Here on MNB I’ve been fairly critical of some of the decision-making at Albertsons, though I didn’t really have any comment on this week’s announcement that it is expanding its business eCommerce platform.
One MNB reader, however, saw something I didn’t see:
This is symptomatic of a larger problem at Albertsons. Who’s running the show? What are you trying to be? Who are your customers? Are they trying to be a wholesaler now?
For our personal shopping, we no longer go into the store – just use Drive Up n Go on the app. So, no matter how appealing the in store merchandising may be (and I doubt it’s anything exciting), it doesn’t matter. We buy just what we need and go other places for the “excitement” and lower prices.
IMO, Albertsons is in trouble.
You would not be along in thinking this. There are a lot of folks out there who believe that everything Albertsons is doing at the moment is designed to position it to sell off pieces of the company.
MNB reader Rich Heiland had some thoughts about yesterday’s story about how a considerable percentage of younger consumers are paying attention to which companies are reneging on previous DEI commitments, and are willing to engage in boycotts of those businesses as a result:
I have to admit I got up on my hind legs of outrage early on in this administration and vowed I would no longer shop firms that were walking away from DEI.
Then, I had a drink, calmed down and thought about it. My first question was “are they really walking away from it?” It’s one thing to say you are, but have they really changed their day-to-day internal practices? In some cases that could require a lot of fiddling with core culture, something not to be taken lightly. Are they quietly riding out the next few years?
Second, all the big boxes employ local people. If people boycott and sales go down are friends and neighbors going to be laid off? Where is the pain really going to be felt?
So, I decided it was better to write letters or send emails to companies I do business with and encourage them to continue with recognizing the basic fairness of DEI, regardless of what it is called, and let that be a part of culture. Even if you don’t blow your horn about….
All fair points. If you’re right about what these companies are doing, though, I think I prefer companies with backbone. But you’re certainly right about local employees who would be affected by boycotts.
In the words of Oscar Hammerstein II, “Is a puzzlement.”
We reported this week that Nicholas Bertram – most recently the CEO of Flashfood and before that the president of The GIANT Company – has been hired to be the new president and COO at crafts retailer Michael’s.
I commented:
Since meeting him when he was running GIANT – along with Hannaford, a bright spot in an otherwise generally dismal Ahold Delhaize fleet – I’ve always thought that Nick Bertram is one of the most talented retail execs out there – this is a gain for Michaels, and a loss for the food industry.
Which prompted one MNB reader to chime in:
Nick Bertram is not only one of the most talented retail execs out there, he is also a great human being.
Got the following email from MNB reader Steve Anvik about my criticism of MLB’s decision to end Pete Rose’s lifetime ban from the sport – admittedly months after he died, but a move that could result in Rose being elected to the Hall of Fame despite breaking one of baseball’s most important rules:
No proof ever offered that Pete Rose ever tried to throw a game for a bet .. if anything it was the opposite. I’ve always admired his bravado and hustle in life. He put his money where his mouth is, one of the most valuable lessons my Pop taught me, perhaps his too?
We both can border on arrogance, so it’s odd that you snark – when I can’t recall you being real vocal about sports betting generally .. your tiny comment re ‘casinos behind home plate’ aside – that being a far bigger tell about sport generally for me, than Pete Rose.
First of all, let’s put arrogance aside. I haven’t commented on it a lot here, but I’ve always had real reservations about the degree to which gambling has encroached on so much of sports marketing.
That said, I believe that Rose admitted betting on baseball, both in late-in-life interviews and in his memoir. I’m pretty sure that he even admitted betting on games in which he was managing, though he said he never bet against the Cincinnati Reds. (In case you don’t believe me, click here. And by the way, considering his history of lying, why would anyone believe anything he said? But MLB had the receipts. That’s what mattered.)
To be clear, nobody in baseball is allowed to bet on baseball. But let’s game that out a little further:
Let’s say it is a Saturday, and Rose is managing the Reds in a game on which he has placed a bet. He wants to win the game, and also wants to win the bet. So he empties his bench and uses everyone in his bullpen to do so. He doesn’t bet on Sunday’s game, because he knows his team is exhausted, but he’s essentially corrupted the sport even without betting against his own team.
And really? He put his money where his mouth is? That’s such nonsense, especially because it is against the rules. That’s the problem with the culture today – people don’t give a crap against the rules if it serves their purposes, and they’ve managed to persuade the general public that it’s okay.
It isn’t.
And one other thing. I think that sometimes it is okay to break the rules, if one believes that it is in the service of what is good and right. Which is, of course, debatable depending on the circumstances. But Rose’s betting wasn’t about right and wrong. It was about his own greed and self-enrichment. Which these days also seem to be acceptable, but ought not be.
MNB reader Bob Schuler also disagreed with me:
I disagree with your view on Pete Rose. He deserves to be in HOF! I also think the “lifetime” was correct, but his life is over
But MNB reader Karen M. Alley agreed with my original assessment:
I love Pete Rose, grew up watching him play and also watching him do fun things on Saturday morning TV. But what he did was wrong. And he knew it. I don’t think he should be reinstated. I agree with you that it seems to be a sign that the culture’s values have shifted. (Just one sign, there are many.)
I saw the news this morning on TV and felt a little sick to my stomach. I was very glad to see your opinion and glad I wasn’t the only one.
Nope. I hope the Hall of Fame committee that finally considers his case in 2027 will agree with you and me.
The post Your Views: Is. A. Puzzlement. appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
