August 25, 2006
Wal-Mart Not Acting Very Pro-Family, Say Groups
One thing should be clear by now. This is not the same Wal-Mart we all knew “way back when.” For its part, Wal-Mart is quite all right with that.
“This company is continuing to grow and evolve, and that is what we’ve always done,” said Bob McAdam, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart. “When we were a small regional company, we could be more narrow-focused. But we are a large company now, and in this competitive environment we have to be welcoming to everyone.”
That welcoming attitude is exactly what has some of the company’s strong supporters from the past asking, what in the world is going on at the company founded by Sam Walton?
The announcement this week that Wal-Mart is joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce’s corporate advisory council has groups such as the American Family Association and the Family Research Council hopping mad.
Randy Sharp, spokesperson of the American Family Assn. told the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas, “It’s disappointing. I personally chose two months ago to stop shopping at Wal-Mart … and I think others will follow suit. Up until a year and a half ago, the AFA applauded Wal-Mart for their pro-family policies, but now it seems Wal-Mart has decided to push aside that legacy left by [founder] Sam Walton and joined those who look at the bottom line and stock prices,” he said.
Wal-Mart’s McAdam, said, the company was confident it was not doing anything that its founder would have objected to. Sam Walton, he said, was about “taking care of customers and taking care of their needs, and in the process we’ll run a profitable business.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, doesn’t believe Wal-Mart’s support of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce will help it become more profitable.
“I don’t think this is something that will sell on Main Street America, where most Wal-Mart stores are located,” he told the Cox News Service. “I don’t think cheap prices on goods from China will be enough to stop a rollback in their customer base if they choose to go down this aisle.”
One party obviously happy with Wal-Mart is the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
Justin Nelson, the chamber’s president and co-founder, said, “One of the things that this partnership brings is the realization that this company has said it wants to do the right thing and be a good corporate citizen in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community. Same-sex couples are everywhere. So it’s not just a coastal issue. This partnership has started a dialogue across America that is very good for equality.”
Mr. McAdam said the company’s decision to work with the chamber comes down to supporting one of the groups that make up its customer base. “We work with women’s groups, minority groups, hundreds of these groups reflecting all aspects of our customer base,” he said.
Wal-Mart will contribute money to the chamber and will have Dee Breazeale, Jewelry divisional merchandise vice president for Sam’s Club serve on the its corporate advisory council. The retailer will also conduct seminars on how vendors can break into Wal-Mart.
Discussion Questions: Is Wal-Mart in danger of alienating
a large portion of its customer base with its support of the National Gay and
Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and by selling products these groups object to,
such as the Brokeback Mountain DVD? Conversely, will these and similar
actions bring in a whole group of new consumers who could possibly turn out
to be more valuable than any who are lost?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The implication that AFA and the Family Research Council represent anything, including the family, is a false argument, so we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing negative happens to Wal-Mart. These are people who speak for a tiny portion of America (estimated at less than 1% – people who identify themselves as fundamental Christians), people who have never successfully boycotted anything. Wal-Mart will not alienate any significant number of people, nor is it going to bring in a lot more gays and lesbians – everyone cares less about this than George’s article suggests.
Wal-Mart, in its insatiable hunger to capture more and more customers everywhere, will probably continue to form unions with additional sectors of our diverse consumer society. Each new alliance will undoubtedly irritate some components of their huge existing base and more complaints will arise. The media will amplify it as “news” and Wal-Mart’s competition will try to capitalize on it.
What will eventually result will be mainly determined by how well Wal-Mart can keep its prices lower than competition, and how well it keeps its assortments tailored and timely, its stores clean, orderly, friendly and efficient.
Wal-Mart is doing the right thing here and should be applauded. Will it result in “some” backlash by those that disagree – sure. One of the issues Wal-Mart had to decide is will this be a problem larger than the one they currently have by not acting as they have. They answered that by making the decision.
Living on the East Coast within easy commuting distance to New York City, I am perhaps more “liberal” (but will not claim to be more “progressive” as that seems to demean everyone who does not agree with my views, as if I hold the “only” truth). However, my sense is that same sex coupling is not the huge issue for many people that it may have once been.
Will Wal-Mart lose customers over this…yeah, they will. Do they lose customers over it now because they did NOT act…yes to that, too. Customers will choose where they shop based on decisions that very often seem outside what is “fair” by the retailer or other observers. That is how it is…”you pays yer money and you takes your chances” with the public.
Is Wal-Mart doing this as a way to establish social policies or to help educate those that disagree with their position – NO. I do not believe that anyone in Bentonville involved with this decision said, “Well, if we cater to same sex couples or families – maybe then everyone will see that ‘they’ are not so bad after all and are just like us!”
Wal-Mart may be conservative by nature on a political scale – but they are a business and a very well run business and the politics of business are what this is based upon.
MOST (not all) shoppers will continue to shop there for the price and selections of products they desire. Some will have to “test” the waters to see if it turns into “Sodom and Gomorrah” now – and upon seeing that the shopping experience is no different will continue to shop there.
In terms of the quotes provided…
Tony Perkins fearing it will not sell on Main Street (which he is quoted as claiming where Wal-Mart is located)….haven’t business pundits been railing about the fact that Wal-Mart put Main Street out of business and is NOT located in “Downtown” but rather on the outskirts of town? So, which is it???
Bob McAdams is quoted as saying, “We HAVE (emphasis mine) to be welcoming to everyone.” Well, Bob – that is not the most ringing endorsement of this action…not that we want to, we recognize the need to, we always have…we HAVE to do this.
One of the fundamental principles of marketing is that every segment requires a unique marketing mix — product, price, promotion and distribution. Wal-Mart has done an awesome job with its marketing mix for the segment of middle/lower income family living in mid-sized towns or the suburbs. It’s the bedrock of their success.
As they venture into new segments — gay, urban, multicultural — all very sizable segments in the US — they must be careful to adjust all four elements of the marketing mix. Otherwise, they will confuse or offend their loyal base. And their new segment will not be compelled to shop at Wal-Mart.
This means an edited and expanded product line, smaller stores with a revitalized brand, fresh promotional message, and different pricing strategy. Is Wal-Mart up to it? Don’t think so. The loyalty of middle America is at stake. Look for Wal-Mart to back off their efforts to market to the gays and lesbian segment.
Wal-Mart is only reflecting the diversity of America. Ignoring any group is not good marketing or business. This should include racial, political, religious or gender based groups. For Wal-Mart, this means that they are recognizing other groups and are taking steps to share in its diversity. By embracing all groups, Wal-Mart appeals to all customers and does not risk alienating any one faction. This keeps them gender neutral, which is the basis of good business, and good position in America.
Retailing is about selling products to customers. Those customers live in communities and in some way feel that good retailers support “their” communities. Wal-Mart supports many, many communities and through that support builds a relationship with its customers. As has been mentioned, the more diverse the groups Wal-Mart supports, the more conflict it will generate.
Will any of this affect sales? Only at a very granular level. Some individuals will stop buying at Wal-Mart because of this announcement. Some will start. The numbers will be small on both sides and probably will be a wash.
I think the biggest elements of this announcement are: (1) despite a brief flurry of press interest it will have no major impact, and (2) many retailers still place too much emphasis on form over substance. Retailers should pay more attention to diversity in their work forces, policies that favor diversity, and understanding that the US, as shown by the most recent census, is much more than white, middle class, traditional families.
How many homosexual people are there in the U.S.? How many supportive activist family members? How many conservative Christians who will act on their beliefs? I can’t answer those demographic questions.
The bulk of WM stores and shoppers live in the big middle of the U.S. There aren’t that many stores on the left coast or in the Northeast that are bastions of liberal support.
In general, to appeal to the homosexual groups, WM has taken the stance that the approximately 50+% group of Americans that has issues with homosexual lifestyles will do nothing.
Maybe we are back to the “say what you want about me as long as you spell the name right” approach.
Wal-Mart is in danger of alienating some portion of its customer base for just being Wal-Mart. That is a business risk they are willing to take. I’m in danger of alienating potential clients by just posting my views on this blog. Then again, sometimes the opposite occurs.
Wal-Mart should be able to offer their resources to all customers without embracing a lifestyle that goes in direct opposition to a majority of the population.
It would seem obvious that there is a range of feeling among those who disagree with Wal-Mart’s decision — We already see how strongly some disagree, and I would guess that there are those who think that, although it may not be a really great decision, it is not going to ruin civilization.
I have no data at our firm that tells us how many fall into each of the “categories” in that wide spectrum. Further, I have no data that tells us how many have not been frequent or moderate Wal-Mart shoppers who now will be as a result of this decision. Without any data, it would merely be speculation on my part to say if those who “will no longer shop at Wal-Mart” will be replaced in number, or more than replaced, by the new shoppers captured as a result of this decision.
In my view, the more important aspect of this story is: what is the motive of Wal-Mart’s executive team in making this decision, which they likely knew would draw this kind of fire? Was the motive to capture more of the gay and lesbian market? Was it to show the world and its markets that Wal-Mart is willing to advocate this position?
Who knows? Is this, in the end, a good decision? As we already see in this story, it depends on your stance regarding the morality of the lifestyle. Personally? Hurrah, Wal-Mart, even though I believe I understand why some people sincerely think this is a terrible development.
Stephen’s comments are correct. Wal-Mart will feel no sales increase or decrease by joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. In 2003, Wal-Mart adopted a sexual preference nondiscrimination policy for its employees. In 2005, Wal-Mart defined “family” in its HR policies to include same-sex families. In January 2006, Wal-Mart announced a gay and lesbian employee group meeting regularly at its Bentonville headquarters. A few months ago, Wal-Mart sold Brokeback Mountain videos. None of these announcements changed any sales patterns.
Being a global company, Wal-Mart faces the challenges of pleasing everyone: an impossible task. Cultural differences, for one, make any such effort untenable.
Look at another global entity–the Catholic Church. As spiritual leader of North American, Western European, Latin American, African, Asian Catholics, the Pope has the impossible task of proclaiming spiritual guidance to diverse cultures. More specifically, the Vatican also came out with statements re: homosexuality. It pleased conservatives in Africa, Latin America . . . but did not gain much favour in the Western World.
As the Pope famously said: “The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria. You can’t choose or reject what you want or agree with.” Wal-Mart might learn from the Vatican experience.
The question for a person who disagrees with this move: “Is there a large alternative retailer that does not support these homosexual groups?” If there is, then we need to vote with our dollars. Otherwise, there probably will not be much effect either way. As a percentage, the homosexual community is still very small. Thus, I cannot imagine a huge sales gain because of this move.
The GLBT community is still very small but they have a LOT of money. Will this be enough to offset any drop-off from the [dissenting] group? I doubt it. The rural area residents against this move still can’t afford to shop anywhere else, so it will blow over in time. Most likely, the next board Wal-Mart joins will make another group angry, but in the end I applaud Wal-Mart for truly doing what Sam would have done.
As a gay man who reads RetailWire every day, and frequently contributes (anonymously, because I don’t know who among the retailers my company serves reads this board), I find a few of the above comments a bit sad (but I’m gratified by the dominance of the more open-hearted ones).
In contemporary American and Western European society, gay people are thought of as a “market” to be served, a niche market like any other group. This attitude is pervasive among marketers, and among a majority of people in the LGBT world, for good or ill.
Some of my brothers and sisters who have perhaps avoided Wal-Mart for political reasons will look at Wal-Mart’s actions as being a sudden about-face, and will start going out of their way to shop there. What Wal-Mart is really doing, however, is pulling a “Coors”: acting friendly to gay men and lesbians as consumers, while continuing, as does the Coors family, to send their philanthropic dollars (via the Walton Family Foundation) toward non-profit entities that are hostile to us as a community and as individuals.
And let’s not forget that Wal-Mart has always had LGBT consumers–not all of us are urban dual-income-no-kids types with plenty of disposable income–we exist at all income levels, and many are forced by economic necessity (just like poor heterosexuals) to shop wherever prices are lowest.
This move by Wal-Mart does one very good thing: it makes the many thousands of LGBT people employed by them feel a bit more hopeful. And it does another good thing: it tells the Family Research Council and their compatriots in the Radical Right that the largest and most powerful corporation in human history isn’t going to pretend that gay men, lesbians and the trans-gendered don’t exist. Instead, it is actively going to court them as consumers. Keeping the Left Behind series in stock will send the message to Fundamentalists that they still want them around too (but don’t look for Wal-Mart to start carrying Out Magazine any time soon).
In this case Wal-Mart did the right thing. And it was brave: I don’t believe, as the first commenter above says, that Fundamentalists represent less than 1% of America–I think it’s more like 22% to 28% (maybe 1% represents the hardest of the hard core). Yes, Wal-Mart risks a backlash from a significant minority. But I don’t think they’ll see much of one, because for most people in their core market, Fundamentalist or not, low prices count for a lot.
I can’t imagine that same sex couples have fundamental needs that are any different than those of any other set of individuals and that they were any LESS welcome to buy their toothpaste, dog food and coffee makers at Wal-Mart last week than they will be next week.
Unless there’s a plan to have special marketing events targeting only this segment of the population, there’s little commercial value in joining an organization to symbolically welcome the group.
Will some customers stop shopping Wal-Mart as a result? Yes, but unlikely to significantly impact sales.
Will a very high number of customers be disappointed in “their Wal-Mart” giving in to the pressure to join the rest of the politically correct world? Absolutely, but they’ll still shop there for the values and the assortment, but with a bit less respect for the company than before…
Stephen’s remarks are negative and cutting…..and I agree w/ them 100%(!)
Lower and Middle Class America continues to buy from Wal-Mart even as Wal-Mart continues to ship the jobs overseas that they, in many cases, depend upon. So essentially, their target market continues to shop with them, even as the company does things on a macro level that are not in their interest.
Given that, I find it hard to believe that they would stop shopping there in any kind of significant numbers because of something as abstract to their daily life as the company starting moves towards being gay friendly.
A previous poster asked about other retailers that might benefit. The only significant retailer I can think of that has essentially no gay friendly policies or initiatives is Kohl’s. (An example: Same sex couples get no access to benefits AND cannot both be employed by Kohl’s because of their practice of not hiring spouses.
When you are trying to be welcoming to everyone, you are bound to upset someone. If you are only welcoming certain people, you are still bound to upset someone.
Wal-Mart is always under the gun whether pro-active or idle. This move will probably end up a wash, alienating some customers and bringing in new ones as well.
Wal-Mart, in its quest to be PR perfect, is starting to run a huge risk of alienating everybody. Just in the past two weeks we’ve had the resignation of Andrew Young from a pro Wal-Mart organization based on comments he made and now Wal-Mart is joining a gay/lesbian group. Wal-Mart appears to be trying to be all things to all people and they’re going to wind up being nothing to nobody if they’re not more careful.
What we’re seeing Wal-Mart do from a PR perspective is the same thing they’re doing in the stores by trying to attract every consumer segment. This is a classic case that we’ve seen before where a retailer becomes so large that they are forced to do anything possible to try and maintain volume growth for the sake of their share price.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
The implication that AFA and the Family Research Council represent anything, including the family, is a false argument, so we shouldn’t be surprised when nothing negative happens to Wal-Mart. These are people who speak for a tiny portion of America (estimated at less than 1% – people who identify themselves as fundamental Christians), people who have never successfully boycotted anything. Wal-Mart will not alienate any significant number of people, nor is it going to bring in a lot more gays and lesbians – everyone cares less about this than George’s article suggests.
Wal-Mart, in its insatiable hunger to capture more and more customers everywhere, will probably continue to form unions with additional sectors of our diverse consumer society. Each new alliance will undoubtedly irritate some components of their huge existing base and more complaints will arise. The media will amplify it as “news” and Wal-Mart’s competition will try to capitalize on it.
What will eventually result will be mainly determined by how well Wal-Mart can keep its prices lower than competition, and how well it keeps its assortments tailored and timely, its stores clean, orderly, friendly and efficient.
Wal-Mart is doing the right thing here and should be applauded. Will it result in “some” backlash by those that disagree – sure. One of the issues Wal-Mart had to decide is will this be a problem larger than the one they currently have by not acting as they have. They answered that by making the decision.
Living on the East Coast within easy commuting distance to New York City, I am perhaps more “liberal” (but will not claim to be more “progressive” as that seems to demean everyone who does not agree with my views, as if I hold the “only” truth). However, my sense is that same sex coupling is not the huge issue for many people that it may have once been.
Will Wal-Mart lose customers over this…yeah, they will. Do they lose customers over it now because they did NOT act…yes to that, too. Customers will choose where they shop based on decisions that very often seem outside what is “fair” by the retailer or other observers. That is how it is…”you pays yer money and you takes your chances” with the public.
Is Wal-Mart doing this as a way to establish social policies or to help educate those that disagree with their position – NO. I do not believe that anyone in Bentonville involved with this decision said, “Well, if we cater to same sex couples or families – maybe then everyone will see that ‘they’ are not so bad after all and are just like us!”
Wal-Mart may be conservative by nature on a political scale – but they are a business and a very well run business and the politics of business are what this is based upon.
MOST (not all) shoppers will continue to shop there for the price and selections of products they desire. Some will have to “test” the waters to see if it turns into “Sodom and Gomorrah” now – and upon seeing that the shopping experience is no different will continue to shop there.
In terms of the quotes provided…
Tony Perkins fearing it will not sell on Main Street (which he is quoted as claiming where Wal-Mart is located)….haven’t business pundits been railing about the fact that Wal-Mart put Main Street out of business and is NOT located in “Downtown” but rather on the outskirts of town? So, which is it???
Bob McAdams is quoted as saying, “We HAVE (emphasis mine) to be welcoming to everyone.” Well, Bob – that is not the most ringing endorsement of this action…not that we want to, we recognize the need to, we always have…we HAVE to do this.
One of the fundamental principles of marketing is that every segment requires a unique marketing mix — product, price, promotion and distribution. Wal-Mart has done an awesome job with its marketing mix for the segment of middle/lower income family living in mid-sized towns or the suburbs. It’s the bedrock of their success.
As they venture into new segments — gay, urban, multicultural — all very sizable segments in the US — they must be careful to adjust all four elements of the marketing mix. Otherwise, they will confuse or offend their loyal base. And their new segment will not be compelled to shop at Wal-Mart.
This means an edited and expanded product line, smaller stores with a revitalized brand, fresh promotional message, and different pricing strategy. Is Wal-Mart up to it? Don’t think so. The loyalty of middle America is at stake. Look for Wal-Mart to back off their efforts to market to the gays and lesbian segment.
Wal-Mart is only reflecting the diversity of America. Ignoring any group is not good marketing or business. This should include racial, political, religious or gender based groups. For Wal-Mart, this means that they are recognizing other groups and are taking steps to share in its diversity. By embracing all groups, Wal-Mart appeals to all customers and does not risk alienating any one faction. This keeps them gender neutral, which is the basis of good business, and good position in America.
Retailing is about selling products to customers. Those customers live in communities and in some way feel that good retailers support “their” communities. Wal-Mart supports many, many communities and through that support builds a relationship with its customers. As has been mentioned, the more diverse the groups Wal-Mart supports, the more conflict it will generate.
Will any of this affect sales? Only at a very granular level. Some individuals will stop buying at Wal-Mart because of this announcement. Some will start. The numbers will be small on both sides and probably will be a wash.
I think the biggest elements of this announcement are: (1) despite a brief flurry of press interest it will have no major impact, and (2) many retailers still place too much emphasis on form over substance. Retailers should pay more attention to diversity in their work forces, policies that favor diversity, and understanding that the US, as shown by the most recent census, is much more than white, middle class, traditional families.
How many homosexual people are there in the U.S.? How many supportive activist family members? How many conservative Christians who will act on their beliefs? I can’t answer those demographic questions.
The bulk of WM stores and shoppers live in the big middle of the U.S. There aren’t that many stores on the left coast or in the Northeast that are bastions of liberal support.
In general, to appeal to the homosexual groups, WM has taken the stance that the approximately 50+% group of Americans that has issues with homosexual lifestyles will do nothing.
Maybe we are back to the “say what you want about me as long as you spell the name right” approach.
Wal-Mart is in danger of alienating some portion of its customer base for just being Wal-Mart. That is a business risk they are willing to take. I’m in danger of alienating potential clients by just posting my views on this blog. Then again, sometimes the opposite occurs.
Wal-Mart should be able to offer their resources to all customers without embracing a lifestyle that goes in direct opposition to a majority of the population.
It would seem obvious that there is a range of feeling among those who disagree with Wal-Mart’s decision — We already see how strongly some disagree, and I would guess that there are those who think that, although it may not be a really great decision, it is not going to ruin civilization.
I have no data at our firm that tells us how many fall into each of the “categories” in that wide spectrum. Further, I have no data that tells us how many have not been frequent or moderate Wal-Mart shoppers who now will be as a result of this decision. Without any data, it would merely be speculation on my part to say if those who “will no longer shop at Wal-Mart” will be replaced in number, or more than replaced, by the new shoppers captured as a result of this decision.
In my view, the more important aspect of this story is: what is the motive of Wal-Mart’s executive team in making this decision, which they likely knew would draw this kind of fire? Was the motive to capture more of the gay and lesbian market? Was it to show the world and its markets that Wal-Mart is willing to advocate this position?
Who knows? Is this, in the end, a good decision? As we already see in this story, it depends on your stance regarding the morality of the lifestyle. Personally? Hurrah, Wal-Mart, even though I believe I understand why some people sincerely think this is a terrible development.
Stephen’s comments are correct. Wal-Mart will feel no sales increase or decrease by joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. In 2003, Wal-Mart adopted a sexual preference nondiscrimination policy for its employees. In 2005, Wal-Mart defined “family” in its HR policies to include same-sex families. In January 2006, Wal-Mart announced a gay and lesbian employee group meeting regularly at its Bentonville headquarters. A few months ago, Wal-Mart sold Brokeback Mountain videos. None of these announcements changed any sales patterns.
Being a global company, Wal-Mart faces the challenges of pleasing everyone: an impossible task. Cultural differences, for one, make any such effort untenable.
Look at another global entity–the Catholic Church. As spiritual leader of North American, Western European, Latin American, African, Asian Catholics, the Pope has the impossible task of proclaiming spiritual guidance to diverse cultures. More specifically, the Vatican also came out with statements re: homosexuality. It pleased conservatives in Africa, Latin America . . . but did not gain much favour in the Western World.
As the Pope famously said: “The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria. You can’t choose or reject what you want or agree with.” Wal-Mart might learn from the Vatican experience.
The question for a person who disagrees with this move: “Is there a large alternative retailer that does not support these homosexual groups?” If there is, then we need to vote with our dollars. Otherwise, there probably will not be much effect either way. As a percentage, the homosexual community is still very small. Thus, I cannot imagine a huge sales gain because of this move.
The GLBT community is still very small but they have a LOT of money. Will this be enough to offset any drop-off from the [dissenting] group? I doubt it. The rural area residents against this move still can’t afford to shop anywhere else, so it will blow over in time. Most likely, the next board Wal-Mart joins will make another group angry, but in the end I applaud Wal-Mart for truly doing what Sam would have done.
As a gay man who reads RetailWire every day, and frequently contributes (anonymously, because I don’t know who among the retailers my company serves reads this board), I find a few of the above comments a bit sad (but I’m gratified by the dominance of the more open-hearted ones).
In contemporary American and Western European society, gay people are thought of as a “market” to be served, a niche market like any other group. This attitude is pervasive among marketers, and among a majority of people in the LGBT world, for good or ill.
Some of my brothers and sisters who have perhaps avoided Wal-Mart for political reasons will look at Wal-Mart’s actions as being a sudden about-face, and will start going out of their way to shop there. What Wal-Mart is really doing, however, is pulling a “Coors”: acting friendly to gay men and lesbians as consumers, while continuing, as does the Coors family, to send their philanthropic dollars (via the Walton Family Foundation) toward non-profit entities that are hostile to us as a community and as individuals.
And let’s not forget that Wal-Mart has always had LGBT consumers–not all of us are urban dual-income-no-kids types with plenty of disposable income–we exist at all income levels, and many are forced by economic necessity (just like poor heterosexuals) to shop wherever prices are lowest.
This move by Wal-Mart does one very good thing: it makes the many thousands of LGBT people employed by them feel a bit more hopeful. And it does another good thing: it tells the Family Research Council and their compatriots in the Radical Right that the largest and most powerful corporation in human history isn’t going to pretend that gay men, lesbians and the trans-gendered don’t exist. Instead, it is actively going to court them as consumers. Keeping the Left Behind series in stock will send the message to Fundamentalists that they still want them around too (but don’t look for Wal-Mart to start carrying Out Magazine any time soon).
In this case Wal-Mart did the right thing. And it was brave: I don’t believe, as the first commenter above says, that Fundamentalists represent less than 1% of America–I think it’s more like 22% to 28% (maybe 1% represents the hardest of the hard core). Yes, Wal-Mart risks a backlash from a significant minority. But I don’t think they’ll see much of one, because for most people in their core market, Fundamentalist or not, low prices count for a lot.
I can’t imagine that same sex couples have fundamental needs that are any different than those of any other set of individuals and that they were any LESS welcome to buy their toothpaste, dog food and coffee makers at Wal-Mart last week than they will be next week.
Unless there’s a plan to have special marketing events targeting only this segment of the population, there’s little commercial value in joining an organization to symbolically welcome the group.
Will some customers stop shopping Wal-Mart as a result? Yes, but unlikely to significantly impact sales.
Will a very high number of customers be disappointed in “their Wal-Mart” giving in to the pressure to join the rest of the politically correct world? Absolutely, but they’ll still shop there for the values and the assortment, but with a bit less respect for the company than before…
Stephen’s remarks are negative and cutting…..and I agree w/ them 100%(!)
Lower and Middle Class America continues to buy from Wal-Mart even as Wal-Mart continues to ship the jobs overseas that they, in many cases, depend upon. So essentially, their target market continues to shop with them, even as the company does things on a macro level that are not in their interest.
Given that, I find it hard to believe that they would stop shopping there in any kind of significant numbers because of something as abstract to their daily life as the company starting moves towards being gay friendly.
A previous poster asked about other retailers that might benefit. The only significant retailer I can think of that has essentially no gay friendly policies or initiatives is Kohl’s. (An example: Same sex couples get no access to benefits AND cannot both be employed by Kohl’s because of their practice of not hiring spouses.
When you are trying to be welcoming to everyone, you are bound to upset someone. If you are only welcoming certain people, you are still bound to upset someone.
Wal-Mart is always under the gun whether pro-active or idle. This move will probably end up a wash, alienating some customers and bringing in new ones as well.
Wal-Mart, in its quest to be PR perfect, is starting to run a huge risk of alienating everybody. Just in the past two weeks we’ve had the resignation of Andrew Young from a pro Wal-Mart organization based on comments he made and now Wal-Mart is joining a gay/lesbian group. Wal-Mart appears to be trying to be all things to all people and they’re going to wind up being nothing to nobody if they’re not more careful.
What we’re seeing Wal-Mart do from a PR perspective is the same thing they’re doing in the stores by trying to attract every consumer segment. This is a classic case that we’ve seen before where a retailer becomes so large that they are forced to do anything possible to try and maintain volume growth for the sake of their share price.