Still reeling from a somewhat mind blowing 24 hours with a genius fisherman philosopher at Martha's Vineyard—when I figure out what to write about him I'll write some of it here—I return to another chapter in what seems to be Wal-Mart's return to the hot seat.
According to the AP story, it seems a video production company that worked for Wal-Mart got mad when Wal-Mart dumped it, so they dumped a bunch of footage they'd taken into a searchable database and made it available for Wal-Mart's enemies to comb through for $250 an hour.
The company also has a YouTube site to tease the videos.
And what are Wal-Mart's enemies making of these video clips? Quick work.
This is just another downhill crumble in an avalanche of bad PR that might have been avoided had some smart communicators convinced some smart executives about eight years ago when the bloom was beginning to come off Wal-Mart's rose, that you can't be the biggest company in the world (or even your industry, or your city) without considering and being sensitive to how your actions are going down with the general public.
UPDATE, 4/11: The AP reports that the video production creeps want $145 million from Wal-Mart for these videos; Wal-Mart's best offer so far is $500,000.
What a game of chicken. Wal-Mart execs can't possibly pretend to know everything that's on those tapes. If the execs in drag are the worst thing on there, the company is right to refuse to pay the extortion. (Maybe it's right to refuse to pay the extortion no matter what.) But what else is on that searchable database that Wal-Mart's enemies are hoarding their pennies to afford? One thing looks sure: We will find out.
Comments (7)
Ouch. So many companies do the same thing behind closed doors but aren't big enough to garner such attention. Or, didn't pay someone to videotape the meeting. So many lawsuits are settled for similar reasons and yet they are unknown. I like humor; I love a good joke regardless if it is dry, sick, or clean. I do, however, think this was just plain stupidity and can't believe they thought it would stay as an "inside joke".
Posted by Susan | April 10, 2008 9:15 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 09:15
What I find unbelieveable about this is that Wal-Mart didn't make Flagler sign a contract clearly setting out the parameters of the relationship.
Given that the production company was specifically hired to film internal (read: private)Wal-Mart meetings and discussions it is beyond stupid that they didn't contractually prohibit the company from making other uses of that footage.
I don't know if this is average garden variety dumbness on the part of whoever hired Flagler way back when, or if it is yet another example of the supreme arrogance and disdain of the Wal-Mart organization towards the rest of the world. Either way, it has to really suck to be their spokesperson. I'm sure glad I'm not Daphne Moore!
Posted by Kristen | April 10, 2008 9:42 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 09:42
What of the video production company? How stupid are they to do this to themselves? What customer in his/her right mind would hire this company in the future?
Posted by Eileen | April 10, 2008 9:53 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 09:53
Kristen, Wal-Mart is looking at its legal options, but this may be a perfect storm, fueled by Wal-Mart's high-profile status, an intense desire to find out what's happening inside there--and a 30-year relationship with this company that was struck with a handshake, way back in the day.
As for Flagler's reputation, yeah: Their brand won't exactly beam "client loyalty."
Posted by David Murray | April 10, 2008 9:59 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 09:59
I'm with Kristen and Eileen.
And why would you ever record in any form something you would never want the public to see? Didn't anyone learn anything from Watergate?
Posted by Diane | April 10, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 10:18
Or Paris Hilton? Oh, wait, she wanted everyone to see that. Scratch that.
Posted by Eileen | April 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Posted on April 10, 2008 10:35
Diane - I can get my head around the idea that they might have wanted some footage of the "informal" discussions that happen inside the organization because creativity and collaboration frequently happens in such off-the-cuff settings, and can be good for motivation and innovation, but to not protect that potentially sensitive material (let's be honest we have all said thoughtless, foolish things at least once in a meeting) is beyond belief to me.
David - Even if the original agreement was 30 years ago on a handshake, surely at SOME point since the relationship has been re-visited and the implementation of a more formal contract would have been sensible. If for no other reason than the fact that Wal-Mart has been the poster child for corporate greed / bad behaviour /stupid choices for like, a decade so it's not like anyone's likely to cut them any slack on anything. Yet again, you have to ask where the hell are the communications people with recommendations on stuff like this?
P.S. Diane - I hope you are going to be at Ragan's CCC in May. If so, I would love to buy you a drink and have a proper chat with you. If you'll be there please find me!
Posted by Kristen | April 10, 2008 12:41 PM
Posted on April 10, 2008 12:41