With the recent dismissal of advertising chief Julie Roehm and the firing of ad agency DraftFCB, the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) ad account -- some $580 million -- now appears to be up for grabs. Who is salivating in their seats to grab a piece of that action? The firms which are chomping at the bit need to temper their enthusiasm given the demands that a company like Wal-Mart will most likely have. That is, no "flash and grab" kinda stuff, but more "core values of shopping" type of stuff (that actually works). Roehm obviously didn't have it, and the door she was shown.I still believe that Wal-Mart struggles from an image and branding problem -- that is, if it wants to dig itself out of the "low price" hole and brand itself more than that. With Wal-Mart about to run another ad agency review in order to pick a new ad firm, finalists from the last round of the competition will be notified this week about who is eligible to pitch in the new contest and how Wal-Mart will run the new review. Of course, DraftFCB will not be in the running for the review, which Wal-Mart wants to conclude by Feb.1 of next year.
With Roehm recently saying that a marketing review process "can be uncomfortable for a conservative company," it makes me wonder what kind of advertising nonsense these ad firms pitch to clients. With so many eyeballs to try and reach and with the "distraction culture" of the Internet/iPod/Xbox/Lifetime Channel/what-have-you, ad firms are up against the wall to try and make an impression on customers who are constantly bombarded with marketing in every facet of life.
It's safe to say that Wal-Mart's culture is "conservative" because the company is in every way. Nothing wrong with that at all -- different cultures have different philosophies that are generally ingrained by their founder (Sam Walton in this case). A recent Wal-Mart exec hinted that Wal-Mart's advertising will focus on "price leadership on the hottest gifts," with current ads including a frugal dad who is happy that his family buys gifts at Wal-Mart.
Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-13-2006 @ 9:59PM
Jim Hamblin said...
The agency review is almost beside the point. After years of lackluster results, Wal*Mart's senior management should be up for review, starting with CEO Lee Scott. Their focus on logistics, efficiencies and low prices is not particulaly customer-focused. How long will the board, the shareholders and the "market" accept sub par results?
12-14-2006 @ 12:45AM
Billy F. Martin said...
I agree with Jim(1.)Lee Scott and the board have forgotton about us common shareholders. If we would stick together we might change some of their selfish arrogrant attitudes and get back to the Mr. Sam way of doing business.
Billy Martin Henderson,Tex.
12-14-2006 @ 9:50PM
cg said...
This quote was recently printed in The Pitch Magazine (Dec 7th, 2006) Kansas City:
"Inside Bernstein-Rein, employees grumbled about representing Wal-Mart. Jeff Bremser, who has been Bernstein's chief creative director for the past 30 years, says Wal-Mart lost its moral focus when Walton died. "Wal-Mart had changed," Bremser says. "Wal-Mart used to be a very honest company. They were never involved in any trickery under Sam."
As a small business owner and stock holder in Wal*Mart I would never consider hiring an agency who goes on record to say that the company they are representing is dishonest and immoral as well as involved in trickery.
12-14-2006 @ 9:29AM
Jerry Vaught said...
Wal-Mart did not become the largest Retailer in the world by selling their products at higher prices than anyone else. More oftebn than not anyone trying to do this will have difficulty surviving. Sam Walton was for the poor man and showed in in all of his marketing.
12-14-2006 @ 9:42AM
Allen said...
Irecently sold my Wal-mart stock (after accumulating it over the last four years) It lost 18% of its value. It is time to dump potentially big losers like this one.