Countering Wal-Mart's PR Campaign

AP: Wal-Mart Fights Criticism From Labor. Wal-Mart is "good for America" and the barrage of criticism against the company is an effort to protect the status quo in retailing, President and CEO Lee Scott said Tuesday in a sharp attack on organized labor and retail rivals.

It's not just labor that finds Wal-Mart such a drain on this nation, and it's not just retail rivals. It's Wal-Mart's way of doing business, which has its positive side but in the end harms this nation far more than it helps.

The giant company is too difficult for one newspaper to cover properly. In an era of multinational corporate giants, we will need to see group journalism -- and big groups at that -- tackle how such companies exist and operate around the globe.

Inevitably, some of the journalism will be done by partisans. Maybe most will be. Yet except for the occasional massive series by a big newspaper, the mass media are basically not equipped to get at the real story -- to provide the accumulation of facts and data, not just the big hits, that will explain how things work.

Wikipedia's Wal-Mart pages are a good start. They're augmented by sites such as Wake Up Wal-Mart, which lists news articles.

More would be even better -- such as frequent reports from people in the communities where Wal-Mart operates, told by the people who work and shop there, not to mention companies affected by its practices.

I wonder if this is the kind of overall tale that will be mostly told by citizen journalists.

Comments

[Andrew]

Add a dash of irony to the mix...

[Ari Soglin]

In the spirit of "more would be even better," I've just added www.WalMart.AFreePress.com to the GetLocalNews topic network. :)

[Al]

A couple of points:
- It seems that you guys want to use Wal-Mart as an example. What about the other big boxes? Is it because the liberal elite has singled out Wal-Mart because they won't shop there? I can't say it's my first choice, but the employees seem happy and the stores are loaded with the commodities that most people want.
- The article that Dan cites uses the word "labor". What do you call the thousands of people that work at Wal-Mart? They are labor and they seem pretty happy.
- In terms of making the US more competitive, Wal-Mart is doing us a favor. Their relentless attack on costs are doing just that. They are forcing big changes through the value chain. Consumers benefit at Wal-Mart and most every other retailer that sells these same products is probably getting many of the products cheaper. This is all good. It's pretty arrogant to fight poorer people from realizing the benefits. From what I've seen, when Wal-Mart proposes a store, most people generally want it.

So I don't see the big gripe with Wal-Mart.

[Andrew]

"What do you call the thousands of people that work at Wal-Mart? They are labor and they seem pretty happy."

What's that based on?

(No, I'm not being confrontational -- I'm actually wondering if there have been surveys or studies or something. I assume it's not based on 'When I go there, they smile.')

[Bob M]

I see the big gripe with Wal-Mart, so I guess I must be an elite. Yay, at last!

I've been very sceptical of grassroots journalism as a concept, but this could be a brilliant use of blogs. If a coalition of blogs could cover Wal-Mart, then something very interesting could happen. I like groklaw a lot, both as a concept and in its execution. But its brilliance lies, it seems to me as a casual observer, in the woman named Pam who runs the site. Nonetheless, I think groklaw should be the model.

Can grassroots journalism do something equally good on Wal-Mart? That seems to be the challenge. Just as groklaw got into nitty-gritty of the law, the bloggers would have to get into nitty-gritty of, of, well, that seems to be the challenge. But it's doable, especially if you are part of an elite. :-)

[Dan Gillmor]

Al, Costco is a big box store that treats its employees well. That's one reason I prefer it to Wal-Mart.

[Mark Maynard]

The organization embodies the absolute worst of corporate culture, and there is already a public movement against them for, among other things, mistreating female employees, hiring illegal aliens, locking employees in stores overnight, forcing their suppliers to move their production overseas, etc.

And they keep pushing the line. In recent weeks, it's been reported that they're fighting to raise the maximum number of hours a truck driver can spend behind the wheel to 16. And, on top of everything else, the company encourages their employees, who don't make a living wage, to go on welfare. So, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing them and their "everyday low prices."

The question in my mind is how do we, the public, force change.. If you have any ideas, please leave me a note at that link. I'm looking for opportunities.

And thanks for the good work, Dan.

-Mark

[Benz]

While the liberal elite and the conservative pundits argue about whether Wal-Mart is God-sent or Satan incarnate, I wonder who will be giving voice to the millions of people who actually shop at Wal-Mart. They're going there in droves. Must be a reason.

I'm not sure if citizen journalism is up to the task of representing them.

1. How wired are Wal-Mart shoppers? There still are a significant number of people without any Internet access. These might be folks who simply can't afford it. And they might be shopping at Wal-Mart because they CAN afford things there that they can't afford in other stores. That could open a big hole in coverage of this issue. People who aren't online are essentially silenced in journalism that's contingent on the Internet.

2. Of the folks who are shopping at Wal-Mart and are wired, how many have written language skills that would give them the confidence to do citizen journalism? I don't mean that as a slam. I'm just suggesting that most people in this society don't write terribly well, and to be an effective citizen journalist, you really need to feel pretty confident when you start tapping the keyboard.

I'm not stating any of the above as fact. I don't have Wal-Mart demographic data to back it up. I'm just wondering: Does citizen journalism empower only the liberal and conservative elites to talk about what's best for the unwashed masses? Or do those masses get to speak for themselves? And how?

Or more succinctly, does citizen journalism have the potential to spawn an "Internet elite"?

BTW: Most of the demographic research I've seen does show pretty convincingly that Internet use skews white and wealthy. For instance:
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/88/report_display.asp

And I'd love to see some demographic studies on citizen journalists. Does anyone know if something like this exists? I'm wondering how those demographics will differ from traditional journalists. Could be an interesting disseratation for someone ...

[Mike]

"While the liberal elite and the conservative pundits argue about whether Wal-Mart is God-sent or Satan incarnate, I wonder who will be giving voice to the millions of people who actually shop at Wal-Mart. They're going there in droves. Must be a reason."
I don't mean to go too far out on a limb here, but could it be because they have very low prices and a great selection? That particular point does not appear to be up for dispute. The real question to me is: In doing all the things Walmart does to be able to sell their items at a very low price and still turn a gargantuan profit, are they actually helping or huring American commerce and labor in the long run? Just because they are driving costs down does not necessarily mean every is great. Here's a hypothetical situation. Walmart comes to YourTown, USA. Becuase they decide to open a superstore, all the other grocery stores in town, even Safeway, close up shop becuase the town isn't big enough to support both. So all the people that were earning $10-$15/hr in unionized labor with benefits are out of a job. The jobs that Walmart created are their standard, $7/hr, 35-hr weeks jobs with a much worse benefits package. Are all of those workers really better off? Sure, they are paying $1.19 instead of $1.89 for a loaf of bread, but their wages went down by 30%. Ok, so those people got the shaft. Now comes the sticky question: does the increased value everybody gets for cheaper bread, clothes, toys, etc. make up for the folks that lost their jobs, or got worse ones? I honestly don't know, I'm just asking.

[Dan Gillmor]

I certainly don't claim Wal-Mart is evil incarnate. Clearly it's good for some people. I would maintain that, on balance, it's more negative than positive for our society.

[Not a Yank]

Dan:

I for one do not care for Wal-Mart, the Post Office or Fry's. Of the three, I would say Wal-Mart is to be preferred over the other two. At least the level of customer service is acceptable. If I am going to be exploited at least let the employees be polite.

All this ranting about Wal-Mart reminds me of the anti-“Atlantic and Pacific” laws that were enacted in the 30's to protect the corner grocery store from the rapacious behavior of the supermarkets. The same people that authored such laws in an even earlier time would be complaining that Wanamaker created the department store thereby imperiling the livelihood of all haberdashers, milliners, tailors dry goods store owners and others. Were these people around to legislate when Sear Roebuck and company perfected mail order the inhabitants of the small towns of America would still be dependent upon itinerant peddlers for any “city slicker” goods.

What these “aginners” really are against is “time are a changing”. What once was a successful business model is no longer. The anti-Wal-Mart crowd wants to be subsidized, either directly or indirectly against the completion.

We have seen this before. The government steps in to regulate a distribution to prevent change. Initially, the cost of this is not that high. Things appear to go well, but then distortions appear and the Government steps in to cure the distortions by prohibiting change. Eventually people are left with a totally uncompetitive distribution system with costs of goods that are twice as high as can be found in a completive market. Welcome to Japan, where the distribution system ossified 20 years ago and the Japanese consumer pays for an inefficient system through retail prices that can be twice as high as the price for the goods in the US.

So get used to it Wal-Mart is here and is competitive. Will they be the dominant retail force in 20 years? I doubt it. Already on the margin we see that large internet retailers like Amazon are successful with successful products and in selected markets.

[craig]

Not a Yank,
Point taken, but it is a death spiral of sorts to have the Walmarts of the world dictating social policy. As wages get driven down, people have less money to spend and search for more bargains, which starts the cycle all over again.

Then there is the elephant in the room. In the US, the richest of the rich have gotten 400% richer over the past 30 years while the rest of the population has either stayed the same or declined. The US is not going to survive this tilt for much longer without a major upheaval.

It's better to curb the Walmarts of the world and choose ourselves how we want the money distributed. Republicans don't like that idea, but it's preferable to MAJOR social unrest. (That's what has happened all throughout history when the income distribution has gotten too lopsided.)

[TomD]

There are three big problems with Walmart:

1) Walmart uses its near-monopoly market power to squeeze lower prices out of their suppliers. The problem is the near-monopoly power; their suppliers can't drop them and sell to their competitors instead, as they would be in a healthy free market.

2) It's willing to break the law in order to save money, by hiring illegal aliens, using unfair practices to keep out unions, etc.

3) It's cleverly structured pay and benefits so that it complies with the laws requiring employers to provide health benefits, but Walmart employees are driven to use public-paid health services instead. They cannot afford to pay their share of the benefits Walmart offers. So Walmart shifts this very expensive cost of doing business onto the public.

These three things let Walmart undercut its competitors and drive them out of business. It's very bad for our society to let the dishonest force decent people to choose between going out of business or becoming dishonest themselves.

[KirkH]

If TomD is right and they are breaking the law then the problem lies with the government. Laws that aren't enforced aren't really laws. Corporations will do whatever they can to profit within the bounds of enforced laws not because of evil but because if they don't they'll go out of business.

Nobody, not even Libertarians will argue that capitalism is perfect. I agree that bloggers can prevent the rise of monopoly power but protesting corporate greed is missing the point, that is unless you propose that the government should take the place of corporations.

[Floyd McWilliams]

It's better to curb the Walmarts of the world and choose ourselves how we want the money distributed. Republicans don't like that idea, but it's preferable to MAJOR social unrest.

If the majority of Americans are so ground down by pluto-crats, how come neither political party is willing to advocate redistribution of wealth?

The only major unrest is what happens when a politician calls for tax increases and is bounced out of office.

[Al]

You guys are blinded by this hate for Wal-Mart. KirkH said "Walmart uses its near-monopoly market power to squeeze lower prices out of their suppliers." So Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Target, Sears, Kohl's, don't beat down their suppliers?

And what are you talking about saying that Wal-Mart has near monopoly power? H-e-l-l-o! Just look around and count the number of retailers that you see. For every Wal-Mart, there are hundreds of other stores!! Duh

And Mike, commenting on that hypothetical of yours. What about the money that people save? It means they can save it college for their kids, buy a car (Wal-Mart doesn't sell cars), or anything else. The profits from these sales keep other people employed.

And Dan, yes, I like Costco too. But they are relentless about cutting prices too. They are just as disruptive to mom-and pop stores as Wal-Mart.

And Mark, I'll just repeat: the employees seem happy. If they weren't they wouldn't hang around very long.

[Tim]

You guys are blinded by this hate for Wal-Mart. KirkH said "Walmart uses its near-monopoly market power to squeeze lower prices out of their suppliers." So Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Target, Sears, Kohl's, don't beat down their suppliers?

Sure but NONE of them have the number of stores that Walmart does. NONE of them wield the kind of clout Walmart does. The others probably don't have that number of stores when ALL of their stores are combined together. And each of them is targeted at a fairly narrow segment of the buying public (except for Target).

And what are you talking about saying that Wal-Mart has near monopoly power? H-e-l-l-o! Just look around and count the number of retailers that you see. For every Wal-Mart, there are hundreds of other stores!! Duh

None of them can complete with the selling power of putting a product on a Walmart shelf. None of them. There is usually only one one of a type of store in any large area. That same area may contain 3 or 4 neighborhood Walmarts. Where are you going to go shop?

And Mike, commenting on that hypothetical of yours. What about the money that people save? It means they can save it college for their kids, buy a car (Wal-Mart doesn't sell cars), or anything else. The profits from these sales keep other people employed.

Yeah they keep people in China, Korea, India, etc. employed. How many USA made products do you see?

How many times I have you/I walked around in a Lowes or Home Depot and heard people say, "Don't buy that here it will be cheaper at Walmart". I have even said it! Sigh. A huge Walmart shopper I really am not but when it is 12 midnight and I have forgotten to get a present for a birthday party my daughter is going to first thing in the morning, the first place I head to is Walmart because they are open 24 hours. When was the last time a Target was open 24 hours in your neighborhood. Christmas maybe? You have to admit, Walmart is good at getting people of all walks of life to come and shop. I see everything from beatup old trucks to brand new Hummers at the Walmart down the street and I live right next to a mall, where you would think people would go. The Walmart is packed night and day though.

[Ran Talbott]

"and the stores are loaded with the commodities that most people want."

No, the stores are loaded with the commodities that people buy IN HIGH VOLUME.

Part of Wal-Mart's strategy for making money on thin margins is to avoid "wasting" shelf space on items that people don't buy often. So, while your local Ace Hardware might stock 250 kinds and sizes of screws, and replacement inner tubes for the tire on your wheelbarrow, Wal-Mart will only carry the most popular 25 screws and complete wheelbarrows. If you happen to need one of those sizes of screw, or a whole new wheelbarrow, you're a winner, because Wal-Mart's price is likely to be significantly lower than Ace's.

Otoh, if you need an obscure nut or bolt, and your local hardware store has been driven out of business because Wal-Mart took away all the high-volume business that subsidized keeping the left-handed metric wood screws and wheelbarrow inner tubes on the shelves, then you're screwed (or perhaps "de-screwed" ;-)

Additionally, unless the former hardware store owner swallowed his pride and went to work in Wal-Mart's paint department, you probably lost access to a valuable source of information and advice.

Now, _you_ don't see this effect, because you live in a major metropolitan center, where there's enough of a population base to keep specialty stores alive (if not always as prosperous as they used to be). But Wal-Marts are often built in areas where there's not a big enough population to support both "best price" and "full service" retailers, and people often wind up paying for the 6-cent-per-roll savings on toilet paper with the hassles of driving to "the city" or ordering by mail when they need something that doesn't sell by the truckload.

So, no, it's _not_ "all good". Or even close to that. I disagree with Dan, in that I think that Wal-Mart's net impact has been positive, for the country as a whole. But there have certainly been many instances where the overall effect on a community has been negative, especially when considering difficult-to-quantify factors like convenience and quality of service.

"And Mark, I'll just repeat: the employees seem happy."

Given your amazingly-consistent record of inaccuracy in mind-reading, that claim was already seriously lame the first time you made. One more repetition, and we'll have to call the Humane Society to come out and shoot it...

"If they weren't they wouldn't hang around very long."

I realize you like to get your "news" from sources where the appearance of a complete and accurate report might trigger a matter-antimatter explosion, but surely even Rush Limbaugh can no longer be denying that we've produced more new workers than new jobs in almost every single month for the past 4 years or so. Failure to quit in droves doesn't prove anything, these days. Except, perhaps, that no one's presented any credible claims that Wal-Mart stores are infested with fast-acting carcinogens.

[Bob M]

Headline in today's Washington Post: "Wal-Mart Denounces Health Bill"

You can form your own opinions, but it doesn't sound like a caring company to me.

[Joe C]

In Feb of 2002, Wal-Mart had 3,190 stores in the United States. They also had 396 empty stores. (Sprawl-Busters)

They may have low prices while they are around but have zero loyalty to the community they locate in. Walmart undercuts the local merchants and put them out of business then they close shop and leave nothing in their wake. Almost 40% had been empty for more than 3 years and many had become boarded up shells that attract vagrants and vandals.

Some of those empty stores are now surrounded by ghost towns where before Walmart they were thriving communities.

[andyman]

If the economic criminals of the advantaged class, like Tom Coughlin of WalMart, went off to a jail cell wtih Bubba, like the property crimes perps of the lesser classes, the world would be a much better place. As long as the Milkin Formula, steal a dollar give back $.10, pay $.05 to the lawyers and $.05 to the political process, applies, things will not get better.

[Ran Talbott]

"how come neither political party is willing to advocate redistribution of wealth?"

There's a long-running argument, with some truth to it, that the penchant of many Democrats for steeply-progressive tax rates constitutes "redistribution of wealth".

But, if you buy into that at all, you have to concede that the Bushies are currently pushing for one of the biggest redistributions of wealth in human history, transferring trillions of dollars from people who are, in some cases, not even born yet to the pockets of current taxpayers.

[not a Yank]

"How come neither party is willing to advocate a redistribution of wealth"

Because it is a loser. I am not sure such a platform could legally get a majority of votes in Seattle, let alone the US