Readers sound off on Target vs. Wal-Mart

My April 21 column that tried to answer the simple question, "How much cheaper is Wal-Mart than Target?" prompted more than 350 online responses.

My own price comparison showed Wal-Mart was 4 percent cheaper on a sampling of 30 items. But many readers wanted more than a price comparison. They wanted a further discussion of issues such as fair wages, employee benefits and charitable giving.

A few readers, mostly Target fans and at least one Target employee, quibbled about some of the 30 items in my shopping cart in an effort to equal the two competitors' totals. If I took out the GE lightbulbs or the organic sheet set, for example, the stores' prices would be about even, some readers said.

Price surveys have shown for years that Wal-Mart is cheaper, though not by much in many cases. Britt Beemer, CEO of America's Research Group in Charleston, S.C., estimates that Wal-Mart is 10 percent cheaper, although most local price comparisons have shown less of a difference.

Still, a reader who used to be a sales rep for GE let me know that the $4 difference between compact fluorescent lightbulbs was misleading. Target's more expensive bulbs are rated for 12,000 hours of use, while Wal-Mart's are for 8,000 hours, although the packaging is identical.

I'll admit that without the bulbs, the price difference falls to 3 percent, but Wal-Mart is still cheaper on 21 of 29 items, albeit only by a few cents on most of those items. Considering that Wal-Mart has five times the buying power of Target, that's a surprisingly paltry difference.

Most readers were surprised to learn that the price differences were not significant.

Wal-Mart's price on an 11-ounce bag of Lays Classic potato chips was $2.50 in early April, almost 40 percent below Target's price of $3.59. A check last week at the same Midway store in St. Paul showed that Wal-Mart had since raised its price to $3 and Target had lowered its price to $3. On a subsequent visit, Wal-Mart had lowered its price to $2.88.

Target was 20 percent cheaper ($2.54) on a box of 500 Q-tips than Wal-Mart ($3.17). Neither store has changed its price since then.

Even in this economy, price alone is no reason to switch, some readers said. Many took me to task for not mentioning common complaints against Wal-Mart.

Susan Lacek of Minneapolis mentioned Wal-Mart's reputation of treating its employees poorly and skimping on health and other employee benefits. "Low prices are a good thing, but not when achieved through the hardships of others," she wrote.

But Teflon Target doesn't fare much better on employee health care, according to a New York Times article in 2007, which said that it was easier for Wal-Mart employees to sign up for health care than it was for Target's employees. While Costco's employees enjoy the gold standard of health insurance, Wal-Mart's employee health coverage is almost as good as that of Home Depot and in some ways surpasses Target, according to the Times. In 2009, Target has added new and enhanced plans and resources to help employees get and stay healthy, said Target spokeswoman Kay Rubbelke.

Most readers who sent in responses supported the hometown retailer, but several Wal-Mart supporters complained about Target's stricter return policies.

"Target is too unfriendly about returns," wrote Diana Middleton. "I've switched to Costco and Trader Joe's when possible. They don't hassle regular customers over minutiae," she said. Target has apparently been listening. Its return policy will be relaxed slightly starting May 15. (For details, see sidebar above.)

My favorite comment came from Paul, who prefers Wal-Mart because it's a U.S. corporation. Target, he mistakenly believes, is owned by the French. A Google search asking "Is Target owned by the French?" showed 3.4 million hits. Apparently, jokingly pronouncing it "Tarzhay" confuses a lot of people.