Mega-retailer answers critics with new slogan
HATCHET
By Lucas Roebuck
Wal-Mart unveiled the first major change in its marketing slogan in nearly two decades — a sign the retailer knows it will have to perpetually invest in upgrading its image, because bluevest enemies aren’t going away.
“Everyday Low Prices. Always.” has been supplanted by “Save Money. Live Better.”
Both slogans incorporate the low-price philosophy that has propelled Wal-Mart from being a folksy discount store into the largest retail powerhouse in history.
Essentially, the first part of the new slogan is a condensed version of the old slogan. What is the point of everyday low prices except to save the customer money ? The second part of the new slogan — live better — is clearly an answer to Wal-Mart’s detractors who claim that Wal-Mart is bad overall for America.
Being big means the people who make a living as professional whiners... err... activists see you as a financial opportunity. If you want the faithful to send you money, just show them a devil. Labor, isolationists, “ social justice, ” and other activist groups have all profited handsomely from painting Wal-Mart as how Lucifer himself would run a business.
No one could argue with Wal-Mart’s efficiency, which has made more products available to more people at lower prices than ever before. “ The single most-noted advantage that Wal-Mart enjoys over its supermarket competition is distribution efficiency. The food retailers are extremely inefficient versus Wal-Mart, ” Deborah Weinswig, a Smith Barney analyst, told Mike Duff of DSN Retailing Today in 2003.
But critics said the price of low prices was too high, and to some degree, Wal-Mart took a public relations beating because people bought into the concept that doing business with Wal-Mart was some sort of Faustian pact. You may get low prices now, but someday, the devil will come for your soul, critics claimed.
Of course, this is hogwash. Wal-Mart isn’t perfect, but Sam Walton was not building an empire for Beelzebub, either. In fact, Wal-Mart’s low-price obsession has led to an improvement in the quality of life for all Americans by controlling inflation. Even if you don’t shop at Wal-Mart, the smiley-faced retailer’s fierce dedication to cost control has forced others to keep prices low.
Furthermore, Wal-Mart’s entry into the grocery business over the past two decades has forced the prices of essentials down, something that benefits the poorest Americans.
Steve Greenhouse, writing for The New York Times on Nov. 5, 2005, reported, “ The best news for Wal-Mart was that a respected economic forecasting firm, Global Insight, found that by keeping its prices low and pressuring rival retailers over the last 19 years, Wal-Mart has kept the Consumer Price Index 3. 1 percent below what it would have otherwise been. ” (Wal-Mart is one of Global Insight’s 3, 800 clients. )
In short, more people have more access to goods and services (many of them basic food staples ) for lower prices than ever before because of Wal-Mart. Hence, Wal-Mart helps people to “ Live Better.”
Wal-Mart’s new marketing campaign attempts to quantify how much better people live because of the money Wal-Mart shoppers save. The savings figure came up with $ 2, 500 per household per year. I can see Wal-Mart following up with commercial spots on its moves to make its stores more environmentally friendly, and the benevolence work that is done by employees in each store.
The new slogan is right for Wal-Mart. The old slogan spent the last 20 years reminding us that Wal-Mart stood for low prices, and few can argue with the fact that Wal-Mart is synonymous with inexpensive goods.
By changing the slogan, Wal-Mart is getting the point of saving money — i. e., to make life better — into the forum of ideas, feelings, and values that guide our decision-making process, including where we shop.
For Wal-Mart’s public image, the new “ Live Better” slogan’s time has definitely come. Ironically, living better is something Wal-Mart has been helping its customers do since Sam Walton opened his first store in Rogers in 1962.
###30###
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Abortion Bargain
Could political sacrifices be made to end the infanticide?
HATCHET
By Lucas Roebuck
Life-changing events often either shake or galvanize our most sacred values. I have always been extremely pro-life, against the termination of unique human life at any stage for any reason — with one exception: if the life of the mother was in certain jeopardy. Only then should the mother be allowed to authorize a physician to terminate the life of her unborn child.
If my wife had faced near-certain death in the process of delivering our child, she alone would have had to make the decision to terminate (or not ). Fortunately, when Cherissa gave birth to our second child, a baby girl, last week, both mother and Baby Maggie were healthy and happy. Maggie’s birth served to remind me why the fight against the slaughter of millions of unborn children must continue to be waged.
I have plenty of moral, ethical reasons for opposing abortion (separate from religious convictions ). In brief, I contend ultimate responsibility for protecting human life falls with the state. Scientifically, unique human life begins at conception, when the embryo has a genetic code that is entirely unique from his or her mother or father. DNA is the ultimate biological fingerprint, and once a unique human has been created, the state must take every reasonable step to protect that life. Banning surgical abortion is a reasonable step.
Holding Maggie in my arms transcends even my logical arguments, confirming the innate knowledge bestowed upon those who have a soul: Killing one’s own child is evil.
Many critics of the pro-life movement have rightly argued that our society does not do enough to help disadvantaged mothers and their newborn children. However, the lack of support (in some ways its own evil ) does not then justify the termination of human life.
Other critics argue — more weakly — that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, because many of the conservatives who preach against abortion are the strongest advocates of the death penalty. How can you believe in the “ sanctity of life, ” they argue, if you are willing to grant the state the power to revoke the life of an individual, something the state cannot undo ?
To place a moral equivalency between an innocent, unborn child who truly has done nothing wrong and, say, a rapist / murderer on death row is absurd even at face value. At least the murderer gets a trial before his or her execution.
As we enter the 2008 election cycle, I would like to propose a compromise for those seeking office to consider. Think of it as the great abortion bargain, or what the pro-life movement and our political allies should be willing to give up to stop the cold-blooded killing of the next generation.
In exchange for a “ sanctity of life ” constitutional amendment recognizing that life begins at conception and outlawing abortion (with an exception for high risk to the mother’s life ), Congress would pass a bill that would establish a socialized medicine program, guaranteeing medical care for all mothers and their children, from conception until their 18 th birthday. In addition, a generous budget would be allocated for social programs designed to help mothers and children — from child-care assistance to job training and / or college grants, from free “ food and diaper” programs to personal support network programs.
To address the concerns of those who oppose the death penalty, the “ sanctity of life ” constitutional amendment would also strictly prohibit capital punishment.
As I hear the newborn cries of my little girl, I am reminded that hundreds of thousands of little girls and boys like her are being silenced, condemned to death for the sin of inconvenience. The time for pro-life marches and other rhetorical flourishes was over decades ago. These half measures have been unsuccessful at ending the killings.
The time has come to bring abortion advocates to the table and make them a serious offer for a compromise that would halt the unending death. Abortion-rights advocates have been known for saying they too dislike abortion, but it is necessary because of how society neglects young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Let’s find out if they are serious.
Any presidential candidate who would show the leadership to broker such a compromise would have my vote, no matter if a D or R adorned his or her name on the ballot.
HATCHET
By Lucas Roebuck
Life-changing events often either shake or galvanize our most sacred values. I have always been extremely pro-life, against the termination of unique human life at any stage for any reason — with one exception: if the life of the mother was in certain jeopardy. Only then should the mother be allowed to authorize a physician to terminate the life of her unborn child.
If my wife had faced near-certain death in the process of delivering our child, she alone would have had to make the decision to terminate (or not ). Fortunately, when Cherissa gave birth to our second child, a baby girl, last week, both mother and Baby Maggie were healthy and happy. Maggie’s birth served to remind me why the fight against the slaughter of millions of unborn children must continue to be waged.
I have plenty of moral, ethical reasons for opposing abortion (separate from religious convictions ). In brief, I contend ultimate responsibility for protecting human life falls with the state. Scientifically, unique human life begins at conception, when the embryo has a genetic code that is entirely unique from his or her mother or father. DNA is the ultimate biological fingerprint, and once a unique human has been created, the state must take every reasonable step to protect that life. Banning surgical abortion is a reasonable step.
Holding Maggie in my arms transcends even my logical arguments, confirming the innate knowledge bestowed upon those who have a soul: Killing one’s own child is evil.
Many critics of the pro-life movement have rightly argued that our society does not do enough to help disadvantaged mothers and their newborn children. However, the lack of support (in some ways its own evil ) does not then justify the termination of human life.
Other critics argue — more weakly — that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, because many of the conservatives who preach against abortion are the strongest advocates of the death penalty. How can you believe in the “ sanctity of life, ” they argue, if you are willing to grant the state the power to revoke the life of an individual, something the state cannot undo ?
To place a moral equivalency between an innocent, unborn child who truly has done nothing wrong and, say, a rapist / murderer on death row is absurd even at face value. At least the murderer gets a trial before his or her execution.
As we enter the 2008 election cycle, I would like to propose a compromise for those seeking office to consider. Think of it as the great abortion bargain, or what the pro-life movement and our political allies should be willing to give up to stop the cold-blooded killing of the next generation.
In exchange for a “ sanctity of life ” constitutional amendment recognizing that life begins at conception and outlawing abortion (with an exception for high risk to the mother’s life ), Congress would pass a bill that would establish a socialized medicine program, guaranteeing medical care for all mothers and their children, from conception until their 18 th birthday. In addition, a generous budget would be allocated for social programs designed to help mothers and children — from child-care assistance to job training and / or college grants, from free “ food and diaper” programs to personal support network programs.
To address the concerns of those who oppose the death penalty, the “ sanctity of life ” constitutional amendment would also strictly prohibit capital punishment.
As I hear the newborn cries of my little girl, I am reminded that hundreds of thousands of little girls and boys like her are being silenced, condemned to death for the sin of inconvenience. The time for pro-life marches and other rhetorical flourishes was over decades ago. These half measures have been unsuccessful at ending the killings.
The time has come to bring abortion advocates to the table and make them a serious offer for a compromise that would halt the unending death. Abortion-rights advocates have been known for saying they too dislike abortion, but it is necessary because of how society neglects young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Let’s find out if they are serious.
Any presidential candidate who would show the leadership to broker such a compromise would have my vote, no matter if a D or R adorned his or her name on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
