Tricks and Treats
AdAge is reporting that Wal-Mart has settled on the winner of their $580-million account. And the brass ring goes to: Draft FCB.
My dealings with FCB’s Chicago flagship office had me tasting arsenic and rat turds afterwards but I haven’t dealt with them in a long time– and certainly not since they became the direct mail center of the universe with the Draft merger. (So good luck, Wal-Mart; maybe they’ve gotten better.)
I feel bad for GSD&M. Losing an account of that size is going to put a crimp in the old Holiday Party plans but, at the same time, I can’t imagine working on the business was a thrill-a-minute ride.
Email Article Thursday, October 26th, 2006 at 08:37am Mack Simpson
Filed under: Ad Jungle | add this post to del.icio.us
Technorati Tags: Advertising, Wal-Mart, Draft FCB, GSD&M
7 Comments Add your own
1. Anonymous | October 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
It might be a good thing that GSD&M lost that business. They will be able to go after pieces of business that they otherwise couldn’t.
2. Mack Simpson | October 26th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Agreed. I’m a big GSD&M fan– I went to the University of Texas, so I almost have to be– and they won’t have a terribly difficult problem attracting new clients. Still, $580-million is eight-degrees north of “huge.”
3. makethelogobigger | October 26th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Wal-Mart is $4.88 plastic stuff that America loves.
They don’t need to change agencies to figure that out. Just a hunch, but I think they’re going to lose their core demo in trying to be the next Target.
4. Mack Simpson | October 26th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I think they’ll always have their low price, low margin merchandise– they’ve got the buying power necessary to keep their suppliers cowed into pricing at whatever mark Wal-Mart wants– but as the footprint of their stores continues to grow, they’re wanting to add higher margin items into the mix.
I don’t think they’ll lose their core (keeping them won’t be hard– just keep the prices on staples low). The challenge will be getting Target shoppers to migrate over to Wal-Mart for things like designer lamps.
But there again, if the products (Target vs. Wal-Mart) are at parity and the prices at Wal-Mart are measurably lower, that problem should solve itself in short order.
5. makethelogobigger | October 26th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Add into the mix I can see. I just think Target got to the space first that Wal-Mart’s aiming for now. Target seems to have become the glorified Super K-Mart/Wal-Mart, just with more style. (‘Targét’ as the oldest teen calls it.)
I shop at all of them anyway. I’m a price whore. I admit it. Although when it comes to a big-ass plasma, not sure the ‘Mart will be my first choice, and not for price considerations either.
;-p
The other thing that I think Draft/FCB (or someone besides Edleman) needs to address is how much hatred there is for Wal-Mart by more than just a few people out there. I don’t see Target or any other brand in the space having that kind of strike/dislike against them.
Right now, seems like Target’s busy branding that white circle on red everywhere, while Wal-Mart has to spend its time defending why they don’t suck.
If they expand to a wider range of the big ticket items, might this also mean they become a more serious competitior for Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.? Especially given the smaller selection they have in their current home entertainment department.
(Another thought is that would the other electronics chains allow Wal-Mart to compete in the same space, or just relegate the models they wouldn’t otherwise carry to Wal-Mart.)
Either way, I can see them taking a page out of the Sears “Not just craftsman tools but lingerie also” playbook by reinventing themselves and going against existing consumer mindset:
“Yeah, that’s my new 42″ plasma.”
“From Wal-Mart?”
6. Mack Simpson | October 30th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Looks like Bill may be on to something.
7. makethelogobigger | October 30th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Now if the’ll just open in Second Life™
;-p
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed