Examiner.com columnist Dean Rotbart at a Whole Foods
in Lakewood, Colo. The company belongs in the 'World's
Dumbest PR Blunders' book.
Set aside for a moment, if you will, the question of whether or not you agree with the views of John Mackey, co-founder of Whole Foods Market Inc., concerning health care reform.
Clearly the nation is deeply divided on the topic and Mackay has both ardent allies and determined detractors.
What I think is the more enduring question for other businesses, senior executives and their public relations consultants is the wisdom – or lack thereof – of any prominent company executive voicing a conservative public opinion on a topic that is certain to rub his or her liberal customers the wrong way.
Before addressing the wisdom or stupidity of Mackay’s decision to express his beliefs, a brief recap of last week’s events is in order.
On Wednesday, August 12th, The Wall Street Journal ran an Op-Ed submission from Mackey in which he opined “the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system.”
Rather, Mackay urged “less government control and more individual empowerment” and offered eight ideas of his own that he believes will work much better than those being touted by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama.
Cries of foul arose immediately from those on the Left, including many previously loyal Whole Foods customers whose interest in organic, environmentally friendly, health-conscious foods have been a large reason that the Austin, Texas-based food and drug chain has become the 10th largest supermarket outlet in the nation.
Instantaneously, the blogosphere began to buzz with complaints from angry Whole Foods customers. The company’s own web site, which features customer forums, gave rise to dozens, then hundreds, and eventually thousands of unhappy and pointed comments.
By Saturday, August 15th, as Fox News noted on its web site: “Calls to boycott Whole Foods Market are growing louder and more sophisticated…”
Whole Foods went into full damage control mode, which included a public mea culpa to its customers who were offended by Mackey’s opinion and ideas. “John’s intent was to express his personal opinions – not those of Whole Food Market team members or our company as a whole,” the company noted. “We offer you a sincere apology.”
Frankly, Whole Foods merits its own chapter in my voluminous book, “The World’s Dumbest PR Blunders.”
Let me note, for anyone who wonders, that I think Mackey is absolutely right and that his eight suggestions – including health-related tax and tort reforms – make a whole lot more sense than the 1,100-page incognito health care takeover that Congress is hawking.
But Mackey, whose customers tilt disproportionately toward the Left, fails to understand the very people whom he serves. Worse, after showing some backbone – a dumb PR mistake, if not a noble one – his company throws both the man and his ideas under the bus – making Whole Foods look every bit the fool it is.
In America in the 21st century, you can’t be in business and express strong views on social or political issues unless they adhere to left-wing doctrine.
Keep in mind that the Left and the Right don’t think or act alike in America.
The Left will boycott any business, any cause or any person who fails to march (publicly at least) to the drumbeat of their doctrine.
The Right, in contrast – and in my opinion weakly – will continue to frequent movies that star Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and other conservative bashers; the Right will buy the albums of Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, and other ‘America is always at fault’ promoters; the Right will shop in chain stores and restaurants that flaunt their ‘green’ records as a response to fictional man-made global warming; and the Right will continue to watch NBC, ABC and CBS, even as their network newscasts serve as propaganda organs for the Obama administration and left-wing dogma.
Summing up, here is how Whole Foods goofed and the PR lessons the company overlooked.
1. It’s okay for company executives to speak out in sync with liberals, but never, ever on behalf of conservatives.
2. If you have the courage (or stupidity) to ignore lesson #1, at least have the sense not to apologize for speaking the truth.
In some idealistic society, Whole Foods’ John Mackey would be a hero. I think he is. In an effort to bring logic to a public issue that is sorely lacking in reason, he thought out and then wrote out his own ideas on how to help our country and those who lack proper medical insurance. He should be lauded for his effort, even from those who don’t support his plan’s specifics.
But this isn’t that idealistic society. Free speech and freedom itself are anything but free. In 2009, to speak your mind – if you reside on the right of the political spectrum – is to invite public derision.
Mackey and Whole Foods walked into a left-wing hornets nest from which they will feel the financial stings for years to come.
The bottom line is this: Business executives should stay away from public discourse unless they are liberals or unless they love their country and our way of life more than they love their income.
Patriots be warned!
Comments
Whole Foods has conservative customers, I am one of them.
This is like the head of the NRA coming out against assault rifles. Stop the nonsense, the bulk of the WF customer base is Democrat/Liberal and he spoke 180 degrees against what their core consumer believes. Your point, "It’s okay for company executives to speak out in sync with liberals, but never, ever on behalf of conservatives." is incorrect, liberals wouldn't expect a company like Wal Mart to speak in sync with their beliefs but Mackey should remember who butters his bread so to speak.
It is a costly error for any business leader or popular artist to make in-depth political or religious statements that offend a portion of their customer base. It hardly matters what side of the contentious issue one advocates. The Dixie Chicks suffered financial losses as a result of their rant, and Whole Foods will likewise see a negative impact. It is all unnecessary and can easily be prevented by keeping one's political opinions out of national publications. Whole Foods, Inc. pays Mr. Mackey handsomely to know what is best for Whole Foods. In this instance, he failed.
Bill Orielly boycotts_______fill in the blank...he does it all the time.
The problem wasn't so much with his suggestions on healthcare reform, but rather the criticisms he gave of government healthcare. He berated Canadian and British systems by saying the "waiting line" is what happens when we give everyone healthcare. That is a twisting of facts. I have to wait here for a month to get a doctor's appointment. Isn't that waiting?
He also would have helped himself by showing some sympathy for those who are doing everything right nutrition exercise wise, but still have underlying health needs. Former Whole Food shoppers have a soft spot for such people. His words seemed to indicate health care is not a human right. This lack compassion ticked me off. I would expect more from the WF CEO.
Finally, insinuating that we can all live to be 100 if we eat right is plain misinformed and unrealistic. These things just made him look like a right wing mouthpiece.
I agree with Ken, I too am more conservative leaning and have shopped Whole Foods. And will continue to do so.
That the "right doesn't boycott or spend their money where their politics are accomodated is a silly assertion. Ask the Dixie Chicks, ask Linda Ronstadt, ask any number of businesses passively "boycotted" because people of whatever persuasion don't like their politics. And by the way, sir, people who disagree with you are patriots too. You don't own my flag, my country or my constitution. They belong to all of us. I will defend to the death John Mackey's right to express his opinion - AND i'll take my money somewhere else.
A fine article, 'though I think you're being a little too hard on the left. In some idealistic society, the Dixie Chicks would be heroes as well, but look at what happened to them. Sure, the Right may listen to them now but only after they were forced to parade themselves out for a very humiliating public apology.
And I, like many others, have neither the strength nor money to completely stay away from businesses owned by the Right. But you're right in Mackey's case. He just made his case too succinctly and on the worst possible topic.
It's not that serious. That anyone would suddenly wish to boycott a store because of an opinion is beyond me. It breaks down to rationality. Those that refuse to shop at Whole Foods because of what "happened," are irrational. Those that continue to shop there despite public opinion are not irrational.
People are way too sensitive these days, and if something as silly as an opinion gets their panties in a bunch, I fear for the future of our country.
I applaud Mackey for his strength in character and standing up for what he believes in. Big government is WRONG, Obama's idea of universal health care is WRONG, and America is simply shooting itself in the foot if we continue down this road.
"the Right will buy the albums of Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks,"
Ha-ha, after writing this, it was clear that you are just a right wing tool. The Dixie Chicks have been crucified by the media for disagreeing with President Bush while Glenn Beck can spout with impunity that President Obama is a racist.
Nice going.
Plenty of liberals don't pay attention to these kind of things, or rather these bigger ideas in general. It's part of the reason they are liberals, because their reasoning does not involve reason but feeling.
Joke of an article. It has credibility, and I'm glad to see you on the rational side of things, but to call it "The dumbest PR blunder" is blown out of proportion, and also gives the ideas that CEOs - those who rose to the top because they believed in things like personal responsibility - should keep their opinions to themselves. That's weak.
@politicjock
You're quite the retard, aren't you?
I think you mean "reading", and I believe you didn't see the bigger picture. Shut the f* up, and read a book or something.
Had John Mackey not misrepresented the facts of the health insurance his company offers its employees, his proposals would look much less attractive, and his argument singularly weak. Most employees do NOT get the "up to" $1600 to offset the ridiculously high $2500 annual deductible of his plan, and they delay or self-impose rationing of their health care as a result. They wait at least 5 years to get that level of coverage-in a high-turnover retail business that means minimal expense for the company. The employee is NOT free to seek treatment of their choice, the money can only be used for company/insurance "approved" purposes; and the company, not the employee, keeps any unspent funds when they part. Imagine having to wait 5 years every time you change jobs....to get (only) halfway decent medical insurance...that's what the debate is about, not kneejerk liberal vs. whiplash reactionary.
I appreciate the intent of the article which was to examine how a company deals with situations created by their executives when they voice opinions that can alienate some of the customer base. What I'm not sure is why this became a political discourse on right-vs-left when it should have stayed focused on what Whole Foods (the company) did and what they could have done differently to navigate the treacherous waters left by this op-ed piece. That people incorrectly associate the views of an executive with the company is something that companies need to address daily. I would have liked more discussion there than on the political issues raised.
You miss the point. The comparison between popular culture and grocery shopping doesn't work at all. Many liberals refused to see Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, just as I'm sure many conservatives refused to see Brokeback Mountain. These weren't necessarily boycotts. This brings up my main point: no boycott is needed because if shoppers went to Whole Foods in order to make themselves feel as if they were "voting with their wallet" by supporting the organic food industry, many now feel there is no net moral benefit (as tenuous as this benefit may be) to shop there. It's simple. Mackey made Whole Foods's good PR image redundant and it has nothing to do with liberals being less tolerant than conservatives, which is the most ignorant and unfounded assertion in your article.
It might have been a mistake for people to shop at Whole Foods to make themselves feel better, but it was a mistake that made Mackey money. Mackey's pulled the curtain from the wizard.
Please review the history of the scandals of Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher.
Do you not remember the death threats the Dixie Chicks got, and the cd burning parties the rednecks had?
You are a liar.
>Those that refuse to shop at Whole Foods because of what "happened," are irrational.
About 11,500 have pledged to boycott and price is sharply down today. So you're saying the market is irrational? Who knew? Please tell us dumb liberals what is and isn't allowed in this marvelous, self-regulating market. We want in on the secret handshake.
MackeyQuote: “the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system.”
It's the propaganda and outright lies such as those contained in the above quote that has provoked outrage. Where was Mackey's Op-Ed when Bush/Cheney misled about 9/11/WMD/Iraq and took this country into a 1.3 TRILLION-DOLLAR deficit?
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. There's differences of opinion on approach and policy and then there's being a mean-spirited jerk. Mackey simply unmasked himself as the latter. I've never liked Whole Foods and never shopped there. Now I know why.
But the author is right about one thing -- it was a stupid, stupid thing to do to write that Op-Ed.
Hey...don't shop there. More for me and less crowded too :)
Many Whole Foods shoppers were liberals who were willing to spend a little more for foods for which farmers were paid a fair wage, for which farm workers had a safe working environment - in other words, these shoppers care about the health and well being of other people, including the growers of the food and the workers who picked it. Many liberals strongly support universal health care as they care about helping sick Americans. When the CEO of Whole Foods uses his position to launch a political attack on universal health care, blaming Americans for getting sick (such as getting hit by a drunk driver, or getting cancer despite doing everything 'right'), does it really surprise you that liberals no longer care to put any more of their hard-earned money into that CEO's pocket? Why should anyone who cares about health care for sick Americans pay any more money to Whole Foods, since that simply will pay for more of Whole Foods' political attacks on universal health care?
to all the liberals who commented above.
you can't pay for all your ideas without going bankrupt.
let us test this theory.
let us have all the liberals move to california, new jersey and New York. Wait , they are already there.
And wait again, all three states are almost bankrupt.
I have nothing against realistic liberals, but the idealistic liberals bring down the fiscal sanity of everyone, instad of just themselves.
As for healthcare, bring down the cost of healthcare while improving the quality by opening up to the free market and by giving individuals the same right of tax deductions and the same ability to group together with other individuals for better prices. Lower prices brings more people into the insured, which is what you want. But forcing the very few who choose not to be insured into the system is wrong. Helping those who truly can not afford the system is absolutely correct. But get real, as everything costs somebody something!!
One thing to consider about Mackey's Op-Ed: there's a difference between a piece that recites the litany of arguments one side or the other has for or against an issue, and an opinion article that persuades through the use of new ideas or facts not widely known. Consider Mackey's purpose in writing this piece: was he seeking to inform the likely well-informed readers of a paper that prints several identical arguments, more strongly bolstered by facts and rationale, every day, or is he trying to indicate the novelty that the CEO of a green grocery chain that some say is a decent one to work for is, in fact, against national healthcare? Because a predictable, but perhaps novel reaction to that might be that people stop shopping there, or his shareholders get in a tiff and fire him.
Imagine if all those conservatives at town hall meetings considered boycotting the Medicare services many receive because the President is allegedly a socialist... THAT'd drive down healthcare costs.
By JOHN MACKEY
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
here is a link to his op-ed piece
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
"Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week" and "also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness." deductible of $2500. Seems very reasonable for a company with so many young people. next time, pls provide the link to the WSJ article.
By JOHN MACKEY
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
"Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week" and "also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness." deductible of $2500. Seems very reasonable for a company with so many young people. This is taken directly from the op-ed piece. Next time, pls provide the link to the WSJ article.
I think it will be great if Whole Foods manages to convince conservatives to value natural and organic foods. What are the chances they will become loyal WF shoppers and will stop going to Costco? People pay for what they value. Liberals are willing to pay too much for a car if it is a hybrid. Liberals are willing to pay too much for groceries if they perceive value in the company's mission to support local and organic farmers. Capitalists should cheer on this boycott as a demonstration among socialist-loving commie pinko Liberals that the marketplace is the superior economic system. If the boycott works, perhaps liberals will realize that the health care system can be reformed through wise purchasing decisions.
I think it will be great if Whole Foods manages to convince conservatives to value natural and organic foods. What are the chances they will become loyal WF shoppers and will stop going to Costco? People pay for what they value. Liberals are willing to pay too much for a car if it is a hybrid. Liberals are willing to pay too much for groceries if they perceive value in the company's mission to support local and organic farmers. Capitalists should cheer on this boycott as a demonstration among socialist-loving commie pinko Liberals that the marketplace is the superior economic system. If the boycott works, perhaps liberals will realize that the health care system can be reformed through wise purchasing decisions.
>About 11,500 have pledged to boycott and price is sharply down today. So you're saying the market is irrational? Who knew? Please tell us dumb liberals what is and isn't allowed in this marvelous, self-regulating market. We want in on the secret handshake.
Don't think so highly of yourself. Your little boycott had nothing to do with the stock's little slip, the entire market was down. It IS irrational to stop shopping at a grocery store because of an opinion. All of you liberals are being overly sensitive. 3% of Whole Foods shoppers are boycotting? It isn't going to hurt the company, especially not when you're talking about such a small number. Nationwide, the company averages more than 400,000 customers a day. There are just as many people who appreciate what Mackey had to say as those who are repulsed by it. Maybe he'll even draw more customers in!
I know it seems like you are doing a lot and standing up for your beliefs, but you have made no impact whatsoever. Sorr
In orientation at almost all retail stores, they will tell you NOT to talk religion or politics with the costumers, it can only hurt business. Ask any CEO of any retail company what he/she thinks of any employees talking about religion or politics at the workplace.
John Mackey should go through the orientation that his employees probably had to go through. And he should pay special attention to the part about employees talking religion and politics.
Their stock is going through the roof. Idiots.
boycotts don't have to cost companies money to work...It's like making the runner on first get back on the base with a quick throw from the pitcher...you can bet that John Mackey will be scared to talk politics in public again...and you best believe that companies across the nation sent out memos to all employess (at all levels) to not talk politics or religion with the public or customers. (left or right)....so, just the calling of a boycott did it's work even before the boycott began.
In a free market we shop where we want for whatever reason we want. Customers purchases vary for a lot of reasons besides cost, quality, or politics. That's why they are so unpredictable. Favorite brands of alcohol, cigarettes, clothes, foods, the BRAND, etc. Ford vs. Chevy. Anything not a utility like electricity or water has it's fans and detractors. There are low income people that only own an expensive well-made weapon(I know them) and wealthy people that have a favorite cheap taco truck(I know them). Markets are not very simple except in economies that are. Most people don't have to price shop everything they buy.
More Conservatives I know choose purchases with an eye to politics than the Liberals I know. A lot buy American-only for just about everything except coffee and tea. Tea from China makes sense after all.
BTW - Re:politicjock
The Dixie chicks have done very well. Their audience shifted from country to rock where they can speak their minds.
The main lesson that some people need to learn from this Whole Foods thing is that it is impossible to put most people into a simple category of conservative or liberal. Mackey is conservative on health care and liberal on food quality, environment, agricultural, and labor issues. This is not a contradiction. Many conservatives are anti-war, many liberals own guns. People who lack the imagination to look at the complexity of human issues need imaginary categories and simplistic thinking.
The sooner we work with that reality the sooner we can discuss realistic solutions to our problems.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!