Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) has accused former advertising executives Julie Roehm and Sean Womack of having a sexual relationship and of promoting themselves at an advertising agency involved in reviewing the retailer's business as job candidates.
Roehm, who was fired in December after being head of marketing communications for less than a year, denied Wal-Mart's claims and Womack couldn't be reached for comment, according to the New York Times. She's sued the company for breach of contract and fraud. Wal-Mart has filed a counter suit. Womack left Wal-Mart with Roehm.
It's a pity that Wal-Mart got rid of Roehm. She tried to give the retailer's advertising some much-needed pizazz. The company's advertising is as boring as ever, which at time of heightened competition from Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) is not a good thing.
In other news, Wal-Mart withdrew its application to trade market the acronym for "Everyday Low Prices" after competitors objected, according to the Wall Street Journal. This underscores the new reality for Wal-Mart which now needs to convince customers that they can get quality along with low prices.
That's not going to be easy.
Wal-Mart needs to take a good, hard look at its brand. It's a pity that the person who was best equipped to do it is no longer with the company.
Nuclear power is on the comeback trail
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-20-2007 @ 8:48AM
susan said...
I recently saw one of Roehm and Womack's pulled Walmart ads on an old TIVO'd show (maybe there was only one???). It was hilarious - just what Walmart needs to update it image. Walmart needs the culture shake up they are so afraid of ... as for me, I'll keep shopping at Target.
3-20-2007 @ 6:12PM
William Martin said...
Susan can continue shopping Target with its higher prices. I'll stay with WMT and put the money I save yearly away for my grandchildren. WMT will weather this image because middle America still likes to save money. We don't care to "make a statement" by shopping elsewhere or did I miss something? Billy
3-20-2007 @ 7:10PM
Lisa M said...
Wal-Mart could come up with the most brilliant ad campaign on the planet, and I still wouldn't shop there. I don't spend much money in the first place, so I'm not depriving my own retirement, myself, or any hypothetical heirs by shopping at the nominally more expensive Target.
I shop at Target because:
1) I can walk to Target. It's 3 blocks from my house. The nearest Wal-Mart is at least 2 miles away.
2) I like a store where I can find what I want and get out. I don't like wading through aisles and shelves of chaos to get a bottle of shampoo. I'd probably save lots more money at Wal-Mart because I'd get fed up and walk out without making a purchase.
3) I don't like Wal-Mart's management policies. I don't like Target's policies much better, but if I have to choose, I'll go for the way Target treats its employees and its customers over Wal-Mart's any day.
4) My TOTAL budget for sundries, clothes, meals out and anything that isn't a bill or savings/investments is $120 a month. That means that I'm spending maybe $6 a month more of that to shop at Target rather than Wal-Mart. That's not even two lattes. I figure I make that up in savings not needing to use a car to get there.