Generation Rx

Subject: Generation Rx

I have to disagree with Mehbs Remtulla who said marketers, 'have a way sometimes of overlooking the obvious, ' in the recent article by Laura Pratt 'Generation Rx.'

 

Marketers and marketing communications professionals have spent so much time and effort chasing the latest and best buzz word or next miracle to make $1,000,000 'branding miracle,' they have forgotten the basics of marketing.

 

The basics of marketing is to identify your market, and decide how to communicate with it.

 

It is a widely, and old, know fact that when you sell a car or suit to a husband, that you must also sell it to their wife, spouse, or girlfriend, or the car or suit will be back sooner rather than later.

 

It is also widely known that you not only must have a sales message designed to bring the customer in the start, but a message to keep them in the store, a message to buy the service or product, and a message after the sale is made to make the lucky customer sure of their sale, after they leave the store, and when they are bragging about their purchase to their friends, neighbours, and immediate circle of family and friends.

 

Figuring out who the gatekeeper is, is old news.

 

Ramesh Srinivasan's quote, "but we try and communicate to both audiences in a single piece of collateral," is older news.

 

Splitting up the message is as simple as choosing different venues for it to appear in, has been around since the cavemen started to draw pictographs on the cave walls.

 

Why it is only now, this is a surprise in the marketing efforts of health-care professionals must be the biggest surprise here.

 

The source of this problem can be placed at the feet of the large chorus section of the marketing communications choir, who seem bent to beat the phrase, 'branding, branding, branding,' to death

 

Lets close the lid on that horse, drink a dram of the good stuff, and kiss the bandwagon that pulls, 'branding,' off in to the horizon goodbye. After the wagon is gone, we can then drink another dram in salute to the return of the use of real marketing principles in all that we do in the marketing communications field.

 

Hell, lets finish the bottle, dram by dram.

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

Provoco Status Quo

Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications

Calgary, Alberta

FW: Your Campaign Focus, Message, and Strategy in One Story - If You Want to Win

 

Your Campaign Focus, Message, and Strategy in One Story - If You Want to Win

 

If the Green Party of Canada wants a better focus of what their whole campaign should be, the story below is it. It is the 'Ralph Klein,' of the Liberals.

 

It will be the key to winning a seat in the House of Commons or being just a debating club.

 

Harper keeping Liberals alive, poll suggests

By ALEXANDER PANETTA

Thursday, November 24, 2005 Posted at 5:16 PM EST

Canadian Press

Ottawa — The biggest handicap facing the Liberals is not the sponsorship scandal, but a deep-rooted desire for change, a new poll suggests.

The Decima survey turns conventional wisdom on its head by suggesting voters' inclination for a change in government dwarfs their anger over sponsorship.

Only 35 per cent of respondents who said they wanted to replace the government cited the scandal as their prime motivation.

A far greater number — 57 per cent — said it was because the Liberals have been in power too long and they wanted a turnover after 12 years.

The poll surveyed 1,040 respondents between Nov. 17 and 20, and its findings are said to be accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

With an election campaign set to begin next week, the poll offers guidance to all parties, especially the Conservatives.

“The Conservatives have a choice in front of them,” said Decima chief executive Bruce Anderson.

“There's a question of whether or not voters will want to spend the bulk of the election campaign talking about the future or talking about the past.”

The Liberals are already making extensive use of another survey conclusion: that voters are extremely skittish about Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

The poll suggests Mr. Harper's personal unpopularity helps sustain the Liberal party; almost 40 per cent of people who said they would vote Liberal cited Mr. Harper as their main motivation.

Another 52 per cent said they favoured the Liberals because they disagreed generally with Conservative policies.

The Liberals spent a large part of the last campaign demonizing Mr. Harper as a threat to Canada's established values, and they plan to paint a similarly scary portrait this time.

Mr. Harper could fight back by fanning outrage over a 1990s scandal, but he'd be much better off if he also excited moderate voters with his own policies, Mr. Anderson said.

“There's no guarantee the Conservatives would lose an election if they ran just on sponsorship. But there's less evidence to believe they'd win it if they ran only on sponsorship.”

Recent polls have placed the Liberals between four and eight percentage points ahead of the Tories, with the NDP running stronger than usual in the 20-per-cent range.

But incumbent governments tend to dip in support during election campaigns and Mr. Anderson warns this one will be anybody's game.

The campaign could be unusually long — up to seven or eight weeks, with a break for Christmas.

The Tories can't expect to surf on scandal that long; they must appeal to voters who could swing either way, Mr. Anderson said.

“The larger challenge for Conservatives is about convincing voters that they would be more mainstream or centrist,” he said.

“This is likely a bigger challenge than it would be because of the fact that Harper's political biography is more often associated with right of centre policy, the Reform party, and western alienation.”

The campaign hasn't even begun and the Liberals have already suggested Mr. Harper is a lackey to U.S. President George W. Bush, is in bed with the separatist Bloc Québécois,, lacks an environmental policy, would institute draconian tax cuts, gut social programs, cut cultural subsidies and has thwarted increased funding for the Immigration Department.

The Tories insist they will deliver an intricate policy platform aimed at exciting voters.

They also have counter-arguments planned for the bogeyman theme: that Liberal scandal helped revive the Bloc, that the Prime Minister's relationship with Mr. Bush is so poor it took weeks last summer to organize a telephone call on softwood lumber, that Liberals don't even have a plan to meet pollution control targets and have turned the immigration system into a bungled, bureaucratic mess.

• © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Thank you

Norman Greenfield

403-807-1251

 

FW: Calgary Economic Development

Subject: Calgary Economic Development

You being the smart people you are, can anyone of you tell me why the Calgary Economic Authority would hire a Vancouver firm to do their tele-marketing, or updating of their contact database?

 

Does it not strike you as odd, that I pay my property and business taxes to city hall, and they spend them in Vancouver?

 

Or are we annexing Vancouver next?

 

Is it the same reason why we need to highly paid Arts and Culture Czars in this city. We have big dough to spend.

 

 

Thanx

Norm Greenfield

Gondola issue and nine year olds' parents

Subject: Gondola issue and nine year olds' parents

I think the issue that is being missed, is that parents who are whining the loudest, must be under the impression when a crisis like the stranding of the gondola happen, that either a television crew will swoop in and keep them up to date minute by minute, or it will fixed in 30 minutes so call can go home, or a lawyer will come to the rescue.

 

Sometimes things just go wrong, and it takes professionals time to execute a plan for a rescue.

 

The police do this. The fire department do this. The search and rescue people do this.

 

If you want to stay safe, and live in a fantasy world of the world of television, one should not venture out in to the unscripted real world.

 

What should be the real story, is that there were no loss of life and that the people on the ski hill performed their duties so that this did not happen.

 

Stop giving the whining parents their fifteen minutes of fame, and turn the spotlight to the staff of the ski hill. The latter deserve the spotlight, the former do not.

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

 

Campaign Primer (Unofficial) for the election according to Norm

 

First, wait.

 

The campaign will not start in earnest until January 3, 2006. Don’t spend you campaign budget and energies yet.

 

Conserve. The big three will be beating themselves up through the mass media. The mass media is more interested in Christmas advertising revenues and not politics. Their readers, viewers, and listeners, what few they have, wont’ be listening to the big three.

 

Those that will are the committed.

 

Those that don’t are ours to have, after Christmas, Hanukkah, or the Winter Holidays.

 

Conspire. Organize your team between now and January 3, 2006, and get your Viral Campaign team in place.

 

What is a Viral Campaign team?

 

It is the 50 or 60 people you need to get the word out. They are one person in an area that can deliver 140 brochures, make 50 phone calls, or take you door knocking to their neighbours, invite you to their coffee or tea klatch, or just talk positively about you, or forward your e-mail along.

 

This election will be won with a virus: A viral campaign.

 

Don’t sweat the polls. One of if not more of my mentors said, polls are for dogs.

 

Let me explain the polls to you.

 

They are cheap journalism, and they give the writers and reporters something to talk about that requires no footwork, no research and even fewer brains.

 

Polls in Canada are done with a sample group of 1,600 people. It is not a qualified demographic slice of Canada, but just 1600 people who pick up the phone and want to talk to someone. The polls tell us nothing about who won’t vote, what it would take to get those people to vote, and those that do not answer the phone.

 

It does not cover those that work during the day or evening, or those that have gone wireless.

 

So it basically leaves out 60% to 70% of the eligible voters.

 

It covers the people that answer the phone and will complete the survey. The latter is the most important as that is how the pollster gets paid.

 

The most important place for you to get votes is the corner that sees the most traffic, the LRT stations, just outside the big shopping malls, coffee shops, and that virus thing I was talking about.

 

So spend the time finding out where the votes you can get are, and work at those. Talk to them. Listen to them.

 

If they are impressed with you, they will tell ten friends.

 

Your best bet, especially in the larger urban centres in Canada is to go where the voter turnout has been less than or equal to 50%, with a high Liberal, NDP, and such vote.

 

The next best bet is to stick your boots on, and go meet people. Shake their hands, look them in the eye while you talk, and talk about a vision and future for Canada. Don’t dwell on the old.

 

What the Green Party of Canada lacks in experience, we make up with vision, ability, real solutions, talent, and brains.

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

www.provocostatusquo.com

http://provocostatusquo.blogspot.com

Media and Government Relations

Myth Confectioner

Published Writer

Corporate, Marketing and Political Communications

New and Old Media

E-Learning/E-Government/E-Democracy Business Development

Registered Federal Government Lobbyist

Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist

 

Anatomy of the sales call

Subject: Anatomy of the sales call

Karl Moore's opinion piece, Anatomy of the sales call was dead on.

 

The reason many people in marketing don't understand what really goes on, on the sales floor, is that the closest thing they have come to the sales floor is a text book.

 

When I refer to a sales floor, I am not referring to working a 4 hour shift at Wal-Mart. A true sales floor is where the salesperson's pay check depends on how well they present themselves and their product or service, read the customer before them, and understand the triggers that make a person want to buy.

 

Not only is a professional sales call a pleasure for a customer, but also a professional sales person.

 

I would vote for having a semester of putting marketing students on a sales floor to earn their pay check by selling something. Anything.

 

Don't turn your nose down the next time you talk to a car salesperson, an insurance agent, Realtor, or furniture salesperson. At the end of the marketing cycle, if the salesperson cannot move the product out the door into the arms of the approving customer, all of the marketing cycle is for naught.

 

A perfect example is this very magazine. Without the advertising sales people selling advertising into Marketing Magazine there would be no holes for the editorial to fill.

 

 

Thanx

Norm Greenfield

 

 

Norms Thoughts on First Nation's Policy

Subject: Norms Thoughts on First Nation's Policy

First Nation Policy Suggestions:

 

Norm’s Preamble:

 

The First Nations issues are a Gordian knot with few easy answers.

 

Canada as a whole should be ashamed of the treatment of the First Nations, but throwing more and more money at the problems and issues has not worked.

 

The issues of First Nations, how they have been dealt with in the past, either under the agreements signed by the Crown, in the beginning, or to date has been atrocious.

 

What we as a provincial party must understand is that the majority of issues related to First Nations are a federal matter. It is in the constitution, and it is a principle the First Nations adhere to in their actions taken to court.

 

Do we want to enter an area that the federal government already spends about $26,000 to $30,000 per status native, Dene, Métis, and Inuit? How much duplication is there, how much more is needed?

 

Yes, as a province we could ask to take on the responsibility of dealing with the First Nations peoples, but we forget the people of the Blackfoot, feel they are not citizens of either Canada or the US of A, as they are citizens of the Blackfoot Confederacy. How does a province deal with that?

 

We also must realize that not all people in the First Nations communities agree with all of the public spokespeople we hear on the issues at hand. In my work I have worked with and talked to many elders, band councils, and organizations that feel they have not been treated or served well, even by their own band councils.

 

Especially female members.

 

From the Penner Report  from, the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Self- Government says that Indian people have the right to a special place within the Canadian Constitution and political system. They say that the relationship today between Indian people and the federal government is not working. Federal policies and agencies are operating to increase Indian poverty and dependence.’

 

If you read the report you will find it comes as close to what I feel is needed to start the process of actually fixing the situation and re-establish the First Nations people as one of the THREE solitudes of Canada. I have made reference to the Three Solitudes by extrapolating from what our  new Governor General said of the, ‘Two,’ solitudes in Canada referring to the two founding cultures of Canada, in her first speech as Governor General.

 

For more information on this report go to:

http://www.sicc.sk.ca/saskindian/a84apr22.htm

 

For information on what the bureaucrats in Ottawa feel, go to:

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg27_e.html

 

My concern is that if we as the Alberta Green Party, or even the Federal Green Party of Canada, give the people of the First Nations a position in the country as being apart from Canada, and all of its laws, such as environmental, then we put to rest the idea that we believe the environment is system that needs to be dealt with as a whole and not just a separate idea to be dealt with in isolation from all other government policies.

 

So I would suggest we look at how much independence we as a provincial political party advocate for in our First Nations policies.

 

Do we mean to say that people of the Montana First Nations can built a nuclear plant on their land, and not follow the laws, regulations and policies of either the Federal or Provincial governments? Theoretically they can.

 

If you decide we allow those peoples to be separate and apart from Canada’s laws, then you are also saying that they can build a nuclear plant on their land, because it is their land and we cannot direct them otherwise.

 

As an example, the people of the Morley nation were given control of the natural resources as in forests about five or six years ago. The trees were stripped from the land in a clear cutting fashion and led to severe environmental damage to the land, that affected the water and run off in the Elbow and Bow for those that benefit from those systems downstream. The financial benefits of the logging were not spread evenly in the tribe, and were not properly supervised by their own band council.

 

So does the province have the right to impose the same rules and regulations on that logging operation as they do in a similar one in Spray Lakes?

 

When the Lubicon or Montana First Nations People demand on of the oil and gas revenue under their lands to be paid to them as they own the rights, how do we justify that when our own courts have said the oil and gas are owned by the Province, and thus people not living on the First Nations land must cede control over their land to the crown and all of the ownership of the minerals under it?

 

If we set up the Bioregional Management Boards, do we exclude First Nations? If we include them, and they insist on on the notion that they are not bound by the provincial laws on their land, how will these boards become effective. Some of the bioregional boards will be made up of large land parcels owned and controlled by the First Nations people.

 

What about the Morley people who are building a large casino and hotel complex at highway 40 and Highway 1? If they need water and the Bow River water levels can not sustain their needs, can we deny them access to the water in the Bow?

 

If they decide to drill a water well, will that have an adverse affect on the wells around it, or disturb the groundwater aquifers to the point that it will in deed have an affect on either the water levels in the Bow or Elbow?

 

What if the province decides that the development is unsustainable for the areas environment, and denies permits to hook it up to a sewage system? What if the City decides the new casino on the Tsu Tsina land is not viable with regards to traffic, utilities, and infrastructure. Does it have the right, or will it be given the right under the Municipal Government Act by a provincial Green Party government, to deny hooking water, sewer, and roads up to the facility?

 

We hear of hunting and fishing rights for First Nations being outside of provincial regulation. Do we want that?

 

What if the province wants to suspend the fishing of a specific species of fish in a river system to let it come back? Does that apply to the First Nations the river runs through?

 

I realize it sounds like the perfect thing to do, to rush into the area of First Nations and all of the issues that are connected to that, but we must create policy that shows people we understand the issues and exactly what is needed. That means for the First Nations that in the far remote north, or those that border on a large urban centre like Calgary or Edmonton, and all the benefits that brings.

 

That does not mean we should not tackle this area, but it means we must tackle it with our minds focused on the appropriate areas of provincial responsibility.

 

My policy suggestions:

 

• To demand the Federal government adopt the Penner Report in the next Parliament, and to implement it in five years.

 

• To demand the Federal government to guarantee every First Nations person will have access to potable water, in their communities in five years.

 

• The Provincial government will ensure its complete cooperation on the Lubicon First Nations issues and matters.

 

• To ensure all people of the First Nations with in Alberta have access to high speed internet, at home, at school, and/or at the band council offices.

 

• To have the concept of the Indian Village at the Calgary Stampede scrapped and have the people of the First Nations become an integrated part of the exhibition and not just an added on show piece.

 

• Annually to hold a provincial government Cabinet meeting with all of the Chiefs of the First Nations people Métis, and Dene in Alberta.

 

• Ask the Lieutenant Governor to establish a council of First Nations elders and chiefs to advise on matters related to their government in Alberta

 

Michael Ignatieff has decided to run as a Liberal

Subject: Michael Ignatieff has decided to run as a Liberal

The fact that Michael Ignatieff has decided to run as a Liberal is not news.

 

What would be news is that he showed the country that he is truly different and chose a riding outside of the safe confines of Toronto.

 

Why not running in a riding in Calgary?

 

Calgary South Centre would be the perfect riding for him.

This pending election will be about who can sink the lowest not about who can look the farthest.
 
There will be no real solutions to the issues and problems facing Canada.
 
It will be about who can sling the most cow paddies, and who can take us back to the cave era the fastest.

 

By Michael Ignatieff running in a non-traditional Liberal strong hold, will show Canada he is not the average politician.

 

Or is he chicken?

 

Thank you

 

Norm Greenfield 

Calgary, Alberta

Stuff for Sir Arthur

WalMart debate intensifies

BY LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITER

What began many years ago as a low murmur of discussion has grown into a full-throated debate. It's a question that is engaging activists, economists, legislators and even the company around which the controversy swirls: Is Wal-Mart good for America?

Well, it depends on whom you ask. But what's striking is the extent to which the debate has been characterized by high emotions, conflicting information and prodigious public-relations campaigns. When was the last time a single corporation was the subject of so much hand-wringing and public angst?

The debate has begun to spawn a mini-industry of research by economists and other academics exploring the effects of a corporate giant whose tentacles spread into nearly every corner of American society.

What Wal-Mart says

Earlier this month, Wal-Mart jumped into the fray with what seemed to be a good-faith attempt to measure, definitively, its economic impact on U.S consumers. It released a study by Global Insight, a Boston-based economic research firm that Wal-Mart had commissioned to conduct a year-long study addressing such issues as prices, jobs and wages.

Wal-Mart's study found that Wal-Mart has a largely positive effect on Americans' lives, and that its low prices give consumers more buying power by holding down prices throughout the economy. It also concluded that Wal-Mart jobs generally pay market-rate wages.

But the study did not address some of the most trenchant criticisms of the company. It did not compare Wal-Mart's benefits policies with those of its competitors, nor did it look at whether Wal-Mart's low-wage jobs lead employees to seek out government programs such as Medicaid. That issue was the catalyst for legislation passed earlier this year in both Suffolk County and New York City to force the big-box retailers to pay a greater share of their employees' health benefits.

Wal-Mart's study also largely avoided hard-to-quantify social concerns, such as whether Wal-Mart diverts sales from downtown shopping districts and, in doing so, damages the character of America's small towns and neighborhoods. Even less tangible effects -- such as the retailer's using its market dominance to pressure musicians into changing lyrics and CD cover art that it deems objectionable -- are not addressed in Wal-Mart's study.

Debate comes to a head

The debate could go up a few decibels this month with the release of the Robert Greenwald documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices," and a week of protests. At the same time, the company is promoting a film, called "Why Wal-Mart Works: And Why That Drives Some People Crazy."

For its part, Wal-Mart has acknowledged that it has opened itself up to criticism, but spokesman Nate Hurst said the company did its study to "serve as a benchmark moving forward. There's so many topics and issues you could go with. We see this as a first step in opening up the dialogue."

Against this backdrop, here's a sampling of what economists and other experts are saying about the company at the heart of the controversy.

Pricing and its influence

Global Insight found that Wal-Mart's presence holds down prices of consumer goods in the U.S. by 3.1 percent. The effect is both direct -- Wal-Mart's own low prices -- and indirect -- suppliers and rivals reduce their prices to sell to or compete with Wal-Mart. In a world without Wal-Mart, you might spend $100 on back-to-school shopping. Because Wal-Mart exists, that same shopping trip will cost you about $97.

Adjusting for inflation, the report says that means Americans saved $118 billion in 2004, or $402 per person, thanks to Wal-Mart.

Another independent study, by economist Emek Basker, found that Wal-Mart was particularly effective at holding down prices on drugstore goods such as aspirin, shampoo and toothpaste.

Jobs are gained and lost

When a new Wal-Mart store opens, the company hires 150 to 350 new employees to staff it. The Global Insight study found that some local retailers shut down after Wal-Mart came to town, so other jobs were lost. The biggest losses occurred at food stores and apparel shops. Overall, the report found, an average of 97 long-term retail jobs are gained each time a new Wal-Mart opens.

In plain English: Every new Wal-Mart creates 150 to 350 new jobs but displaces anywhere from 53 to 253 existing jobs, for a net gain of 97 new jobs. Global Insight didn't address the quality of those jobs -- in other words, whether the new jobs paid better or worse than the displaced ones, or had better or worse benefit packages.

But there remains conflict on the topic of job creation, partly because researchers use different (and often exceedingly complex) statistical models, or study different geographic regions.

A team led by David Neumark, an economist at the Public Policy Institute of California, found that Wal-Mart stores actually reduce retail employment by 2 to 4 percent in a given county.

Wages data inconclusive

According to Global Insight, Wal-Mart generally pays wages comparable to other discount retailers. That stands to reason -- in today's fairly strong labor market, if the shop around the corner is paying significantly more than Wal-Mart, no one's going to apply for jobs at Wal-Mart; the company would have to raise its wages to attract workers.

But looking at wage data alone is inconclusive. Benefits now constitute, on average, about 40 percent of a worker's total compensation, so critics say a true understanding of whether Wal-Mart offers comparable employment would have to include benefits such as health and disability insurance, pension plan, vacation and sick leave.

Global Insight acknowledged as much: "Many external observers have held that the cost of Wal-Mart's success in offering lower prices has come at the expense of its workers. Coming to a comprehensive position on this issue is beyond the scope of this study. It would require a thorough, comparative analysis of of Wal-Mart's wages, working conditions, and benefits relative to a fair and comparable benchmark."

Some scholars have compared Wal-Mart's wages with those of unionized supermarket employees. That's partly a response to fears that Wal-Mart's supercenters -- which include full-scale grocery stores -- force local supermarkets to shut down or lower their wages to compete. (Currently, there are no supercenters on Long Island.)

In California, where such fears led to a 5-month grocery strike in 2003, a team of urban planners compared Wal-Mart's wages and benefits with those of union supermarket workers in the San Francisco Bay Area. They concluded that union workers received an hourly wage of $15.30, versus $9.60 for Wal-Mart workers. Adding in benefits, union workers earned an equivalent of $23.64 per hour, almost twice the $11.95 earned by Wal-Mart workers.

Medicaid as a job benefit

In September, the Suffolk County legislature passed a law requiring big-box stores to pay a greater share of their employees' health insurance costs. This law and similar ones proposed around the country -- often referred to as "Wal-Mart tax" bills -- respond to the concern that retail workers are relying heavily on state-funded insurance programs because their wages aren't sufficient to pay the premiums on company-sponsored health plans.

Michael Hicks, an economist at the Air Force Institute of Technology in Ohio, tested that theory and found that for every new Wal-Mart store, roughly 16 Medicaid cases are added to that county's rolls. In a second study, he concludes that, on average, every new Wal-Mart worker costs a state an average of about $900 in new Medicaid costs.

But advocates of "Wal-Mart taxes," take note: Hicks says his conclusions are "policy-neutral." In other words, such laws are unwarranted because, even if Wal-Mart costs states money for Medicaid programs, the company also adds to county and state revenues through property and sales taxes. These costs and benefits can cancel each other out. (In a parallel policy recommendation, Hicks says Wal-Mart also doesn't deserve tax subsidies as incentives for opening new stores.)

And that extra $900 in Medicaid costs per employee? that's not limited to Wal-Mart, Hicks writes. That figure "is consistent with other studies of the Medicaid costs per low-wage worker across the United States."

All companies that pay their employees low wages -- in the retail sector and elsewhere -- increase the burden on government safety net programs.

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Duelling documetaries debate merits of Wal-Mart

Last Updated Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:45:59 EST

CBC Arts

Wal-Mart is getting behind a documentary extolling the company's virtues in an effort to counter a damning Robert Greenwald film.

Greenwald's Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, was released Tuesday, and opens in cinemas in New York and Los Angeles on Nov. 4.

Made on a shoestring budget of $1.8 million, it will get limited release in theatres, but in the current age of popular documentaries, Greenwald hopes it will become a cult hit like Michael Moore's critique of General Motors, Roger and Me.

In The High Cost of Low Price Greenwald talked to Wal-Mart employees, who complained about being cheated out of overtime and being unable to afford the company's health insurance.

The film looks at Wal-Mart's development practices, building large stores on the outskirts of towns and sucking the life out of many small communities.

Current and former employees describe the company's inner workings and community leaders and poets from throughout the U.S. describe its practices as "an assault on families and American values," Greenwald says.

Wal-Mart, known for eschewing public relations under founder Sam Walton, has hired prominent public relations firm Edelman to bolster its image against the perceived threat from the documentary and from other activists who have criticized its practices.

Wal-Mart fears it will lose the support of middle-class consumers. Earlier this year unions organized a boycott of the retailer by asking teachers not to purchase school supplies there.

Among those coordinating the campaign to boost Wal-Mart's image is Michael Deaver, one of Ronald Reagan's closest advisors, according to the New York Times.

Independent filmmaker Ron Galloway has made a film called Why Wal-Mart Works and Why That Makes Some People Crazy, which he has funded himself.

Wal-Mart has become involved in promoting Galloway's documentary, urging staff to attend screenings and writing letters in support of the film.

While Wal-Mart executives would not agree to be interviewed for Greenwald's film, they have made themselves available for the Galloway counter-offensive.

In advance of Greenwald's movie release, they accused the filmmaker of getting his facts wrong. And now they are challenging Greenwald to show the two films side by side.

On his website, Greenwald urges faith groups, community activists and schools to host a screening of his documentary. The filmmaker says he plans 3,000 such screenings in the week of Nov. 13-19, describing this as a worldwide grassroots premiere.

Greenwald is the director of the 2004 movie Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism and TV movies and miniseries including The Book of Ruth and The Burning Bed. The Wal-Mart movie is being backed by his own production house, Best Films.

Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

Waging war on Wal-Mart

Retailing giant faces intense scrutiny
New film adds to mounting pressure

Nov. 17, 2005. 06:06 AM

TIM HARPER

WASHINGTON BUREAU

 

WASHINGTON—Spies and turncoats.

Duelling propaganda films and war rooms, backroom operatives and political attacks.

 

A battle so crucial, according to one side, America "can't afford to lose." These are all elements of a campaign against retailing behemoth Wal-Mart, nothing short of a continental call-to-arms against the world's largest company.

It is the most expensive and likely most sophisticated offensive against a company in North American history, a battle being waged by unions, liberal advocacy organizations, Democrats and church, environmental and women's groups.

 

For years, frustrated unions have hurled stones at Wal-Mart.

 

Now, facing boulders instead of sporadic pebbles, Wal-Mart is doing something it never did before. It is fighting back, establishing a war room in its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters where the most revered political strategists from both U.S. parties — including Michael Deaver, the man credited with covering Ronald Reagan in Teflon — plot public relations counterattacks.

 

The campaign hits a crescendo this week, with some 4,000 anti-Wal-Mart activities planned by WakeupWalmart.com and Walmartwatch.com, founded by the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Service Employees International Union.

 

The centrepiece of the week of activity is the official release of Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, the $1.8 million (U.S.), 98-minute movie done by the darling of the American documentary left, Robert Greenwald.

 

A splashy premiere of the movie vilifying Wal-Mart here Tuesday is being accompanied by some 7,000 private showings across the U.S. this week, just in time for the crucial Christmas shopping season.

 

It's showing in Toronto at various locations this month.

 

But Greenwald has competition. Brothers Ron and Robert Galloway of Augusta, Ga., debuted their $85,000, 72-minute documentary Why Wal-Mart Works: And Why That Makes Some People Crazy at a theatre near the Bentonville corporate headquarters on Monday.

And Wal-Mart has released a 28-page rebuttal to Greenwald, calling him a "failed fantasy filmmaker" and accusing him of serial fabrications in a document it calls "The High Cost of Low Credibility."

 

The company also held a full-day forum in Washington to explain how it gives back to communities in the U.S. The stakes are so high, Wal-Mart tried to slip in a spy to see Greenwald's first screening in New York earlier this month. He was identified and ejected, barely escaping the tar and feathers.

 

The charges against Wal-Mart are familiar, but when catalogued by its opponents this week, they appear devastating.

 

The Greenwald film and various websites and media events chronicle the way Wal-Mart shuts down small businesses and sends its employees to the state for government-subsidized and taxpayer-supported health care, the choice of last resort for this nation's poorest.

 

It details its rock-bottom wages — its employees draw an average annual salary of $13,861, below the U.S. poverty rate — and says it draws down retail wages in this country by $3 billion.

 

Critics detail the unpaid overtime so-called "associates" must work and quotes former employees who watched colleagues go hungry at lunch hour because they were too poor to eat.

 

The company is accused of practising gender and racial inequality, fouling the environment, employing workers in Chinese sweat shops who are paid less than $3 a week, hiring illegal immigrants and locking them in the stores overnight.

It is portrayed as a company that receives hundreds of millions in government subsidies and is the most aggressive anti-union employer on the continent, using anti-union cameras, spy vans and 24-hour hotlines.

 

In a special addition to his film, Greenwald explores the decision to close the Wal-Mart in Jonquière, Que., after workers there received union certification. The company counters that employees voted against the union, but certification was allowed by the "labour-backed" provincial government.

 

"Wal-Mart sells itself as the all-American company, but it violates American family values every single day by mistreating its workers" Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said at a press conference with Greenwald in Washington this week. "This is not just a congressional fight — it is an American fight that we should all join."

 

Wal-Mart counters with some facts and figures of its own.

It says it saves the average American household $2,329 per year, created 210,000 jobs in 2004. It employs 1.6 million worldwide (1.3 million in the U.S.) and has 5,900 stores, including 3,600 in the U.S.

 

In Canada, Wal-Mart has 256 stores and six Sam's Clubs, employing 65,000 Canadians.

 

It is opening 20 new stores each year and it says it poured $8 billion into 6,000 Canadian suppliers in 2004.

 

Wal-Mart in the U.S. Monday reported its smallest quarterly profit in four years, 3.8 per cent.

 

In the third-quarter in the U.S., sales hit $75.4 billion.

 

Meanwhile, the battle continues on the big screen.

 

"Our feeling is that this movie is nothing more than a thinly-sourced attack ad," Kevin Groh, of Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

 

The Galloways made their film on two credit cards. Greenwald says his was bankrolled by two anonymous benefactors, but two others backed out for fear of retaliation from Wal-Mart, the largest retailer of videos in North America. The films do have one thing in common — Wal-Mart will not carry either.

 

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

www.provocostatusquo.com

http://provocostatusquo.blogspot.com

Media and Government Relations

Myth Confectioner

Published Writer

Corporate, Marketing and Political Communications

New and Old Media

E-Learning/E-Government/E-Democracy Business Development

Registered Federal Government Lobbyist

Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist

Submission For Publication

Subject: Submission For Publication

Whether we are going to have an election or not, the biggest question you must ask the candidates, and yourself is why?

 

The second question you have to ask yourself is when?

 

The why is between you, and your politicians.

 

Why are you still sitting on your ass and not getting involved in the election process and a democratic right that many in this world would die, and have died for?

 

Why are we going to have a Christmas election? Why can’t the opposition wait until March when the current sitting Prime Minister has promised there will be an election?

 

Why would the NDP, Conservatives, and Bloc all get into the political bed together?

 

Can the NDP and Bloc agree with the Conservative’s stand on same-sex marriage while in this marriage of convenience? Can the Conservatives and NDP tell the country they agree with the stated goal of the Bloc, to take Quebec out of Canada, and more than likely doom Canada to not be soon after that?

 

Can the NDP agree with the Conservatives stand on the economy, more privatization of health care, fewer corporate handouts, more continental free trade, a closer relationship with the US, involvement of Canadian Armed Forces in Iraq, or more withdrawal of the Federal Government from many of this country’s internationally envied social programs?

 

If the Conservatives become the government, they will only become a governing party in a minority government situation and will need to have the support of one or two of the other three federal political parties, four if the Green Party of Canada finally makes their much-expected breakthrough in Federal politics. What will the Conservatives give up to do that? Ask them, and ask the local Conservative candidate.

 

If there is an election can we see the agreement that the three opposition parties made, to bring down the Martin government? After all, didn’t the very politicians that now want us to vote for them in a Christmas election they have forced on us make it?

 

Yes the Martin government is bad. It is a group of thieves, liars, and arrogant people.

 

The only realistic option to the Martin minority government will be a Harper minority government. Unless we get off our collective asses and put your whining where your mouth is, and get the kind of people you want in government, through the normal course of our democratic process.

 

If you are content with just sitting there on your ass, then stop the whining about the politicians and that fact they delight in screwing you over with or without a condom.

 

They do that because they can and because you let them.

 

Thank you

 

Norm Greenfield

Sugar Daddy Klein

Subject: Sugar Daddy Klein

In the typical small mindedness of the Calgary Sun's editorial writer,

 

Why does Ralph Klein's idea of creating scholarships across Canada raise troubling questions?

 

I would think it raises the idea that Albertans are Canadians, that realize that we must work to make sure Canada stays strong.

 

It shows Canada, that we know that our wealth depends on luck, and the fact that most of the income we realize from our natural resources comes from other Canadians, or people from around the world buying our resources.

 

Maybe the Sun can tell us who helped keep Alberta afloat, before we discovered the treasure beneath our farm land?

 

Maybe the Sun could tell us, if they don't like the way we share our wealth with Canada, how they would see us participate in this country called Canada.

 

We are lucky to be sitting on top of the oil.

 

We are also lucky we have the rest of Canada, from which to draw the workers we have in the oil field helping to bring that oil and gas to market.

 

Maybe the scholarships will help Alberta in the long run with educated Canadians to draw to our province to continue our fortunate situation long in the future.

 

Or we could succumb to the small mindedness of the Sun and keep all of the marbles to ourselves.

 

Thank you

 

Norm Greenfield

#207, 2425-90th Avenue SW

Calgary, Alberta

T2V 4X8

403-807-1251

Letter To The Editor - Potpourri of Stuff

 

Subject: Letter To The Editor - Potpourri of Stuff

Dan Barnabic, President of Consumer Federation Canada is wrong.

 

To take legal actions resulting out of damages for breaches under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents (PIPED) Act, and get the attention of the offender, the best place to go, is only the Federal Court. If you want to play games and get jerked around for time immemorial, then yes you can go to a lower court or even one of the farcical paper tigers like industry monitoring groups set up to mirror a smoke screen.

 

The reason for the marketing messages missing the younger generation when trying to sell health-care industry services and products, is right under the noses of the health-care marketers.

 

Its called 'Branding.' They think they know what they are doing, while tossing the word around.

 

They might even be able to spell it.

 

They have certainly succeeded in putting a spell over the industry, that has caused normally smart marketers, to miss the real source of their business in many cases.

 

It is still un-cool to be in marketing communications by applying the simple marketing philosophy, hence the problems of the health-care marketers in reaching the true audience for their message.

 

You not only have to put the message before the end user, but you must put it before those the end user turns to for help and advice. You must also communicate a message to both audiences so all know the right decision was made.

 

Why do you think the smart car or men's suit salesperson always makes sure the husbands' wife is satisfied with the car or suit?

 

The sooner we stop using the buzz words of the moment in marketing communications, and go back to the future of marketing using the basic 4 P's, the sooner we will get back to the business of selling stuff to the right people.

 

Hurray for Karin Moorhouse in taking some 'Little diversions.' It will make her a better marketer.

 

Thank you

Norm Greenfield

FW: Council considers conduct code - Cause for Crocodile Tears of Joy From Council

Subject: Council considers conduct code - Cause for Crocodile Tears of Joy From Council

Wow, what a set of standards to live by, our council members will agree to, ,stop political donations from civic partners, post their office expenditures online and get approval before taking trips out of the city paid by taxpayers.'

 

Is this the best Ald. Ric McIver, can do to 'improve transparency at city hall?'

 

Why not go for the big stuff?

 

Why not open the process of choosing the public members of the various boards, committees, agencies, and such the council members appoint behind closed doors.

 

After all Craig Burrows said,  it simply makes sense,  "It's taxpayer dollars."

 

There various boards agencies, and committees that council makes appointments to, spend our tax dollars, with no public scrutiny as to who they are, and why they have been appointed.

 

Or will Burrows and McIver scurry for cover behind the skirts of the city law department like Barry Erskine is apt to do, rather than make real change to the way city government is operated?

 

Thank you

 

Norm Greenfield