New York Times writer Michael Barbaro is often on the mark in his articles but in this one he misses.

In Chicago, where Macy's converted and took Marshall Field's down-market, there has been what Burt Flickinger, managing director of Strategic Resource Group in New York, has termed a "consumer revolt"*--and it's hardly about coupons. In fact, 100s of fans Field's Fans were out in front of the State Street flagship three weeks ago protesting the lack of Field's. Such protests are unprecedented. They were not only protesting the loss of quality, service, culture and history, but also what they believe is the increase in the quantity of Macy's coupons, as well as the myriad of exclusions many coupons feature. The protesters hold that former Field's customers are insulted that coupons would make them shop what they consider is a store inferior to Macy's.

While the NY piece supports itself by presenting a study showing reduced the newspaper coupons from the year or so Field's was owned by May, the reality is that Macy's made up for it with increased coupons mailed direct to charge card holders' homes.

An increase in coupons will not make up for the major blunder of Macy's converting and downgrading Marshall Field's. The more coupons Macy's mails, the more they push former Field's customers away. They have forever lost these customers until they return Marshall Field's in quality and service, as well as name.

What in the world is an article about coupons doing on the front page of the New York Times anyways? With Macy's (and its Bloomingdale outlets) as one of the paper's major advertisers, the placement on the front page comes across as the New York Times assisting its advertiser Macy's with damage control as the retailer tries to figure out how to backtrack from the biggest consumer marketing blunder since Diet Cokes.


*http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=FD:US&sid=azzO3kjrAL1s

Macy's didn't "downgrade" Field's, they eliminated the more upscale merchandise that was more suitable for a Bloomingdale's than upper middle market Field's and Macy's. These brands weren't selling and in fact were part of the cause of Field's monumental drop in sales between 1999 and 2004 what Target Stores had had enough of the declining sales, determined it would take years and years to turn the stores around, and decided to sell before it was too late. The old Field's store are beginning to turm around now that Macy's owns them! Macy's did not blunder, and in fact will reap the benefits of their purchase of these stores in the future after they correct the issue of taking away the coupons so quickly. They did so in their own stores but they spend 5 years slowly doing it. They will add coupons and over a period of years slowly reduce their numbers.

I worked in one of the May company stores. People were so trained to use coupons they would refuse to purchase anything without them. We sometimes had non-coupon sales that were better than most coupon events. I could not get a shopper to understand they were better off purchasing now than waiting for the next coupon. Macy's appears to have taken no input or from May on many levels, but now appears to be adopting, late as it may be, some of their better techniques.

May customers would not shop without coupons, even at a better non-coupon sale. Macy's disdain for May led them to adopt non of the May store's better ideas, neither in marketing nor internal operations. Now they are changing, but, hopefully, not too late. I have a lot of Macy's stock in my May 401K.

Macy's has plenty of coupon's, but they require that the consumer must have a Macy's Credit Card. Unfortunately for Macy's, many consumers don't want another credit card in their already growing stack. Federated should become a shoppers club, like Costco or Sam's, rather than offering discounts only to Macy's Card holders.
There was a time when Macy's employee's were trained about product knowledge and they were required to assist the consumer in selecting merchandise. Now, they are merely CASHIERS, who have no idea how to assisr the consumer with proper fittings of shoe size and suit selections, etc. Try finding a Macy's employee who knows or cares about helping the consumer select china or tableware products.
Macy's 'service' has gone to hell.

Macys may have alot to learn and adapt based on the merger however they do have alot right. Customers are loyal to Fields but Fields was not loyal to them. The Fields family sold out years earlier and every retailer that owned them since then did not do the store/customer justice. Reality is that if Macys had not purchased them, the stores would have continued to decline. Chicago is upset because they are "2nd City" to New York and miss being fashion leaders rather than followers. Chicago, you are a great city. Wake up and see what you have in a good quality mid level department store that is happy to be there to service your community.

Macy's didn't "downgrade" Field's? Excuse me? I'd like to know how a Donald Trump suit is an improvement over a Hart Schaffner Marx suit. Field's did not have a monumental drop in sales and was always, ALWAYS profitable. In fact, it was the profits of Field's that fueled Target's expansion. Macy's (and its employees and supporters) has got its head you know where if it thinks anything it has done has improved upon Marshall Field's. It has run the stores straight into the ground and most certainly will end up selling the Field's name and the State Street store to a quality retailer like Neiman-Marcus or Harrod's. Most Chicagoans will never shop at Macy's. Never.