[NOTE: This case analysis focused on an ad published by Wal-mart in response to the strong criticisms of the company regarding the treatment of their employees. Analysis is written in question and answer format.]
1) What do you think of Wal-Mart’s original standoffish public relations policy? (no public response to criticisms)
Wal-Mart’s original public relations policy was largely ineffective for the size and scope of their public. Their silence allowed critics to publicly malign the company without any sort of defense from the company itself. To the public, the lack of response against these criticisms was as good as an admission of guilt, and the company allowed itself to become further vilified in the press. Public relations is meant to establish a company’s image in the minds of the public, and without any word from the company itself, the public had only a one-sided view that was presented by those who were against the company. This created a very bad public image, and caused a scramble to re-establish the company as a community store. Should Wal-Mart have done more offensive work in rebutting the statements made by its critics sooner, I believe that their image would not have suffered as much as it did.
2) Did it make sense to base a new public relations initiative on a management company audit and recommendations?
I believe that this was a good move on the part of Wal-Mart executives to outsource the audit. The company was already viewed in a bad light by the public, whose minds had been filled with the criticisms of those opposed to Wal-Mart. Many of the accusations made centered on unethical policy-making and there was already an overall mistrust of Wal-Mart executives. Any type of audit of a company should be done so as to confirm the good policies and practices of a company that is not biased, and should be done by a third-party who does not stand to profit in any way (other than payment for its services) by a favorable outcome. This was a move to show the public that the company was not afraid to “open its books” and make its practices open to review by impartial outsiders. This move not only made sense, it was imperative for the company to recover its tarnished image.
3) What is your view on beginning the public relations initiative with an advertisement?
I believe that this was not necessarily the best move for the company. Wal-Mart is already viewed as a conglomerate with no heart, and advertisements can often seem impersonal and motivated by profit. Rather than beginning with newspaper advertisements addressed to the public by the company’s President and CEO, an executive who was seen as the figurehead of a corrupt organization; there should have been communications from the employees, or “associates” themselves. Many of the issues surrounding the scandals generated about the company focused on its treatment of its employees. The best way to defend themselves here would have been to create a more human image in the eyes of the public by representing themselves through the very people who were supposed to have been so poorly treated. Instead, the advertisement attacked its critics through its CEO and President, and I believe it did very little to improve the image of the company overall. The advertisement seemed more like a defense against the critics rather than an effort by the company to restore its community-friendly, family image.
4) Does it make sense to invite reporters to meet management at headquarters?
I did think it was a good idea for the company to open its doors to the press, however, it seemed a bit contrived. The access to the company only seemed open to the public from its corporate face, rather than at its individual locations, where employees could be interviewed candidly, and where many of the alleged offenses made by the company could be sought out and reviewed by the press. However, it was a step in the right direction for Wal-Mart, and the press was able to have their questions answered directly by the company, rather than basing their opinions on speculation and outside entities.
5) What public relations options did Wal-Mart have in responding to the negative documentary?
I believe that their strategy of setting up a news conference in the vicinity of the documentary’s premier was a good move by the company. Not only did it distract from the premier, it made the company’s defense direct, and immediate, which I believe was a necessary response. However, I do not believe that their stonewalling of the documentary was a good move for the company. Whenever documentaries such as this are created, I believe the best policy is to make the company’s voice heard in at least part of the film. Although comments made by company executives may have been taken out of context, at least there would have been a point of view represented that is not solely against the company. The idea to produce a film to respond to the documentary’s claims was good in theory; however, it was produced by the company itself. As with audits, I believe that a presentation of facts that are defending false claims should be presented by a third party. What should have been done was to have a producer of similar caliber and in the same genre as Greenwood should have been asked to produce a film that showed the errors, and could even accentuate the positives about the company. Not only should the errors have been addressed, I believe that if the faults that were found to be factual, this should also have been alluded to in the film, and evidence that changes were being made, and an admittance of wrongdoing should have been given. There are always two sides to a story, and this is what they should have presented in full in their film.
6) What were the pros and cons of hiring high-profile political consultants to organize a “war room”?
There were definitely pros to establishing the “war room.” The first would be the experience of these consultants in handling public relations crisis, and their ability to strategize the best solutions possible. However, because Wal-Mart is viewed so negatively as a corporate giant, the hiring of such high profile consultants was a con. Rather than creating a “war room” and taking a very military/governmental approach, I believe that humanizing the company should have been foremost in their strategy. My recommendation would have been to hire consultants who were low profile, but who were still well qualified to represent the company, and to develop a “Community Relations Center” which has a friendlier feel, and puts the idea of community back into the Wal-Mart public image. Rather than simply defending against accusations, this Community Relations Center could also focus on preventative measures to public relations crisis, such as helping the communities they do business in, thus developing goodwill as well as retaliating to accusations made by their critics.
7) If you were Wal-Mart’s public relations director, what would be your overall communications philosophy for the rest of the decade?
Wal-Mart is a large company that now spans the globe. Its reach extends outside of the average company, and its policies should reflect the scope of its operations. Because this company is so much in the public eye, its public relations strategies should focus on open and honest communication with the press, and its surrounding communities. The goal should be to turn Wal-Mart back into the family-friendly, community-friendly store it once was. When people think of Wal-Mart, they should not think of it as just another cold, profit-hungry conglomerate, they should be able to think of Wal-Mart, and visualize their local store, and associate the good prices, and good service that Wal-Mart prides itself on. Too much focus has been on the corporation, and the executives of the company. I believe that future public relations should be figureheaded by some of the 1.2 million Americans employed by the company. This will distract from the corporate image of the company, which has become a negative in recent history, and focus on the working person, which is relatable to all Americans, and much more positive in its message.
8) How do you think companies are dealing with the issues of corporate social responsibility in the wake of numerous corporate scandals in recent years?
I believe that many of the recent corporate scandals were handled poorly. There was a lot of cover-up, and hiding of facts that just ended up surfacing later, and creating a bigger crisis for the company. Rather than trying to cover up corporate scandal, the culprits of these scandals should have been denounced by their companies, and facts should have been presented clearly. By doing this, the companies could have separated themselves from a few bad employees, and some could have been saved. Rather than doing this, facts were concealed, and executives were protected, thus creating further mistrust of the company ending in their downfall.
9) How do you believe Wal-Mart officials handled the issues from a public relations standpoint?
I believe that Wal-Mart officials handled the issues poorly at first, and were so busy playing catch-up that they just weren’t able to handle the issues as they should have. Because the original PR strategy was purely non-communication, the goodwill that should have been there in support from the community was not there, so they had no foothold to get out of the crisis they were constantly presented with. If they had just begun with an open and honest communications strategy, I believe that there would have been more support from the community, which is paramount to restoring a company’s image once it has been attacked.
10) When visiting the site www.wal-mart.com be sure to review current news releases. What is the overall tone and direction of the recent releases listed?
Wal-Mart has really increased their involvement in the communities they are in, and have also worked on emphasizing their corporate social responsibility. One effort in particular is a great PR strategy in establishing funding for advertising campaigns for greener lifestyles. Although the push seems that they are just jumping on the “green” bandwagon, at least they are acknowledging that they need to keep up with their social responsibilities and involve themselves in activities that benefit more than just their bottom line. They have become more community oriented, and are doing a lot more in the way of sponsorships and funding for community projects. This is a good direction for the company to go in, and aligns with what my recommendations have been thus far, creating a more human side to such a large corporation.
11) If Wal-Mart had a similar crisis now, how do you think they would weather the storm? Why?
I believe that Wal-Mart has learned from its PR mistakes of the past. Their efforts to establish a Community-based face and generate goodwill to their public directly is a clear indication that they are a more open and relatable company. I believe that if they were faced with a similar crisis today, it would be addressed directly, and in a way that does more than try to pacify a situation. They have proved that once criticisms are found to be true, they accept the facts, and attempt to rectify the situation, and I believe this is what they would do in the future. As long as they continue to be open with the public, and continue in their development of corporate social responsibility that is in line with the progress of those in their industry (or better) I believe that Wal-Mart will begin to regain the goodwill it once had in the eyes of the public.
