Comments on: Brands and Wal-Mart: value vs. meaning?

By: chris

chris — Tue, 10 May 2005 00:43:43 +0000

i cant agree more

By: Mike Lawrey

Mike Lawrey — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:10:31 +0000

Very true,

My kids want Uglydolls this Christmas.
Forget looking in places like Wal-Mart or even Target for such a thing this year. Infact, my son is asking for “designer toys” for the most part. Luckilly I live in New York.

By: Ennis

Ennis — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:01:07 +0000

True — Walmart and Kmart are downscale in a way that Target or Costco isn’t (Costcos actually stock gourmet brands, Target actually has reasonably good merchandise even outside their special name designer (Michael Graves) stuff).

BUT Walmart has reach. In many parts of the country, Walmart is your only retail option. Furthermore, while the generic goods (pots, pans, plastic stuff, housewears) come from China, they still make sure to keep a good deal of higher end goods (upscale consumer equipment, some clothes) from big US labels. So, you can get an HP computer, printer and scanner package in Walmart. You can get labelled clothing, etc. So what if the coffee table is from China, who turns it over to look anyway?

I think Walmart might have longer legs than we think.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:19:57 +0000

I’d be interested in elucidating the class connections. I have the sense (with no data) that shopping at Walmart is threatening to class-aspirers, in a way that shopping at Target isn’t. Costco (at least in California) is not so class-threatening, especially for commodity purchases.

By: gary

gary — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:05:07 +0000

I heard on Fox and Friends this morning that seventy percent of Walmart products come from China. I don’t think brand loyalty is much of a factor in Chinese made goods, so there’s little to fear losing it.

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:01:55 +0000

Tom, thanks, I didn’t know about the Burberry experiment, very interesting. And you’re right: it’s is hard to imagine Wal-Marts much carrying about niche players. But I expect they are imperial, that they want everything, and this might force an accommodation in the things it did badly. Target might prove an inspiration to them here. Something about corporate self respect could operate here to urge them to be something more than the price players. we’ve seen it before. And imagine if they got half as good at meaning as they are know at everything else. Yikes! Thanks, Grant

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:52:05 +0000

The complex psychology of the retail business has kept me fascinated for the 10+ years I’ve been consulting within it. As you point out, Grant, the relationship between money and meaning is delicate and volatile.

Look at Burberry. From signifier of British refinement to rap video “blingcessory,” to massive knock-off target, especially in Europe. The brand’s “price point” didn’t change once during that journey, but its “meaning point” changed significantly. Meaning is powerful, but unstable.

Wal-Mart will continue to spawn a host of niche exploiters who challenge it on the basis of its inability to retain brand meaning in its utilitarian big-box context. But I’m not sure about this being the foundation of a backlash. Maybe. But meanwhile, its unimaginably huge (~300 freaking BILLION dollars!!) engine will continue to produce aisle after aisle of merchandise for the scores of millions of us who have come to rely on it as the 21st century general store. The medium is the message. Low price is stable. This may not be sufficient to get them to $500 billion, but, geez…

Anyone interested in this should definitely see the Frontline piece, “Is Wal-Mart Good for America?”