scapegoating wal*mart

Bud Phibbs, "The Retail Doctor", had a letter in the 10-20-03 Ad Age on the "Damage Done by the Wal*Mart Model." In it he asks

Have you noticed how all that is left of most major brands is a shell of the greatness marketing and advertising built for them over the past several generations?

He explicitly indicts Wal*Mart:

And as everything from hotel rooms to soap, from fashion to beer loses its unique selling proposition, we'll point back to who led the assault-- and the fingers will point to Wal*Mart.

Phibbs lays the blame at the wrong door. If brand marketers opt to sell in volume at Wal*Mart, even at the expense of their brand identity and USP, then they have already lost faith in their brand. That isn't Wal*Mart's fault; there is no reason they should have more respect for the brand than the brand-owners.

One of the most difficult challenges for brand managers is knowing when a marginal increase in sales does more damage to brand value than it adds in profits. That is partly an intellectual problem, but it is even more a question of will and discipline. You have to be brave enough to say no to revenue today in order to preserve margins next year.

The plain truth is that many "great" brands were and are owned by companies that do not take brands seriously. When times are good, they accept the praise, profits and valuation that comes from having a popular brand. But when times are tough, they will push discounts and ignore the damage to the long-term health of the brand.