Walmart stops selling "racy" men's magazines

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-05-08 10:31am

I think Walmart own ASDA over here in England now. They ain't managed to kill off Tesco and co. yet.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-08 10:34am

Sebastin wrote:You don´t need to fear the evil Walmart empire if you just protect yourself with an grueling domestic competition.

In germany, Walmart started 5 years ago by overtaking a profitable local chain and since then managed to:

-barely keep their market share (5%)
-while selling their entire product range underpriced (illegal in germany for anything but short periods)
-produce 100mil loss in the first year
-double their loss every year arriving at about 2bill now
-wasting 9 general region managers.

And during all this they pull of the astounding feat of STILL having on average 10% higher prices than their main local competitors, who work highly profitable by the way.

Just a question: Can this be blamed on protectionist economic policy??

I do not know much about German politics, but the EU's common trade policies point in that direction.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-08 11:00am

Sebastin wrote:You don´t need to fear the evil Walmart empire if you just protect yourself with an grueling domestic competition.

In germany, Walmart started 5 years ago by overtaking a profitable local chain and since then managed to:

-barely keep their market share (5%)
-while selling their entire product range underpriced (illegal in germany for anything but short periods)
-produce 100mil loss in the first year
-double their loss every year arriving at about 2bill now
-wasting 9 general region managers.

And during all this they pull of the astounding feat of STILL having on average 10% higher prices than their main local competitors, who work highly profitable by the way.

Target is far more popular than Wal-Mart in the upper Midwest anyway. Probably has something to do with it being a Midwestern-based store.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-08 01:51pm

I'm really not a fan of Wal-Mart, especially recently. They don't have a variety of things to choose from in some departments, the one I've been to had ceiling tiles installed, making it all clastrophobic, and the service sucked. Taking men's magazines off the shelves isn't helping. But perhaps the thing I hate most about them is that in my county (Westmoreland)alone, there are about 5 Wal-Marts, with another one planned. The eyesores block traffic, and the new one will probably clog up the highway it's near.

That's why I prefer Target, as it has a wider variety of goods, it's marketing isn't influenced by prudes and soccer moms, and it's not desperate to build stores all over my county. Because of that, I'll forgive them for their stupid commercials.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-05-08 02:01pm

Do what I do, buy CDs from other stores. Fuck the price, fuck the censorship! I'll take my business to the Target 30 miles down the interstate.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-08 02:25pm

I despise Wal-Mart. They're finally building one in my township...so now Cooper Street is going to be so overcrowded you'll wait through multiple cycles before you can get through stoplights, and it'll be the death blow to whatever local outfits haven't been ruined by the Mall.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-08 03:06pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:That's why I prefer Target, as it has a wider variety of goods, it's marketing isn't influenced by prudes and soccer moms, and it's not desperate to build stores all over my county. Because of that, I'll forgive them for their stupid commercials.

Yup. Shop Target. Marshall Field's and Mervyn's too, while you're at it.

And I don't just say this because it's a Minnesota business and I'm (for the one or two people who haven't been paying attention) rather gung-ho about my home state. They've got a good business model and they're one of the best employers in the country.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-05-08 04:24pm

Oh come on! Like Wal-mart has had anything of REAL value in the first place! Seriously, when was the last time anyone here found something decent in that lame ass store? Fuck them! Their only redeeming value is that they'll take ANYTHING back, doesn't matter if you bought it from them or not. Doesn't matter if you have a reciept or not, they'll still take it.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-09 05:34pm

Gah, Wall Mart. I prefer Target (and there was much rejoicing when Target decided to move into the Tampa Bay area), but sometimes Wall Mart is cheaper.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 06:10pm

That's why I prefer Target, as it has a wider variety of goods, it's marketing isn't influenced by prudes and soccer moms, and it's not desperate to build stores all over my county. Because of that, I'll forgive them for their stupid commercials.

The hell Target's marketing isn't influenced by soccer moms.

Have you tried to buy cigarettes or ammunition at Target? Target used to sell cigarettes but quit, and their competition sells ammunition and firearms but they don't for some reason.

The soccer mom set loathes guns and smokes, and I'll bet Target's policies on those items reflect that loathing.

Both chains are guilty of pandering. It's just that Wally World's pandering is to the 'religious right' and Target's is to the PC crowd.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-09 06:30pm

OK, quick reality check: Target never sold guns or ammo, ever (at least not in the span of my memory; which means at LEAST since the early 80s). So unless they started pandering to PC-ville before PC became a viable meme in the political culture, your argument falls flat there.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 06:37pm

Target never sold guns or ammo, ever (at least not in the span of my memory; which means at LEAST since the early 80s).

Aside from your disregarding Target's cigarette policy, I have a memory of Target selling shotgun shells (along with huntling licenses and other gear) locally back in the late 70's.

Edit: The memory is fuzzy. I could be thinking of Woolco.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-09 06:40pm

Well, I don't KNOW the rationale for their cigarette policy, but the fact that they haven't sold guns for at least 20 years suggests that this isn't exactly a johnny-come-lately policy.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 06:47pm

I'm not saying that the gun policy is a recent one, although I can see how my 'soccer mom' reference could be interpreted as saying so.

My fault for not being clearer.

My point is that when you look at their policies on goods such as guns and smokes (we don't sell them) and see all of the feel good 'social responibility' bullshit that Target places in their stores ('We give 5% of our profits to charity' stickers, etc), it sure adds up to the appearance of pandering to a certain segment of society. Add to that the knowledge that the Dayton family in Minnesota controls Target and that Mark Dayton (one of Minnesota's Senators) is as liberal as they come, and you'll see why I'm cynical when it comes to Target's motivations on the sale of certain products.

Target markets to a different demographic than Wal-Mart, hence the differing emphasis on what to sell.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-09 07:04pm

So... um... what's your point?

The fact is that Target Brands, LLC, unlike a certain competitor, doesn't deliberately market censored and altered products as the real thing; doesn't operate a corporate policy centered around infesting an area and driving out all competition; and does at least publically operate on the principle of leaving an area a little better than you found it. The fact that Target doesn't sell guns and smokes is completely irrelevant, because if you want them, you can easily find them in other stores.

And yeah, Target does market to a different demographic than Wal-Mart: People who aren't desperate to give their money away for shoddy goods.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-05-09 07:11pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I'm surprised no one has leapt up to defend the practice by saying "artists must realize that actions have consequences", the way they do for the Dixie Chicks boycott.

Well, I have refused to buy anything from WalMart since the story about the employee life insurance scam. I ararely bought from them before but now I flat refuse. So at least my do stay consistent with my boycott descisions.

'Course, I never bought Dixie Chicks "music" to begin with, either... (Gawd, Country music-- quick! Gimme a sharpened screwdriver! *pop*pop* go the eardrums-- "Ahh, much better!")

DarthBlight · Post by **DarthBlight** » 2003-05-09 07:24pm

If you think that is bad, you should see their personal injury tactics. They love to play fast and loose with discovery materials, particularly the most damning paperwork.

http:/ /www.clevescene.com/issues/2002-09-04/fe ... index.html (remove the space)

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 08:05pm

My point is that Target sometimes makes decisions on what products to sell based on considerations other than profit, the same thing that Wal Mart does at times.

Wal Mart did it with 'racy' magazines. Target did it with cigarettes.

If you're going to condemn wally world for refusing to sell Maxim (as stupid as the decision is), then be consistent and condemn Target for refusing to sell tobacco products.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 08:11pm

Glocksman wrote:My point is that Target sometimes makes decisions on what products to sell based on considerations other than profit, the same thing that Wal Mart does at times.

Wal Mart did it with 'racy' magazines. Target did it with cigarettes.

If you're going to condemn wally world for refusing to sell Maxim (as stupid as the decision is), then be consistent and condemn Target for refusing to sell tobacco products.

Tobacco products cause OBJECTIVE HARM. Racy magazines do not.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 08:22pm

Yes, they (cigarettes) do. I'm not saying that cigarettes are harmless.
Though given the choice between a pack of Camels and a copy of Maxim with Jolene Blalock in it, I'll take the Camels.

Both are legal products that wally world and target chose to cease the sale of for moral reasons.

russellb6666 · Post by **russellb6666** » 2003-05-09 09:49pm

Glocksman wrote:Yes, they (cigarettes) do. I'm not saying that cigarettes are harmless.
Though given the choice between a pack of Camels and a copy of Maxim with Jolene Blalock in it, I'll take the Camels.

Both are legal products that wally world and target chose to cease the sale of for moral reasons.

yeah but target had a good rason to get rid of cigs THEY WILL KILL YOU all maxim will do to you is give you a boner if that

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 09:59pm

Glocksman wrote:Both are legal products that wally world and target chose to cease the sale of for moral reasons.

Substitute "social conformist" for "moral" and that statement would apply to Wal-Mart. There is nothing immoral about pictures of naked girls.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-09 11:02pm

Substitute "social conformist" for "moral" and that statement would apply to Wal-Mart. There is nothing immoral about pictures of naked girls.

Not even of Jolene Blalock?

In your and my ethical universes, there is nothing immoral about pics of naked women. In the ethical universe of many of Wally World's customers (at least the ones who called and bitched), there apparently is something immoral about it.

Same thing applies to selling tobacco. To me there is nothing immoral about the act of selling tobacco, yet there are those who want to outlaw it.

Certain sales tactics and advertising by the tobacco companies may be immoral, but the sale of tobacco products to adults is not an immoral act per se

For the record, I used to smoke but quit 3 years ago.

Edit:

Let me amplify that the morality of selling a product that does objective harm to the user is based upon the user being aware of the conseqences of the use of the product and making the choice to use it regardless of risk.

Given that only a total idiot or a tobacco company shill would profess to be unaware of the link between various diseases and tobacco, IMHO the only morality issue re the sale of tobacco would be the sale of cigarettes to minors.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-09 11:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Glocksman wrote:My point is that Target sometimes makes decisions on what products to sell based on considerations other than profit, the same thing that Wal Mart does at times.

Wal Mart did it with 'racy' magazines. Target did it with cigarettes.

If you're going to condemn wally world for refusing to sell Maxim (as stupid as the decision is), then be consistent and condemn Target for refusing to sell tobacco products.
Tobacco products cause OBJECTIVE HARM. Racy magazines do not.

They do if it's Janeway porn.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-05-10 01:29am

Glocksman wrote:My point is that Target sometimes makes decisions on what products to sell based on considerations other than profit, the same thing that Wal Mart does at times.

Wal Mart did it with 'racy' magazines. Target did it with cigarettes.

If you're going to condemn wally world for refusing to sell Maxim (as stupid as the decision is), then be consistent and condemn Target for refusing to sell tobacco products.

I don't condemn Wal-Mart for refusing to sell Maxim. I think they're a bunch of pigheaded, anti-sex, Southern-fried morons because of it. I refuse to shop there because I think their business practices are repugnant and inconsistent with the business practices of establishments I prefer to patronize given a choice.

Within the market niche of "Discount Store," I have several choices in my area: Wal-Mart, K-Mart, ShopKo and Target. Of the four, K-Mart has a negative reputation to begin with (hence the rather unflattering nickname of "K-ma-part"), and Wal-Mart's business practices are unethical as hell, leaving them right out of the running. That leaves ShopKo and Target. Target is closer to my apartment than ShopKo. Decision made.

I really don't care if a store chooses to carry or not carry a product line that they feel is inconsistent with the management philosophy of the company; that is, after all, management's prerogative. Just like if you've got enough of a problem with it, you can go somewhere else. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's attitudes toward intellectual property and customer liability can take a flying fuck off a cliff and land in a briar patch.