Comments

Not a chance. Hell, I wouldn't be caught dead in a "regular" Wal-Mart.

I think they are reaching way too far here. They are a cut-rate dicounter. That image does not translate to high end retailing.

Posted by Chris at March 23, 2006 11:07 AM

Check out the WalMart in Hilton Head, SC

Posted by Daisy at March 23, 2006 11:17 AM

Yes - love Wal@Mart - look forward to their more upscale moves - organic food et al!

Posted by Sean at March 23, 2006 11:35 AM

Certainly. I hope they remain a deep discounter with their luxury items as well. Keep the marble and mahogany found in the "high end" establishments and let me buy an $1800 Rolex for $1100. :)

Posted by walter white at March 23, 2006 1:06 PM

I'd certainly buy that $700 bottle of wine for $500. The question for me would be "do I know what I'm buying".

Posted by Jeff at March 23, 2006 4:58 PM

Great point from Jeff. Isn't the first question, "Would you pay $500 for a bottle of wine?" If no, the name of the seller is irrelevant. If yes, then you presumably know something about wine and have an appreciation for the value. Sounds to me like Wal*Mart have an appreciation of their actual and/or potential customer base.

Posted by MarkJF at March 23, 2006 5:29 PM

WOW - I was thinking all along that WAL*MART is a discount retailer!!! Is WAL*MART gettin' to be TALL*MART (far above the ground!)???

Posted by K.Sriram at March 24, 2006 1:28 AM

Wally world knows they can take some of the Costco upscale thunder.

Posted by Sean at March 24, 2006 9:26 AM

I think Jeff hits it right on the head.

The key most definately is the awareness of the consumer. If that awareness is present, then there should be no reason not to buy your product where it is the cheapest.

It is no different from shopping online. You have to have some kind of knowledge about the product you are buying.

Ideally, shops like Wall*Mart would have only showroom stock for high-end products, and then have the items shipped directly from producer to consumer.

Posted by Lars Olufsen at March 24, 2006 9:40 AM

They may very well pull it off. Why not, they already own half the free world. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of snob shoppers out there (like me) who won't step foot inside a Wal-Mart no matter how low the prices. And we certainly won't be shopping for high end goods.

This sounds somewhat familiar. Kmart tried to be more up scale. Failed. Home Depot tried it with Expo. Failed. Wal-Mart next? Do not forget, they built themselves on being a discounter. They are venturing in an area they do not know. Perhaps a different name then Wal-Mart would help?

And, BTW, yes, Wal-Mart can fail.

Posted by Chris at March 24, 2006 10:35 AM

I have two problems with this...

1) One store does not an upscale Wal-Mart make. They can either choose to be Target/Costco or they can choose to be Wal-Mart. They can't be both.

2) By Wal-Mart's very nature I don't think it's possible for them to have upscale stores. They do everything in their power to make things as cheap as possible, and often times (if not most times) the quality of their products suffer. People expect to pay a little more for better items. The Wal-Mart price I think would keep this from happening in Wal-Mart.

Posted by Craig Kohtz at March 24, 2006 1:08 PM

I think Wal-Mart is moving to a position of value rather than pure discount per se. (I know, yellow ball bouncing, knocking down prices..but the position move is value)

I agree with Sean and it sounds like he may have made a trip or two down to Bentonville too...

Posted by Mike Wokosin at March 28, 2006 9:13 PM