Retailers are sellers, not censors

Discount Store News, Oct 20, 1997 by Tony Lisanti

To some observers, the issue is simply freedom of choice; to others it's blatant censorship. Call it what you want, but there's a disturbing precedent being set by retailers that could have more ramifications than most people think. Certainly, this issue will likely engender more discussion in the future and could pose yet another challenge to the first amendment

The controversial issue has to deal with whether retail executives should decide what specific issues of publications, CDs, movies or books they should carry based on either personal beliefs, corporate culture or what they perceive to be in the best interests of their customers.

The controversy made world news headlines last month as several retail chains, including Kroger, Giant and Safeway banned the sale of certain issues of supermarket tabloids following the tragic death of Princess Diana. The controversy was over gory photos of the Princess and Emad "Dodi" Fayed taken at the crash site.

Other examples include Wal-Mart's ban of one of Sheryl Crow's album over lyrics that implied children can buy guns at its stores, and Giant's and other retailers' pulling of an issue of Vanity Fair that carried a nude cover photo of pregnant actress Demi Moore.

There's no doubt that retailers have the right to decide what products they merchandise in their stores, or perhaps more specifically, what product lines they merchandise.

If a retailer chooses not to sell a particular brand or product line based on the demographics of its customers, so be it. And if a retailer chooses not to merchandise the National Enquirer or the Globe or Playboy or Vanity Fair, so be it.

However, a retailer should not "edit" 52 issues of the National Enquirer or 12 issues of Playhoy or Vanity Fair and decide to carry it one week or one month and not another solely based on the content of that particular issue.

If the National Enquirer (or any of these publications or CDs) is a good traffic builder and high-margin product, then a retailer should make a commitment to it and make a decision about whether to carry that product based on its performance, not each particular issue's content.

Or perhaps retailers would welcome the alternative scenario that would require all publishers, filmmakers and recording artists to submit their copy, covers, artwork and content to all retailers for approval prior to publication?

The irony is that many retailers still market alcohol and tobacco (and some of them also sell guns) amidst tremendous pressure from activist groups and government regulations.

Does a retailer "edit" a line of tobacco products based on the level of nicotine or a selection of beer based on alcohol content?

No, they evaluate the category based on the demands of their customer base and the performance of a brand as well as the overall category.

Of course, retailers must be concerned about the reaction of their customers with regard to such sensitive issues. But making arbitrary decisions for them is not the answer. There is also some credence to the argument that the majority of customers don't mix moral issues with shopping decisions.

Most consumers base their decisions on whether they can get the merchandise they want quickly, conveniently and at the best price, not on whether certain publications, recordings or other sensitive products are merchandised in the store.

To no one's surprise, this debate is riddled with irony, clouded with self-righteousness and characterized by political correctness.

Perhaps the retail industry associations should look into the issue in a proactive way and maybe, if useful, develop a policy or list of guidelines or standards to which suppliers can adhere. Yeah, I know some execs would smirk at the idea of developing yet another set of guidelines when so many companies are drowning in rules and regulations that they don't even know exist. But maybe it would clarify the issue.

Most retailers have enough to do just to keep their businesses operating efficiently and, in some cases, to merely survive. It seems unnecessary for them to get involved in an advocacy role to protect the public from sensitive issues, gory photos or objectionable lyrics simply to prove a point.

Retailers should stick to their core business as sellers of merchandise, not crusaders for censorship. As always, the customer is always right, so why not just let her make the decision?