By Steve Adubato, PhD

It’s no secret that Wal-Mart has experienced significant communication and public relations problems. The Wal-Mart brand and image have been taking hits in the public marketplace for years. There are web sites that are exclusively dedicated to criticizing Wal-Mart including www.wakeupwalmart.com.

If you log on to Yahoo or Google, you will see millions of postings critical of the company. Some of it fair, some of it not, but much of it related to the poor communication strategy undertaken by Wal-Mart executives over the past decade.

Early on, when criticism of Wal-Mart’s hiring practices surfaced on a series of Internet sites connected to unions and religious groups, the company decided to ignore the criticism. Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott apparently felt that responding to the criticism would give it added validity. That was a mistake. Over time, the opposition’s momentum grew and the criticism of Wal-Mart began to take on a life of its own.

Wal-Mart’s opponents engaged in a shrewd and effective communication strategy by framing the issue in a very simple and understandable way. Their position was Wal-Mart was engaging in hiring practices that were unfair to minorities and they had a terrible track record of hiring and promoting women. In fact, the New York based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, headed by Sister Patricia Wolf, got into the public dialogue together with the Sisters of Charity and filed a series of shareholder resolutions at Wal-Mart’s annual meetings criticizing the companies hiring and promotion practices. But again, Wal-Mart opted not to respond. Ignoring nuns is not smart.

When the negative publicity and criticism reached the boiling point, and media reports surfaced about possible illegal surveillance operations within Wal-Mart, the company finally decided to respond.

CEO Lee Scott opted to communicate with key media organizations, including the New York Times, except when he sat down to get his message across, it was not only too late, he was ill-prepared. When asked about Wal-Mart moving into the New York market (where there was significant opposition to the company) Scott responded; “I don’t care if we are ever here.” That only made things worse. Wal-Mart’s CEO was vilified for his comments, which he tried to clarify later. But again, it was too late. The damage was done.

Some within Wal-Mart may criticize the media for what they call “unfair or biased reporting” or may claim they haven’t had the opportunity to communicate their story to the larger public. Some of that may be true, but the larger issue is that much of Wal-Mart’s image problem is a product of not practicing smart and strategic communication. They didn’t understand how they were being perceived by key audiences and how their opponents could use the Internet to portray the company in a negative light.

Right or wrong, fair or not, Wal-Mart is seen by millions of Americans as a company that is insensitive to certain populations and engages in labor practices that are less than fair. It is a company that failed to respond to criticism with a pro-active, positive story, about what it was doing right and what people needed to know about the company’s track record. Now it is playing catch-up.
Over-reacting and panicking to public criticism is one thing. Communicating in a defensive and weak fashion is never a good thing. Responding to every charge and accusation is also not smart. However, ignoring the groundswell of public opinion and opposition out of a combination of ignorance and apathy is even more dangerous because sooner or later, prominent individuals or organizations must get a message out. The longer you take to allow others to frame your image and reputation, the harder it is to do this. Wal-Mart had to learn the hard way, but these lessons should not be lost on others who must communicate and compete in a challenging and ever-changing communication environment.