The Changing Face of Wal-Mart
Decatur Metro | January 20, 2011Sure it’s the largest of retailers, able to totally up-end entire communities in a single day with its low prices, but amongst the big-box boys in this country, it seems to be Walmart – and not Whole Foods or Target, etc – that’s lately leading the semi-aggressive, progressive charge for more accessible, healthier food.
This morning’s New York Times reports that Walmart has just announced a Michelle Obama-backed plan to lower the levels of sugars, salts and fats in its “Great Value” brand along with the price of fruits and vegetables. Here are a few more specifics from the article…
Wal-Mart will work to eliminate any extra cost to customers for healthy foods made with whole grains, said Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for corporate affairs. By lowering prices on fresh fruits and vegetables, Wal-Mart says it will cut into its own profits but hopes to make up for it in sales volume. “This is not about asking the farmers to accept less for their crops,” he said.
…The changes will not happen overnight. Wal-Mart is pledging to reduce sodium by 25 percent, eliminate industrially added trans fats and reduce added sugars by 10 percent by 2015. Its other plans are less specific. In addition to proposing to lower prices on healthy foods, Wal-Mart is planning to develop criteria, and ultimately a seal, that will go on truly healthier foods, as measured by their sodium, fat and sugar content.
The company says it will also address the problem of “food deserts” — a dearth of grocery stores selling fresh produce in rural and underserved urban areas like Anacostia — by building more stores. And it will increase charitable contributions for nutrition programs.
Now of course, there are aspects of Wal-Mart that will never taste good on the palate of today’s “progressives”, myself included. Labor practices always seem to come up, though whether WMT is any worse than the other large retailers has been debated here in the past. And we also can’t ignore the countless instances of communities decrying Wal-Mart’s entrance into their towns and cities. But honestly, this seems to be more a symptom of the ever-clashing national vs. local capitalism in our post-industrial society than anything else.
So, I’m wondering whether anyone else is beginning to have more mixed feelings about Wal-Mart. Not in relation to what it can do to a local community, but in relation to all the other big-box stores we shamefully frequent.
Basically, with these changes will Wal-Mart become a more satisfying choice for the left-leaning crowd?
Latest from Decaturish
First things first: Walmart’s not doing anything now, nor have they ever, because it’s somehow the “right” thing to do. They are in the business of answering, and capitalizing on, demand, and they top the list–especially for those with differing priorities–of behemoths to detest because they’re better at that task than anyone else. They’re the lightning rod, but if you have fundamental problems with Walmart, you should really have problems with Target or Kmart or Lowes or whatever. Strategies and positioning aside, they’re all players in the same system. There are really no meaningful differences if your driver is based on values.
What’s encouraging to the progressive crowd is that Walmart’s actions validate the effectiveness of a lot of things they/we’ve been working towards–environmentally friendlier packaging or operations practices, locally-sourced, organic, healthier foods, investment in underserved markets, urban-friendly store templates, etc.
That’s essentially saying that a lot of progressive issues previously discounted as kumbaya fringe fanaticism may just pencil out after all. And isn’t that what America is all about?
I call it a win.
I agree with pretty much all of that. Wal Mart’s logistical system is set up perfectly for a local food distribution system.
And when it’s all said and done, any company like Wal Mart’s bottom line is profit, and they’re going to do whatever they have to, to maximize that bottom line.
To me, this is a great example of how the Progressives and others on the left should attempt to achieve their goals, whether those goals are related to worker’s rights, environmental friendliness, etc.: You should work creatively to convince for-profit institutions that “doing the right thing” is in their economic interest. For-profit corporations exist solely for the purpose of providing a return (growth) on the capital put up by their investors. If you want them to REALLY change their behavior, you have to help them see the relationship between the change you want and their MISSION, which is to provide a return of investor’s capital.
And also — when a corporation finally DOES take a positive step in the right direction, it would help encourage other companies to follow suit if those of you on the left would not carp and complain about how the company that made the change only did so because it’s in their own self interest. Of COURSE it is! Instead, you should congratulate corporations that make REAL, meaningful changes, and encourage them to move further by buying their products. That’s how you change behavior in a free, capitalist society.
Scott is on to something.
Wal-Mart’s move isn’t based on any ethical or moral judgement on their part. They’re just trying to make more money. Notice in the quote that they expect a lower profit margin, but they’re hoping to (more than) make up for that in sales volume.
Remember the scene in Food, Inc. where they’re talking with the Wal-Mart execs about selling organic products? I liked their response because their motives are so clear: If people who go to Wal-Mart are going to buy it, Wal-Mart will find a way to sell it.
Maybe Wal-Mart is slowly trying to encourage the progressive crowd to shop at Wal-Mart too…?
Not in relation to what it can do to a local community, but in relation to all the other big-box stores we shamefully frequent.
________________
“Shamefully?” Wow.
DM, you are projecting your feelings again…
Tongue-in-cheek kids. I know all the little tweaks to get you guys riled up.
I never thought I would enter a Wal-Mart, but after Target started spending money on right-wing political campaigns, I gave it a try — especially given Wal-Mart’s attempts to do right in their food department. Even Whole Foods is a bit of a scam. The CEO is a global warming skeptic who writes anti-Obamacare OpEds in the WSJ.
As Scott says above, this is a systemic, i.e. global issue. The environmental degradation of China is just one of many prices we pay for Lower Prices Everyday.
Myself, I am addicted to Amazon.com — money that doesn’t enter our local economy or tax system.
Our value systems shape the world we live in. If all we care about is cheap taxes, cheap wages, and cheap shopping — you get what you pay for.
Something like 35% of WMT’s donations in 2010 went to Republicans. I don’t say that to dissuade you from shopping there, just to point out that large corporations donate to both parties, and especially seek to line incumbents’ pockets. They are buying influence, not expressing political preferences.
Exactly. And they tend to go with the presumed winners, which is why the big money went to Obama in ’08 (and will likely do so again in ’12.).
I used to frequent Walmart until I saw “The High Cost of Low Prices”.
Frankly, I don’t care if they don’t sell low-sugar, low-fat foods. But, until they start treating their employees with respect, I’ll never darken their doors again.
And yes, I’ll go to Target. With no shame.
Assuming that they do treat their employees with disrespect (which has been contradicted over and over again), are they not still providing jobs that otherwise would not be there? So, in your philosophy, you would rather them go out of business and those people not have any job at all; because, after all, they wouldn’t work at a place that disrespected them if they could find other employment, right?
Do you know anyone who works at Walmart or are you just watching the news? Just curious.
I work for a personal injury lawyer (don’t hit me) and we have tons of worker’s compensation claims against Wal-Mart because as soon as an employee gets hurt, they get fired and cancel their health insurance. Every. Single. Time. The only “light duty” work they offer is greeter.
This whole “I’ll go to Target but not Wal-Mart” hypocrisy drives me nuts. Do a little independent research before you sling out statements like this.
“Target pays between $6.25 an hour to $8 an hour for entry-level, hourly positions in its Twin Cities stores, according to a recent survey of local Target workers by the UFCW. That’s in line with what Wal-Mart pays in this market, though some starting-level Wal-Mart workers can earn $9 to $10 an hour, the UFCW said.
Both companies offer health care insurance to employees, but Target’s is considered more restrictive. Two years ago, Target dropped health care insurance coverage for all part-time workers. By contrast, Wal-Mart makes its medical plan available to all workers, full- and part-time. …. “The only difference between Target and Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart is six times their size,” said Bernie Hesse, a union organizer with UFCW Local 789 in St. Paul .”
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/2005/target_better.php
Target is not gay friendly either. Which is why I have added them to a long list of places that will never get my dollars
I’m convinced that the real reason most choose Target over Wal-mart is that one is perceived as somehow hipper than the other. Brilliant marketing on Target’s part, you gotta give them that.
It’s the French pronunciation. If we all knew how to do acute accent marks here, it would be even more evident why Targét is cooler. All Wal Märt can do is try for a German umlaut which doesn’t have the same cachet as Targét.
The article to which I linked points that out!!!
I watched a CNBC show about Target, and one of the points made was that Target manages to dodge much of the criticism Wal Mart receives simply by virtue of being #2 instead of #1 in size.
Target presumably does not buy “Dead Peasants” life insurance policies on their employees, but Wal-Mart definitely does.
I just watched “Capitalism: A Love Story.”
Best part of that movie is the “commercial” for Cleveland.
But Walgreens,Nestle, IKON, Hershey, Cox Enterprises (which owns the AJC), Coca-Cola, AT&T, Dow Chemicals, and countless other corporations have.
I am sorry but the whole Wal Mart thing is hypocrisy, pure and simple. I’ve said it before: no matter where you go, local mom and pop or big box, some product in the store at some point is owes its existence to some form of exploitation. To smugly slam Wal Mart and place a single corporation in the villain role is willful ignorance. It boils down to what you can live with.Wal Mart is no different than Target. Trader Joe’s and Costco are little bit better, but until the addiction to consumerism is broken, you aren’t going to be able to escape big corporations and their big exploitations.
Sorry, I didn’t set out to be hypocritical. I’m just picking a battle and sticking with it. If I boycott Target, would that somehow make me a better person in your eyes? I’m not allowed to boycott Walmart? Or is it that I’m not allowed to tell people I boycott Walmart?
I never said “Walmart bad, Target good”. I just assumed(wrongly apparently) that Target was the lesser of two evils. I don’t expect any of the big boxes to be perfect.
My thought process about shopping usually goes something like this (based on an actual recent purchase): I was looking for a particular kitchen product. If Cook’s had sold it, I would have bought it there because they are a local store,even though it probably would have been more expensive. Since they didn’t, I would have bought it at Wal Mart because it probably would have been cheaper than Target. But Wal Mart didn’t have it either so I got it at Target. My point is that I will buy local if it’s available, but Target versus Wal Mart comes down to price for me if the product is the same.
This issue was discussed in FOOD INC (a remarkable doc) in which the head of Stonyfield Farm explained how getting his product into WAL*MART meant real change, and that the the economies of scale shift once major players are in the marketplace, lowering prices for organics while increasing demand for healthier products and (ideally) raising standards for the companies themselves which have to operate efficiently, and effectively.
Without being too naive, it is a win/win scenario.
I’m not the biggest fan of WAL*MART, but his perspective really helped make a case for its populist appeal over the high priced elitism of Whole Foods.
I don’t go to Wal Mart because trheir stores are messy, noisy, and there is always discarded food packaging in the aisles. Also, because I have seen too many new Wal Marts right across the street from older, abandoned Wal Marts, turning hundreds of acres into derelict trashlands.
Oh, I forgot to add…
Target, in contrast, has a strong track record in Atlanta of opening stores on land that is already developed, but which is no longer in use (or is underused). The Northlake location was a closed down car dealership. N. Druid location was a Richway, Edgewood was a utility company, the one that used to be on Jimmy Cater (which is now a Home Depot) was a Richway, etc.
Wal Mart has gotten slightly better in this regard than they once were, but in general they seem to like building on virgin land.
“I don’t go to Walmart because I’m another Decatur snob.”
I like cheap stuff, and if I can get it cheaper–which, usually, I can at Walmart–I go there. If I could get it cheaper somewhere else, then I would go there. And I readily admit that I am a snob, a big fat upper-middle class Decatur snob that is presently out of work.
Here’s a perfect Decatur/Portland/bearded-Nü Fred (thanks to BS-NYC) question:
If you were stocking up for a camping trip where would you shop? REI, Target, or Walmart?
Walmart, no question. Don’t even know where an REI is, and Target would probably be more expensive.
OK, I’ll bite: WTF is a Nu-Fred?
“The Nü-Fred is distinguished by his entry-level “My First Fixie” with risers and brand-new Chrome bag, and is rapidly supplanting the “Classic Fred” (distinguished by his entry-level road bike, Primal jersey, and helmet with visor) in terms of ubiquity. Since the Nü-Fred’s cycling experience prior to purchasing a fixed-gear generally consists of the three times he rode a bike over to his friend’s house in middle school, the Nü-Fred is often on edge. Furthermore, this edginess can be compounded by the considerable stresses felt by young and privileged people new to the big city.”
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/07/highlighting-inadequacy-casting-first-u.html
It’s a phrase that defines the new bike culture snobs–humorously. I also think it is a reference to the old fashioned “New Teds” or Teddy Boys of the 60s and 70s. I believe it was coined by THE Bike Snob, but I’m not completely sure, and his blog is pretty funny and well worth checking out from time to time–even if you are not into bikes.
Oh, that quote really clears it up. How could we have not known that?
My son, obscure references is the path to hip, and therefore snobbery.
My nephew wanted a Camelback backpack for Christmas. My brother told me to not to bother going to buy one at Wal-Mart, that he would sniff out the less-than-stellar quality and would hate it. He said to go to REI if you’re going to get him one (they are serious campers). There is an REI on the access road on 85 by Clairmont/N. Druid Hills by the way.
The use of the word “sniff” is funny and ironic here.
Isn’t Camelback a brand, so it would be the same no matter where you bought it?
Never ever ever.