The question of whether big-box stores such as Walmart pay fair wages and give back sufficiently to communities stirs rancorous debate, from newspaper editorials to U.S. senators.
But when New York Times writer Timothy Egan blasted the brand in a recent column headlined “The Corporate Daddy,” Walmart sought to use humor to hit back at alleged inaccuracies.
Highlighting the shifting dynamics between brands and media outlets in the social media age, a company official offered a “fact check” on its website. He marked up Egan’s copy with an editor’s red ink and then pushed the reply on Twitter.
“Tim: Thanks for sharing your first draft,” wrote David Tovar, Walmart’s vice president of corporate communications, in a statement published on its website. “Below are a few thoughts to ensure something inaccurate doesn’t get published. Hope this helps.”
Egan got Walmart’s goat by asserting the company is a poor corporate citizen offering low wages that force employees to get public assistance from food stamps, Medicaid, and other forms of welfare. He compared Walmart unfavorably to Starbucks.
“As long as the Supreme Court says that corporations are citizens, they may as well act like them,” Egan wrote, adding that the nation’s largest public corporation “is a net drain on taxpayers, forcing employees into public assistance with its poverty-wage structure.”
The charges take on significance at a company that tops the Fortune 500 list. Walmart employs 2.2 million people worldwide, 1.3 million of them in the U.S.
Adopting a just-trying-to-be-helpful tone, Tovar laid out the chain’s rebuttal to the suggestion that it doesn’t pay its share of taxes. “We are the largest taxpayer in America,” he wrote. “Can we see your math?”
The company also pushed back on the notion that its pay forces people into public assistance.
“We see more associates move off of public assistance as a result of their job at Walmart,” Tovar wrote.
Walmart replied to several writers and influencers who had tweeted Egan’s piece on Twitter. Among them was New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse. In what must have been a victory for the company, Greenhouse also tweeted Walmart’s reply.
In his column, Egan noted a sign that appeared at a Walmart in Ohio last year, “asking people to donate food so that the company’s employees ‘could enjoy Thanksgiving.’” He called this “a perfect symbol of what’s wrong with the nation’s most despised retailer.”
Tovar responded, “To clarify, associates were helping associates during unexpected hard times (fires, divorce, loss of life, etc.). And a noble cause, no doubt.”
When Egan writes of Starbucks, “the company has long been a leader in providing decent wages, stock and retirement benefits, and health care—even for part-time employees,” Tovar red-inks it to read “both companies have...”
The New York Times shrugged off Walmart’s pushback. Eileen M. Murphy, vice president of corporate communications, stated in an email, “Walmart is certainly entitled to its opinion but that doesn't change the facts presented in the column. They have not asked for a correction.”
Walmart did not immediately respond after I left a phone message and filled out its online media contact form. (By the way, folks: Those forms annoy reporters for just this reason—you never know whether the message has been delivered.)
Others saw Walmart’s response, including social media, as a smart move.
“A few years ago, the company would have been forced to write a letter to the Times and hope it was printed,” Tripp Frohlichstein, owner of Media Masters Training, said in an email.
Walmart’s reply drew an article in the conservative Daily Caller and the libertarian Cato Institute.
Isn’t it risky to challenge a company that buys ink by the barrel? Frohlichstein doesn’t think so.
“Walmart is big enough to take on The New York Times,” he said. “They could either ignore it and see public opinion (potentially) further swayed against the retail giant or they can fight back. The key in fighting back, though, is that Walmart needs to be accurate in its rebuttal.”
@r_working
But when New York Times writer Timothy Egan blasted the brand in a recent column headlined “The Corporate Daddy,” Walmart sought to use humor to hit back at alleged inaccuracies.
Highlighting the shifting dynamics between brands and media outlets in the social media age, a company official offered a “fact check” on its website. He marked up Egan’s copy with an editor’s red ink and then pushed the reply on Twitter.
“Tim: Thanks for sharing your first draft,” wrote David Tovar, Walmart’s vice president of corporate communications, in a statement published on its website. “Below are a few thoughts to ensure something inaccurate doesn’t get published. Hope this helps.”
Egan got Walmart’s goat by asserting the company is a poor corporate citizen offering low wages that force employees to get public assistance from food stamps, Medicaid, and other forms of welfare. He compared Walmart unfavorably to Starbucks.
“As long as the Supreme Court says that corporations are citizens, they may as well act like them,” Egan wrote, adding that the nation’s largest public corporation “is a net drain on taxpayers, forcing employees into public assistance with its poverty-wage structure.”
The charges take on significance at a company that tops the Fortune 500 list. Walmart employs 2.2 million people worldwide, 1.3 million of them in the U.S.
Adopting a just-trying-to-be-helpful tone, Tovar laid out the chain’s rebuttal to the suggestion that it doesn’t pay its share of taxes. “We are the largest taxpayer in America,” he wrote. “Can we see your math?”
The company also pushed back on the notion that its pay forces people into public assistance.
“We see more associates move off of public assistance as a result of their job at Walmart,” Tovar wrote.
Walmart replied to several writers and influencers who had tweeted Egan’s piece on Twitter. Among them was New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse. In what must have been a victory for the company, Greenhouse also tweeted Walmart’s reply.
In his column, Egan noted a sign that appeared at a Walmart in Ohio last year, “asking people to donate food so that the company’s employees ‘could enjoy Thanksgiving.’” He called this “a perfect symbol of what’s wrong with the nation’s most despised retailer.”
Tovar responded, “To clarify, associates were helping associates during unexpected hard times (fires, divorce, loss of life, etc.). And a noble cause, no doubt.”
When Egan writes of Starbucks, “the company has long been a leader in providing decent wages, stock and retirement benefits, and health care—even for part-time employees,” Tovar red-inks it to read “both companies have...”
The New York Times shrugged off Walmart’s pushback. Eileen M. Murphy, vice president of corporate communications, stated in an email, “Walmart is certainly entitled to its opinion but that doesn't change the facts presented in the column. They have not asked for a correction.”
Walmart did not immediately respond after I left a phone message and filled out its online media contact form. (By the way, folks: Those forms annoy reporters for just this reason—you never know whether the message has been delivered.)
Others saw Walmart’s response, including social media, as a smart move.
“A few years ago, the company would have been forced to write a letter to the Times and hope it was printed,” Tripp Frohlichstein, owner of Media Masters Training, said in an email.
Walmart’s reply drew an article in the conservative Daily Caller and the libertarian Cato Institute.
Isn’t it risky to challenge a company that buys ink by the barrel? Frohlichstein doesn’t think so.
“Walmart is big enough to take on The New York Times,” he said. “They could either ignore it and see public opinion (potentially) further swayed against the retail giant or they can fight back. The key in fighting back, though, is that Walmart needs to be accurate in its rebuttal.”
@r_working
No comments:
Post a Comment