Wal-Mart hasn't exactly been well received in the Blogosphere. That's probably because their first two attempts, Wal-Marting Across America, and Working Families For Wal-Mart were thinly veiled PR stunts, and lies (check out the BusinessWeek exposé on Wal-Marting Across America). Their most recent attempt at a blog, The Check Out is only a little better. Wal-Mart learned its lesson about authenticity, and so, is allowing the perception that these 'mid-level buyers' who blog can say whatever they want. This image was boosted by a recent New York Times piece, but others think the New York Times was hoodwinked, and we agree. The piece starts by suggesting the bloggers are free to say whatever they want about the products Wal-Mart sells:
Microsoft is one of Wal-Mart’s biggest suppliers. But that did not stop the Wal-Mart employee in charge of buying computers from panning Microsoft’s newest operating system, Vista.
Shortly after the blog panned Vista, however, the company as a whole panned Vista too. So how free and open is this new blog? Is it just another attempt at a PR move? The Dirt Diggers Digest thinks so:
The New York Times gave a boost today to Wal-Mart’s effort to raise its coolness quotient. Its account of a new blog that the giant retailer is allowing some of its merchandise buyers to produce was filled with references to “candor,” “speak[ing] frankly,” and “uncensored rambling.” Much is made of the fact that the posters have made unflattering comments about some of the offerings of Wal-Mart’s suppliers. Wal-Mart is said to have learned its lesson from earlier disasters with blogs created in the name of bogus front groups. This new initiative, the Times assures us, is the real thing.It is indeed the case that the site allows reader comments that are critical of certain company practices. For example, a posting by an “associate” named Alex saying he might use spend his federal economic stimulus check to purchase a TV or a laptop was followed by comments on how that would do more to help the foreign economies where such products are made. One person asked: “what happened to the campaign WalMart used to run advertising its committment to support American manufacturers?”
Yet, it appears that the Times was hoodwinked by Wal-Mart. The appearance of authenticity and candor is just another technique used by advertising agencies and public relations consultants to win over skeptical audiences.
As for those critical comments, it’s significant that “Alex” thanked all those who had corrected a spelling error in his post but had nothing to say about the company’s sourcing practices. In fact, that the only real topic covered in the posts apart from product assessments is “sustainability.”Those items are posted in the name of Rand Waddoups, who is no lowly buyer but rather the company’s senior director of business strategy and sustainability. His part of the blog, at least, fits in neatly with the company’s dubious campaign to depict itself as the environmental leader of the corporate world.
As I have previously noted, Wal-Mart’s green crusade places all the burdens on its suppliers, while the moves taken by the retailer itself (improving energy efficiency, etc.) are in fact nothing more than cost-cutting measures that boost its bottom line. Until Wal-Mart makes some hard choices itself—such as paying all its workers a living wage—nothing it does in the blogosphere or elsewhere is going to be very authentic.
Posted by Taylor - March 5, 2008 12:57 PM - In The News