Chewing the fat one day with the host of Tribe TV and discovered he doesn't spend his nights deciding what shoes to wear at the next shoot:
""The Wal-Martification Of The Infoedutainment
Industry" is a popular media critique chapbook soon to
be published by The Famous' lead vocalist Laurence
Scott.
"Wal-Martification" explores modern pop cultural
hegemony brought upon by new international corporate
pricing demands.
It opens with a brief look at the oft-demonized, yet
perhaps misunderstood, brick-and-mortar monolith
Wal-Mart:
The most powerful retailer in the history of time,
Wal-Mart, a global trade pipeline originating in
Bentonville, Arkansas, proudly boasts 'rolling back'
everyday low prices. What Wal-Mart has actually
rolled back is the advancements of the American worker
-- about 85 years -- while perpetuating a bread and
circus culture of the $3 gallon pickle jar. Suppliers
to the mega retail chain have increasingly begun to
shift factory production overseas to survive
Wal-Mart's pricing demands. Let it not be lost that
the jovial, roll back smiley face on the Wal-Mart
commercials is fluttering about to the tune of
'Working In The Coal Mine.'
The Wal-Martification Of The Infoedutainment
Industry" is slated to available as a stocking stuffer
for the 2005 holiday season."
Rolled back the status of whom? The worker?
You obviously have not visited your neighborhood Wal-Mart lately. I have yet to see college professors tending the makeup counter. Nor have I seen collegiates assisting in the swim suit sections.
Posted by: john | February 11, 2005 at 11:29 AM
I have to say that you make a good point, but I can't stop going there after I just got a heating blanket for shit cold Davis for $35, rolled-back from $47. If Wallmart didn't do it, then someone else will. It's the way the economy is set to work. Unless a company has some sort of proprietary information, that industry will keep getting more competitors until the profit is zero. Basically, people will keep entering the market as long as there are profits to be made. Can't stop it by stopping Wallmart. Actaully, you should root for them so that they will become a monopoly and the government will step in.
Posted by: Matt Lee | February 13, 2005 at 01:44 AM
Hey there john slow down before steam starts coming off your head. This is a blurb from a friend's upcoming book. But I must say Walmart makes me sick although if wireless networks, probably first in the form of mobile phones for those in the midwest, will enable the masses to become more like smart mobs than masses and choose amazon or an alternative with flavor over Walmart.
Posted by: Eric Jones | February 13, 2005 at 11:15 PM
ok, but what makes Amazon different than walmart? just because jeff bezos drives a honda rather than a mercedes; that makes them a better alternative? both are capitalistic companies striving for the same goal: increased market share, for ultimately more money in their pockets. why is that such a bad thing these days anyway?
Posted by: john | February 14, 2005 at 09:00 AM
You're absolutely right John, the hegemonic effects of juggernauts like Walmart and Amazon can be costly to the surrounding culture both in physical and cyber space.
I hear all the talk about Walmart and its grip on the suppliers and that the government pays more in medicare to their employees than blah blah blah but to tell you the truth what bothers me the most isn't the tangible proof but the feeling I get when I see a big ugly Walmart with fat campers and SUV's outside sucking any distinguishable energies that community once had.
Posted by: Eric Jones | February 14, 2005 at 09:31 AM
in defense of Amazon, and i realize that in itself might be an indefensible statement, they are investing in some neat things that seem to add to the public space of culture, like the A9 search engine, and other things like 43 things that let people join together to do things they want to do, work on goals they want to achieve. wal mart's cultural impact and its economic impact is deadening. i don't find that to be true of amazon
Posted by: kevin jones | March 12, 2005 at 11:14 PM
why is walmart's cultural impact deadening? have they not raised the standard of living for most, if not all, Americans by making everyday goods more affordable; hence, leaving more money in their pockets to spend at their discretion?
Posted by: heintz | March 14, 2005 at 08:21 AM
I think everyone should read these Pulitzer-prize winning pieces from the LA Times on the "Walmart Effect"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-walmart-sg,1,1534896.storygallery
Walmart might be good for consumers in the short run, but in the long run it is terrible for the community as a whole. US jobs are lost as suppliers are forced to move operations overseas to meet Walmart's demands for low prices. Health care costs must be absorbed by local communities because Walmart won't spring for healthcare for it's workers. Walmart is also the target of a large-class action lawsuit because of it's discriminatory practices against women.
Posted by: Victor Barclay | May 26, 2005 at 03:09 PM