Wal-Mart, the retail icon, taking on yet another strategy when sitting somewhat comfortably, (a business is never comfortable or should not be so comfortable), especially when the one to “beat.” Advertising strategy is as any strategy and that is with risk. An example of such risk is investing and the risk tolerance for each individual, conservative, moderate, or aggressive specific to goals. Wal-Mart is able to take the aggressive stance but not necessary because of their national, soon-to-be (?), global success but can never consider permanent. As said, it is much more difficult to remain on top than to work towards the top.
The latest advertising campaign is one of a surprisingly risky and unique platform for Wal-Mart. Still attempting to disassociate itself from the negative image of a discriminatory violator of employee rights and participant of extensive bribery allegations gave way to an, as interpreted, defensive almost challenging response from a seemingly naïve, oblivious, and loyal Lee Scott, CEO or one only too aware and guilt driven angry. That is giving the CEO the benefit of the doubt unless privy to undocumented evidence to refute the crimes allegedly committed. A lengthy investigation into the bribery allegations includes that sometime in January 2006, the case had reached a critical juncture. Wal-Mart’s leaders were again weighing whether to approve a full investigation that would inevitably focus on a star executive already publicly discussed as a potential successor to Mr. Scott, (Barstow, David, 2012); the same quoted in the latest ad campaign.
Wal-Mart’s ethics policy offered clear direction. “Never cover up or ignore an ethics problem,” the policy states and some who were involved in the investigation argued that it was time to take a stand against signs...