"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in
news:476f0ddd$0$13859$607ed4bc@cv.net:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>>>
>>>
>>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
>>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>>
>> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
>> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.
>
>>
> I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's
> charges more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big
> bucks while somehow managing to foster an image which retains
> clientele across the socio-economic spectrum.
>
> Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love
> usenet? :-)
>
>
>
>
>

One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.

My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
"classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
the products found in a Macy's store.

I hope that your position is not that somehow that product increases in
value or reliability because it is bought at Macy's, or that the extra
money is well spent because it is not spent at a Target or similar store.