MadScam

25 years ago I was working for an ad agency in London where the client was constantly putting the thumbscrews on the suppliers advertising budgets to spend with them, and our agency was always shelling-out tickets to the client for the Grand Prix. Nobody agency went. It got so bad, (or good depending on your point of view), at one point the chairman held a client lunch where he ordered-in MacDonalds for everyone including the client!

Tip for the week: Invest in MacDonalds Fast Foods and get your own Free plastic Grand Prix Racing Car with every 10 meals purchased.

Retailer blackmail in the form of 'co-operative' advertising programs is as old as the hills.  All the major retailers have tried it on at one time or another.  I'd be very surprised if Walmart can pull it off to the tune of 30%.  Everyone just needs to say 'no', in unison.  But of course, that would take guts ... so maybe they will get away with it, after all.

The BBC has has just announced someone is doing an online test to see if people judge honesty or dishonesty with the same values. Apparently this will allow lawyers to sleep better at night being more able to know whether a case can be won or not through what the jury considers as honest. (In other words, how much money can or cannot be squeezed out of a case, or if it is worth defending). Fast forward 5 years "Et Voila" Online juries, fast-track courts, decisions by mob rule.

You can just see it. Especially in America: Judges being displaced by 30,000 online votes, more arguments, more uncertainty...what a money-spinner for the legal eagles. Is there no end to people's insatiable appetite to "sue your ass?"

Today industry is no longer governed by the proprietor. It is the shareholder that has the last word, and if the company does not produce X dividend against Y output, the whole board is turned upside down and the business has to spend Z years gathering a fresh team of key professionals because the dummy slipped out of the shareholder's mouth. This is the painful life the Multinational Board Director has to face: Staring at the hangman's noose every time the annual report is published and thinking; "Why did it have to be me?"

The true success stories are the companies that keep their "Heads of State"

the ones that do not do not kill their own kings. Branson, Hanson, M&C Saatchi.

These people are priceless, and it's about time shareholders realised you cannot run a company by decapitating the board because they didn't quite make 10% this year. There is too much emphasis placed on short term gains against long term losses. Take GM as a prime example. Forced to become so preoccupied with battles of the present, they lost the war for their entire future, and many good people are or will soon be out of work as a result of the short-sightedness to make a quick buck.

All of the above posts and comments are as a result of the behemoth hunger for profit that drives these oversized companies to simply gorge without consequence in order make a buck. Wal-mart is continuing as it has been doing for years to focus on increasing its profits and nothing else. Anyone that says that is not the case is fooling themselves.

If Wal-Mart is not offsetting x, y or z expense against some tax loophole, tax abatement, national or local govt subsidy, free land or whatever, it is pressurizing some other small supplier or producer company to pay for its own expenses – in this case, the advertising. The neck of it.

This Wal-Mart machine has far too much power and not a hint of conscience. Just last week Wal-Mart were pulling the PR wool over Joe Consumers eyes by pressurising suppliers to be more green. Nothing but a ruse. Because, at the same time Wal-Mart is abandoning massive concrete city stores to move into supercentres that are further out of town causing Joe Consumer to drive further distances, resulting in increased pollution. It’s hypocritical and manipulative.

Wal-Mart doesn’t do anything for the benefit of any one but its own profit margin. And again, I say, if you think otherwise, then you have your head in the sand or maybe you're working for a BDA.

Hi John,

I'd love to hear your views on this because I think it's a real conundrum that nobody seems able to break out of, and nobody is prepared to face that one day everything about the way we work is going to have to change. Let's get the ball rolling and start discussion:-

Example 1

Company A has a great green track record, but it doesn't get sufficient financing from the bank because the set-up costs against turnover are too low yeild.

Company B has an appalling green track record but it makes profit year after year, and although it crucifies its suppliers on cost, it employs hundreds of thousands of people on low pay who would otherwise be out of work.

Which company will survive?

Only last week we heard that Vestas, a company involved in manufacturing Wind Energy are to close down on the Isle of Wight when the UK is in desperate need of new sustainable energy resources. Why?

EDF on the other hand, played the green card got a public slapping for copying Ecotricity's Green Union Jack, and fined 2 million pounds for failure to deliver electricity to parts of the South-East Region. None of which I hasten to add has been given back as far as I can see to any of the bill-paying general public.

Where does all the fine money go?

There has to be a better way that makes Green Energy more attractive as a viable business proposition to big companies. Let's take company C:-

B&Q Have just opened a new store that is totally self-sustaining. it generates its own power, recycles its own resources etc, reducing the B&Q Carbon footprint. It is a technological revolution regarding the way retailers run their business.

I suppose you could call it "sustainable profit by cost reduction".

Is this the intelligent way to future profitability?

Suppose banks imposed restrictions on companies that do not borrow against "sustainable profitability" then those companies, and their stock, who change will become more attractive than those who do not. If the government wished, it could impose such sanctions right now as it is in control of the banks. A boom for the construction industry would ensue, companies would be able to ease their balance sheets with the energy savings, and less pressure would be placed on the already overburdened national grid for more "instant" power.

Would this result in more out-of town development?

Old thinking is: "Throwing more coal on the fire creates more power."

It doesn't. It just generates more heat.

New thinking is: "Make the power you have work more efficiently for you"

and in this respect company C wins hands down.

If the consequences of global warming are as catastrophic as scientifically predicted, government fines on some companies will crush them out of existence.

My message to the big companies is don't wait for the court writ to slip under the door before you act because the telephone numbers attached to such legal cases will destroy you. Do something now while you have the money to be able to act.

My message to the government is, show some initiative and reinvest fine money on bad energy solutions back into companies like Vestas. This way, bad energy and bad practice companies will have no alternative but to change.

I can understand why Wal-Mart is reluctant to change. All the big boys are in their swimsuits at the edge of a freezing lake, and they're all saying:- "You go first" and being the first one in requires bravery, and right now, there is no incentive for them to do anything. That's why governments should act like schoolmasters, walking behind the row of boys nudging them in with the reassurance that if they fall foul "Sir" will bail them out, and "Sir" right now is reluctant to do so. Perhaps "Sir" should show a bit more willing. He could start by zero rating tax on green advertising budgets and get people competing to win the biggest race of all.

The race to save our planet.