Julie Roehm's Taboo Dinner at Nobu
December 21, 2006
Wal-Mart recently fired Julie Roehm, its senior vice president of marketing. And now they've fired the advertising company she was hiring to help the retail giant make its marketing more targeted. (In particular, they want to develop regionalized and even localized ad campaigns, since their clientele is so diverse.)
The reason for the firings, insiders speculate, was that Ms. Roehm broke one of Wal-Mart's sacred rules: Employees are not allowed to accept gifts from vendors.
The gift was a dinner at Nobu, the famous Manhattan restaurant. The evening was sponsored by Interpublic Group's Draft/FCB, the ad agency Roehm had hired.
The agency's dismissal was "the result of new information we have obtained over the past few weeks," a Wal-Mart spokesperson said. She declined to say what that new information was.
In response to questions about the possibility that the dinner might have been the cause of the firings, the spokesperson said, "Our policy is that our associates cannot accept anything from suppliers, not even a cup of coffee. I'm not saying if it's related to this or not."
She's not saying, but she's not denying it either. I see this as an internal-relations (as opposed to a public-relations) firing. Its purpose: to let Wal-Mart employees (that "associate" thing doesn't sit well with me) know that the company is very, very serious about this no-gifts-from-vendors policy.
And I can understand why. There is so much at stake.
I can imagine the following conversation at Wal-Mart's headquarters.
Human Resources Director (HRD): "Yes, sir. We've confirmed it. She had duck a
l'orange and let the Draft/FCB reps pay the tab."
Senior Vice President (SVP): "She didn't even pay the tip?"
HRD: "No, sir. We checked that too. The gratuity was included on the credit card
charge."
SVP: "Oy!"
HRD: "Be careful, sir. Such expressions violate our new policies regarding ethnic-neutral expressions during business hours."
SVP: "Fine. But this is a tough situation. Roehm is one sharp cookie. And these advertising people - they seemed to be doing a damn good job. Is there some way we can't slap their hands?"
HRD:
"I'm afraid the guidelines are unambiguous. They call for immediate termination
... of both parties."
SVP: "What? Are you saying I have to can both of them?"
HRD: "I'm afraid so, sir."
I'm having some fun with this, but I understand Wal-Mart's position. Several times in my career I've had this very same sort of conversation. In some cases - when the perpetrator was one of my superstars - I wanted to ignore the rules and save him. In other cases - when the gift-taker was nobody special, I was in favor of sending a message.
But, in general, I have favored a similarly strict no-gifts-from-vendors policy.
Since her firing, the papers have been reporting that Wal-Mart has not only been questioning Roehm about accepting gifts from the ad agency, but also about having a personal relationship with Sean Womack, a Wal-Mart employee she was mentoring. According to what I read, she has denied that she has done anything wrong.
Roehm was hired from Daimler Chrysler AG in January 2006 to "shake up Wal-Mart's marketing," The Wall Street Journal reported. Prior to her arrival, Wal-Mart's advertising was dull, safe, and old fashioned: "smiley faces and drab reminders about low prices."
Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. had heard about Roehm's reputation for stirring things up at Daimler Chrysler, and he thought she could put some pizzazz in Wal-Mart's brand ... and maybe even attract a more affluent customer base.
At Daimler Chrysler, Roehm had rejuvenated the car manufacturer's stodgy image by introducing rock bands, video games, and online advertising into the marketing mix. She wasn't afraid to be daring. (One of her ads showed men at a urinal talking about the size of a car's trunk.) A public-relations event she planned (that was quashed) was a football game with lingerie-wearing models.
You can understand why H. Lee Scott Jr. hired Roehm. If she could boost the company's sales and renew its image, Wal-Mart executives might be able to get back to the business of growth and forget about all the negative publicity it's been getting lately.
So Roehm was hired, and she went to work right away. One of the first things she did was repaint her drab office in bright colors. She also produced new ads that made fun of competitors, sponsored football on ESPN, and hired Interpublic Group's Draft/FCB to manage Wal-Mart's $580 million account.
In trying to make things new, Roehm went back to the saucy stuff that had succeeded (and failed) at Daimler Chrysler. One notable example: To congratulate Wal-Mart for winning some industry award, Draft/FCB took out an ad in a trade publication that depicted a male lion mounting a lioness. The caption read: "It's good to be on top."
So why was Roehm fired? Because she broke the no-gift rule? Because she was fooling around with a fellow "associate" - a subordinate, no less? Were both company violations considered? Was it felt that she was a little out of control?
Or was something else involved - something that might be less titillating but more crucial to the future of the retail giant's profits? Could Roehm have been doing a bad job?
posted by M. Masterson @ 1:25 AM,
1 Comments:
-
At 11:29 AM,
said...
-
I think Wal-Mart deserves a little more credit. WMT, more than anyone else, knows their business and they know how employees' actions affect their business. Julie, like most professionals, worked at will -- meaning any party can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason (besides discrimination). If Wal-Mart were to do things against Julie's code of ethics, she could terminate their relationship. If that had been the case, we'd be looking at this a lot differently: she would probably be seen as taking a positive moral stand against behavior she considered unethical. In this case, it's just the reverse. Wal-Mart considered her actions (which we still don't know yet) to be against their code of ethics. They work at will - either is free to terminate the relationship. Why shouldn't Wal-Mart be seen in the same light as many corporate "whistleblowers" are?
Subscribe to RSS Feed