Wal-Mart and the Blogs

The New York Times has an article on Wal-Mart and how they are using blogs to spread the company's news.

Brian Pickrell, a blogger, recently posted a note on his Web site attacking state legislation that would force Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health insurance. "All across the country, newspaper editorial boards — no great friends of business — are ripping the bills," he wrote.

It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did.

Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell's Jan. 20 posting — and others from different days — are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart's public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.

I've written about Wal-Mart on many occasions over my 18 months of blogging. I'm very rarely a Wal-Mart shopper. I've often said I prefer Target or Costco, but I did pick up some CD-R's at the Wal-Mart in Lihue, HI las week. My past postings about the company usually involved my distaste for the way Wal-Mart was being demonized in the press and by politicians in various states and localities. I thought the company was being treated very unfairly.

Some time back after a post defending Wal-Mart and their impact on the economy, I was contacted by the P.R. firm mentioned in the article and have received periodic updates from them when Wal-Mart is in the news. If the subject of the article is of interest to me, I'll write about it, but have often passed on articles that I didn't think would be of interest to my readers.

I'm not sure if the purpose of this article is to point out an innovative way to market the company, or if they're implying that there's something wrong with bloggers using this source material. Since nobody's being paid to post, or being required to run anything that the company sends out, I certainly don't see why this source material would be considered any less legitimate than if we'd found the article on the web ourselves. As one of the bloggers points out in the Times piece, reporters don't reveal all their sources, so why should we?

My only regret is that HolyCoast.com didn't make it in the Times article. Who knows when I'll have another chance to get in the NY Times?