reported finding the Macy’s stores to be poorly maintained,
and expressed distress about the loss of the store associated with childhood and other

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s
997

pleasant memories. More than 20 persons from outside the Chicago area also
contributed comments; some commiserated with the “Field’s Fans,” and others
expressed unhappiness with the fact that Macy’s nameplate had replaced regional
retail brands in their localities. The vast majority of the posts supported resistance to
the Macy’s re-branding, but seven persons were opposed; and one even suggested “you
people need to get a life” (fieldsfanschicago blog).

To build the Macy brand nationwide, the retailer ran a massive advertising
campaign using national and cable television as well as newspapers, radio, billboards,
and the internet. Macy’s also sent 54-page catalogs to 3.8 million residents in the
trading areas of the former May Department Stores which included Marshall Field’s
(Cornwell, 2006). Posts to the fieldsfanschiago blog indicate that the promotional
campaign did not appeal to all. Several bloggers noted that when they initially saw the
red and white ads, they thought they were for the mass merchandise, Target. Another
commented, “How do they have the nerve to run them in the Chicago market?” while
another noted that the ads “are somewhere between loud, parody, TJMaxx/Marshall’s
[. . .]” The catalog did not receive a warmer reception; in fact, “gayle” reported, “I first
threw it in the garbage, but changed my mind and fished it out thinking I’d start
collecting a paper trail of Macy’s lies” (fieldsfanschiago blog).

In October 2006, Deloitte & Touche surveyed 13,400 shoppers, including 450 in
Chicago. The firm found that 41 percent of Chicago respondents were unhappy with
the change to Macy’s as compared with 16 percent of shoppers nationwide. In addition,
25 percent of the former Marshall Field customers planned to do less shopping at
Macy’s, while only 9 percent of those surveyed in other areas had similar plans.
John Salata, a Deloitte partner noted that:

September
7-11, 2006

November
24-28, 2006

March
1-5, 2007

September
7-11, 2007

November
23-27, 2007

Total posts 488 73 39 107 66
Inferior merchandise 27 10 8 26 6
Inferior store atmosphere 21 0 3 6 0
Inferior service 7 5 2 6 2
Pre-/post-demonstration 41 17 0 39 10
Boycott 40 15 9 11 11
Chicago landmark 33 7 4 9 5
Nostalgic remembrance 18 6 0 4 6
Low/no sales 0 2 4 7 0
Terry Lundgren 11 0 0 3 5
Poor promotions 15 0 1 1 0
Press coverage 52 9 3 12 0
Objection to Macy’s replacing
other retailers 24 7 0 9 5
Support the change to Macy’s 7 0 0 0 0
Other shopping alternatives 0 5 9 4 4

Note: One blog posting may contain more than one issue

Table I.
Issues considered on
fieldsfanschicgo.org

IJRDM
37,11

998

Chicagoans are proud of the traditions that the city was built on, and shopping at Marshall
Field’s has been a part of the fabric of the city for a hundred years.

But he predicted the drop in spending would be brief, since because 90 percent of the
survey respondents who had actually been in Macy’s State Street store believed the
design and service were either unchanged or better (O’Connell, 2006).

For the four-week period ended October 28, 2006, Federated reported the company’s
total revenue dropped 7.9 percent – a decline that was attributed to problems
concentrated at Marshall Field’s and the other former May stores (Guy, 2006c).
Federated officials acknowledged that an inability to wean budget-minded May
consumers from the retailer’s customary sales events as well as an inadequate stock of
some goods and the need to re-train salespeople about new merchandise assortments
contributed to the problems. Karen Hoguet, the company’s Chief Financial Officer,
noted, “We have a lot of work in front of us to create a quality selling culture and to
execute correctly the localized assortments in the new Macy’s stores” (Guy, 2006a).
In the short-term, Federated responded with more promotions and discounts during the
2006 holidays.

The dissidents who posted on the fieldsfanschicago blog noted Federated’s
disappointing sales reports. Their entries reflect the fact that at least some of the
bloggers had greater knowledge of retail operations than would be expected of average
shoppers and were able to both find and understand the implications of financial data.
One blogger reported doing a “quick and dirty analysis” of the figures in the November
2 press release and concluded that rumors that sales at the former Marshall Field’s
stores had dropped 36 percent might be true, but another commented that “36 percent
does seem like a bit of a stretch.” That blogger also reacted to Federated’s call with
retail analysts on November 8. He reported that the analysts were considering that
there had been as much as a 10 percent decline in same store sales at the former
Marshall Field’s outlets, and he noted “If so, this is good news for our cause”
(fieldsfanschicago blog).

Several of the posts during autumn 2006 also considered a $10 gift card Federated
had sent. One blogger exclaimed, “OMIGOD! Federated is desperate!” Another
responded, “Everyone in my household got one [. . .] I think the card will be going
strictly to the trash!,” while another post reported that the “gift card is already
trashed.” One card recipient, however, recommended that the card be used to purchase
children’s hats and mittens, which could then be donated to Goodwill, the Salvation
Army or community/church organizations (fieldsfanschicago blog).

Early in November 2006, CEO Terry Lundgren predicted a 3-5 percent increase in
Federated same store sales during the upcoming holiday season (Guy, 2006c). However,
in the weeks that preceded Thanksgiving, unhappy consumers boycotted and picketed
the State Street store each Saturday. Their posts on the fieldsfanschicago blog
demonstrate how closely the Marshall Field brand was tied to holiday tradition. One
former customer posted: “I feel so sad. No Fields this Christmas, seems unreal,” and
another remarked that the Macy Christmas window displays in the State

Street store

were “just plain and boring to watch.” Even the traditional Christmas tree decorated
with Vera Wang ornaments that Federated placed in the Walnut Room Restaurant did
not appeal to those upset by the loss of Marshall Field’s. One shopper called it “a sorry
effort to appease Chicagoans,” and she vowed never to shop at Macy’s. Remembrances of
childhood when the Christmas season included a trip to the Marshall Field’s State Street

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s
999

store were also common on the blog during the Holiday season, and one woman urged
continuance of the protest “for all the children who treasured the Christmas memories in
the world of Marshall Field’s North Pole” (fieldsfanschicago.blog).

Posts to fieldsfanschicago between November 24 and November 28, 2006 numbered
73 – a total, as shown on Table I, reflecting a considerable decrease in blog activity from
the earlier five-day period that included the actual Macy re-branding. The comments,
however, highlighted the demonstration that took place outside the Chicago State Street
store to mark Black Friday – the day after Thanksgiving. This protest, which occurred
on the busiest shopping day of the year, featured 12 women dressed in nineteenth
century garb who carried signs bearing the words, “Give the Lady What She Wants.”
The demonstrators’ attire symbolized Marshall Field’s more than century-old retail
position as a retailer of fine goods in Chicago; the slogan on the signs referred to the
statement attributed to founder Marshall Field and related to his recognition of the need
to provide high levels of service to his customers. The protest was well-received.
According to blogger posts, many passing motorists acknowledged the demonstration
and honked their car horns as a show of support (fieldsfanschicago blog).

The blog posts from November 2006 also show that former Field’s customers focused
on issues similar to those noted at September re-branding to Macy’s. They continued to
link Marshall Field’s to Chicago heritage, complained of the lower quality merchandise
in the re-branded stores, and vowed never to shop at Macy’s. In addition, they also
indicated that specific retailers including Nordstrom’s, Von Maur, Neiman Marcus, and
Carson’s provided excellent shopping options for the kinds of products they had
previously bought at Marshall Field’s (fieldsfanschicago blog).

Press reports through December 2006 and January 2007 recounted difficulties
Federated experienced at the former May stores in general and at Marshall Field’s in
particular. Dana Cohen, analyst at Banc of America Securities, suggested that sales at
the former Field’s stores in November 2006 were 11 percent lower than in the previous
year, and argued that “Federated tried to do too much too quickly” (Guy, 2006b).
Federated did not release holiday 2006 sales figures for its newly-re-branded stores, but
C. Britt Beemer, chairman and founder of America’s Research Group, reported that the
May locations might have lost 10-20 percent of their shoppers to competitors such as
J.C. Penney’s and Kohl’s (Cornwell, 2007). And Wendy Liebmann, the president of WSL
Strategic Retail, noted Macy’s faced major challenges when she commented:

They are asking shoppers [. . .] to give up a brand that a lot of them have had for a long time
and have been emotionally attached to [. . .] To succeed nationally, Macy’s must be consistent
in its message [. . .] It’s not enough to have the Macy’s parade (Journal Staff and Wire Report,
2007).

As shown in Table I, posts to the fieldsfanschicago blog were not as numerous between
March 1 and 5, 2007 as they were during the earlier five-day periods examined
in this paper. But former Field’s customers remained adamant about boycotting
“Messy’s” – as they often referred to Macy’s – and they suggested that by refusing to
release sales figures from its former Field’s stores, Federated was attempting to conceal
the impact of their refusal to shop at the re-branded stores. The bloggers also
increasingly noted finding retailers able to satisfy their needs, and they most frequently
mentioned Nordstrom’s, Von Maur, and Neiman Marcus as providing reasonable
shopping alternatives. Finally, they continued to find problems with Macy’s

IJRDM
37,11

1000

merchandise, and found particular fault with the store’s private labels. Allan, a regular
blogger, even argued on March 2 that:

They could have (and should have) made the decision as to which brands were better, and
which suppliers were better, and went with those, using their large buying power as leverage.
Why not try to sell Field Gear in Cincinnati or LA instead of trying to shove Alfani [a Macy
private label], upon Chicago and Minneapolis customers? (fieldsfanschicago blog).

In March 2007, Federated announced plans to change its name to Macy’s Group, Inc.,
a move that CEO Terry Lundgren called “another important opportunity to reinforce
the recent expansion of the Macy’s brand” (Ceron, 2007). But, while the company
moved to more forcefully establish its identity, it still continued to attempt to appease
angry Chicago customers. As can be seen from Plate 1, the brass “Marshall Field and
Company” nameplate continued to dominate a more make-shift Macy logo over the
main entrance to the State Street store. In addition, for several weeks in March 2007,
shoppers inside the store were greeted with signage that proclaimed “Field Days is
back with a new name [. . .] Spring Sale;” as shown in Plate 2, “Field Days” was
prominent, while the Macy’s logo was relegated to the lower corner of the placard.
Aside from the signage, the sale also was a major departure from Federated’s earlier
objective of weaning customers from the heavy price promotions that May had
employed to attract budget-conscious shoppers to stores including Marshall Field’s.

In a seeming effort to reach out to unhappy Chicago shoppers, CEO Terry Lundgren
in April 2007 announced the return of the Field Gear label. This Marshall Field private
label, that had previously been used on a wide assortment of men’s and women’s
apparel as well as home furnishings, was, however, to be limited to men’s sweaters and
outdoor clothing. Lundgren also acknowledged that sales at the former Field’s stores
were continuing to lag projections, but he argued “It’s not so much about the name

Plate 1.
Main Entrance, State

Street store
Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s

1001

change;” rather, he suggested that the new merchandise and mail promotions targeting
high-spending credit card holders had confused customers (Guy, 2007b).

During the Spring of 2007, Charles Grom, an analyst for JPMorgan Securities Inc.,
estimated sales in the re-branded Macy’s stores dropped 7 percent. Burt Flickinger III,
Managing Director at Strategic Resource Group, specifically identified Chicago as the
company’s most problematic market, and he noted that “They made a disastrous
decision to throw the Marshall Field’s into Lake Michigan, one of the best brand names
in the business” (Jones, 2007). He further stated, “It’s definitely a consumer retail revolt.
This is a mistake that is a mess that is going to take years to clear up” (Bloomberg
News, 2007). Macy’s reacted to its slumping sales by abandoning its “everyday value”
pricing and reverting to the heavy promotions that included the one-day Macy’s
savings pass which offered even greater savings possibilities than the former Marshall
Field’s coupons (Guy, 2007a).

Efforts to appease consumers unhappy about the loss of Marshall Field’s evidenced
no notable success. On September 9, 2007, protesters chanting the Field’s slogan, “Give
the Lady What She Wants,” marked the first anniversary of the re-branding of the
flagship store with a demonstration that some observers believed drew more people than
that in 2006. As seen from Table I, the anniversary evoked a pronounced increase in
activity on the fieldsfanschicago blog. The demonstration was a major source of
comment; one former customer living in Ohio even posted: “Throwing rationality to the
wind, I booked a flight so I can join you tomorrow at the rally.” This protest, like the one a
year earlier, received considerable press attention, and bloggers were pleased that the
coverage was more positive that that had occurred a year earlier. They also continued to
argue for the return of a Chicago icon, denounce the quality of merchandise at Macy’s,
and recount experiences with sloppy Macy stores and poor customer service
(fieldsfanschicago blog).

Plate 2.
In-store signage

IJRDM
37,11

1002

Frank Guzzetta, who had been President of Marshall Field and who became
chairman and CEO of the Macy’s North division, noted in November 2007:

There are a lot of people who just can’t get over the Marshall Field’s name change. Those
people, no matter how hard we worked at it, have continued to be detractors (Times Union,
2007).

This statement signaled an end to Macy’s efforts to woo former Marshall Field’s
customers. Instead, for the 2007 Holiday Season, the retailer focused attention on
shoppers who had never had a connection to the State Street store. Macy’s added a
wine bar in the Walnut Room, offered free Wi-Fi, and featured denim-fitting clinics;
these tactics were designed to appeal to college students and young professionals
living in newly-built condos near the State Street store. The initiatives were,
in Guzzeta’s words, an effort to “move on” (Times Union, 2007).

For their part, the posters to the fieldsfanschicag blog ignored Macy’s new approach.
On Black Friday (November 23) 2007, they reported distributing 8,000 leaflets that
outlined their opposition to the Macy’s re-branding and 1,300 lapel buttons that
proclaimed “Forever Marshall Field’s” to holiday shoppers near the State Street store.
They claimed that this number exceeded the previous total on December 23, 2006 by
250 percent. In addition, the dissidents exchanged information regarding a
demonstration they were planning for Sunday, December 2, 2007, reaffirmed their
support for the Macy boycott, and re-iterated their belief that Marshall Field’s was a
Chicago icon. The season, however, also appeared to re-awaken memories of earlier
Christmas seasons, and six bloggers, between November 23 and 27, 2007, recounted
how a visit to the Chicago Marshall Field’s store had been an important part of their
families’ holiday celebrations (fieldsfanschicago blog).

During the 2007 holiday season and through January 2008, American consumers,
in general, curtailed their spending, and most US retailers, including Macy’s, reported
poor sales results for the period. Related to these low returns and the fact that,
according to one analyst, “the magic of Macy’s just hasn’t occurred,” the retailer
announced a restructuring early in February 2008. The new organization placed
greater emphasis on merchandising for local audiences rather than the “one size fits all
approach” that David Brennan, Head of the Center for Retailing Excellence at the
University of St Thomas in Minneapolis, claimed never “gained traction [. . .] in the
former Marshall Field’s stores” (Crosby, 2008).

As part of the restructuring, regional offices were to be established in Chicago,
Cincinnati, St Louis and Seattle, a move that CEO Lundgren argued would “drive sales
growth by improving knowledge at the local level” (Schuster, 2008). He also noted that
Macy’s would “continue to invest” in the former Marshall Field flagship store, and
further commented that “It’s wonderful to have all of these marketing opportunities
with a national brand, but we have to be locally relevant.” One analyst questioned,
however, whether Macy’s was truly moving in a new direction, and argued that “These
‘localization initiatives’ sound like the differentiated regional nameplates Macy’s
obliterated a year or so ago” (Jones, 2008).

The fieldsfanschicago bloggers reacted quickly to Macy’s plan, and on February 6
and 7, 2008 contributed 49 posts to the discussion board. They provided links to
the accounts from Women’s Wear Daily, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago
Sun-Times, as well as to smaller regional newspapers. They asked “Didn’t ‘market

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s

1003

localization’ previously exist in the operation of Marshall Field’s, Kaufman’s, Filene’s,
Foley’s, Burdines, Famous-Barr, Strawbridge’s, Rich’s and the other regional
department stores?” Some suggested that the reorganization was a hopeful sign that
their boycott was effective and looked forward to the return of Marshall Field’s; others
argued that the changes reflected the likelihood that more decisions would be
centralized in New York. Overall, however, the group seemed encouraged by Macy’s
change in direction and determined to continue their boycott effort (fieldsfanschicgo
blog).

Implications
It is not the purpose of this paper to consider whether Macy’s re-branding of the
Marshall Field’s stores should have occurred, or whether the effort can be ultimately
successful. Rather, this study has attempted to use the Macy re-branding of Marshall
Field’s to focus attention on the strength of retail brands, the attachments that
consumers may form with a retail brand, and whether brand can be distinguished from
history, symbols and traditions. These are the issues reviewed below.

“Brand” is generally associated with consumer products. The foregoing discussion,
however, suggests the strength of stores as brands. From the evidence reported above,
customers recognized and associated strong brands with both Marshall Field and
Macy’s. The Field’s customers, however, also saw such significant differences between
the two that some were willing to protest the re-branding of Marshall Field’s and even
boycott the renamed Macy’s stores.

Development of product brands is generally associated with massive advertising
spending. In the present case, however, many persons unhappy with the Marshall Field
change to Macy’s exhibited strong brand attachments developed through personal
experience with the store itself. They related the Field’s brand to childhood visits to the
highly decorated store during the Christmas selling season and to other shopping trips
with parents and grandparents. They claimed strong loyalty to private labels such
as Field Gear and Frango. They were pleased with the Field’s merchandise
assortments and mentioned only high-end retailers as possible replacements for
Field’s. They also related high levels of customer service and a pleasant shopping
environment to the Field brand.

Field’s customers also saw the store as a Chicago institution. For them, the flagship
store on The Loop was more than a retail outlet; it was a place intimately tied to the
history of their city. For them, loss of the brand diminished their hometown’s identity.
In addition, those unhappy with the name change recognized store founder Marshall
Field’s place in retail history, and they used his slogan, “Give the Lady What She
Wants” to demonstrate their resistance to the Macy rebranding.

During months before the name change and for more than a year after it occurred,
Macy’s officials including its CEO attempted to respond to customers’ unhappiness
with the rebranding. In line with CEO Terry Lundgren’s belief that customers are more
attached to “symbols and traditions” than to the retail brand per se, the Marshall Field
nameplate remained on Chicago’s State Street store, Frango mints were sold in
signature green boxes that bore the Marshall Field name in the former Field’s stores,
and Christmas traditions such as the 45 foot tree in the Walnut Room restaurant and
decorations in the stores windows continued. Despite these efforts, many customers
remained unhappy with the Macy name, and this circumstance suggests the likelihood

IJRDM
37,11

1004

that symbols and traditions associated with a store may, in fact, be inseparable from a
retail brand.

Limitations and future research
The present discussion of retail brand is based on the single experience of re-branding
the Marshall Field’s stores to Macy’s. Because this transition involved two of the
largest retail brands in the USA and evoked ongoing resistance, the case is worthy of
consideration and offers an important insights related to retail brand. It also raises
important issues that should be considered in future research.

The present research shows that both Macy’s and Marshall Field’s are very strong
brands with distinct identities. However, both brands were also established during a
period of well over 100 years. This circumstance raises questions regarding the brand
strength of contemporary retailers that have been operating for only several decades or
even less time. Are years of existence related to the strength of a retail brand?

Both Marshall Field’s and Macy’s are department stores, and, as such, used holiday
promotions and similar shopping events to attract customers to their stores.
Contemporary retailers, by contrast, are more likely to use price promotions to drive
traffic and they are also less likely to have store amenities such as restaurants or
massive display windows. This situation raises the question of whether the traditional
department store, that provides many experiential opportunities for their customers,
is more likely to develop stronger brands than other types of retailers.

Finally, contemporary retailers rely heavily on advertising to establish their brands.
Because of such promotions, consumers can readily associate logos, slogans, and even
colors with specific retail names. But are these retail brands as strong as those brands
associated with memories of childhood familial in-store experiences? This too appears
to be an issue worthy of future investigation.

Macy’s experience re-branding Marshall Field’s suggests the likelihood that
consumers can have strong attachment to a retail brand. Whether the loyalty Field’s
customers exhibited is idiosyncratic or extends to many different types of retailers is a
question that cannot be answered in the present research. Given the strong feelings
that Marshall Field’s customers have demonstrated, however, further study of the
factors that contribute to and maintain retail brand should be of interest to both retail
academicians and practitioners.

References

Ahluwalia, R. and Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2000), “The effects of extensions of the family brand name:
an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27,
pp. 371-81.

Ailawai, K. and Keller, K. (2004), “Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and
research priorities”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.

Barbaro, M. (2006), “After smooth sales talk, stores take Macy’s name”, New York Times,
August 26, p. A1.

Bloomberg News (2007), “Shoppers’ revolt at Chicago Macy’s”, Newsday, May 24, p. 57.

Bryon, E. (2006), “Macy’s markets national brand and changes the face of shopping”,
Wall Street Journal, March 22, p. B3.

Business Wire (2006), “Macy’s unveils extensive plans for state street flagship store”, Business
Wire, April 27, p.1.

Marshall Field’s
becomes Macy’s

1005

Ceron, G. (2007), “Moving the market: in the ABCs of the NYSE, Macy’s snags the ‘M’”,
Wall Street Journal, March 29, p. C3.

Cornwell, L. (2006), “Big Macy’s ad campaign launched”, Buffalo News, September 7, p. B8.

Cornwell, L. (2007), “Macy’s still faces a sales job”, The Grand Rapids Press, January 8, p. B5.

Crosby, J. (2008), “Survival instinct: the restructuring of Macy’s streamlines operations, but will it
be enough to save the retailer’s effort to create a national brand?”, Star Tribune,
February 7, p. D1.

Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Lehmann, D. (2004), “Retail branding and customer loyalty:
an overview”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. ix-xii.

Guy, S. (2006a), “Field’s costs federated”, Chicago Sun-Times, November 9, p. 63.

Guy, S. (2006b), “Macy’s faces the music: shoppers tuning out since name change”, Chicago
Sun-Times, December 12, p. 50.

Guy, S. (2006c), “Sales lag at Macy’s”, Chicago Sun-Times, November 3, p. 53.

Guy, S. (2007a), “Field’s coupon gives way to Macy’s pass”, Chicago Sun-Times, May 25, p. 53,
available at: http://fieldsfanschicago.org/blog/index.html (accessed May 2, 2008).

Guy, S. (2007b), “Macy’s to bring back ‘field gear’ menswear”, Chicago Sun-Times, April 25,
available at: www.suntimes.com/business/356179,CST-FIN-macy25.articleprint (accessed
May 8, 2007).

Hussain, R. (2006), “Protesters wear green, see red”, Chicago Sun-Times, September 10, p. A09.

Jones, S. (2007), “Federated finds shoppers’ habits hard to change”, Knight Rider Tribune News
Service, May 16, p. 1.

Jones, S. (2008), “Macy’s says reorganization will cut 2,550 jobs”, Chicago Tribune, February 7,
p. B1.

Journal Staff and Wire Report (2007), “Reluctant parade; federated waits for old stores’ customers
to come to Macy’s”, Winston-Salem Journal, January 5, p. 1.

Kunkel, J. and Berry, L. (1969), “A behavioral conception of retail image”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 32, pp. 21-7.

Lane, V. and Jacobson, J. (1997), “The reciprocal impact of brand leveraging: feedback effects
from brand extension evaluation to brand evalution”, Marketing Letter, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 261-71.

Lindquist, J. (1974), “Meaning of image”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 30, pp. 29-38.

Loken, B. and John, D. (1993), “Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative
impact?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 71-84.

Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36,
pp. 47-55.

Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), “Exploring the development of store images”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 145-65.

Milberg, S., Park, C. and McCarthy, M. (1997), “Managing negative feedback effects associated
with brand extensions: the impact of alternative branding strategies”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-40.

O’Connell, V. (2006), “Macy’s brands the holidays”, Wall Street Journal, November 22, p. B1.

Sayman, S. and Raju, J. (2004), “How category characteristics affect the number of store brands
offered by the retailer: a model and empirical analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4,
pp. 279-88.

IJRDM
37,11

1006

Schuster, R. (2008), “Macy’s reorganization leads to GF job layoffs”, Grand Forks Herald,
February 7, p. B6.

Sprott, D. and Shimp, T. (2004), “Using product sampling to augment the perceived quality of
store brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 305-16.

Timberlake, C. (2006), “Macy’s in Risky effort to ‘put whole thing together’”, Chicago Sun-Times,
May 10, p. 72.

Times Union (2007), “Macy’s tries to sell itself to Chilly Chicago”, Times Union, November 11,
p. D8.

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

DIS!1/2

Order a unique copy of this paper