Quote Originally Posted by EastsideAl View Post
That store was Dayton's [[always referred to by my grandmother as "the cheap bastards who ruined Hudson's")
Al, of course your grandma was entitled to her own perception [[as we all are), but I disagree with the notion that the Dayton-Hudson merge in the late 60s was slumming for JLH. At that point in time, the Hudson & Dayton families were still involved in senior management of their respective iconic stores.


Independently, both firms were profitable, so the merger was not a 'shotgun wedding acquisition' on the order of BofA/Merrill Lynch. Rather, the merger of equals was carefully thought out between them. It was based on a shared heritage of Midwest values and a tradition of high touch service, quality merchandise, and commitment to their respective communities.


As competitors began to diversify product lines, consolidate, and exercise economies of scale in the 60s/70s, Hudson's astutely saw the morphing consumer tastes, and proactively sought out a like-minded partner to expand into new products, one of which was a ready-made discount arm [[Target) that Dayton's had been successful with---but Hudson's hadn't attempted up to that point. I suspect JLH management was flummoxed by observing this profitable market stolen from right under their Detroit noses in the form of SS Kresge's wildly successful K-Mart, and knew they were already somewhat late to the party.


As Howard Schultz of Starbucks says: "If it ain't broke, fix it anyway--because if you don't, your competitors will"


Consumers eventually drove the original Hudson's/Dayton's full-line department store business model [[and its accompanying appreciation & benefits for its employees) into obsolescence--but that's a whole other discussion. However, that merger almost 50 years ago contributed to the present day survival of the company, albeit under the Target flag.