What's the Point?

A recent article in Advertising Age points to Wal-Mart's consumer base (Sep 3; pg 6, Jack Neff) and the interesting mix of individuals who find shopping there a good decision. Considering that Wal-Mart has recently unveiled a new ad campaign focusing on a change in slogan that encourages us to "live better", the belief that Wal-Mart shoppers are governed by an addiction to the price point is probably overstated. According to Neff's article, 56% of those studied are Wal-Mart lovers; 44 percent are indifferent or Wal-Mart haters.

Among the lovers are the price-value shoppers (16%), brand aspirationals (29%) and 11% are identified as price-sensitive affluents--those median income shoppers who need a bargain now and then. Brand aspirationals are heavy Wal-Mart users, says Neff's research, but they aren't emotionally committed to Wal-Mart as much as they are to the strong or super brands that are available on Wal-Mart's shelves.

Looking at the new advertising campaign--basically pay less, live better--certainly targets the gasoline price-pinched consumers who spend too much on gas and other commodities and therefore have less money for other important needs, but what's the point? Is Wal-Mart going after the emotionally uncommitted here or are they providing a convincing argument that shopping at Wal-Mart is the retail equivalent of having your cake and eating it too?

Wal-Mart, like every other discounter (or retailer) wants to be on the cutting edge and still be number one. Basically, the new ad campaign says middle class bargain hunter. We'll see what happens in the 4th quarter!

Who do you trust?

American culture has been experiencing an erosion of trust for some time, but a recent American Pulse Survey paints a bleak picture for politicians and the media. According to the survey of nearly 4,000 Americans, only 2.2% trust members of the Senate while 2.6% trust members of the House. Media doesn't do much better garnering trust from only 4.4% of Americans. Bloggers do slightly better with 5.8% and the President weighs in with a surprising 14.2%. Add them up and you find that there is still a lot of distrust out there...nearly 71% do not trust any of the above.




Another study (Edelman) looked at the issue of trust worldwide and compared trust in various industries. In the US, the media were dead last...behind Technology, Pharmaceuticals, Automotive, Energy, Retail, Health Care...even Insurance.

So who do they trust? More and more it is defined as "people like me." Word-of-mouth from my peers is still a trusted source. How about you...who do you trust? And why do you think the media is so unworthy of the nation's trust?

Preventing Demonstrators

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making law that would abridge the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some citizens, however, have found that our current president doesn't want any protests or demonstrations to spoil his public appearances. A young Texas couple, Jeffery and Nicole Rank, learned that the hard way on July 4, 2004, when they were arrested on the West Virginia capitol grounds after peacefully expressing their opposition to President Bush.

The two wore homemade T-shirts on which the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) was superimposed over the word "Bush." One shirt said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back; the other said "Regime Change Starts At Home."

They were asked to leave or cover up the shirts, and when they didn't do either, they were arrested, charged with trespassing, handcuffed and taken to jail despite their protests that they had the right to express their opinions under the protection of the First Amendment.

Later, charges were dismissed and the City of Charleston apologized to the couple.

The Ranks sued the federal government, which settled with them in August for $80,000, but not before the couple's ACLU lawyers managed to win release of a heavily redacted classified document (only a few of the 130 pages still show their content) that is a field manual for those who set up presidential appearances around the nation. The manual contains sections such as how to recognize demonstrators and how to stop them (literally: "Preventing Demonstrators").

The tactics used against the Ranks, though later costing the government some money, effectively did just that.

The question is: How should we interpret the First Amendment? If we have the right peaceably to assemble and protest, does government have the right to remove that inconvenient protest from sight and apologize later for the First Amendment infringement? Or does government have an obligation to allow the protestors to be seen and possibly heard (citizens with opposing viewpoints could drown them out -- and in fact, the manual suggests doing that before removal)? Where should the line be drawn, if at all?

Satellite of Love

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is giving thumbs down to the proposed XM and Sirius merger. The National Association of Broadcasters have demonized both satellite radio companies and have spent millions on lobbying in the hopes of blocking the marriage. The Catholic Church and the NAACP strongly support XM and Sirius joining forces. A line has been drawn in the sand and the government’s decision (anti-trust, etc.) may be coming soon.

So… where do you stand? Is the merger good for the consumer – is there any real benefit for the listener? Are we looking at two broken business models that will eventually break down even if they merge? Make your prediction now, and laugh or cry when the decision is announced.