13 comments

---

Allegations of campaign violations are rising in the Big Sky State, and a recently-released decision on a 2006 complaint might lead to changes in Montana’s campaign finance law.

Complaints of violations flowing in at the rate of about 30 per day to the state’s Commissioner or Political Practices, have of which are coming from Ravalli County in southwestern Montana. According to the Ravalli Republic:

The state’s most pressing investigation in Ravalli County concerns the Higher Ground Foundation, a nonprofit group that is urging voters to repeal the county’s growth policy in an effort to prevent zoning and streamside setback regulations from being adopted later.

The group formed as an “incidental committee,” which are defined as a group that makes political contributions but whose primary purpose isn’t to influence elections. But it has become clear to many that Higher Ground has a higher purpose than simply contributing funds, and is instead directly promoting the repeal of the county’s growth policy. Complainants are urging the state to force the group disclose the sources of its funding, and its expenditures.

So how does this tie into Wal-Mart? Well, just over a week ago, Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth released his opinion regarding a 2006 complaint against a group called Ravalli County Citizens for Free Enterprise. The group supported construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the successful repeal of a zoning ordinance that blocked big-box stores. Unsworth ruled that RCCFE was nothing more than a Wal-Mart front-group that violated financial reporting and record-keeping laws. He said that Wal-Mart appeared to have bought a campaign in order to influence an election, and that the case could lead to Third party campaigning is growing in the state [The Missoulian]” title="changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws">changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws. It turned out that only $90 of the PAC’s money came from local residents, whereas $115,000 came from Wal-Mart.

“It’s absolutely critical,” Unsworth said, “that voters know who’s behind these groups, in order to make informed decisions.”

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins with reports of price gouging on the part of Wal-Mart. What’s truly abhorrent about these reports, however, is that they are being made by the very people affected most by the recent cavalcade of hurricanes to batter the Gulf coast. The Arkansas News Bureau and The Consumerist have more on these stories.

You’ll also find major news on the legal front. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed its second lawsuit against Wal-Mart in less than three weeks. The first involves the Americans with Disabilities Act in Illinois; the second involves age discrimination against a 67-year-old optician in Missouri. In addition to the EEOC lawsuits, Wal-Mart will now have to face another class action wage/hour lawsuit. Salvas v. Wal-Mart was originally certified as a class action back in 2004. Since then the case has gone back and forth through the Massachusetts court system, eventually being decertified and winding up in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. Well, the SJC released its opinion this week, ruling that the decertification was improper and that the lawsuit should be reinstated as a class action. A trial is possible, which could cost Wal-Mart hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid wages and damages. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald have the story.

Also check out the Product and Food Safety Report, where you’ll find stories on BPA (and a class action lawsuit regarding the chemical that includes Wal-Mart), dangerous soccer goals and baby cribs sold at Wal-Mart, and a pet food recall involving Purina products sold at the retailer.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [September 24, 2008]

57 comments

---

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - the state’s highest court - has reinstated a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts employees claiming the Wal-Mart pressured them to work off the clock and denied them rest and meal breaks.

These wage cases are probably becoming a familiar thing for those that follow Wal-Mart in the news. In fact, at this point its becoming surprising when Wal-Mart doesn’t do something illegal...even the company’s “save money, live better” tagline probably breaks some sort of law (truth-in-advertising comes to mind?). This particular Massachusetts wage case is impressive though, if only because of the long and winding road it has taken just in order to get back essentially to where it started.

To summarize as briefly as possible: Salvas v. Wal-Mart was initially filed in 2001 in Middlesex (MA) Superior Court, alleging Wal-Mart of illegally altering timecards in order to decrease payroll expenses, including clocking employees out just one minute after they had clocked in. The suit also alleged that employees were deprived of their meal and rest breaks. The case was certified as a class action in January of 2004, and then again on December 30, 2004 (Wal-Mart successfully appealed in between), on behalf of 65,000 or so present and former Wal-Mart employees. After Wal-Mart appealed (again), the case ended up back in Superior Court, where a third judge decided that the plainffs’ expert testimony should be excluded and decertified the class on the basis that each associate’s situation was unique, and therefore class action certification was improper.

The case was appealed again (this time by the plaintiffs) and it made it all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments in May of this year. Today, the SJC finally released its opinion, which included the following:

In essence we are asked to determine (1) whether the judge abused his discretion by (a) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ principal expert, Dr. Martin Shapiro, as unreliable, and (b) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to decertify the class of approximately 67,500 current and former hourly workers employed by Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for more than a ten-year period; and (2) whether the judge erred in granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all of the plaintiffs’ claims concerning meal breaks, as well as certain of the plaintiffs’ claims under the payment of wages law, G.L. c. 149, § 148, for failure to compensate the plaintiffs for the time they worked.

For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the judge’s orders. We conclude, inter alia, that the judge abused his discretion in allowing Wal-Mart’s motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert and to decertify the class. We further conclude that the judge erred in granting partial summary judgment to Wal-Mart. We remand the case for the entry of an order certifying the class and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So, there you go. The class has been certifed again. Good deal. The case now goes back to the trial court for certification, after which a jury trial may not be too far off. You can read more about Wal-Mart’s wage cases here. The SJC opinion is here, and it is not exactly complimentary of the superior court judge that decertified the case.

Mass. court reinstates lawsuit against Wal-Mart [Associated Press via Boston Herald]

29 comments

---

In an opinion delivered yesterday, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein wrote that the Pennsylvania Superior Court should reject a Wal-Mart appeal and affirm a 2006 jury verdict that found over 186,000 current and former Pennsylvania Wal-Mart employees were not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. He also sought to support his awarding last year of an additional $62 million in statutory liquidated damages. His opinion was delivered after Wal-Mart had contended in post-verdict motions that, among other things, the two class actions (Braun and Hummel were combined at trial) should never have been certified in the first place.

The total judgment against Wal-Mart in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart currently stands at nearly $188 million.

According to Bernstein, “the trial evidence showed that Wal-Mart corporate leaders ceased all record-keeping of employees’ rest break periods after numerous lawsuits over the missed rest breaks were filed.” Bernstein allowed the jury to infer that Wal-Mart changed its policy to ensure that there were no records of missed rest breaks, an argument Wal-mart sought to preclude at trial, only to be denied.

The case is now with the Pennsylvania Superior Court on appeal.

Judge Upholds $185 Million Award in Wal-Mart Class Action [The Legal Intelligencer]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart has spent the last year desperately trying to improve its reputation. The company has bombarded consumers with new marketing, including a new logo, a new company tag line, and a new, friendly name - “Walmart.” The retailer also hired a new ad agency and launched a massive environmental marketing initiative, all aimed at eradicating criticisms of the company’s business practices.

Two new polls show these efforts are failing. The two surveys - from Harris Interactive (PDF) and the Reputation Institute (PDF) - indicate shoppers still don’t trust Wal-Mart, in spite of the retailer’s massive marketing overhaul.  The poll results support Wal-Mart Watch’s fall 2007 public opinion poll findings, which showed shoppers increasingly cite Wal-Mart’s poor business practices as a reason not to shop at the retailer’s stores.

Wal-Mart’s reputation remains the biggest obstacle to the company’s long-term growth potential, as its reputation affects both its ability to reach new shoppers and to build new stores. Both of these strategies are crucial to the company’s long term success, but are hampered by Wal-Mart’s recurring reputation problems.

Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar said in a release, “There’s no doubt that Wal-Mart is profiting from the economic downturn and cash-strapped consumers. But, recent public opinion surveys indicate that although people are shopping there, they aren’t happy about it because they are still concerned about Wal-Mart’s poor business practices.”

Read the rest of this story ...

34 comments

---

Feel like celebrating America this weekend? A trip to Wal-Mart isn’t the way to do it. The retailer has been damaging American jobs and American communities for decades, and this Fourth of July isn’t any different.

Exporting Manufacturing Jobs. Jobs that were once the backbone of the American economy have been exported to countries where labor is cheaper and standards are lower. Wal-Mart has played a critical role in this process, using its size and market share to force manufacturers overseas.

Damaging U.S. Communities Wal-Mart makes a lot of promises when it builds a new store. Town councils are often dazzled by the company’s promises of more jobs and increased revenue, but these promises rarely pan out. The retailer drains municipal resources by forcing its employees on state-sponsored health care, getting subsidies from local governments and frequently undercutting its property and income taxes. Read more about Wal-Mart’s impact on communities >>

Devaluing Retail Sector Jobs. Wal-Mart often woos communities with promises of more jobs, but what communities frequently don’t take in to account is the quality of these jobs. Wal-Mart pays bare minimum wages, and even lowers the overall employment rate of an area by shutting down competing businesses. Just last year, Chicago refused Wal-Mart’s request to build a store on the south side of the city, citing the company’s low wages as the reason. Read more about Wal-Mart’s wages and labor policies >>

Read the rest of this story ...

46 comments

---

WAL-MART ENDORSES THE SOLUTION FOR A PROBLEM IT HELPED CREATE
Wal-Mart this week agreed to let all its employees know about the Earned Income Tax Credit, which grants a tax break for low earning workers. Almost immediately, activists spoke out against Wal-Mart’s stance, blaming the retailer for those low wages in the first place and criticizing the company for trying to lean even harder on American taxpayers.

Wal-Mart wants taxpayers to support its low wage workers [Wake Up Wal-Mart Blog]

For many low-income workers, the EITC is the only thing keeping them from abject poverty. For that reason, it’s certainly a good program. However, the real problem is that so many workers have such low wages in the first place. Wal-Mart, which pays its workers poverty-level wages and drives down wages throughout the retail sector, is at the heart of this problem. If companies like Wal-Mart paid their employees a living wage in the first place, the EITC would not be necessary.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union President Joe Hansen Statement on Wal-Mart’s Latest PR Stunt [Press Release]

When the world’s largest corporation, when it has revenues in excess of $300 billion, when it has a lengthy and notorious history of shifting its employment costs onto American taxpayers, and when its employment rolls are rife with workers earning wages that put them below the poverty line, it is wrong to take the stage with that company and provide cover for its mistreatment of workers and irresponsible practices.

CONSUMERS BEMOAN WAL-MART’S WEBSITE, SERVICE, EXISTENCE
There are a slew of stories on Consumerist.com this week, with Wal-Mart customers chronicling problems of all varieties. Wal-Mart’s notoriously poor customer service has earned it a place in Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” contest. Voting in the next round begins Monday - check back here for updates and commentary on the finals.

Walmart.com Holds $550 Hostage For PS3 Bundle It Won’t Ship [Consumerist]

Consumerist reader The Unicorn has $550 tied up in some strange Wal-Mart purgatory for a PlayStation 3 bundle that they won’t ship to her, even though it clearly states in their online terms that they won’t charge you for your order until it’s shipped. Her customer service queries are being met with content-free scripted CSR-bot responses. She writes, “Here’s the thing: don’t ever buy anything from Walmart, ever. I knew this, and ignored it, and now I’m paying the price.”

How To Cancel An Order You’ve Placed On Walmart.com [Consumerist]

As we noted in this earlier post, it’s technically not possible to cancel an order after you’ve placed it on Wal-Mart’s website. A helpful reader says there are a couple of ways around this, although neither option will immediately free up any hold on your funds.

Worst Company In America “Final Four” Bracket! [Consumerist]

It’s down to the final four worst companies in America, folks. The bracket has been updated and the next round will begin on Monday. Congratulations to the four companies that made it this far. You’ve really achieved something! Who do you think will win it all?

Read the rest of this story ...

20 comments

---

After roundly defeating insurance group Wellpoint in the sweet 16, Wal-Mart has made it to the semi-semi finals of Consumerist’s Worst Company in America contest, this time going head to head with American Airlines. Personally, charging $15 for checked bags just doesn’t seem as bad as systematically undercutting millions of workers and employees worldwide, but we’ll let democracy decide. Show your support - GO VOTE!

Wal-Mart:
“They undercut the bottom lines of companies so much that the company barely gets a profit - but if the company says “No, I can’t afford to switch all my manufacturing to 5 gallon jars of pickles”, Walmart says they won’t carry any of that brand’s products. Period.”

“Wal-Mart: Squeeze your vendors, not your customers. “

“The truth was that Wal-Mart paid Logitech to use Logitech’s Chinese production centers so that they could make items which looked very similar to the normal product lines, but which had components in them which were solely the responsibility of Wal-Mart (ie, not purchased, inventoried, or in any way guaranteed or the responsibility of Logitech). Wal-Mart just paid a certain amount per unit to put their crap into a shiny Logitech box and have the Logitech logo shown on it.”

“I bought a GE Skillet from them a while back and it was a piece of shit. To find out why, I checked the box and it said something like “made for Wal-Mart” and ever since then, when I do venture into Wal-Mart I always check for that label.”

Read the rest of this story ...

5 comments

---

In a story out today about Wal-Mart’s declining reputation, the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas notes that admiration for the company is also falling sharply. Whereas Wal-Mart was once the most admired company in America according to Fortune magazine, the retailer is now barely in the top 20.

One expert called Wal-Mart’s poor reputation a “chronic” condition, as the retailer has repeatedly failed to take action on issues raised by activists and critics. Ignoring these complaints is not only inhumane, it’s a bad business strategy. Wal-Mart has years to go before it can even hope to begin regaining the trust of conscientious consumers.

Report: Wal-Mart Reputation Continues To Slide [NW Arkansas Morning News]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in 2007 continued to slip down a list of corporate reputation rankings, according to a survey.

The Bentonville-based retailer ranked No. 44 on the Harris Interactive report, which ranks the reputations of the country’s 60 “most visible” companies based on consumer perception surveys.

It was the third consecutive year Wal-Mart’s score on the list declined.

Wal-Mart’s slipped score was the also the third largest rating change, trailing behind Bank of America and Halliburton Co., which saw more significant declines in reputation scores.

Wal-Mart has similarly dropped down Fortune Magazine’s list of America’s most admired companies.

Read the rest of this story ...

5 comments

---

Research group Harris Interactive published this week the findings of their most recent “Reputation Quotient,” a ranking of major U.S. companies based on reputation. In this year’s report Wal-Mart had one of the largest drops in reputation value, ranking third worst overall - just behind corporate-misbehavior poster child Haliburton. The study also notes that despite being extremely well-known among consumers, Wal-Mart ranked poorly on a “sincerity” scale.

This news comes after Wal-Mart has spent more than two years trying to improve its reputation, during which time the company has hired numerous P.R. firms to convince consumers it is not only more sustainable, but a more friendly employer, too. So why hasn’t it been more successful? Harris perhaps provides the answer, noting “The most essential item in evaluating a company’s social responsibility is treatment of employees, including labor practices and human rights. Personal health and safety is a close second.”

For all its environmental platitudes, Wal-Mart has done little to address concerns of human rights violations in its supply chain, raise wages for U.S. employees or improve the quality of health care available to store associates. The company’s ongoing reputation for wage-and-hour violations and lack of care for injured employees only damage its reputation further. It’s time the retailer took some responsibility for these actions and realized cutting corners on human rights just isn’t worth it.

Harris Interactive, “The 9th Annual RQ: Reputations of the 60 Most Visible Companies: A Survey of the U.S. General Public” (PDF)

0 comments

---

This June marks the end of the free plastic bag in China.  Wal-Mart’s China supercenters have greeted the measure with a more than enthusiastic response.  Various stores have given away promotional reusable bags, have hung information and instructional signage, and will start charging approximately 3 US cents for plastic bags.  Furthermore, the China Daily reports that Wal-Mart has set up “green channels for shoppers carrying their own bags.”

Even though the discontinuation of the free plastic bag is being mandated by the Chinese government, Wal-Mart appears to have done well in preparing for the changes.  And the effort could have an incredible effect:  According to the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), “at least 1,300 tons of oil is needed to make the bags given out by [Chinese] supermarkets alone every day.”

As the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart is uniquely situated to promote such changes in the U.S. as well.  And it should.  Assuming each of Wal-Mart’s 127 million U.S. customers a week receives just one plastic bag from Wal-Mart, a conservative estimate of the total yearly cost of plastic bags is over $134 million (calculated using the production costs of plastic bags in China – shipping and/or producing elsewhere could raise the cost for U.S. plastic bags considerably). Discontinuing the use of plastic bags would save the corporation money – the savings of which could be passed along to consumers. 

So what’s Wal-Mart waiting for?

The greatest possible concern would probably be customer backlash.  To overcome this, Wal-Mart could launch a compelling ad campaign about its doing even more to help consumers “save money” and “live better” while leveraging its sustainability efforts.  Wal-Mart could also employ its weighty lobbying arm to support a national movement.  Or, if consumers really do prefer plastic, Wal-Mart could simply ignore this preference as they have consumer preference for good customer service, safe products, and high quality.

For more on the change in China, see the China Daily.

0 comments

---

Two days ago, we asked our readers what Wal-Mart should discuss at its annual shareholders meeting. We’ve already gotten hundreds of responses, with issues ranging from health care to expansion practices to the company’s green campaign. Go to our speakout page to add your own thoughts. Here’s a sampling of what we’ve already received:

• The high cost of Wal-Mart’s health insurance for employee & child and/or family coverage.  I currently work at Wal-Mart in Mt. Airy MD and will no be able to get insurance for myself or my son because if I do I will not be able afford to take him to daycare and pay for gas to come to work.
• Better health care and wages for your employees. Shame on you for paying all these celebrities money to be at your board meeting when that money could be spent on your employees.
• Expand the “Green” program by building all new Wal-Mart buildings to be LEEDs energy efficient certified! 
• I am a shareholder and concerned with two issues.  I’m unimpressed with the scheming that management devises to evade treating its employees fairly, equitably and humanely.  I am also unimpressed with the inordinate dependence on Chinese-made goods, some of which have been shown to be very harmful. What is management doing to address these two issues?
• Is is possible for Wal-Mart to return to it’s previous vote of confidence in America by stocking, selling and promoting products made in America (I mean the 50 states), They have the power to re-ignite the American economy by selling US products. A move like this would provide jobs for US workers and would make Wal-Mart look like a hero. Can Wal-Mart stop supporting China and their poorly made and often times dangerous products? Be a hero Wal-Mart. -buy and sell American made products!
• An honest discussion of Wal-marts goals for growth and whether these are sustainable. For instance, does Wal-Mart really need to get into New York City? Do they really need a market in Japan? I personally liken Wal-Mart to a cancer because cancer is a system which has broken off from the whole and is only interested in its own growth. This describes Wal-Mart perfectly.
• Have a Heart, leave Schnecksville , PA alone. You took our factories and our small stores, and are ruining our small towns. Get lost in PA.
• Walmart is planning on opening a store in Blacksburg, Virginia right next to a school in a residential neighborhood.  Town council was tricked by Fairmont developers and is bringing the case to Virginia Supreme Court.  Why start off on the wrong foot?  There is pleanty of room in rural Southwest Virginia to find another site.  Sincerely, Karin Gregory.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Karen Datko at MSN Money Blog comes out and says what we’ve all been thinking for years: Wal-Mart’s online efforts just aren’t cool. Whether it’s been blogs, Facebook, the disastrous “Hub” or its latest effort Check Out, Wal-Mart just can’t escape its middle-aged mom personality. Datko adds “Make Your Dollar Stretch” to Wal-Mart’s list of online failures, saying “This weblog is a thinly disguised advertisement for Wal-Mart. Are you really surprised? At least it’s not pretending to be something else, like Wal-Mart’s notorious and now-defunct Wal-marting Across America and Working Families for Wal-Mart blogs.” It doesn’t help MYDS that the main blogger on the site appears to be an actual middle-aged mom.

Unhipness aside, “Make Your Dollar Stretch” is a misguided effort to get consumers to spend more at Wal-Mart stores. Wal-Mart’s already doing plenty to help people save money. The company is saving money on its health care plan, its wages, its merchandise and its role in U.S. communities. Wal-Mart needs to start focusing on the other half of its slogan - “Live Better.” The company could help itself AND its shopping base by paying better wages, relying less on state and local funds and improving its business model to encompass more than just profits. Now THAT’S cool.

A review: New Wal-Mart blog is lame [MSN Money Blog]

Pardon us if we’re a bit cynical, but the retail behemoth that’s made billions and billions by convincing people to spend in its stores now has a blog telling people how to save money?

We decided to give Wal-Mart’s new personal-finance blog, Make Your Dollar Stretch, a look.

Read the rest of this story ...

29 comments

---

Wal-Mart enters the second round of elimination in Consumerist’s Worst Company in America competition, this time going up against Citibank. Though both companies have a laundry list of complaints stacked against them, Citibank’s tend to revolve around customer service issues. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, gets taken to task for broad, systemic problems with the company like low wages, habit of bullying suppliers and running small businesses into the ground. From the evidence against the retailer:

“walmart knowingly uses its size against its manuafacterers. When walmart says they will sell a manufacturer’s product the manufacturer first gets a decent deal from walmart, but has to retool & buy more manufacturing facilities in order to meet walmart’s demand. THEN once the manufacturer is in debt & dependant upon walmart.... walmart puts the squeeze on.... demanding lower costs. And this happens every time the contract is negotiated and eventually the manufacturer goes under.”

More testimonials after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

An interview with Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott gives readers a glimpse into the life of the man at the helm of the world’s largest corporation. The piece gives some biographical background for Scott, but the most interesting part is the day-to-day of being the public face of a nefarious corporation. Scott admits that the company has dramatically ramped up money spent on marketing and lobbying, and the company now has one of the largest media departments in the country. This is an unfortunate way to interpret the company’s criticism. Rather than spend money remedying the problems raised by labor rights activists and environmentalists, it seems Wal-Mart has funneled that money in to its PR department. The recent disaster with Debbie Shank is a trifling example of how Wal-Mart’s poor practices make PR a waste of money. The company should invest in substantial changes, not more cosmetics.

‘I had to go out and meet with people who just did not like us’ (excerpt) [Financial Times]

As Wal-Mart expanded in the US it was facing what Mr Scott once called a “barrage of negatives” from the unions and other critics that was threatening to slow its US expansion. Traditionally, the retailer had always ignored its critics. It used to have only a tiny public relations department, always argued that it only answered to its customers, and largely stayed away from Washington DC.

But, says Mr Scott, Wal-Mart had to change the way it dealt with the outside world to become, as he repeatedly says, more “sophisticated”. It now has one of the largest media departments of any US company, and spends millions on lobbying in Washington.

“It didn’t matter if we said ‘well, we’re just from Arkansas’, it just wasn’t going to play. No matter how much we hoped the attention would go away, the world was different. And all of us had to grow and change.”

Read the rest of this story ...

12 comments

---

A Wal-Mart spokesperson has finally spoken out about MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann’s campaign against the company. Currently on the front page of the >Huffington Post and Women’s Wear Daily, the Wal-Mart rep explains the company’s lack of interest in human emotions and dedication to penny-pinching. As several commentators have pointed out, this is a particularly malicious interpretation of the company’s health care plan, and simply because Wal-Mart had the right to sue the Shanks does not mean the company was obligated to sue them. Wal-Mart’s spokesperson here faithfully reads the company’s talking points, but her comments do little to win back favor for the megacorporation. Expect more from Keith Olbermann.

Keith Olbermann Continues Feud Against Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Responds [Huffington Post]

Last Wednesday, Keith Olbermann introduced the story of Debbie Shank, a 52-year old former Wal-Mart employee and mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who suffered serious brain damage after getting hit by a truck and was subsequently sued by Wal-Mart to recover $470,000 in medical expenses (Shank had won a substantial settlement from the trucking company and, after legal fees, took home $417,000). Olbermann, in the clip seen below, declared Wal-Mart his “Worst Person in the World” and has subsequently named Wal-Mart to his “Worst Persons” list every night since.

Women’s Wear Daily/Memo Pad’s Stephanie D. Smith reports today that Wal-Mart’s corporate communications director, Daphne Moore, has responded with a statement:

“This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case, which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart’s benefit plan was entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust,” which according to reports amounted to about $277,000.

7 comments

---

For the visual learners in the audience, Consumerist brings a graphic representation of this week’s customer satisfaction survey results from the University of Michigan. The bloggers over there add to the observations: “Wal-Mart, as usual, is doing lots of things wrong.” [Via]

7 comments

---

Wal-Mart’s spokespeople sounded kinda cranky in their response to Tuesday’s report from the University of Michigan. The University’s American Customer Satisfaction Index ranked Wal-Mart last among major retailers for customer satisfaction, to which Wal-Mart’s spokespeople said “That is, like, so not true!”

To counter U of M’s assertions, Wal-Mart conducted it’s own survey. While Wal-Mart’s poll “wasn’t scientific or anything,” the retailer is standing by its findings.

“We found out that at least half the lunch room likes us,” one spokeswoman said. “And that’s not even counting the lunch ladies.”

Wal-Mart frequently uses “the customer” as an excuse for the company’s irresponsible business practices, and though Wal-Mart’s survey was neither objective nor statistically accurate, they’re still pretty sure all that wage-cutting is paying off.

Wal-Mart disputes customer satisfaction survey [Morning News of Northwest Arkansas]

A university report on customer satisfaction released Tuesday and Wal-Mart’s in-house survey paint two different pictures of how content shoppers are with the retailer.

Read the rest of this story ...

7 comments

---

WAL-MART ANNOUNCES PLANS TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY REVIVE AMERICAN ECONOMY
After announcing price cuts on several thousand items this week, economists have been staggering out of their caves like cured lepers. The reality: Wal-Mart’s prices are already pretty cheap and that doesn’t seem to have saved anybody’s skin.

Walmart Says It Will Cut Prices In Order To Save The Economy [Consumerist]

“We all know economic times are tough so our plan is to help with added savings throughout the year, focusing especially on what people want, when they need it,” said John Fleming, Wal-Mart’s chief merchandising officer.

Translated from “marketing” into “human” this sentence reads: “Please buy chicken wings and big screen TVs for the SuperBowl. We’re having a sale. Thanks.”

BloggingStocks points out that Wal-Mart’s price cuts might not earn the company much money, but it’ll certainly earn them fans among low-income shoppers.

Wal-Mart announces its own economic stimulus plan [BloggingStocks]

Wal-Mart is not stupid; the company wants to bring comfort to the U.S. consumer population by caudling them with news of Wal-Mart being one of the few corporate friends available. From a retail perspective, slashing prices when economic hard times are present is not only a good marketing strategy, but one that imbues consumers with the feeling that Wal-Mart really is helping them.

We’re often mentioned here that Wal-Mart profits off poverty. Jonathan Tasini at Working Life points out that its in Wal-Mart’s best interest to keep the economy depressed.

Wal-Mart: Recession Ambulance Chasers [Working Life]

Not only is Wal-Mart seeing the recession as a way to draw in more cash-strapped customers, they want to exacerbate an already bad situation by encouraging people to pile on more debt:

In addition to the extra discounts on “thousands of products,” the retailer said it will offer no interest for 18 months on purchases of $250 or more with a Wal-Mart Credit Card.

No interest? Does that sound familiar? Yes, that was precisely what brokers and lenders were saying to people who bought homes they could not afford--you can do so right away with almost no money down and zero or close-to-zero interest...except that the interest payments exploded to impossible levels after a few years. In many ways, this is the perfect economic storm for Wal-Mart.

After the jump, overtures to greenery, Hillary’s past comes back to haunt her, and teenagers in Mexico make some news.

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

Wal-Mart took a gamble on its new advertising campaign. The company invested millions in “Save Money. Live Better,” the disputed brainchild of marketing firm Martin Agency. The campaign met a mediocre receptionwhen it launched last September, and now Advertising Age calls the slogan “poorly punctuated” and forgettable. This is only the latest in a long line of marketing blunders for Wal-Mart. As the company continues to struggle with its marketing strategy, wouldn’t it make more sense for Wal-Mart to invest some of that money in long-term, sustainable solutions to its image problems? Employee-friendly practices and socially responsibile policies would go much further than any magazine ad ever could.

Your Advertising Slogans Are Crummy. Can’t You Do Better? [Advertising Age]

After wading through the recent onslaught of holiday ads, I’ve come to the conclusion that many major businesses do a poor job of communicating their identities by using meaningless phrases in taglines or slogans.

I first noticed this when I saw an odd commercial where a baby was hitting a button that said “easy” on it. As items fell off store shelves the TV ad made no sense if a viewer didn’t understand what store the button represented. When Staples was mentioned, it seemed like an afterthought. Advertising copywriters probably thought they created a clever concept, but there was not a unique connection between the store and the slogan “That was easy” (which oddly appears in all lowercase in the print ads).

Read the rest of this story ...