Survey: Industry Undecided On Julie Roehm


Given available facts, when queried on their opinions about whether or not Julie Roehm should have been fired from Wal-mart, the industry is clearly undecided and split right down the middle. Based on a survey of 509 Adrants readers, 250 think she should have been fired and 259 think she should not have been fired. Hardly conclusive and, well, hardly relevant either. It's just interesting to see where the industry sits on this issue.

Written by Steve Hall    Comments (15)     File: Agencies, Brands, Research     Dec-12-06  
Advertising Jobs

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.

ad:tech Conference Headlines


It might have been interesting to get some qualitative results (i.e., why do you think she should or should not have been fired?). There will never be available facts to help outsiders conclude anything substantial ó and itís not like any of our opinions matter. Based on blog comments, itís safe to bet that many pro-Roehm votes were cast by people who think sheís hot.

Posted by: HighJive on December 12, 2006 01:16 PM

I'm disappointed by how much of the buzz re JR has focused on her gender/looks/rumored relationship. There are hot dudes all over biz and advertising; they mess around and mess up but don't get this scrutiny/attention. Seems like many in the the urbane, bluestate-identifying ad crowd are really just good old red state boys in nice shoes.

Posted by: Adgrrl on December 12, 2006 02:04 PM

Julie just went a little over-the-top with attitude, and she admits it. She is a force of one, and she knows it and demands a stage. Wal-Mart may not have been the best place for her, but based on the press she's getting, Coke and The Gap, and other icons with drooping sales numbers are probably calling her as we speak.

Posted by: Marc Bodner on December 12, 2006 02:38 PM

I'd bang her.

Posted by: diet m on December 12, 2006 08:56 PM

I'd bang her.

Posted by: diet m on December 12, 2006 08:57 PM

Think you need to consider the Wal-Mart culture. Wal-Mart had policies that she violated, she likely knew of thes policies. What she did was ok for some companies.. but not for Wal-Mart. Don't think Wal-Mart's conservatism is a secret.

Posted by: AdamE on December 12, 2006 10:44 PM

Yes, weíve all heard of Wal-Martís sacred policies. But does anyone believe they are really adhered to with such strict rigidity? It would be great to query other agencies and Wal-Mart executives to verify that the rules have never been bent or even broken.

Any agency pitching a $580 million account would be foolish to not attempt to create a strong relationship with its key client contacts. The client ultimately sets the stage and standards. It appears that Draft FCB got hoodwinked. Roehm was actively seeking to create change. She was allegedly hired to create change. How could Draft FCB know which policies were being changed with someone like Roehm calling the shots?

Posted by: Sam's Clubber on December 13, 2006 02:19 AM

This is way more interesting than all that Second Life coverage. Thanks.

Posted by: daveednyc on December 13, 2006 10:48 AM

She's hot

Posted by: Me on December 13, 2006 11:40 AM

No worries, daveednyc. I think we've seen the SL bubble come and go already:-)

Posted by: Steve Hall on December 13, 2006 11:57 AM

She seems to be the kind of woman who is so full of herself that she didn't, for a minute, think that the way she conducted the agency search conflicted with corporate norms. But, my God, she's working for Wal*Mart! Didn't she see the red flags? Ignorance is no excuse. Only somebody with an enourmous ego could think they could easily transition from the auto industry to something like Wal*Mart.

Did she deserve to get canned? Yeah, given the corporate culture of her employer. Would I ever
want to work for her? Hell no. I've worked with
her type before and they're generally so ego-inflated that working for them is a living nightmare. Don't cry for Julie. She'll land on her feet and will keep flitting about the industry until her looks are gone and people get tired of her schtick.

Posted by: mark s on December 13, 2006 02:20 PM

Went to school with then Julie Rhubsky(no Lie) and seeing all this press cracks me up. Funny how things never change a dummy with the bod and the tude....still want to do her. Never had the chance.

Posted by: chuck ebbers on December 14, 2006 10:49 PM

Went to school with then Julie Rhubsky(no Lie) and seeing all this press cracks me up. Funny how things never change a dummy with the bod and the tude....still want to do her. Never had the chance.

Posted by: chuck ebbers on December 14, 2006 10:49 PM

Lord Acton said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". However, I always thought it should be power attracts the corrupt and they use it absolutely. In the case of Julie Roehm and along a similar line of thought, narcissists are attracted to professions and settings which guarantee fame, celebrity, power, and wealth. Once they achieve being famous, rich or powerful, their actions are legitimized and they are conferred immunity from social sanction. In the narcissist's mind, they are treated special because they are special.

Psychologists have recognized an increase in narcissism. But what can we expect when some of our most overt narcissists reside at the pinnacle of society. Julie Roehm is no more than a timely example of acquired situational narcissism which is a form of narcissism that develops after childhood and is supported by a celebrity obsessed society. The media and various sycophants all feed the belief that the person really is vastly more important than other people.

How do we fight the growing ranks of narcissists like Julie Roehm in our midst? You give 'em hell. This is what Peter and Lewis Lazare did. We live in a period teeming with raucously overvalued emptiness and trash and the only antidote to this is rugged and sometimes contemptuous criticism. Sigmund Freud said: "The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization".

As for Julie's reaction to her very public humiliation, she resorted to the classic narcissistic response by engaging in twisted logic and verbal gymnastics to avoid admitting any error. But as Robert Louis Stevenson said: "we must all eventually sit down to a banquet of consequences". Julie has started the first course.

Posted by: chatty patty on December 15, 2006 06:33 PM

I'm surprised that nobody is criticizing the legitimacy of Wal Marts' policy, regarding fraternization. I don't believe any company has the right to dictate who can see whom, after work! As long as the liasons are consensual, Wal Marts should butt out of their employees' outside lives! People who get fired, or otherwise disciplined over this should sue over Civil Rights violations-privacy & free association, after work.
I hope the bad publicity generated over Julie Roehm's lawsuit will rock the foundation of Wal Marts enough that they will revise their draconian personnel policies!

Posted by: SingleDonald on June 3, 2007 09:12 AM

Post a comment