What is the proper rate at which we should introduce the new and discard the old? It seems that our pattern is to love something, take it down (or see it disappear of its own accord), replace it with something new, then exploit the old thing as nostalgia that is supposed to reflect positively on the new thing.
We've had three things happen in Chicago the past couple of years that reflect that phenomenon; you may have that in your locale as well.
One of the most beloved retailing icons in Chicago was the Marshall Field's department store. In a city built on commerce, our heroes tend to be businessmen, and the Field name was one of the biggest. Once the family sold the store chain, it bounced around the consolidated world of retailing until it was purchased by Federated Department Stores about 2-1/2 years ago. At that point, Federated decided to rename Field's to match the flagship of the line, Macy's. This has led to protests, reports of unimproved sales, and a general hubbub of controversy unusual for a business decision.
One thing I found interesting was the justification, that the name change would allow Federated to create national branding strategies. Interesting because the big trend in retailing today is individual customization, the creation of a personalized shopping experience. One might think they could have left the beloved icon in place.
Of course, they've tried to exploit the old as much as possible. There's still a tribute to the store's history on the 7th floor of the State Street store, and many of the old traditions have been retained. I wouldn't be totally surprised if, sometime in the future, they change the name again, to Macy's at Marshall Field's or some similar abomination.
Another near-holy place is the home of the Chicago Cubs, Wrigley Field. The Cubs were just sold as a throw-in on the Chicago Tribune deal, and the new owner, a rich real-estate mogul, is willing to change the name in exchange for the big bucks he can get from a corporate naming deal. This process is not as far along as the Marshall Field's - Macy's deal, but it has already engendered a lot of talk. And there have been serious suggestions of incorporating both, leading to the possibility of a name like Wrigley Field at Cialis Stadium.
A third example is, once again, related to the Chicago Cubs. AT&T (itself a tarnished icon) is running saturation commercials featuring a Harry Caray impersonator (for those not familiar with baseball broadcasting, Harry Caray was the much-beloved Cubs broadcaster for many years; while overrated on skills, his best years having apparently been left in St. Louis, his beer-swilling, enthusiastic persona attracted many casual fans and helped build the Cubs into a national team). Strangely enough, these started running almost immediately following the 10-year anniversary of Harry's death.
The commercials are awful, but, more importantly, we see the cycle of love-replacement-exploitation yet again. I won't try to draw any broad conclusions here, but isn't it possible that resistance to change comes, not from fuddy-duddiness, but from a reluctance to watch this process? I wasn't a big fan of Harry Caray, but I'm revolted by this unfunny caricature (as others have pointed out, it comes off like a bad copy of the really bad Will Ferrell impersonation). Change may be inevitable, but how much do you want to bet that the people behind these changes have no respect for the original, but simply want to trade on other's nostalgia to make some money? And, if asked, I'm sure they'd insist that the commercials were intended as a tribute to Caray - what twaddle.
We've had three things happen in Chicago the past couple of years that reflect that phenomenon; you may have that in your locale as well.
One of the most beloved retailing icons in Chicago was the Marshall Field's department store. In a city built on commerce, our heroes tend to be businessmen, and the Field name was one of the biggest. Once the family sold the store chain, it bounced around the consolidated world of retailing until it was purchased by Federated Department Stores about 2-1/2 years ago. At that point, Federated decided to rename Field's to match the flagship of the line, Macy's. This has led to protests, reports of unimproved sales, and a general hubbub of controversy unusual for a business decision.
One thing I found interesting was the justification, that the name change would allow Federated to create national branding strategies. Interesting because the big trend in retailing today is individual customization, the creation of a personalized shopping experience. One might think they could have left the beloved icon in place.
Of course, they've tried to exploit the old as much as possible. There's still a tribute to the store's history on the 7th floor of the State Street store, and many of the old traditions have been retained. I wouldn't be totally surprised if, sometime in the future, they change the name again, to Macy's at Marshall Field's or some similar abomination.
Another near-holy place is the home of the Chicago Cubs, Wrigley Field. The Cubs were just sold as a throw-in on the Chicago Tribune deal, and the new owner, a rich real-estate mogul, is willing to change the name in exchange for the big bucks he can get from a corporate naming deal. This process is not as far along as the Marshall Field's - Macy's deal, but it has already engendered a lot of talk. And there have been serious suggestions of incorporating both, leading to the possibility of a name like Wrigley Field at Cialis Stadium.
A third example is, once again, related to the Chicago Cubs. AT&T (itself a tarnished icon) is running saturation commercials featuring a Harry Caray impersonator (for those not familiar with baseball broadcasting, Harry Caray was the much-beloved Cubs broadcaster for many years; while overrated on skills, his best years having apparently been left in St. Louis, his beer-swilling, enthusiastic persona attracted many casual fans and helped build the Cubs into a national team). Strangely enough, these started running almost immediately following the 10-year anniversary of Harry's death.
The commercials are awful, but, more importantly, we see the cycle of love-replacement-exploitation yet again. I won't try to draw any broad conclusions here, but isn't it possible that resistance to change comes, not from fuddy-duddiness, but from a reluctance to watch this process? I wasn't a big fan of Harry Caray, but I'm revolted by this unfunny caricature (as others have pointed out, it comes off like a bad copy of the really bad Will Ferrell impersonation). Change may be inevitable, but how much do you want to bet that the people behind these changes have no respect for the original, but simply want to trade on other's nostalgia to make some money? And, if asked, I'm sure they'd insist that the commercials were intended as a tribute to Caray - what twaddle.
1 comment:
In the Detroit area, Marshall Field's replaced our iconic Hudson's department store. There were a few tears shed at first, but people quickly settled down and become loyal Marshall Field's shoppers. Macy's did a horrible job replacing Marshall Field's in my hometown of Novi. They refurbished the store, and it looks dark and dirty, as if they ran out of money during the makeover. People are also mad because Macy's doesn't carry a lot of the same national brands as Marshall Fields.
Post a Comment