Wal-Mart Rant thread...

[tubaguy9]

Sorry to those who are a fan of that cheap place, but I can't stand the place anymore. This is also a thread for those who dislike something about Wal-Mart.
So, after complaining once to Wal-Mart about an employee that didn't know anything, and couldn't find something right in front of them, they ignored me, saying they were too busy due to the holiday season, to care. What happened that time, is I asked for the 3M Poster strips. You know, those strips of adhesive that you pull a tab, and come right off. The Wal-Mart quality employee takes me around the whole department, and doesn't find them. When I go back to within a foot of where she was standing, I found them. And they were right there.

So, I go to a Wal-Mart to turn in some cans for the deposit back, as that I'm in Iowa. I find that this Wal-Mart has those machines that take cans and bottles. I turn in a few cans, with many of them rejected by the machine. So, after having enough of the frustration of it seems a third of my cans, I get my recipt for the can return. That's right. I have to turn in the receipt to actually get money out of the store. So, since I was there already, I went to have a watch battery replaced. Being Wal-Mart, they didn't know how to replace my watch battery. Frustrated, and not wanting to wait in line, I go to a self-checkout. You can likely guess what happened there; It didn't recognize the receipts. So, I left the store angry. So, I complained to corporate. After telling them what happened, and where, they sent me an email asking where. So I told them again. After that, it took over a week for them to see how they can help fix the problem. And upon doing so, they basically said "oh, we know it sucks, but we won't do anything about it".
So what am I doing about this? Boycotting Wal-Mart. I will not step foot in one if there is any way to avoid it.
As I've thought about this, I'm amazed that a store that cares this little about its customers is still in business. Think about it. If a business didn't have customers, it wouldn't survive. That simple. So why is Wal-mart able to stay in business? I'd be willing to say that it's their cheap prices on their pieces of junk that they sell.

[rocksanddirt]

I feel your frustration, but honestly I don't go to walmart if there is any chance I'll need help from the staff. I go there when I need cheap and cheaply made imported items (so, rarely).

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I really don't know where to start, so I'll just say this...

I'm thinking your expectations of what to expect from a Wal-Mart are perhaps a bit too high. I don't go in there expecting employees to know where every product they offer is located in the store, I just take some time and look myself...having employees that know where everything is requires training, which leads to higher prices for everything the store sells.

I wouldn't expect the person manning the register at the jewelry counter to necessarily know how to replace a watch battery, either...that involves training, which leads to higher prices for everything the store sells.

I certainly wouldn't go in expecting an automated machine to give me money for cans and bottles. That's an invitation for fraud from unscrupulous people who would figure out a way to "fool" the machine into giving them money for worthless stuff. You can't really blame Wal-Mart for wanting actual people to give out money for stuff that wasn't even necessarily purchased there. The fraud that would result from the abuse of an automated system would lead to higher prices for everything the store sells.

I wouldn't consider myself a "fan" of Wal-Mart, but there are many times when I just want to pay as little as possible for products. I understand that with the cost savings comes a lower level of service...it is simply inevitable. I'm always amused by internet rants by people who don't seem to understand the simple concept that you have to pay more for excellent service.

[tubaguy9]

But know that I know they also understand that the self checkouts and can machines are pieces of junk. I've been in other Wal-Marts, and one of them had can machines, but got rid of them for the fact that they never work as they're supposed to. I've also been in others which don't have self checkouts. Which proves that they know people don't like them. What I don't get, is if they're smart enough to figure that out, why doesn't corparate help them fix it?

[Tuba Guy]

First off, I am going to say that my post is probably going to offend and maybe make a few people mad. Sorry, but life isn't about making people happy.
I completely agree that Wal-Mart doesn't have everyone's best interests in mind. Its main goals (ok, well same as most companies, though they usually do it to a less economically crippling degree) is to make money. The difference that I've seen between Wal-Mart and other stores is that WM goes into a town and sucks up all of its resources, allowing local "mom and pop" style stores to not get any buisness and forcing them to close down. The same is true for McDonalds.
These companies don't care about the consumer and are really just trying to make as much money as they possibly can. I mean, there's even a South Park about this, and you know how true those always are (hah)

[Davy]

As much as I agree with this whole Wal-mart thing, sometimes it is just unavoidable to shop there, especially when it is the only store with the thing you are looking for. We had a local grocery store close down, more than likely from "wally-world" and Tops, even though the owners didn't say it was

McDonald's, on the other hand....the one in my hometown is sooo slow. you could be the only one in there, and still have to wait forever for your food. (not that I eat there much....)

[Tubaryan12]

On the subject of self check outs:

Just remember, every time you use a self check out, you tell corporate America it's o.k. to replace one more human with a machine.

[Doug@GT]

I hear ya.

I'm boycotting McDonald's. They gave me a burger and fries, when I really wanted a Porterhouse and Baked Potato.

[Rick Denney]

Okay, kids, time for the long pants.

The whole notion of enterprise is that Wal-Mart makes as much money as possible, and the business model they have employed to do that works by seeing to it that their give their customers the very best price on any given thing. If people preferred stores with the human touch, higher service levels, and higher quality products instead of lower prices, they would not shop at Wal-Mart. Many shop elsewhere just because of that, and those stores succeed by interpreting and serving different markets.

Wal-Mart has been successful, and in the current environment we are taught to mistrust success, because it's based on greed. That's just nuts. Do people shop at Wal-Mart for altruistic reasons, only to be victimized by the corporate juggernaut? Nuts. They shop there because they want to get what they need for as little money as possible, so that they can preserve that money for something more important to them than the junk they buy at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart succeeds because they have refined their supply and delivery process to serve that market. They've done it better than everyone else. Nobody likes a winner.

Of course, those who rage against the corporate juggernaut are themselves pretty happy to be paid well for whatever it is that they do.

Any store can screw up in the customer service department. These stores hire us, and we suck and serving each other. We've been taught that we are too good for that, and so we feel like we are underemployed or violating our self-image when we have to be humble and helpful in front of a customer.

I despise the automated cashiers at many stores, but mostly because the technology remains hostile to the customer's requirements. But when I wait (and wait and wait) in the regular line, I find that too often the person there has no more regard for serving my needs as a customer than the machine did. The machine is what it is, but the people make that choice. It makes it rather difficult to feel sorry for them.

But the stores that provide quality service do exist, though people have to be prepared to pay extra for that level of service. Are they? In some cases, yes. Often, no. Is that the fault of Wal-Mart? No. Wal-Mart exists because we shop there.

Rick "suspecting most missed the wisdom in Doug's post" Denney

[lgb&dtuba]

On the subject of self check outs:

Just remember, every time you use a self check out, you tell corporate America it's o.k. to replace one more human with a machine.

At least the machine knows how to make change.

[Davy]

true that the auto check out takes a job away, but there have to be people to make that machine, right?

[Donn]

Though it is not a simple matter of A competing against B in terms of goods, prices and service.

Say you sell shoes, in a small town that's lucky to have a shoe store. Walmart arrives nearby - not really near, of course, they'll be miles away - and of course they sell shoes, along with everything else. Everything that can be bought in your town and more. You now automatically have a potential disadvantage, not because Walmart has you beat on anything about the shoe business, but simply because you're in town, not at Walmart.

Depending on how they're doing in other categories, Walmart may not even need to underprice you to starve you out. But they probably will, because their employees may be part-timers who are supplementing their income with state relief, and of course they don't even need to make money on shoes. Their shoes don't need to even be of acceptable quality, because in the year or two it takes people to realize that the shoes they got at your shop were a better deal because they were significantly more durable, you'll be gone and it won't matter. When you're gone, that will be one more boarded up store front. You couldn't stand competition - loser.

[Tubaryan12]

true that the auto check out takes a job away, but there have to be people to make that machine, right?

I'd be o.k. with that, if I knew that the machine was made here.

[Matt G]

Depending on how they're doing in other categories, Walmart may not even need to underprice you to starve you out. But they probably will, because their employees may be part-timers who are supplementing their income with state relief, and of course they don't even need to make money on shoes. Their shoes don't need to even be of acceptable quality, because in the year or two it takes people to realize that the shoes they got at your shop were a better deal because they were significantly more durable, you'll be gone and it won't matter. When you're gone, that will be one more boarded up store front. You couldn't stand competition - loser.

This was true for many years, however in many urban and even sub-urban areas, Wal-Mart has been dealing with a retreat of customers, because the quality of their product is know a known value. Before this last year or so, I saw many smaller shops doing well catering to specific needs. Your example, shoes, is one in particular. I ended up having a preference for a certain brand of athletic shoe. It is not carried by "big box" retailers, and is a shoe that has a loyal following. It is also priced to allow the sellers to have a good profit margin while being competitive. The small guys seem to be okay, it is those folks in the middle (chain-retailers) that seem to get squeezed the most, but even then, brands are protected, wisely, by the manufacturer.

Overall I think Wal-Mart will endure a life cycle similar to other retailers of the same nature. Woolworth's, Zayre's, Apex, K-Mart, and others come to mind. Wal-Mart is on top, and according to most analysts, you can only sustain that for so long. Not that I champion their demise, it just seems to be a fact of life for those types of entities.

Additionally, Wal-Mart didn't seem to hurt the retailers who knew their business. It did seem to weed out small retailers who were just making it before Wal-Mart ever even purchased the land to build on. Not that it is a great thing, but it does make the good better and the bad go away, in many cases.

[Rick Denney]

Say you sell shoes, in a small town that's lucky to have a shoe store.

No town is "lucky" to have a shoe store. The shoe store is lucky to have a town full of customers. And in a town small enough for this to be the only shoe option, those customers are likely to be loyal.

But since you brought up the issue of shoes, let's work it. I wear size 15. Needless to say, I rarely find shoes in my size actually on the shelf in a shoe store, and I don't even bother looking at Wal-Mart. When I lived in Texas, the only place I could consistently find quality shoes was at Larry's Shoes (I don't even know if it still exists, but if it doesn't, it isn't because of Wal-Mart). Here in Virginia, I have to be very lucky to find shoes in my size. Where do I shop for them? At the outlet mall, the new mall experience for rural areas along major highways. When I go to the local shoe stores, they NEVER have ANYTHING in my size--just like Wal-Mart. They always offer to order them for me, but if I'm going to order them anyway, I'll do it online and not pay a retail premium to get what's not even as good as mailorder service.

The point is that if a shoe store can't compete with Wal-Mart on price or convenience, then they need to compete on service, quality, and selection. And they need to do what it takes to keep their customers.

Let's turn it a different way. We have a Costco in our town. Costco is one of those companies that has a good reputation for taking care of its customers and employees. I'm sure they have put locally owned stores out of business, too, but they never seem to get beat up about it. So, it's okay to put local stores out of business if you are really nice to your employees, but not if you are a little less nice.

Or Home Depot. Many good local hardware stores have been put under by Home Depot. But not all. Those that maintain their customer base by doing what it takes to stock stuff they need (even when Home Depot doesn't) are still surviving, by my observation. The ones that have failed were the ones that never seemed to have what I needed, just as Home Depot never seems to have what I need.

Or auto parts stores. Has Autozone put local parts stores out of business? If so, it's because the local parts store didn't understand the service model. Todd could expand on this a bunch, I'm sure, but my observation is that the locally owned parts stores (I'm not really including NAPA stores here, even though they are locally owned) are never open as late or one weekends, and are no more likely to know their parts or have what I need. The parts stores that supply commercial repair shops have taken car of their customers, and Autozone/Advance Auto haven't done them much harm. But they serve a different clientele than the chain retailers. Those that attempted to serve the late-night do-it-yourselfer haven't been well-served by the commercial parts stores that close while they are still at work.

Now, let's talk about men's clothes. Did the Men's Wearhouse put local haberdashers out of business? The ones I saw go under had it coming. Their prices were high and inflexible, their selection (ahem) tailored too much to the owner's tastes (and not to mine) and their hours too inconvenient. Many complained loudly to their local politicians when MW opened up locally, instead of realizing that their customers had needs they were not fulfilling. The market is pretty efficient about weeding out those who don't earn their trade. It's not particularly nice about it, to be sure. But it keeps us from being put in the position of being forced to support local business that don't do what it takes to keep our business, either in price, convenience, quality, or service.

Customers are always changing, and businesses must always change with them. The notion that locally owned shops, as much as I might prefer them for some things, are owed their existence is hostile to the consumer. And that's exactly backwards. So, we keep a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot out of our town in favor of the local shops that don't have as good a selection, aren't open when we need them to be, and charge a lot more? Is that a good result?

Rick "believing that business is not a charity" Denney

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Has Autozone put local parts stores out of business? If so, it's because the local parts store didn't understand the service model. Todd could expand on this a bunch, I'm sure, but my observation is that the locally owned parts stores (I'm not really including NAPA stores here, even though they are locally owned) are never open as late or one weekends, and are no more likely to know their parts or have what I need. The parts stores that supply commercial repair shops have taken car of their customers, and Autozone/Advance Auto haven't done them much harm. But they serve a different clientele than the chain retailers. Those that attempted to serve the late-night do-it-yourselfer haven't been well-served by the commercial parts stores that close while they are still at work.

Only a brief, anecdotal expansion, since Rick has really nailed this on the head.

My boss, who is the local owner of a NAPA store (not a company store like all AutoZones, O'Reillys, etc.) saw the writing on the wall early and built a new huge store in an excellent retail location in Stillwater five years ago (replacing his father's old store in the dwindling "downtown" area). He did the same in Cushing (a small town 25 miles away) and is planning a new store in Blackwell (45 miles north - ironically, the new store will be very near their Wal-Mart store). Our emphasis is the installer business, and we go after that by going deeper in vehicle coverage in our parts lines than the other guys. Professional installers (garages) simply need the part as soon as possible and will pay a little more to get it. In addition, we keep our salesmen up-to-date on their ASE certifications and host numerous training clinics for local installers and our own employees. We do go after the DIY market as well by staying open as late as the other guys and offering a wide variety of "value line" products, but it's difficult to always have the cheapest part possible on the shelf and be able to sleep comfortably at night (my standard "script" at work is "there's always a cheaper part").

The key to success in our store is the deep stocking levels...we simply often have the part when the other guys in town (AZ, O'Reilly's, Advance) don't. We are also well-served by running a truck to Oklahoma City in the morning to pick up parts at our warehouse for customers...same-day service when parts in the warehouse are ordered by 11:00 AM (none of the other local stores offer this extra service). We get a surprising number of customers from up to an hour's drive away just to be able to get the part now.

On the other hand, my experience over the last few years has shown me that more and more people are "price-shopping" even the smallest items for their vehicles without any regard to quality or service. The cheapest part is winning the battles more and more among the DIY market, and it's very difficult to argue quality with these customers. Remember the scene in "Tommy Boy" about the lifetime warranty? Many of the big-box auto parts retailers offer a lifetime warranty on nearly every cheap piece of crap they sell, counting on lost receipts or customer apathy. Unfortunately, lifetime warranty still equals quality in the minds of many consumers...those in the business realize that it's now only a marketing gimmick and doesn't count for 1% of what it used to.

Sorry, that wasn't brief at all...

[Donn]

The market is pretty efficient about weeding out those who don't earn their trade.

Is the following a fair summary, from your examples?

• Small retailers don't serve everyone's needs, because some needs are too exotic, or because some small retailers just don't have what it takes.
• Mega-stores haven't killed all small retailers.

I don't think anyone would disagree. My point though is that this isn't the simplistic textbook market situation where one retailer prevails over another by virtue of its superior satisfaction of consumer value. I will leave it at that, to avoid undue repetition, but this is the kind of stuff that makes "the market" look like a bad deal. If you really appreciate the market as a system that produces the best value outcome, the giant retailers are not your friend.

[MaryAnn]

Along with lifetime warrenties, I found out about guaranteed mileage on tires recently. My 80,000 mile wonder-tires are at the wear marks at *considerably fewer* miles than that....I guess they figure that people, once they buy a second set of tires for their vehicle, are extremely unlikely to actually drive that many more miles on it. They didn't figure on Toyota trucks...

MA, who also boycotts Walmart because of a couple of local incidents that demonstrated issues with customers *and* employees that I refuse to support with my $$. Locally, I like Target: I see the same cashiers year in and year out, meaning they are treated well enough to continue to work there, plus Target gives a percentage to charity, which I am happy to support with sometimes higher prices

[Rick Denney]

Is the following a fair summary, from your examples?

• Small retailers don't serve everyone's needs, because some needs are too exotic, or because some small retailers just don't have what it takes.
• Mega-stores haven't killed all small retailers.

I don't think anyone would disagree. My point though is that this isn't the simplistic textbook market situation where one retailer prevails over another by virtue of its superior satisfaction of consumer value. I will leave it at that, to avoid undue repetition, but this is the kind of stuff that makes "the market" look like a bad deal. If you really appreciate the market as a system that produces the best value outcome, the giant retailers are not your friend.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, though your summary departs from what I said somewhat. But the basis for most complaints against Wal-Mart are not based on their actions to restrain the free market, but rather are based on their belief that Wal-Mart is a typical, evil corporate juggernaut.

Preventing those stores from opening up in new areas does not solve those problems, and that's the usual prescription for opposing the Wal-Marts of this world.

Rick "who thinks Wal-Mart browbeats their suppliers which limits market action" Denney

[Donn]

But the basis for most complaints against Wal-Mart are not based on their actions to restrain the free market, but rather are based on their belief that Wal-Mart is a typical, evil corporate juggernaut.

They might see a contradiction between these two objections, and you might, but I don't. I think there is a near-universal appreciation for the advantages of a competitive market economy. Where people differ, what exactly that means (ought to) come into clearer focus. Does it mean laissez faire, whatever you do to win is competitive? Does it mean healthy competition, that serves our interests in the way it's supposed to? What does anti-competitive mean, when applied to a successful business strategy? What kind of free market favors typical evil corporate juggernauts?

Preventing those stores from opening up in new areas does not solve those problems, and that's the usual prescription for opposing the Wal-Marts of this world.

Well, any other suggestions for opposing them are also welcome.