I remember reading this story at Fast Company over a year ago and remembering how prescient it was at the time; here is a CEO that flat out wanted to leave Wal-Mart behind as a customer, based on his company's values and predisposition to remain a powerhouse in its traditional industry.Instead of catering to the "plunging" vendor prices that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) negotiates every year with the seemingly endless list of vendors whose products it carries, the CEO of Snapper Lawnmower (part of a larger company now) could see the days of the waning influence and cheapened nameplate of Snapper if he continued to sell his premium lawnmowers to Wal-Mart and agreed to lower prices every year, even if it did mean a huge increase in volume.
Part of the reason company execs bow to Wal-Mart in the first place are the visions of huge sales that make balance sheets and income statements seem fat, only to tear into the heart of the company years later when reality sets in. To those company leaders who just want to see increased sales while putting all other considerations aside, I say go for it (and reap the consequences). To those leaders with a sense of value and pride of ownership, read Jim Wier's story and then sit back and think for a bit.
Black Friday expected to be strong, no promises for Christmas
Will JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon be our next Treasury Secretary?
Gold surges to another new high of $1167 per ounce
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-21-2007 @ 7:40AM
Mike said...
Oh brother. Very "fair and balanced" reporting there Brian. There might be a career for you at FoxNews.
Terrible. Two thumbs way down.
3-21-2007 @ 9:08AM
mark wessler said...
Are your resources so dried up that you have to resort to blogging stories from over a year ago?
Why not look at how successful 3m, GE, and P&G are due to Wal-mart?! Or at least stay current in the news reporting business.
3-21-2007 @ 10:14AM
Brian White said...
Resources being "dried up"? Blogging just is not about "breaking news" all the time. I believe this story is as relevant today as it was a year ago. And yes, *read the article* and call for yourself whether I am *fair and balanced*. I inject my *opinion* with the facts -- and I expect (and respect) disagreements; but, I totally stand by what I write. Period.
Thanks for the comments (but I disagree completely on the relevance of this topic being so "unbloggable").