Wal-Mart watch
When you have to buy ads to convince the public what a good corporate citizen you are ... well, if nothing else it doesn't exactly hold down the cost of merchandise.

« Still dead | Main | How about an open line? »
Comments
If Wal Mart would help push for universal health care, that would take care of one of the problems of perception of their company. It would probably save them money too.
I am surprised that more big companies don't help push for UHC. It doesn't make any sense for them to keep going on the way they are. It's one of the main reasons jobs are being lost here in the US. Our companies aren't playing on a level field here compared to other developed countries.
Posted by: rablib
|
January 7, 2007 05:51 PM
Save your hometown. Boycott WM!
Posted by: Louie
|
January 7, 2007 06:27 PM
" . . . saves "the average working family" more than $2,300 a year through its low prices . . ."
Let's see, $2,300 divided by 52 weeks . . . $45 or so? They're SAVING me $45 or so a week? Gee, just how much do I spend there every week? I gotta stop this. No wonder I have to squeeze every penny.
Someone with a good handle on Wal-Mart's profit margin do the math here. I'm curious about the average shopper's weekly deposits into the Wal-Mart's maw.
Posted by: Doigotta
|
January 7, 2007 06:57 PM
Hoorah for Wal Mart. Capitalism at its finest.
Posted by: Cato
|
January 7, 2007 07:37 PM
$2,300 is just more Republican fuzzy math. I periodically do my own research and it tells me that the local WalMart is more expensive than other retail stores located right here in the same town on 80% of their product that I purchase every week. Here's an example:
5 pounds of 79/21 hamburger meat at Kroger is $7.45 and WalMart sells the same exact hamburger meat for $8.40.
And another: A bottle of Lysol at $2.89 at WalMart is $2.00 at Fred's.
Folks, do your own math. "Low Prices" does not mean "Lowest Prices."
I avoid all the big box stores. I just feel better supporting local people who are my friends and neighbors and who are struggling to survive in a very tough economy.
Posted by: BlueRidge
|
January 7, 2007 09:38 PM
Allow me to ask: has anyone ever heard of a WM executive/cio getting a huge obscene buyout package that these other corporation ceos are known for these past years?
Posted by: Cato
|
January 7, 2007 10:00 PM
"Save your hometown. Boycott WM!"
Ain't gonna happen.
forgetaboutit!
Mr. Sam used to fly over his stores and count the cars on the parking lot. Still works.
People will go where they can get the most bang for the buck - - and that is Wal-Mart.
Posted by: AFCLL
|
January 8, 2007 07:53 AM
I don't really think it's the biggest bang for the buck. I think if people did some cost comparison, they would find that they could get comparable prices by shopping at Dollar General and discount grocery stores like Price Cutter. But people these days are a complicated combination of busy, lazy, apathetic, and unaware. Wal-Mart is easier. That's why people keep going there.
Posted by: Frosty
|
January 8, 2007 09:21 AM
It's true about public perception of Walmart prices. They are often higher than other local retailers.
We find that fresh produce is mucho better at our local employee-owned Harps's and I figured it cost us about $1.15 a week extra.
Local "dollar stores" usually beat Wally hands down on prices, eg paper goods, dishsoap, light bulbs, and many grocery items.
Posted by: Lwood
|
January 8, 2007 01:06 PM
I have a friend who opened a tire/battery service store the same week our local WM opened up its tire, lube, etc. operation. My friend is swamped to this day and one has to make appointments. He can't compete with WM on the prices but he gives good service, is trustworthy and honest and goes out of his way to be up front with his customers, proving you can compete with WM if you just know how.
Many who go out of business and go under would have done so even if there were no Wal-Marts. They just like to blame it on someone besides themselves.
Posted by: Cato
|
January 8, 2007 02:43 PM