Welcome to Glass House Sign in | Help

Is Wal-Mart Too Cheap for Its Own Good?

 It's been a while since I wrote about Wal-Mart, mostly because they haven't hosted any fake blogs, started any fake community sites, or fired any marketing chiefs and then been sued and countersued. Still, this New York Times article is too good to pass up. Leaked to the Times, it is the report of the former ad agency, not chosen for the account in the latest round, and looks at the challenges the retailer faces as it tries to move more upscale. It notes:

The document, prepared in October 2006 by the company’s former advertising agency and based on interviews with scores of consumers, offers a candid, wide-ranging explanation for why Wal-Mart, the No. 1 seller of everything from laundry detergent to underwear, has stumbled badly when it comes to higher-end merchandise like silk camisoles and shag accent rugs.

The report contends, for example, that “our low prices actually suggest low quality” for products like high-definition televisions. And it says that Target, with its designer-inspired clothing and furniture, feels “like the ‘new and improved,’ while Wal-Mart often feels like the ‘old and outdated.’ ”

A copy of the 55-page report, written by GSD&M Advertising, was provided to The New York Times by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-financed group highly critical of the retailer. The group said that a person outside of Wal-Mart gave it the report.

The article provokes tons of thoughts. It notes that the ad agency said that the image hits the company was taking would start to affect sales. (the company denies this is the case). In a great soundbite, Wakeupwalmart.com said:

Chris Kofinis, director of communications at WakeUpWalMart.com, said, “Wal-Mart needs to realize that improving its public image and its business reputation demands they stop ignoring the fact that the American people care about values, not just value.”

I look at the challenge that Wal-Mart faces here in the same way I look at Dell. When price is all you have, you don't have a super sustainable business model -- the race to the bottom ends at, uh, the bottom. Add value, show you understand customers at a level beyond price and you do.

Finally, don't overestimate the power of PR. For Wal-Mart, they seem to have decided that if people just knew what they were doing, they'd feel better about the company. It wasn't a business problem, it was a communications issue. Turns out that just maybe, people DID know about the company, and more PR won't help. Sometimes, the best PR is identifying the business issue that is going to result in negative impressions for the company, and to urge change. Kinda like the (old) ad agency for Wal-Mart did.

 

cs Tags:
Published Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:16 PM by FrankShaw

Comments

 

Ken Tolbert said:

Evolving Excellence has been discussing how Wal-Mart's long supply chain has been impacting Wal-Mart... and how that then comes back to "bite" China.  That long supply chain makes it especially difficult for the company to deal with fickle fashion consumers.

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/05/walmart_bites_c.html

Ken

May 30, 2007 4:35 AM
 

FrankShaw said:

Super interesting. I saw the Journal story yesterday -- good context on the complexity of supply chains.

May 30, 2007 6:01 AM
 

Marianne Allison said:

Hey Frank--so I work with you but I am talking to you thru this public blog.   Hi.  Building on your pov about WalMart and the sustainability of their business model--this extends beyond how they pay/treat their store employees and take down quaint stores on Main Street.  It's a global conversation.  In my view the WalMart biz model is built on a 20th century premise where companies were "multi-national" vs. "global."   A multi-national served consumers in rich countries by taking advantage of cheap labor and more poorly regulated working conditions, safety standards, etc., in poor countries.   Hence the by-product of Bhopal disasters in India while we buy relatively cheap batteries here in the U.S.   But countries like India want to be part of the flat world, too, and so they want to be in a conversation with the WalMarts and Union Carbides about pay, safety and environmental standards, etc., because they don't want Bhopals or their WalMart equivalent, and because they want to be consumers too.  So how do you sustain a business model that is set up to take advantage of a non-flat world?  This is why no matter how many American Main Streets WalMart helps restore, or however much they may compromise on employee benefits, they've got issues.  Their communications defense (and it's a fair one) is to accuse their critics  of snobbery--and say, well our consumers are honest, hard-working people, who need low prices!!  Give them a break!!  Problem:  by global standards, WalMart's consumer is fabulously wealthy--and over the long term, it won't be a sustainable argument for WalMart to argue that it's all about protecting their right to have $14 fashion jeans.   The flatter the world wants to be, the more pressure companies who exploit peaks to flood the valleys will be under.  I don't see it getting better for WalMart.  

May 30, 2007 3:37 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit

Syndication



» Blogs that link here
» View my profile

Powered by Technorati