So... This NYU professor by the name of David Vinjamori has written this dumb ass piece on how Wal-Mart is fucked because they've hade the nerve to go after poor defenceless Julie. He claims that the publicity in Friday's New York Times will give the brand a bad name 'cos the customers won't like it. Hello... We're talking Wal-Mart here David. I wonder what percentage of Wal-Mart's customers read the NYT... In fact, I wonder what percentage of Wal-Mart customers fucking read? Anyway, I sent him a reply (Not a single fuck in it!) This is it...
David
You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here with your comments on Wal-Mart’s firing of Julie Roehm. The company only made public the lurid details of her dismissal when she sued them for wrongful termination.
Your statement that… “The real lesson of the HP scandal was that any corporation should understand that treatment of (and trust in) its own employees is directly connected to the equity of the brand with its consumers”…. Fails to take into account that when she accepted the position with Wal-Mart, I must assume that she signed a contract, and I am sure that part of the conditions of employment in that contract included not doing the four things I am sure Wal-Mart will prove she did in a court of law.
Having sexual relations with another employee.
Accepting gifts and favors from a vendor, which as you only choose to mention her having a ride in Howard Draft’s Aston Martin, I should point out also included $450 cases of vodka and $2000 dinners. – By the way, Howard’s Aston failed to start!
Providing confidential Wal-Mart information and communications to Draft/FCB
But what was really egregious, and should make her unemployable by any right minded company in the future, was that while engaged in an agency search on behalf of Wal-Mart, which she was unquestionably tipping in Draft/FCB’s direction, she and Sean Womack were negotiating themselves a future job with the agency. Not only is this in flagrant breach of her contract, it’s also highly unethical, and may even verge on being criminal!
I also take issue with your statement… “And it is clear that what invited this story was Wal-Mart's aggressive approach to ending its employment relationship with Julie Roehm.” No. Julie invited this story by filing suit and then giving interviews in innumerable papers and magazines to present herself as the “Victim” of big bad Wal-Mart. To the point were in her latest interview she is playing the “Sexist” card by stating that the real reason for her dismissal was that a bunch of Good-Old-Boys down in Bentonville didn’t like the idea of taking the advice of a female.
I don’t agree with you that Wal-Mart’s actions have hurt the brand. But I would insist that Julie’s actions have probably killed hers. Unless she sees a future as the Tonya Harding of the marketing world.
You can read much more from me on this subject, and the many, many comments of others at one of my blogs… www.adscam.typepad.com
Finally, I agree with Theo Kie, I doubt if a single Wal-Mart customer is aware of this situation, so how it is damaging the brand is beyond my ken. Your example of Nordstrom treating customers well by taking back tires they never sold (which is a myth, by the way, there is absolutely no record of this ever happening, but it does make a good story to use during presentations) has no relevance. Julie wasn’t a customer, she was an employee, and don’t think the average Wal-Mart customer gives a fig that the “Associates” serving them have little health care, often work overtime without pay, and have to rely on Medicaid for their children’s health needs. What they are truly concerned about is if they can buy a six pack of Bud a nickel cheaper than at CosCo! Nordstrom customers they aint. And they don’t read the New York Times.
Cheers/George
.
Tonya and Julie will do three rounds with any Wal-Mart manager.