I'm still predicting it'll be Wal-Mart and RIAA.

I think Exxon should host another oil spill to give them the last minute rally.

I don't know. The RIAA may be the sleaziest entity on the planet this side of Paris Hilton, but it can be reasonably argued that Halliburton is a bonafide war-profiteer. That kind of trumps - and puts into perspective - the copyright tug-of-war the world's playing with the RIAA.

While the RIAA and Walmart get most of the visible negative press it's the likes of Exxon and Halliburton that are the worst of the rotten apples. People can still choose to not buy CDs and shop at Walmart.

It's hard to vote for Wal-mart when I go there nearly everyday.
Just one of the realities of living in a (relatively) small town and keeping unusual hours.

I think next year you should bust out into two converences...Consumer Goods, and Customer Service (or non-consumer goods)...then have a Super Bowl between the two champion companies of each.

There is an issue at the core of this contest that I think others have begun to touch on, but that you guys may want to look at a little bit closer. It seems like an apt name for this contest as it now stands would be: "The Worst Company From America." Each of these companies operates as a multinational. Granted, the RIAA is a little bit different from the others in that their revenue is genrated primarily in the U.S. (does BMI contribute?), but they certainly have made attempts to influence foreign legislation in favor of the labels they represent.

Other companies now eliminated are absolutely in a different category than these companies which could be deemed global actors. I think we could look at different mitigating factors in the ways in which businesses are owned and operated (private v. publically traded; locally, nationally, internationally operated) to break this competition into appropriately scaled categories.

I would have loved to see these guys in direct competition with this guy . Let Exxon and Halliburton duke it to see who can get more dollars before the species goes extinct. I want these littler guys to duke it out too; to see who can better insult a customer, or more crudely rip them off, or yes, even to see which can cause more blunt force trauma to a customer's body.

In short: would it be possible to level the playing field a little bit next year?

Good thing Comcast wasn't still in it as of today...there would be some serious vote changing after todays stories...

Exxon V. Haliburton. Exxon wins by a seal nose.

@heypal: i think that was the idea ben was trying to convey when he said they were going to restructure it next year. so im assuming theyre going to even the playing field, or have two different contests.

pretty much you should read his post before you post something.

When people stop pretending that the RIAA is some separate group from its members, then we'll all be off.

The RIAA is EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and many smaller labels. Pretending that "the RIAA" is evil, while still handing money over to the labels and pretending that the group you're paying to sue you aren't one and the same is fairly fool hearty.

@billybastion: yes. you're right. i should have read his post. *shame*

That Walmart made the final four is sad.

Say what you want about the "morals" of Walmart, but they are excellent in two critical areas:

1. Price
2. Customer Service

What else do you want as a Consumer? You want Walmart to pay its employees more [than they are worth]? OK, but YOU are going to pay for it. Want Walmart to stop strongarming wholesalers for prices? OK, but then YOU will pay more.

I can't see how the RIAA can beat Exxon. Yes, they suck and have leveled some ridiculous lawsuits at consumers. Yes, they are outdated and grasping at straws. But, Exxon has financially raped nearly all of us to the tune of record breaking profits all predicated on fear with the full support and subsidies from the US government. I just can't see how they lose this one.

@patoco12: Okay. I totally understand where you're coming from and yes, the end result is a higher price. However, it is argued that Walmart achieves these low costs in part through unfair business practices which devastate local retailers, eliminating those jobs, and forcing those who wish to remain employed in the local job market to accept wages below the living standard.

And by not promoting women without a class action lawsuit.

I can't speak to the customer service issue as I have never once set foot inside a Walmart.

@patoco12: By your post, I assume that a. You believe price>quality, b. You live in an alternate reality where your local Walmart employees are knowledgable and cheery, and that c. You don't frequent these parts much, as Walmart is pretty much seen as the antichrist's evil baby by many on here.

It's got to be Halliburton vs. Exxon. One is a shameless war profiteer that is willing to short change our troops if it means a little extra profit, while the other is a price-gouging monopolist. The RIAA is arrogant and selfish, but no one has been killed over DRM. Wal-Mart has its own moral issues, but isn't in the same league as the other two.

I'm not as anti-Exxon as everyone else. One way to curb global warming and lower our dependence on foreign oil is to raise gas prices, preferably in the form of taxes. As fuel prices increase, fewer people are willing to pay and therefore drive less, leading to less oil consumption. It's called internalizing an externality, and it's a fairly common economic principle. Most people won't respond to environmental or social issues unless it affects them directly- most commonly through their wallet.

I wish this didn't mean Exxon could just raise prices and make unbelievable profits, but it's supply and demand. Think about it- have you actually driven less since fuel prices increased? Enough less that it makes a difference. Like it or not, the answer is probably no, you haven't. It's your choice to keep throwing your money into their bank account. If it was up to me, I'd rather increase gas prices by adding a tax that would immediately go into research and development of oil alternatives- but no right-minded politician is ever willing to raise taxes or gas prices, especially if they're interested in getting re-elected.

Halliburton can go to hell. They're in it too tightly with the Bush administration and they've blown yours and my tax money on failed projects and put our brothers, sons, and friends at risk in the process.

And the RIAA can suck it too.

@heypal:

unfair business practices which devastate local retailers, eliminating those jobs, and forcing those who wish to remain employed in the local job market to accept wages below the living standard.

Are you referring to the charge that Walmart "subsidizes" itself by forcing its employees to take government handouts? Walmart is paying its employees market value within the law. What else do you want them to do? Don't like government handouts? Then blame government for that.

As for discrimination charges, this is more of an internal issue for them. My wallet doesn't care about Walmart's HR problems. Does that make me a bad person?

Exxon v. Halliburton: A Royal Death Match.

@bambino:

You believe price>quality

I judge Quality based on the product, not based on the store. Walmart carries both poor and good quality items and everything in between.

You live in an alternate reality where your local Walmart employees are knowledgable and cheery

No, but I know that I can buy from Walmart with confidence that if it is broken, it sucks, or I just don't want it, that I can return it with no questions asked. I don't care if the employees are cheery. Knowledgeable is nice, but that depends on what you are buying. Knowledgeable employees also cost more, which would be passed on to me.

You don't frequent these parts much.

Actually, I do, because nothing pisses me off more than bad customer service. Walmart rarely pisses me off.

@patoco12:

0.o
~

Are you serious? Anything close to Customer Service at a Wal-Mart? Have you tried getting anyone who works at Wal-Mart to help you find something in their black hole of a store? They are no where to be found when you need them. Have you timed your wait to be checked out? Have you timed your wait at the Customer Service? Have you seen the condition of their parking lot?

For example, I went to a Wal-Mart, only because I was with my friend last night. After swerving around cart corrals regurgitating shopping baskets and going inside, we had two of the strangest employees try talking to us. Their words had nothing to do with enhancing our shopping experience. It was detrimental, nonsense talk. It was disgusting. It was like they were on drugs. That is just one of the many reasons I don't ever go there on my own will.

I don't know about your part of the country, but down here in Texas, it's called "H-E-B". People actually care there. There must are other regional retailers/grocers that people can turn to for real customer service.

When it comes down to it, you'll seldom ever beat Wal-Mart at price. To me, a shopping experience is a lot more than the price you pay at the register.

I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if I knew the money was funding ways to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and looking for innovative ways to combat global warming. But.... it's merely lining the pockets of a bunch of dudes that will never be able to spend the money they already have.

this is a little off topic, but reading through the comments during this whole process of "Worst Company Evar (for this year at least)" makes me wonder if and how many companies are savvy enough to sneak a paid commenter on to this site.

i have to say, ive never, ever, seen someone so prowalmart on the site as patoco12 has been in this post. im not saying HE is one, im just saying thats what made me think of it.

It would be nice if we could vote on this.

I'm not as anti-Exxon as everyone else. One way to curb global warming and lower our dependence on foreign oil is to raise gas prices, preferably in the form of taxes. As fuel prices increase, fewer people are willing to pay and therefore drive less, leading to less oil consumption. It's called internalizing an externality, and it's a fairly common economic principle. Most people won't respond to environmental or social issues unless it affects them directly- most commonly through their wallet.

One thing you miss is that here, "alternative transportation" isn't really an option for most people. A rapid change from "inability to buy gas" would more than likely put a lot of people into sheer poverty; they have no time to adjust and oftentimes public transportation here is not well-designed nor often available.

Alaska, for example; public transportation from Eagle River (where I was staying, large enough town) to Anchorage was only available on weekends and not Sunday, and even hten there were only a few stops. The distance between them is too great and other methods of transportation (i.e. snowmobile) also run on gas, I'd assume, leading to the same problem if you avoided a car. Biking in the weather up there wouldn't be an option.

This isn't such a big deal in other countries, I'd assume -- most places have alterntaive forms of transportation, such as trains and better busses -- but for the US, it'd cause a lot of hell.

Not to mention that here, cars are seen as a status symbol; those who don't drive are often ridiculed and treated with disrespect regardless of reason, and using public transportation like a bus is even worse in their eyes.

Unfortunately, a lot of people will never realize the benefits of public transportation. Many claim that "independance" is cut or lost, or that they'd have to plan their schedules around a certain time. Fact is, if public transportation was improved, times between arrivals would drop (more demand and supply) and coverage would increase, much like cell phones.

"tl;dr" format: High horses and other public misconceptions will lead to a delayed, if occuring at all, appearance of improved acceptance and use of public transportation.

(Amusingly, the bad traffic everyone bitches and moans about would probably be significantly lessened if more people used public transportation. Oh, the irony.)

Whynn't there a wildcard bracket? Whole Foods vs. Kraft.

"Next year we're throwing out all the companies that people don't actually buy stuff from."

Yay! I can stop harping on this now. Seriously, though, the debate on Walmart above illustrates the problem. Is this a contest about which company has the worst customer service, or which has the dirtiest, blackest soul? I've talked to some soldiers who were very happy with their Halliburton/KBR chow halls...

I love it when Consumerist devolves into a "we hate you because you're successful" mode. I also still fail to see how Exxon (which isn't even a company anymore; it's been ExxonMobil since 2000), is any worse than Shell or Chevron or any other ol company, or how a company that's pretty good at feeding a hungry public exactly what they want is therefore "bad." (Walk to work much?) ANd I'm pretty sure ExxonMobil has had the lowest spill rate of any major oil company for something like 8 of the last 10 years. BUt yes, I do work there, so I guess that makes me evil too.

NO, I dont work there, I just read the actual numbers and not the media that is incapable of understanding the numbers or presenting them correctly.

None of us like high gas prices but the Exxon thing is a bit odd. They made about 10% profit last year. Is this seen as an evil thing? What is an acceptable profit %.

They had sales of around 370 billion and had profits of around 36 billion which is about a 10.7%.

All the media headlines have these big % listed but if you READ it they are % INCREASES , NOT percentages MADE.

They all say that profits are UP 75%. That does NOT SAY they MADE 75%. Which they did not.

If last year your business made a profit of 4% and this year your business made a profit of 7%, guess what, you have a 75% INCREASE , but you did not make 75%.

RIAA hands down

@billybastion:

i have to say, ive never, ever, seen someone so prowalmart on the site as patoco12 has been in this post. im not saying HE is one, im just saying thats what made me think of it.

I was wondering when this would happen. I can assure you that I'm not on Walmart's payroll. I just don't understand the anti-Walmart slant of a site for consumers!

Halliburton shouldn't even be on this list. This is "The Consumerist." If you *are* being served by Halliburton or more likely one of its subsidiaries like KBR, you generally don't have any choice. Plus, for all 99.9% of us know, if you need Halliburton oil drilling equipment or whatever their main business is, they could treat their customers in a bang-up way! Halliburton is only on here so people can push their political agendas, and that's pointless.

As for Exxon, are you people having a lot of trouble with their gas pumps or something? It's not like they are charging you any more for oil than any other oil company. Is Shell $0.50 cheaper a gallon or something where you are? Again, it's totally politics, and while it might make you feel all warm to say Exxon is bad, it does nothing for consumers. So thanks for wasting our time and your breath.

The RIAA isn't a company either, but as one of these commenters pointed out, it's basically the recording industry's trust. I do think it's fair to call them one "company" for this purpose, even if they nominally compete with each other. Most of us have no stake at all in what label Britney's records are on, and since prices are pretty obviously fixed, I'll buy them as a company.

@bricko: Profits as a percent of sales is just the wrong statistic to use, especially for an extractive industry. The best measure of profitability is return on investment. By that standard oil is insanely profitable.

According to the US Census Bureau,the ratio of after tax net profits to share holder equity in the coal and oil industry was 30.2% in 2005. The corresponding figure was 16.5% for manufacturing, 16% for retail trade, and 14.8% for wholesale trade. For all you computer buffs, it was only 10.4% for computer manufacturers. After oil, the second most profitable industry was pharmaceuticals (another center of human kindness) with an ROI of 20.1%, only 2/3 as high as the energy industry.

Over time, the figure for coal and oil almost doubled since 2001 when it was 16.5% (which was very high compared to other industries even then). It is unquestionable that the oil industry has benefited from huge windfall profits since Bush entered office. 30% is a pretty darn huge return on equity no matter how you slice it.

The RIAA is arrogant and selfish, but no one has been killed over DRM.

...yet.

I like Haliburton vs Wal-Mart with the Beast of Bentonville winning by a snout!

patoco12, you need to do a little research. Your "two critical areas" are dead wrong.

Wal-Mart has been shown repeatedly not to have the best prices when a full array of merchandise is taken into account.

And customer service (or the lack thereof) is the Number 1 complaint against Wal-Mart.