Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

I think Wal*Mart has an image problem.

I’ve gone into their stores. Their stock assortment isn’t bad compared to the competition. In fact, aside from Whole Foods on the organic/bio side of things, they measure up very well and better compared to their competition. They are more of a hypermart where you can do one stop shopping ala Carrefour.

The issues I see are: very drab color palette. Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

They could likely address this by having a second more upscale brand.

View on HN

Observations about the nearest Wal-Mart:

1) All the employees look sad, all he time.

2) They've obviously carefully tuned their check out staffing so that the lines are always long. This is such a constant that it has to be intentional, and they're doing a good job of it.

3) Sometimes they attempt to check receipts at exit. I don't get that at any other non-membership store.

4) All the shoppers look sad.

5) It's the only place I know where I am 100% guaranteed to smell both strong cigarette odor and way too-strong perfume application multiple times per visit.

6) The shoppers are uniquely talentless when it comes to existing in space without being in others' way. I don't see this anywhere else. It always feels 3x as busy as it is both because they cram the aisles full of crap, and because no-one knows how to walk or stand without being in the way. It's bizarre.

7) The most prominently-placed thing on entering the building is a row of gambling machines. I shit you not. They're directly ahead, and you have to veer right to enter the actual shopping area. That definitely sets a tone.

Most of these are true at any other Wal-Mart I visit. I avoid them most of the time, despite their having much lower prices than, say, target. The visits take longer and are miserable. Their weird interior color choices (WTF is up with that dirty-looking orangey-yellow?!) and something they do with the lighting (can't put my finger on it, it's just drab and dingy) make it even worse.

I'm about 90% sure that Wal-Mart didn't used to be this gross and unpleasant.

Varies by store.

The Walmart near me isn't like this. Only #2 is true.

Walmart is probably the #1 big box store where I live. Everyone shops there, rich and poor alike. It's clean, the people are fine and the staff are as happy as any other big box store staff. The Walmarts in the adjacent towns are similar. Most Walmarts I've seen are about like this. The tire center will have a Festiva in one bay and a Tesla in the nest

The Walmart near my work is very different. Way more dismal in all the ways you've described. I dunno about the gambling thing, that may vary by state and I've never seen it anywhere. But where I work has enough wealthy people to support other stores so the Walmart clientele is much poorer on average. I've been in probably a dozen Walmarts over the years and it's by far the worst.

Most of what you're observing is simply a reflection of the area demographics.

It's similar to visiting a small town DMV.

Your description of gambling machines reminds me of my last visit back home in IL, after they legalized gambling. It's very jarring to walk past locals glued to video slot machines at 9AM in a gas station. It's depressing as hell, I'm sure the walmarts have cashed in on the action too but I didn't visit one while there.

I don't think it fits quite as tightly in that description. I've been to many many walmarts and exactly one hasn't felt sad.

They've installed these gates at the walmart nearest to me that essentially force you to walk through a checkout line even if you don't end up buying anything. Most necessities are locked in cases and I always struggle to find the single employee with the key to any particular case, who then has to follow me to the checkout and have me pay for the item immediately.

The H-E-B two miles down the road is significantly nicer in almost every capacity and only marginally more expensive. The time I save not waiting in checkout lines (I scan everything on my phone at H-E-B then bag it while I shop) and looking for keys quite literally makes up the price difference and then some.

yep, I've shifted buying such locked up things online for in store pickup. It was totally annoying to have such a drag on time buzzing someone repeatedly to come and unlock. They should actually post a notice on the locked cabinets saying, "avoid the wait, order these products online for instore pickup"

I don't know why this is downvoted and I don't know why I didn't think of this comparison.

I've lived in five different states and been to Walmarts and flipped cars and the variance is EXACTLY like variance in DMVs in both QoS, clientele/employee demographics.

Right, the DMV has a monopoly on a service most adults require. There are competitors for simple services like registration renewal @ AAA, but that's less available in smaller communities. So when you go to a DMV somewhere there's only one DMV serving the region, it's a pretty good cross-section of local society.

Another interesting window in this vein is the local courthouse. The smaller towns don't separate out traffic violations from everything else, it's all on display handled in one room. You can get a sense of what's going on and the type of people in a given small town rather quickly this way.

When there's just one grocer serving a given area, it's effectively the same situation. But when competition eventually arrives, I think they tend to quickly divide along class boundaries.

Around here there's only one grocery store in my local town, and as a result it's actually pretty decent. The exact same chain has a very similar store in a significantly larger town ~25 miles away, where there's a competing upper-class grocer in the adjacent lot. The effect is devastating on the mediocre chain. Customers are treated poorly, the place is a filthy mess, cashiers aren't even trusted enough to manually enter prices when a barcode won't scan. The contrast is shocking, just next door in the higher end grocer none of these problems are experienced, but the prices are slightly higher.

Profit per dollar for grocery stores is about half of one cent for every dollar of revenue. Shrinkage eats into that profit very quickly.

This is why Walgreens is closing stores in SF. They cannot survive with the rampant unprosecuted shoplifting in SF.

That profit margin sounds very off. Is there a reference you are using to determine that? For an average $200 bill the store makes 1 dollar?

Every time I hear people talking about "grocery store margins" the numbers get smaller and smaller, and I suspect "Hollywood accounting" may be behind some of the numbers people are thinking/repeating.

I can say some of the shops around here have always been pricey, but a Lidl came in to town and manages to undercut every other store by around 30% on pretty much every comparable item. Overall, stores making 0.5% profit simply doesn't add up. We've got more new chains moving in to the area, existing stores moving (merely half a mile away for access to better demographics), and this is all costing tens of millions in construction alone. Note: I realize that other regions may have store closures to balance this out too - some areas boom, others shrink.

I can not believe multi-billion companies would be putting up tens/hundreds of millions to chase after these minuscule (and apparently shrinking) profit margins. Maybe I'm wrong. Or perhaps this meme of "grocery stores never make a profit!" is wrong, or at least overblown. A quick check up of a regional store indicates their net profit is somewhere around 2.3% of sales volume - not stellar, but not terribly close to 0.5% either.

EDIT: bit more info/breakdown on the subject: https://thegrocerystoreguy.com/what-is-the-profit-margin-for...

EDIT 2: FWIW, on your $200 example, the company making 'only' $1, it's probably more like $4-$5, but that's after all other expenses (labor, inventory, insurance, advertising, etc) is factored in.

It is pretty easy to search for 10-K for all the big retail companies. They all show sub 5% profit margins, frequently in the 2% to 3% range. It is a pretty cut throat business.

Lidl is probably coming in and destroying competition by running leaner operations with less payroll due to not having to deal with legacy unions. It happens and has happens in many businesses (see declining real wages for past few decades for bottom 3 quintiles), but a lot of the “growth” in retail comes from cutting labor costs.

I did reference looking up numbers for a regional chain - net profit was 2.3% - this is still > 4x higher than 0.5%. I don't doubt some operate (for a while) at a sub 1% profit, but have to imagine those end up closing down eventually. Per the article I linked to, there was reference to smaller operations that focus on 'upscale' services may be north of 5% net profits (but are likely doing less volume overall).

Lidl likely is 'winning' there (if indeed there's legacy union component to their pricing). They also scaled back their expansion plans. The one by us is moderately large, and newer ones (and future planned ones) are (and will be ) smaller.

Within a 3 mile radius, we have a Walmart, Lidl, Aldi, Target, Wegmans, Lowes, Food Lion, Harris Teeter, Lowes, and Harris Teeter (yes, 2 Lowes and 2 Harris Teeters). This is in North Carolina - some of these are regional chains. The Lowes and HT have historically been some of the consistently highest prices for anything, and I'm honestly baffled how people can afford to shop there regularly.

Yes, perhaps keeping a bit more money 'local' (vs that money going out of state) might be a 'good thing', somehow, but it's hard for me to justify it. Perhaps, if there's real benefit, they need to do some better PR. Or perhaps they have, and everyone else 'gets it', and I've just not heard it?

I wanted a bag of frozen cherries. Local HT - 'name brand' was $5.25. HT store brand was ~$4.25. Walmart store brand was ~$3. Target store brand was $1.89. (same sizes for all - all late 2019 prices from memory). I have a hard time justifying spending 100% more for generic brand stuff. Cheeses, milk, bread, cereals, eggs, meats - our local HT is almost always at least 50% more than the Lidl or Target or Walmart. Maybe these disparities aren't as great in other regions, and this will shake itself out eventually?

EDIT: found some HT numbers from a few years ago that indicated their net profit was closer to 3.6%. They also have a profit sharing program, which may account for aiming for a higher profit percent.

Depends on the outfit, some are better than others, but this source[1] puts the ave at 2.2%. I knew an mgr at one of these and they told me 0.5% to 1%.

[1]https://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22...

I would have to guess, that Walgreens is going out of business, because they are the one store which hasn't ever improved their POS methodology beyond what we used to find in Sears, or Rite-Aid, holy cow, I've not forgotten, what did they used to be called ? Lol. I go to Walgreens to buy cigarettes because I know and live around the checkers who work there, but it is always a complete disaster. Today, was a perfect example. They "found" a device on the pin pad, and it took 10 minutes to find people in the store to man another register, then look at it, make sure it wasn't compromised, and there were 15 people in line. But par for the course in there. There will be 10 people lined up at the front, and they'll still man cosmetic and photo stations with no customers, and never really reposition employees. I don't get mad anymore. I go in and know what I'm in for. IC3 .... IC3 ..... IC3 ....

I was going to say Walmart has exactly the feel of a US public institution like a prison, DMV, immigration and customs etc. You can get a good deal but as soon as any human effort to provide service is required all bets are off, and the whole place feels vaguely hostile.

My closest Walmart is in a town of 20,000 or so. There’s also a Target a few blocks away. The people that shop at either could not be more different. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone above 350 lbs at the Target. Walmart? Probably every time I’ve been in there.

That was my impression in Vegas. It at least seems kind of glamorous in the casinos, but seeing someone gambling in a gas station doesn’t put you in a good mood.

The staff are miserable because the pay is shit, and they’re likely collecting or eligible for welfare. The customers treat them like shit. The shit that happens in and around Walmart’s is soul destroying.

If Walmart started treating their staff like Costco we’d see a lot happier staff, and pay less taxes on entitlements.

> If Walmart started treating their staff like Costco

If Walmart paid their staff like Costco their prices would be high like Costco’s and there would be little reason for them to exist anymore.

For people on a budget, Costco’s prices are terrible on many basic items. The “bulk prices” in many categories (e.g. dairy) are at best the same price per unit as Walmart with the huge purchase requirement.

Costco is for middle to upper middle class incomes and Walmart is for middle to lower class incomes. If you don’t recognize the price difference between the stores, you are privileged enough to be in the former category.

“If Walmart paid their staff ... little reason for them to exist”

I would believe that if the Waltons weren’t one of (the?) richest families in the world. They can afford to pay more but don’t as the US taxpayer is making up the difference in welfare.

Privatize the profit, socialize the cost.

“There exists people who got rich” does not make a model suddenly sustainable.

Estimated Walton family wealth is $250 bill. Walmart employs 2.2 million people. Pay them all $10k more per year and the Walton wealth would be gone after a decade (ignoring the fact that losing money for years in a row would eliminate the Walton wealth much faster due to stock declines).

Walmart’s model is just not sustainable at Costco level pay.

> They can afford to pay more but don’t as the US taxpayer is making up the difference in welfare.

If you don’t like that people can get welfare on minimum wage, either eliminate welfare at that wage level or raise the minimum wage until people who make minimum wage don’t qualify.

> Privatize the profit, socialize the cost.

It is the government who decides to pay welfare at these levels. If you want to ban people from making money at those hourly rates, go ahead. But this is not a case of “socialize the cost” because being a Walmart employee making $25k + welfare is still better than being unemployed and just getting welfare.

Yeah, I didn't intend that as a slight against the employees. It's just another thing that makes shopping there unpleasant. I don't expect that employees at a store like that put on a bunch of fake-happiness for my sake, but Wal-Mart's give off strong "I hate this shit" vibes that I don't get other places. I don't blame them (the employees) for it, though.

strong "I hate this shit" vibes that I don't get other places

I got that at Safeway on Market/Church in SF. But in other places I've seen Walmart and other stores' staff have been much happier and nicer. Even though these chains try to have consistent experiences across locations, there is a pretty large variability from city to city.

I agree, but would Walmart paying their staff like Costco to help them have some happiness in their life be enough to get customers like us in their stores?

There’s still the whole, all very poor people shop there dynamic that isn’t going away unless someone can undercut Walmart significantly.

The Walmarts around me pay ~$15/hr which isn't much less than Costco.

One thing I've noted in general is Costco employees are much younger on average than Walmart employees.

I almost never find an old employee at Costco, while at Walmart most of them are old or middle aged.

Walmart often has stores in poorer areas than Costco, which is likely why you see the age discrepancy.

Costco also has a pretty robust internal promotion system from what I've heard, so older employees might also be occupying management spots.

Though it might also be that nearly every piece of stock at a Costco will be significantly heavier than that at Walmart, making it difficult for older people who might have more in the way of back problems etc to work there.

Not really, my experience is based on both in the Bay Area, and includes WalMart neighborhood stores.

I think it has to do with lot of older people shopping at Walmart so they feel comfortable around others. Don't know.

your experience is literally in the most HCOL city in the United States.

This is my observation too, I often wondered if Walmart wasn't around what would be these folks alternatives?

There's something to #6. I agree it's pronounced at Walmarts. I've observed the same lack of sensitivity when going to a Costco in a poor side of town vs a more well to do, I've used that repeated experience as an Apples to Apples comparison. The shoppers in the poorer part demonstrate poor personal spatial habits and being oblivious to blocking others or other actions that demonstrate blinders and indifference to being in the presence of other people and general shopping etiquette. Blocking products, aisles, not yielding enough space, not making eye contact when you're about to intersect paths. It's nothing super egregious and extreme but it's noticeable, and I'm sure probably measurable too if one had a body cam and documented situation A vs B over a several trips and itemized all the strange encounters.

If I'm at a Whole Foods, the sensitivity is way at the other extreme of politeness. I wonder if anyone's ever went deep on an analysis of this sort of phenomenon.

It's a true point albeit a delicate one. I have a colleague who is not the brightest (not a developer ;)) and what I've noticed with him is that there's something of a misunderstanding of social contexts in that he interpretes things others do as in bad faith when they're anything but and which is why in such social contexts he's constantly agitated. So he's simply missing the empathy or emotional intelligence to see things from the viewpoint of another person. He'd be one of the people being annoyed that others don't make room for him but also in the same vein he'd be one of those persons not watching out for others simply because he'd have his head full of thinking about himself and what he wants to buy, he simply wouldn't have the mental capability to think about other shoppers in that moment.

Your friend sounds like he has PTSD from some sort of mistreatment.

>They've obviously carefully tuned their check out staffing so that the lines are always long. This is such a constant that it has to be intentional, and they're doing a good job of it.

Macy's has a similarly annoying policy. They deliberately keeping their cash registers unmanned, which they apparently tell their employees is to "avoid intimidating customers" so you have to stand around waiting or seek out an employee manually. I thought my local Macy's was simply understaffed, but since learning they do it on purpose I've decided never to go there again.

Once, as a child, I grabbed the phone behind the counter, hit the PA button, and requested a cashier at our section. It worked! Probably wouldn’t go over so well as an adult, though.

I've done this as an adult. They got mad but I just ignored it and said "are you going to check me out" and they did.

Tangentially related. In college or football team would go to old country buffet. Which has a microphone in the wall to order more from the kitchen for the staff. One of our smart ass players went up and said "we need more fried chicken". The manager caught him and scolded him. Then looked at the buffet and said "make that two orders of fried chicken" in the mic.

Honestly if I'm ever dragged there by someone else I'll try it and report back.

I think that’s their public justification. The reality is there’s a camera pointed at each one and a couple of pool cashiers that run to any as needed.

I'm sure it's a lie too. They probably found they could save money by understaffing their store and/or customers would buy more stuff if they have to wait around more. I'm sure it works on one scale, but on the other hand they seem to be confused about why they are losing customers to online shopping or other stores. I'm sure I'm not the only person to stop using them.

Longer lines and things like the occasional light bulb burned out psychologically made people think they were getting a better deal.

The store is just like a Vegas casino, every last thing has been thought out and everything is A/B tested down to a regional and sometimes city basis.

I suppose that the long lines go next to aisles with some last-minute stuff like candy, chewing gum, small toys, etc, which the bored people in the line have to see and may feel a craving to grab. If not them, then their children who experience boredom more acutely.

no, it's just a burned out lightbulb.

I believe it, but what were they trying to optimize?

If all of their changes are focused on near-term bottom line, is it really surprising if that comes at the expense of customer/employee satisfaction and brand reputation?

Walmart ultimately measures everything against lifetime customer value. They don't really care about maximizing revenue on a specific trip because most people come in to the store with a fixed budget of what they can spend anyway - but they sure as heck want you to return.

Fixed income customers see things like an ultra clean speed and efficient store as 1) intimidating and 2) overhead that makes prices go up and "wastes" their money.

I’ve seen Walmarts churning through shoppers with really impressive speed so I guess some of them didn’t get the memo.

#3 really irks me, because they don’t check everyone’s receipts. I was stopped and asked for a receipt two days ago for a gallon of milk I had in the cart because it “wasn’t in a bag” while other people walked past.

I can understand e.g. when I buy a TV, but a gallon of milk is ridiculous and profiling.

In most states in the US (all?) you are not obligated to stop and show your receipt. It may be polite, and you may do it, but you are not required to do so. For membership stores, it may be a condition of membership, but it still may not be legally required.

Any employee that stops you might be guilty of kidnapping.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/consumer-protection/prote...

Yep, just keep walking.

Just say no. They won’t/can’t stop you. Costco has it in their membership agreement but stores that aren’t memberships; you didn’t agree to it and you have no obligation to show it. Worst case you get banned.

> Worst case you get banned.

I would much rather stop for 30 seconds than be banned from my local grocery store.

They're not going to ban you for saying no. This is pretty well settled stuff.

I used to say no all the time at frys and never once did they say anything.

I understand I can say no but this is the only Walmart in my routine that isn’t a super center (it’s a “neighborhood market”) so I don’t yet want to get banned from there. I am planning to start shopping at somewhere besides Walmart in the near future though.

If you think about what they are doing, they are searching your personal belonging. That bag is yours. Do you want to give money to a store that thinks it reasonable to randomly search customers?

I just hand them the receipt and keep walking. Nobody’s ever said a word about it.

> Worst case you get banned

Worst case is they call the local PD who are having a bad day and want to point a gun at a black man

I think this is a sign of a regional monopoly, like when the cable company gives you a six hour window for a service call. It probably isn't worth the small amount of theft you stop to alienate customers (otherwise grocers in Los Angeles would do it) by checking receipts. But if you are the only affordable store in town you don't really have to worry about alienating customers.

Here in far west West Des Moines, they have LOTS of checkout lines, which once had a fair number of people behind the registers. Now, you're lucky if two of them have people. I think they are really nudging you to go through the self-checkout or to order via the web and either pick it up or have it delivered. The number of aisles occupied by people either stocking or shopping for online orders also seriously encourages you to go away and order online.

Also, it doesn’t quite help that their color palette is fluorescent white and blue, which is something that evokes, say, a dreary clinical setting, and not necessarily somewhere you want to shop.

With the low cri fluorescent lights.

Always ™

Regarding nearly all of these points, if you're on tight fixed-income budget, these don't matter, you don't have much choice. Similarly, you don't have much choice when Walmart is the only option around without a fair bit more travel, unless you pay very large markups at local convenience stores.

#7 is a separate issue though. That is a predatory practice and I'm glad I live in a state where it isn't allowed.

> 2) They've obviously carefully tuned their check out staffing so that the lines are always long. This is such a constant that it has to be intentional, and they're doing a good job of it.

They're also the only store I know of that shuts down their checkouts at closing time; if you were already in line, too bad, they'll check you out tomorrow. (Of course, a lot of their stores are 24x7)

This would piss me off enough to never come back.

Broke people need to shop too.

GP probably should avoid shopping on the 1st in the US too. Be a shame to run into those EBT people. They hold up the line with coupons also.

I'm still debating the merits of growing up on a Rez versus how I see my fellow humans.

Only three of my seven observations are about the shoppers. Only one of those three isn't a choice: seeming sad, at a much higher rate than at other stores—shit, even Dollar General shoppers don't look as down as Wal-Mart shoppers, though, given the rest of my list, maybe they just look sad because they're at Wal-Mart. Dollar General's fun (for me, dunno about anyone else who's there). Wal-Mart is... exhausting.

Only time I see that much concentrated sadness in a store, that consistently, is when I find myself in a dying-rural-town grocery store that looks like it time-travelled from 1990. I don't remember whether those were sad places when I was growing up, mostly in those same sorts of dying rural towns. Wal-Mart wasn't, and their store function, service, cleanliness, and design all improved constantly through about '05, then abruptly reversed course and haven't stopped going downhill. Dunno what happened. Maybe Amazon happened, though that doesn't explain some of their oddly ill-looking paint color choices from the last couple re-designs.

> They've obviously carefully tuned their check out staffing so that the lines are always long.

I’ve noticed this at Walmart. However, I’ve noticed it’s worse at Target, (an arguably higher end store) where I’ve observed the queue reaching from one end of the store to the next. Interestingly, I’ve also noticed this effect on grocery chains in my area. Fry’s (Kroger) seems to have many queues open, which go quickly, whereas the higher end Safeway will have 1-2 queues open and zero open after hours.

All stores are bad with lines, until you get to really high end (like Whole Foods or Natural Grocers), but Paradoxically the more expensive stores (mid range, like Target and Safeway) are the worst offenders out of everyone. I don’t know why this is. Maybe they don’t have enough customers and not enough profit to justify more staff, or maybe they found that if the lines are long, customers will make another trip around the store and buy more stuff.

The one nearer me has a great self-checkout area. I usually prefer self-checkout, and my wait is rarely longer than 1 minute. I don't shop there often - perhaps 2x per month for some specific items, but long checkout is never an issue.

That said, it used to be, before the self-checkout area. And, when traveling, I end up popping in to Walmarts in various parts of the country now and then, and the checkout times are always a gamble.

re: #6 - I wonder if it has something to do with the aisles being there more for the convenience of the packers and movement of goods in the store, vs the convenience of shoppers. I understand your point, and do notice it sometimes, and have tried to compare it to other shops. However, in the last few years, I found myself going to shops less and less overall, so it's harder for me to remember and compare against competitors fairly.

Then you live in, or near, a shithole.

Nothing about your list describes Walmarts in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, except perhaps the poorest parts of Dallas, which I have not personally visited.

Grapevine, Flower Mound, Roanoke, Rome, Keller, Preston Hollow Walmarts are all immaculately maintained and clean.

I guarantee that if Amazon was a physical retail location it would look exactly the same.

It would look worse.

I'm currently working on robotics deployment for several new Amazon warehouses and I hate having to visit the already operating ones - everyone looks like they would jump out of the window like the people at Foxconn, except they don't because they know the fall wouldn't kill them.

Amazon is truly staffed with geniuses at the upper echelons... keep the peasants who make the whole operation work away from the customers, that way the customers can always feel good about buying from Amazon. Walmart doesn't have that luxury, what with it's enormous physical presence and all.

Probably worse. Paint is such a frill. As is lighting when you’re not in an aisle. And when you are, why not light upward from below? Cheaper to change the bulbs then.

Are the prices at Walmart really that much lower than Target? On the limited amount of stuff I buy, it’s not been the case.

I haven’t noticed a difference in most things. Some things are cheaper at Walmart, but they also often have companies make worse versions of products for them just so they can sell them cheaper.

Clothes are notorious for this.

"Wow, [mid-tier jeans brand] is only $16/pair at Wal-Mart, and they're $40 when you find them on sale on [jeans brand]'s web site. What a bargain!"

... but then it turns out they're not the same thing, even if they're made to look very much like they are even down to the labelling, and in fact the manufacturer produces a separate low-end- and outlet-stores version that's much worse than their standard product.

A different phenomenon but somewhat related is when good brands have an unusual sale item (not a close out). It seems to be where the MFG had a bad run and they’re noticing a higher rate of returns so they put them on sale. It’s not worth it, get the full price version and avoid the defects (like seal quality, adhesive quality, material quality, etc.)

For an equivalent item, Target is usually not much more expensive, if any. But, Walmart carries cheaper alternatives and a wider selection than Target.

>2) They've obviously carefully tuned their check out staffing so that the lines are always long. This is such a constant that it has to be intentional, and they're doing a good job of it.

---

This is actually an anti-pattern in their org;

They have FAILED to properly train to and address this problem, thus it persists.

Its not intentional - it is through lack of taking a focus on this aspect of their business, or looking at it - and determining they prefer/dont mind it...

Uniquely talentless when it comes to existing in space

Brilliant turn of phrase!

It’s funny seeing many posts on HN rallying against capitalism, decrying the cycle of poverty and food deserts and then see someone complain about seeing poor people at Walmart.

Sorry you have to mix with the “rabble”!

I think you lost the context. Wal*Mart is threatened by other retailers. Why might they be losing foot traffic/customers/sales?

People want to shop with others of similar taste/preferences. They presently cater to the one of the lowest common denominators (Dollar stores could be lower, I guess), so how could they appeal to other shoppers?

That’s the crux of the question. The current stores appeal to one audience but not another.

Whole Foods has the same problem, except from the other direction. Working class folks will sneer at Whole Foods. It’s not their bag. Amazon would have to open something that caters to price conscious shoppers if they wanted to expand groceries to working class shoppers...

Jesus, tell me about it.. the entitlement in this post is un-fucking-believable.

Furthermore, I'm wondering what shitholes these people live in or near where they actually experience this sort of thing.

The Walmarts around Keller, Texas are nothing like what's being described here... although granted, this is an upper middle class area of Texas, and unlike California, we don't allow people to steal shit out of our pharmacies with impunity, nor do we allow people to shit on our streets.

I gotta say that either your Walmart is worse than any I’ve ever been to or you’re in your own head a bit.

> I think Wal*Mart has an image problem.

If you know their history then you understand how they got where they are.

Walmart grew in the 80s and 90s by planting itself just outside the city limits of small towns across America. They attracted the towns people with low prices and jobs. Their presence eventually shutdown every competing small business in those towns and the former purveyors of those businesses often wound up working at Walmart. Businesses that didn't directly compete often setup shop inside the Walmart leasing space from them. That is until Walmart started partnering up with larger chains and pushing those small businesses out.

At the same time Walmart was strangling small businesses in small town America, they were also putting the squeeze on suppliers. They were demanding custom products at lower prices from companies who were forced to outsource to other countries in order to meet Walmart's demands. Well known American brands like Huffy went from being proudly made in America to just being stickers slapped on products coming off the boat from China.

If you drove across the US in the 90s you'd run through empty ghost towns and as soon as you'd hit the "Now leaving..." sign for the town there'd be a Walmart Supercenter with a parking lot full of vehicles. Walmart destroyed small town America by draining towns of tax revenues and running small businesses under.

Through all of this Walmart proudly displayed Made in the USA or some other patriotic bullshit on the outside of their stores.

Yeah Walmart has an image problem, and there isn't anything they can do about it in my opinion.

Those ghost towns today are still ghost towns. If the suburban massive parking lot megastore is the best the economy has to offer I'm not sure whether the economy should exist that way.

Also note - Amazon is doing the exact same thing to any remaining small retailers, squeezing suppliers like crazy and intensifying the brands selling exclusively from overseas (also destroying brand reputations as fakes are absolutely rife).

Also doesn't help that the middle class has dwindled and anyone caught below the "capital gains" economic apartheid line doesn't have money anymore so even if they wanted to buy local they couldn't.

I wouldn't say Amazon is doing the exact same as Walmart. Walmart never attacked the long tail of retail, the specialist shops where people talk to the retailer for advice or guidance on purchases. Walmart never offered these products.

That's where Amazon hits, once a customer knows what to buy they can find it on Amazon.

It sucks that while there are enumerable benefits to free market capitalism, there's also serious drawbacks. You tend to see the formation of mega corporations that can use economy of scale to secure and hold huge economic advantage.

Short of some breakup, or government intervention, what can be done? The system is designed to reward those who find the best market fit. The problem is, there's no brake pedal on their growth. They can absorb entire industries.

This is interesting. Normally people say "innumerable" in a sentence like this, meaning "too many to count", but in this case there's a malapropism which literally reverses the meaning whilst keeping the sense of the original almost intact.

Hah, that is interesting. I think I make that mistake because I'm a software developer an enums are a thing so my brain mixes up innumerable with enumerable.

I guess it's perfectly cromulent in the sentence as well.

This, in my opinion, is the largest role of government in a capitalist society. Capitalism is not sustainable without guard rails. By design, a company will always pass costs onto society if it can.

The government has an obligation to ensure negative economic costs are paid by the producers and consumers of goods and services.

An example of this would be Walmart for years relying almost exclusively on Medicaid benefits for their employees healthcare. Walmart is hardly the worst company in terms of passing economic costs on to others or future generations. But, the point is, that unless the government forces a company to pay the true costs of doing business it's always going to result in market distortions.

It's a design flaw of capitalism, which is actually easy to correct within an equitable political system. However, this is much more rare than it ought be.

Amazon followed their path and they also started to have issue: with their image.

I am not sure I agree. Amazon is differently bad but I would say mostly competes with big box stores.

> Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

Not going to comment on the ethics/politics of it, but if people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum, then they have to accept that they have to pay a premium for it (i.e. shop at Whole Foods). You can't really say "I want to shop at the discount store but I also want only other wealthy people to be there".

If you accept that premise, then perhaps Walmart doesn't have an image problem, it's simply the fact that it's the cheapest place to shop in the neighborhood, so lower income folks will more likely shop there.

To be clear the actual wealthy people always shop at Walmart, because, ya know, they are wealthy because they don't waste money on more expensive groceries because the floors are nicer, and they probably don't mind being around other hard working people.

Only half tongue in cheek, and completely agreeing with you.

The difference I see with more upper class stores especially ones like Whole Foods is they tend to be in dense layouts where it is literally more time efficient to get your shopping done, and the stores are frequently placed on higher value property which is closer to the wealthy patrons. They tend to have a good selection of healthful foods maybe with pricy grass fed animal products with a higher ratio of omega3s, nitrate free cured meats, food for special diets like gluten-free, and all variety of things which are in a certain sense practical. Also generally the food of equal nutritional value tends to taste better, which makes it easier to stomach your conscientious diet.

If your wealth is such that food cost is a fairly negligible part of your expenses, USUALLY the Walmart will be further away located on less expensive real estate, roaming around the Walmart supercenter can literally take more time (both of these points are, to be fair eliminated by curbside pickup/delivery), the variety might be good but it's of foods that might not necessarily be worth the cost savings, the meat & produce might be alright but it's rarely going to be exceptional. It's not that any cook worth their salt can't go to Walmart and cook some fantastic food, it's that the real fancy store can be the path of least resistance.

I patronize both stores, tending to make runs to Walmart type stores for mostly non-perishables sold at superior prices. Honestly I feel more uncomfortable among wealthy patrons can poor ones. I can feel a miasma of snootiness around me in an upscale enough shop.

What I've noticed with "upscale" stores like Whole Foods is that their "experience" is just totally different from WalMart (others have pointed this out in other threads).

For people beyond a certain income level, a few dollars in savings aren't as attractive as shopping in a place where people seem to be more "happy". Many of these stores also tend to have an attached gourmet cafe where you can grab a "healthy" bite post/pre shopping. The whole foods in Downtown Austin even has yoga classes (an other fitness activities) on its terrace.

Almost correct- they get the curbside dropoff and never leave their car. At least, this is what the high (~5MM) net worth family I know does.

The "wealthy people only shop frugally" is about as truthful as "millenials are poor because they only eat avocado toast."

> if people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum, then they have to accept that they have to pay a premium for it (i.e. shop at Whole Foods).

I agree that Walmart can be extremely unpleasant compared to a regular grocery store for many reasons.

However, I’ve found Whole Foods staff to be extremely unwelcoming unless you seem like you fit in regardless of how much money you make.

Can definitely recommend wegmans for a more upscale shopping experience (Eg fancy cheeses, meats, selection of fish) without any of that “too cool for school” factor if you’re not in an “in” group.

Edit: Trader Joe’s is also pretty cool but it reminds me a bit of Aldi.

Thats cuz apparently Trader Joe’s IS an Aldi’s!

Well, not originally, but they’re owned by Aldi Nord for a while now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trader_Joe's

Yes! I remember my first time at Whole Foods I asked where to find the Coca Cola and they were very rude about not carrying it.

Forget a Coke (never mind they have other non-alc fizzy drinks) The don’t carry Aspirin (or Advil or Tylenol, but whatever, but Aspirin, WTF?!

> The don’t carry Aspirin

Maybe if some branded it as 'willow leaf pain relief' they'd carry it. It's natural and it rhymes!

HEB Central Market has excellent cheeses.

Central Market is probably what I miss the most about Texas (apart from the excellent BBQ).

I pay more to avoid WalMart. I'm not even an elitist, I've just noticed in my area, the greeters are rude. After maybe 3 bad experiences in a row, I've decided to never go to WalMart ever again and it's been over a year since I've shopped there.

So to be clear you are not an elitist, but you don't shop at the lower cost store, because the greeter was having a bad day and was not nice enough to you and should have known what class you are and should have shown more reverence?.

> you don't shop at the lower cost store, because the greeter was having a bad day and was not nice enough to you

People at Wal-mart have a bad day all the time. It's about the customer service. I have less anxiety knowing that if I do run into problems in the store, the staff would be more approachable.

> what class you are and should have shown more reverence

I didn't read the original comment this way. It sounds like you are projecting a bit

I would also hope that customer service is awesome all the time, but saying the greeter was not nice enough is a pretty specific dog whistle.

I shop at the wally all the time, and I am just calling an elitist a spade free of any strawman you want to pile on.

> I would also hope that customer service is awesome all the time, but saying the greeter was not nice enough is a pretty specific dog whistle.

You're probably white and haven't experienced casual racism that exists at Wal-mart and less worldly venues

> dog whistle

> calling an elitist a spade free of any strawman you want to pile on.

Is it an elitist dog whistle when less affluent people also avoid Wal-mart on the sentiment that it's not actually a better value proposition such that customer service is a differentiating factor ? There is extreme poverty where people have to squeeze every penny out of their expenses even if it means trading their time for those pennies, but I'd hardly call a family in the middle ( below the middle class ) vying for Costco or a Target as having elitist preferences.

You're the one who sounds like an elitist white knight suggesting less affluent people have zero options and necessarily have to shop at Wal-mart. For example, Dollar Stores have great service, not actually cheaper, but is perceived as a cost saving to less affluent people.

Please dial down the racism.

I love you. Fight the hate!

Repetitively running into grumpy people in a particular place, and choosing to avoid that, is hardly elitism. You're choosing to interpret my statements in the least charitable way possible.

I apologize for using your comment in an attempt to narrate a more pejorative point about individuals and brands using service and experience and price to passively class separate. Not that I have a problem targeting a market, just with not being forthright about it.

> Working class shoppers.

Almost everyone in America is "working class". America no longer has a leisure class to speak of, if we ever had one. Looking at the most recent data - I forget where I saw it - but the wealthiest Americans also put in the most hours at work.

I know a lot of people have brainwashed themselves into thinking they're something they're not, but they're all wrong. If you have to go to work in the morning to maintain your lifestyle, even if you "work" for yourself, you're just a working class stiff like everyone else, you can just afford bigger shit.

If you can decide to just stop what you're doing and go attain spiritual enlightenment for the next 18 months, and literally nothing about your life, your children's lives, your grandchildren's lives, and your great-grandchildren's lives will change - you're not working class.

> Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

That doesn't make someone elitist, it just makes them an asshole.

“Working class”, despite what those words can mean separately, doesn’t mean “class of people with a job”.

It is a polite rephrasing of the now antiquated phrase: “lower class”.

In fact, the “working class” aren’t necessarily even employed.

/someone/ owns the boats in the marina. Usually someone very old for whom the economy worked out well for them. Bought a house worth a million dollars now on a near minimum wage job.

Tangentially related: one reason I try very hard not to shop at Walmart is because they try hard to make you feel like a criminal.

For instance, hanging from the ceiling smack-dab in the middle of some aisles are little TVs showing you that they're recording you. And when you walk down the aisle, the little TV senses you and lights up (it's remarkably bright) so that you _have_ to notice it.

And nine times out of ten I get hassled by the LPOs on my way out—demanding to see my receipt like they're busting some sort of birthday card stealing ring.

I do get that shoplifting is a big problem for them. The (small, middle-class) city I grew up in always has a cop in the parking lot of the local Walmart because so many people steal things. In high school, kids would grab booze or energy drinks and pass it through the bars in the garden section to their friends. Or just shove it in their backpack and run. And most of the "Do you recognize this shoplifter?" posts on FB or wherever by the local PD are from the Walmart.

But I can't help but think that they're driving away the type of people they _want_ to shop there. I'll gladly drive farther and pay more to shop in a pleasant environment.

> The issues I see are: very drab color palette. Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

That is just the store you went to. The company crunches tons of data before they decide on store placement, and grouping like-shoppers by socioeconomic status is absolutely a goal. My hometown for example - one side of town has a Walmart that is very run down and exactly as you describe, while on the other side of town the Walmart looks like an upscale Target on the inside and an REI on the outside.

They tried the "upscale" brand online with Jet.com and it was an absolute failure. Amazon owns almost all of the non-price-first shoppers and Marc Lore doesn't know how to run a business without oversight.

Jet was an acquisition though. I get they tried to keep some of its "upscale" shine but they eventually shuttered it for their own online offering.

It was an aquihire. "Jet" itself was an empty shell that the Walmart marketing folks could build a higher end brand inside.

The shuttering happened because the website was racking up seven-figure monthly Azure bills and bringing in five-figure revenue. Marc just couldn't figure out how to drive traffic without all his domains he sold to Amazon (soap.com, diapers.com, etc).

> The issues I see are: [snip] Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

When I was very young, I liked talking to my dad about possible business ideas and how to make millions of dollars so I could buy a castle for our family to live in when I grew up (yeah, yeah, I was a kid). One evening, after proposing yet another crazy idea (I can't for the life of me remember what it was), my dad sat me down and asked me which kind of customer I thought Walmart would prefer to have: 1 customer that spends $100 or 100 customers that spend $1. I naively answered "The $100 customer, because it's a guaranteed higher amount!" He corrected me, saying that they'd prefer 100x $1 customers for two reasons: 1) there will always be a market for them and 2) it's less detrimental to lose a customer when each one pays $1 than it is to lose your only customer.

I don't think attracting the average Joe instead of the elitist is a bug, it's a feature.

Sounds like it's a bug for him, because he doesn't want the filthy commoners making a mess of the place.

Yeah cool, so by focusing on the 100 customers that brings $1 each, they've lost 1 customer that brings $2.

> Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

The thing about America is that you honestly cannot tell the social status of a person based on appearance alone. The middle class is large and we value frugality and humility.

I think of this as a collective tendency: rich or poor, when you go to Wal-Mart you just wear whatever you're wearing.

I don't know if you have ever heard of Chris Arnade but he is an ex Wall Streeter who wrote about the "McDonald's Test," which probably lines up with Wal-Mart too.

"Eventually I came up with what I call the McDonald’s test. The broad thesis of my book is that our society sorts people into what I call the front row and the back row – the privileged class to which I used to belong, who are financially secure and live in safe neighborhoods with good schools and public services – and everybody else. The test is to ask a person: how do you view McDonald’s? In my experience, the answer usually reveals whether someone belongs to the front or back row."

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/social-justice/econ...

Fantastic article. Thank you.

WalMart definitely has an image issue for me. In my town (very low crime), they're the only store with clear theft prevention in place.

You walk in through a one-way turnstile, they have a permanent police presence, clear loss prevention people randomly throughout the store, and someone doing loss prevention just after check out.

I'm sure other stores in our area have loss prevention, but they hide it much better. WalMart is the only store where I feel like I'm being scrutinized for wanting to buy the products they sell.

If your target market is people who want the lowest price, image issues tend not to matter that much (other than perception of being the lowest price option). You were probably never their first choice.

> Working class shoppers

That doesn't bother me. I'm not so elitist that I need to always be with people who are me same class as me.

What's more important is that the people catering to me make a living wage. Or, to put it differently, are comfortable with what they are paid without relying on government assistance?

The only kind of stores that I avoid because of the customers are liquor stores where half the drivers in the parking lot are drunk.

Wal*Mart, contrary to popular belief is paying $15 in many locations (as good as other chains).

they dont hire full time though, and hours can vary dramatically per week. if you get 12 hours one week and 32 the next, that $15 an hour doesn't help that much. The big problem is we dont do full time work in most retail positions any more apart from the manager and maybe keyholders.

They’re paying a mean of $15 an hour. That’s quite different from a minimum of $15 an hour.

Walmart jobs in my fairly HCOL area still start at $12 an hour.

I just saw a banner outside mine in a very low cost of living area advertising starting at $14 an hour.

The funny part is Walmart is paying better wages here than any competitor in retail space.

> Their stock assortment isn’t bad compared to the competition. In fact, aside from Whole Foods on the organic/bio side of things, they measure up very well and better compared to their competition.

Where I live (a decent sized metro), their stock collection beats all other retail stores in the area. They'll often have SKUs for products I can't find anywhere else. As an example, I have a spray carpet cleaner from what is likely the best selling brand in the country. When it runs out, I want to get a solution refill, not buy a whole new spray. Walmart is the only general purpose store in the city that carries it. All other stores carry just the spray version, which costs about double. Target used to be my go-to place for this kind of stuff, but even they've stopped carrying it.

Their fresh produce sucks, but for everything else, they often have good selection and quality. And with good prices. A few other examples:

- OTC Medicine/supplements: If you're trying to get one of the well known "alternative" brands (e.g. vegetarian tablets), their prices are much cheaper - perhaps half of that in any other local store.

- Perfumes: It's the same perfume as you'd get at Macy's, Nordstrom, etc, but usually at 20-50% off their prices. Reason? They source these perfumes from the Asian market. Perfume manufacturers cannot sell in Asia at the prices they charge in the US, so they sell it cheaper there (again, from all my research, it's the same perfume - not a lower quality one). So Walmart simply "imports" them back in from Asia.

I rarely shop at Wal-mart. It's not near me, and I go there only when I simply can't find what I need at another local store. It certainly has its down sides and legitimate criticisms, but I've begun to appreciate the positives to it.

maybe i'm weird but i actually prefer the vibe at walmart to the pseudo upscale feel of stores like target. at walmart you know what youre getting, theres no pretense that you are there for any other reason than cheap crap. people of all economic backgrounds are all there just to get the best deals.

I don't know what's "pseudo" about cleaner floors and surfaces and better-organized merchandise. It's not just about decor. The Wal-Marts I have been to are a filthy mess, and it's clear no one cares.

The one thing I like about Target is that it's quiet, they don't play music there and there's rarely talking over loudspeakers etc.

Thing is the vibe part I see but quality wise, they’re on par with others. It’s not Dollar store crap.

I agree. Target is much more annoying; just as bottom-of-the-barrel, but they depend on pretending they're not.

Their interior could use a better design. However, the vast majority of people are working class. Their problems aren't shoppers' opinions of other shoppers. An upscale version might attract other customers of a higher socioeconomic status, but there's lots of competition in that market as well, and it's not a core competency of Walmart, making it a longshot bet.

Based on what the article says from the memo, a lot if their issues stem from changing shopping behaviors and a desire for more convenience-- such as curbside pickup-- that Walmart has had difficulty scaling up fast enough to meet demand.

It's not the best choice, it's Spacer's Choice!

When I visited the US, I went to Walmart just to see how bad it was. I visited the "sick and dead fish" aisle. Incomprehensible how that's even allowed, but ok.

This is more subjective, but in every country I go to, I visit a "cheap supermarket chain store" and look at the people working there. Do they look happy? Do they look healthy? Do they look tired? Switzerland was amazing on that front.

>They could likely address this by having a second more upscale brand.

That's kinda what Sam's Club is, though Sam's is competing against Costco

Sam's is more upscale than Wal-Mart, but in my experience it is very much the "Wal-Mart of warehouse stores" in that it feels less nice than Costco in the same area. I'm sure it varies, that's just based on the ones I've been to.

It is literally the Walmart of warehouse stores.

Sam Walton is the originator of both Sam's Club and Wal(ton)mart.

Sam's competes more with stores like BJ's and Brandsmart than Costco, which is really in a league of its own.

Yeah, maybe it varies, but the local Sam's has gone way downhill over the last couple decades (I don't think income-demographics have changed much in the area over the same time-span, which makes that really odd) along with the three nearest Wal-Marts. Sam's is now firmly in the same relation to CostCo as Wal-Mart is to Target: basically the same thing, except everything about it is anywhere from a little to a lot worse (except, sometimes, the prices)

The parking lot at the costco near me is insane. Everytime I went there, I felt like I was going to get hit. Sure enough, an oldy was killed in the parking log shortly after I stopped going.

Let me restate that: upscale and hip targeted at middle and upper middle/aspirational in urban and proximate suburban enviros.

Upscale urban areas won't let Walmart even try to build something. Target worked really hard pitching their upscale "City Target" sub-brand to get San Francisco to let them in.

Walmart is experimenting with something they call “Walmart Neighborhood Market” but I think they’d have done better to leave the Walmart name off it.

People who don’t like Walmart won’t try it and people who do like Walmart will be pissed it’s not a Walmart just a grocery store.

I had one right by my college apartment and was really happy with it. Very clean and always had what I needed, but not 'everything.' If they rebranded & incorporated them into suburban neighborhoods with a focus on walkability it could be a smart move to capture the wealthier 'conscious' shopper.

I like how you say ""Walmart is experimenting with something they call “Walmart Neighborhood Market” and they have had these for over a decade. I come from the area around the home office and they make the stores run quite a bit better there. The further away the store is the more likely there is less innovation or management issues. When I moved to the east cost I could clearly see certain loss prevention measures that made me not buy products.

Yep , I agree. They don’t need that boat anchor of a brand for something like that. New name, new colors, new atmosphere and of course, charge a bit more for the frills.

They could have called it Waldi and started an amusing trademark war.

I wouldn’t say Sam’s Club is upscale…at all

Costco is like Sam’s Club, but without the tattoos.

It's not an image problem, shopping there is a terrible experience. The stores are always a mess and the employees are unhelpful. There always seems to be long lines at the front end. They do have a good selection of products, but I avoid shopping there whenever I can because it's so unpleasant.

At least for me, Walmart is just a vehicle for the Waltons to extract wealth from the country. I suppose if Walmart divested themselves from the Waltons and adopted some sort of pro-employee policies I might shop there more frequently.

You only believe these things are a problem because you don’t understand positioning (in marketing terms). They are successful because of these qualities, not in spite of them.

This comment is just so wildly delusional. Aristotle was right when he said that most envy and elitism is directed at other members of one's own class.

I went to a Walmart Supercenter this week to try to buy clothes and groceries. No carts or hand baskets available. One employee reprimanding another employee right in front of customers. No bags for produce. Underwear was in a locked cabinet. I pressed the button but nobody came to help. Grumpy attendant at the self checkout.

It's no wonder that people who can afford to shop elsewhere do.

>Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

Elitist or not, wouldn't this advice simply move them from one stratum to another?

That’s why OP proposed segmenting into several store brands (that would cater to different stratums).

Maybe. Or not?

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/paris.metro.minimal.txt

Walmart is also one of the few stores that interrogate you on the way out as to what you purchased. Just not a good look.

Best Buy checks receipts, Costco checks receipts.

Best Buy is the most confusing of these as the receipt checker is stationed about 3 feet from the last register by the door watching you get rung up and pay.

Costco, Sams Club and the like have you sign a contract for membership that requires you to show the receipt upon exit. Walmart, Target, etc. are governed by the state, county, and city laws. Most states allow you to ignore them and keep walking unless the theft prevention is activated.

Best Buy also like to hire actual cops for their security. It's a nice part time and the employee discount was good. Did make my brother breathe a bit easier when he worked there.

It's not that I disagree but it's so depressingly cynical to suggest Walmart make its business less efficient for the sake of allowing for social stratification.

> Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

Eh, I think the problem isn't even "lower class" it's "I don't want to shop at a store with a meth lab"[1]

How does walmart begin to fix problems like that? IDK. Even Kmart back in the day didn't have that sort of image problem. Heck, other brands like Kroger or albertsons/safeway don't have that problem. It's a pretty unique problem to the walmart brand.

Oddly enough, Asda (walmart's UK brand name) doesn't have the same image problem. It really is a problem unique to the US walmart brand.

[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/03/meth-labs-in-wal...

I wonder if/how Asda got out of the "countryside" style of management of Walmart

In other countries their micromanagement made them fail. Like in Germany, where it's the place where it crashed and burned the worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com