Walmart refuses to sell Ms. Rousey's book due to content...

Post Reply New Topic

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagew ... 44157.html
This is important because Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world and the biggest retailer in the U.S. by far.
In the U.S., Walmart is the biggest selling in practically every product category including books.

Ronda Rousey's book bomb due the lack of distribution from Walmart.

She will have to rewrite her book, if she wishes to gain Walmart's support.

Last edited by xenocity on 04 Apr 2015, 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Refusal to carry an MMA fighter's book because "she's violent"? What will they do about all the military memoirs?

That's not the same thing and you know it...

^^Yeah, but it still illustrates that the explanation is invalid.

They also don't carry the "Anarchist's Cookbook", and likely for similar reasons; but they do carry Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book".

Go figure...

Wow, beauty and beast in one.

How exactly is she too violent? Surely she didn't go around attacking other kids growing up and her parents and siblings or threatening anyone with knives or breaking anyones bones and making them go to ERs and throwing an ax at someone because she wasn't getting her way and taking all pride in it and wrote it in her book.

This is another reason why I don't shop at Wal-Mart. IMO, Walmart is the retail world's counterpart to Fox News.

She and her publisher should say, "Screw Walmart," and sell her book to those stores that are smart enough to handle it.

I'm supporting Walmart on this one, as sickening as it makes me feel just to say that. They have every right to decide what they do and do not sell in their store. Is it hypocrisy with some of the other violent items they carry? Definitely, but they have every right to do as they please with their business. Also, the publisher has claimed it's censorship, I disagree-- the publisher can go to any number of retail outlets to sell said book, it's not like Walmart has the authority to ban it from publication. If the publisher was concerned over sales, well, Walmart just did them a great favor-- now it's controversial, and controversy in the U.S. sells. As always, if you have a problem with a business' policy there's no reason you have to shop there, you always have the right to boycott.

Sort of reminds me of how William Burroughs' publisher of Naked Lunch had sold Lord only knows how many copies by advertising how the book had been banned in Boston.

Yeah and I'm pretty cynical in general. That's the reason I'd support Walmart here: this is really a non-story, just a publicity game to generate sales. I tried to look up Walmart's market share in gross book sales (digital and online for an accurate impact map), but I couldn't find a definitive answer-- as recently as 2012 they accounted for 4% according to one source, up to 8% a year later in another source, etc. but I'm pretty confidant they have less than 10%. One thing's for certain: if Amazon refused to sell the book then it would be a legitimate story since all sources confirm they control 60%+ share of the market. I mean I'm not a Walmart fan, but this isn't Walmart using it's monopolistic powers against the little guy, this is company A (publisher) vs. company B (Walmart), and from a business stand point Walmart has every right to choose which products it wants to sell-- and knowing Walmart the metrics probably dictated this move, not some moral obligation.

*sigh*

My local Wal-Mart sells guns, but a book about a female MMA fighter is "too violent?"

Firearms aren't violent, nor do they espouse violence.

Whilst they can be tools of violence, they're only tools. Words and actions of violence are technically violence (though I don't put much into words).

Yeah, they should sell it, but they don't have to.

Yet they gladly sell UFC branded clothing, video games and DVD's though (yes, even ones with Ronda's bouts on them. It's also interesting how the DVD's have no maturity ratings on them whatsoever considering their content).

So yes Walmart, go ahead and arbitrarily adhere to prehistoric taboos about women in violent sports and apply them to the book department. I guess women merely existing in violent sport is a tolerable grey area but the moment said woman picks up their pen/opens their mouth to say something it must somehow cross the line.

Is it because she's a girl?