Comments

While social media flair ups are big news now, as the technology matures I think we will become as immune to a Facebook protest as we are to murder on the nightly news. It becomes part of the landscape. Now it is exceptional and noteworthy, I'm not sure that will be the case a decade from now. It will be interesting to see if a social media revolt shows up in sales figures...

Posted by Fred H Schlegel at August 19, 2009 4:33 PM

I love to see the liberals eating their own. I think the environment of "any dissent will be punished" will eventually brings the Democrat party down. Social media will accelerate this trend, as it accelerates everything around communication.

Posted by Tom J. at August 19, 2009 4:40 PM

I think it's ridiculous. Do I only buy goods from a company whose CEO has the same political views as me? Should I make sure the checkout lady has what I deem as the correct view on abortion?

Here's an interesting question. Say I'm involved in a serious road traffic accident. I'm ambulanced to hospital and then whisked into emergency surgery. Should I stop and ask the surgeon what his views are about immigration / healthcare / Iraq / the new U2 album / anything else you might care to wonder about? Or should I just ask if he's a competent surgeon with experience in this kind of procedure and let him get on with it?

The problem with the Mackey incident is that it discourages debate and it discourages people from taking leadership positions. What some people regard as customers taking an ethical view on their choice of suppliers could very well be seen as intolerance and a denial of diversity.

Posted by Mark JF at August 19, 2009 4:45 PM

"Do I only buy goods from a company whose CEO has the same political views as me?"

Why not? For example, why is it illegal to buy cigars from Cuba?
Also, part of the Whole Foods Brand
is that it is a progressive company. Mackeys views on healthcare are borderline reactionary.
How would the social networks have reacted if Ruport Murdock had endored Barack Obama?
What would happen to the Mayor of New York in a Boston/New York World Series who backed the Red Sox over the Mets?

Mackey took a risk - he wanted to influence the debate and it backfired. His position in life gives him the potential of lots of influence. Its a doubled edged sword - and he seems to have forgotten that. There is nothing sad about what happened to him.

Posted by zorro at August 19, 2009 5:17 PM

Richie - people who Twit their time away seldom shop Whole top of the line anything - they are the Twinkie & Diet Coke Plus class (aka zorro). "... and his ilk ..." - "ilk" is seen as quite negative here rather than its more common UK use - TP is in that class then since he has expressed here his displeasure with "healthcare reform".

Social media can be poison though - case in point "Trevor" - a $10M man potential coming out of NHS vermin-hood several years ago. However, he drank the Benn Kool-Aid & world wide neoliberal left wing socialist media types took him down hard. Now he is underwater in his "home" with "g" living in the cellar & Ellis out in the garden shed. His life is shattered & in tatters. :>)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JajDZVgNsVM

Posted by TrueLove at August 19, 2009 6:29 PM

The people who proclaim to "rubbish" the evergreen Whole Foods are likely lining up for their non-fat soy latte organic bean with whip from Whole Foods right now. While people stand on a platform and proclaim "education for everyone" and healthcare standards that will have us living until 200 years of age, realities are typically much different than appearances.

If Facebook is Mr. Mackey's biggest threat (ally), I'm sure he'll come out of this just fine. The problem with message boards, Facebook, and MySpace is that they've overgrown to the point of parody and calamity. You can find yin and yang all over the internet and people who will support to not support a side that doesn't support what it purports are rampant.

Mr. Mackey has taters and the fact that he would come out and call Americans fat and lazy is the first step of recognizing our heavily fed and ego driven fat asses. He is right about one thing which can't be debated, the government is overspending at enormous rates and not producing much of anything. Even Buffet came out today and retreated (somewhat) on earlier support of a "spend all philosophy until I make my money back in GE" statement. We are out of control in our ability to spend and lacking any true restraint from the White House on down the line.

Negative PR is just as effective as any PR, unless you're Obama of course. I believe Michelle looked hot in shorts at the Grand Canyon...you go girl! Make sure nobody snaps a picture of you in Whole Foods!

Posted by Scott Peters at August 19, 2009 7:28 PM

Mackey has consistently been marching to the tune of his own drummer. Whatever our politics, he actually had suggestions rather than a restatement of the problem. I sincerely hope he, and other leaders, continue to provide their insights, whether wacky or not. I am just glad somebody weighed in that actually has a real job and true experience making a payroll.

Posted by David Porter at August 19, 2009 7:42 PM

>I love to see the liberals eating their own.

The one thing that Mackey isn't is a liberal. He caters to that market, and when he showed his true stripes, his customer base rebelled. Most of his arguments are recycled right-wing talking points that had been used for years - using the propagandistic phases: "tort reform, " "government mandate" and "rationing."

Facebook isn't Mackey's enemy: his enemy is the Wall Street Journal who decided to retitle his editorial into something very inflamatory, change some of his text around, and make what was ostensibly Mackey's personal opinion into the official position of Whole Foods. With friends like Murdoch, one no longer needs enemies.

Another of his major errors was extrapolating from sketchy data. The workforce at WF is very young (mid 20s), so a high deductable HSA is fine for that demographic. If he tended to employ people who had children, his employees would be a lot less satisfied with their existing coverage.

Posted by Peter at August 19, 2009 8:26 PM

Contrary to the tone of this post Mr Mackay should be delighted with the feedback that social networks are providing him. The 16,000 who oppose his views have stood up,identified themselves, and told him where they live. Great business intelligence for Whole Foods I would think.

Negative feedback is always a social or business asset. Social networks/media delivers negative feedback quickly - this increases its use value to any savvy business operation.

Sir Richard Branson thrives on negative feedback - he is the master of the well placed 'shout out' that exposes his opponents in the media. Branson often recalls how British Airlines almost put Virgin out of business via some very nasty and secretive tricks - he knows to beware of those who do not give you feedback not those who do.

Mr Mackay has done an excellent job of pointing to a contemporary mismatch between people's wants and needs. He uses the health care issue to make his points but this mismatch exists in many other fields too. In health care Mr Mackay points to an obvious mismatch within most people's mindsets as follows.

What people want is excellent health care delivered and paid for by someone else. What people need is wellness.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at August 19, 2009 8:34 PM

Is our education system keeping up?

Are we teaching our children how to read articles, blogs, tweets etc in an effective manner? More than ever the skills and attitudes needed to take in information, assess it, corroborate with other sources etc are essential.

The more I see of media (news and many comentators) the more frustrated I get - the complete and utter lack of ability (often by so called professional journalists) to actually read/listen to what someone is saying and comment in an intelligent manner. The lack of will to clarify and explore rather than jump to their own opinions and conclusions.

More and more time, effort and money is being spent by companies trying to "manage the message" (I am not talking about basic sales marketing here)- this is basically unproductive work - it adds no value to the service/products. Increasing cost of doing business = increasing prices = uncompetitive

Is the Spiral of social media development and corporate counter measure a downward one or are we getting tangible benefit to society in holding powerful orgs/people to account?

I hope that Fred is right that people will become immune to this type of thing.

Richard - Good point of wants and needs

Posted by PaulH at August 20, 2009 2:07 AM

Moderation versus Celebrity

Too many want to be the next panelist on the Dragon's Den (BBC) or the next Lord Sugar or indeed the combover that is Donald Trump. The Business ego has a lot to answer for and the media are using this to their own ends.

Branson has courted and controlled his media image from day one, not everyone will be as good at it!

The quiet philanthropist? The quiet man in business? Do either exsist either now or in the future? Do our MBA (Masters of Bugger All) preach this? (I wouldn't know)

There will always be the "dandy" leader, there will always be those that want to be in the spot light, we all want to be listened to?

Technology and bright minds will come up with something beyond any of this current crop of Twitter and the like, the mantra of all change is good? Not sure.

Not sure I even have a conclusion other than have a great day and be gentle with yourself and others.

Posted by patrick at August 20, 2009 2:57 AM

Richie - you played your liberal bias card & lost in your simple game of checkers - while the world plays chess. Quite the legacy as "management consultant"?

Whole Foods Twitter site does NOT even dignify any downturn - in fact they have dozens of new store openings coming - people are buying more vitamins, supplements, whole foods in this USA driven recession - since they are fed up with the NHS style of "sickcare" that has reduced the UK to almost 3rd world status. :>)

Whole Foods Twitter: "These are the new stores we have planned for the next few years: Thanks!"

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/stores/newstores.php

Posted by TrueLove at August 20, 2009 6:02 AM

The only problem I have with Whole Foods is that the closest one to my house is about an hour's drive and doesn't sell wine. I like the store, but I wish I could get some of the famous "Two Buck Chuck" while there. Facebook--what a joke--just gives those who already share the same opinions the illusion they are somehow empowered to demand the world line up behind their little foot-stomping tantrum demands.

Posted by Mike at August 20, 2009 6:39 AM

Doesn't John Mackey take home a whopping $1 a year in compensation? He has stated he has enough. So exactly how will he be "hurt" by what he wrote and this insane call for a boycott. He speaks the truth as he believes it and good for him. He has the balls to let the chips fall where they may.

The only folks that can be hurt by the idiocy of a boycott promoted on Facebook are the employees and the stock holders. The former are folks just trying to make their way in this world the best way they know how and are grateful for a paycheck and health insurance. And I for one think it would be a shame to see these folks get laid off because of poorly thought through call for boycott.

Unfortunately, because most folks in the world are asleep and don't have a fundamental understanding of unintended consequences or economics, they get lead around by the nose but folks that don't think things through. Politicians and business consultants come to mind to name two types of reactionary "leaders" that lead us down false paths. As are people who start boycotts of a company on Facebook because of something the CEO wrote that they disagree with.

I expect better from this blog than some admonishment that we live in fear of Facebook and Twitter and be careful what we write about because of some harm it might do to our company if the crowd doesn't agree with something we believe in. I say speak your truth as you know it and let the chips fall where they may. Only cowards or politicians would follow the advice of Mr. King.

Posted by TrueCapitalist at August 20, 2009 11:29 AM

"The problem with the Mackey incident is that it discourages debate and it discourages people from taking leadership positions."

You couldn't have said it better Mark.

Posted by Michael McKinney at August 20, 2009 1:37 PM

The article read well to me. People need to be accountable for the cost of visits yet not be put in the poor house with a sudden catastrophic state of dis...ease!

Thanks for the heads up on this article from one of the other 230,000,000 that are not on the 16K list.

Have an opinion and be fearlessly respectful with it!

Barry

Posted by B Nelson at August 20, 2009 2:32 PM

"The problem with the Mackey incident is that it discourages debate and it discourages people from taking leadership positions."

How are you a leader if you are not willing to accept the consequeces of your beliefs that you share publicly?

Posted by zorro at August 20, 2009 3:42 PM

I don't understand what there is to get so upset about. Here you have someone offering their specific suggestions on what could be done to improve access to and reduce the cost of healthcare. These are more concrete examples than we are getting out of most of Washington. Any reform must include the recognition that there is some personal accountability for one's health status.

Posted by Tom B at August 20, 2009 5:34 PM

Only 16,000!
Wholefoods has 117,850 fans on Facebook.
"United breaks guitars" has been watched over 5 million times on Youtube. And one of TP's videos over 66,000 times.
We live in a world of big numbers. 16,000 is not enough. But 2 experienced store managers resigning would be more than enough ...

Posted by Mike L. at August 21, 2009 1:15 AM

The issue really isn't Mackey so much as it is the current nature of political 'debate.' Political debate--actually debate in many area--is now more about demonizing and trying to intimidate—and destroy if necessary--the opposition than to present a coherent argument. In this instance Mackey had the temerity to oppose the far left sacrament of public run healthcare, hence the far left nut brigade arises en mass to intimate and bather. When one’s arguments are vapid, destroy the enemy. Based on speaking with a number of my friends and acquaintances around the country, this will prove to be a boost to Whole Foods sales. Never shopped there in my life but have now and will continue.

The real concern is these attacks are designed to stifle and eliminate debate and unfortunately it is working as demonstrated by Peters suggesting people keep their mouths shut. When the advice from people of the stature of Tom Peters is don’t voice a substantive opinion on anything that might be the least controversial, we’ve ceded our lives and our futures to the few who are willing to speak up—whether they be from the left or the right, wise or wacko, principled or opportunist.

Posted by Paul McCord at August 21, 2009 9:01 AM viagra cheapest online

I have boycotted Snickers bars since the dastardly renaming from Marathon - ok so I have the occasional one but I feel bad when I am eating it.

Posted by PaulH at August 21, 2009 9:37 AM

Its simple - if your customers are progressive and
you happen to be conservative and customers shop at your store because it has a 'progressive atmosphere' and you are dumb enough to destroy the illusion, then you deserve what you get. This is like, back in the 1960's, John Lennon coming out in support of the Viet Nam war. I bet if the CEO of Kroger came out with an opinion piece on health care similar to Mackey's, no one would even flinch.

Posted by zorro at August 21, 2009 9:39 AM

Paul McCord - I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding. This post was not written by Tom Peters. It was written by our esteemed colleague, Richard King, and I don't believe his intention was to advocate keeping one's mouth shut. Also, I'm sure if you spend a bit of time reading Tom's writing, you'll encounter plenty of controversial subjects.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at August 21, 2009 12:20 PM

Shelley,

Thanks for pointing out the correct author. However, his intent can hardly be other than keeping one's mouth shut based on his last sentence of "I suspect that Mr. Mackey and his ilk will be a bit more careful with their personal opinions in future." Since the focus of the post is the consequence of Mackey giving his opinion, how else does one take King's suspicion that those of Mackey's ilk will--and should?--keep their mouth shut. Sounds like great advice when brand and money become more important than principles.

Posted by Paul McCord at August 21, 2009 2:05 PM

I think King was surmising. He wasn't saying how things should be.

Posted by zorro at August 21, 2009 2:56 PM

Zorro,

Certainly the "Sadly" at the beginning of the last sentence can be construed to be regret that Mackey and his ilk will be silent--or it can simply be that sadly Mackay and his ilk must be silent in order to protect the brand and avoid controversy. I took it to be the latter.

Posted by Paul McCord at August 21, 2009 3:12 PM

I do not speak for Richard, but to watch what is clearly meant to be an observation of the impact of social media on business misinterpreted as advice to raise money or brand above principles is disturbing. This is simply not how Richard operates; he is a man of integrity.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at August 21, 2009 9:38 PM

“This is simply not how Richard operates; he is a man of integrity” – I agree Shelley

We have to be so careful when interpreting someone else’s meaning in the words they speak or write. I run a communication course for frontline healthcare staff and I ask them to think of how many different meaning they can come up with by just changing the emphasis on ONE word in this sentence

“I didn’t say she stole the money”

So far the record is 7 different meanings ….

Effective communication is indeed an art.

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 22, 2009 5:06 AM

Not trying to misinterpret his words but am trying to put together his meaning based on his words. His second to last sentence is “I do think it is good to get insights into the personality of the people who are running our iconic businesses.” That is then followed with the observation that those insights won’t be coming in the future. My reading was that it is good to get the insights but not necessary and sadly those insight opportunities will no longer—can no longer--exist because of the risk to brand and sales. If I misinterpreted the meaning, I apologize. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time in my life I’ve misread something.

Posted by Paul McCord at August 22, 2009 8:47 AM

I'd tend to find Richard guilty if charged - a. never heard of this until reading Richard's comments - b. Facebook cuts both ways - those that post false boycott information die by that sword too - we all check the Internet before hiring someone - if people are false, misleading & flagrant - they do not get hired esp. in this buyers' market for talent pertaining to the freedoms of free republics and free enterprise that needs honesty perhaps above all right now.

Facebook:

"Boycott Whole Foods
Type: Common Interest - Politics

Description: John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on August 12, 2009 quoting Margaret Thatcher and suggesting that healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve.

Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives. Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities."

" ... progressives." Hilarious low-IQ vanity!

Doesn't that low-IQ weasel-word Facebook rant say it all? How could a Richard King even dignify that?

PM Thatcher always comes out as tied for the best PM of the last 100 years. IQ of 50 average for this Facebook mob?

It is suicidal for this Facebook crowd to brand themselves as left-wing neoliberal fanatics "... only the rich, like him, deserve healthcare."

More like only the Facebook morons like them deserve to be stupid & never get laid because they are so boring. Plus the USA unions are against healthcare reform as it is drafted.

And Sir Richard Branson is far too smart to let a Facebook pack of weasels touch his wonderful reputation and ability to create careers and wealth for many, many families - same for Mr. Mackey - he just wants sickcare to relent & satisfaction to ride in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVDM0a49Lw

Posted by TrueLove at August 22, 2009 4:06 PM

Sometimes friends disagree - thanks RK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtGF2m102Wg

Posted by Plato at August 23, 2009 7:43 PM

Please be patient while I run my opinion by our in-house social networking blow-back evaluation committee and our brand managers to make sure nobody could be the least bit offended my opinion. BS!!

Off to Whole Foods to do my shopping.

Posted by Jim Outland at August 24, 2009 2:18 PM

Hmmm .... I've read the Mackey piece a couple of times, and then looked at the boycott website, and I just don't get it. Even if you don't agree with him, he wasn't that incendiary. The first part of the boycott Facebook page claims that Mackey is "suggesting that healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve." Where does he say that in his piece?

What is different from the boycotters writing this and the conservatives saying that Obama wants to kill Grandma? Why play the same language-twisting dogma game?

Why can't we have some discerning debate and dialogue?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at August 24, 2009 11:27 PM

Seconded

Posted by RobCH at August 25, 2009 12:17 AM

I agree with you Steve - the only part that looked a little like "commodity for the rich" was the part where he says that no where is health care considered a right. Even that is a little tenuous.

The question is - is "hysterical, mass social network idiocy" more dangerous to society than the "few in charge calling the shots and controlling the agenda" ???

Taking a different spin on the United breaks guitars peice. I don't know what United's track record on baggage is like (prabably not that good). But imagine if United had a very good record and got this wrong this one time. Does that give the guitar owner the right to damage the reputation with a one off situation???

We are very much hitting a facts versus emotion situation. It makes Steve's call to arms on real engagement so important - dealing with the facts, story, emotion - the whole customer so important.

With the influence comes the responsibility. There is a lot of talk of holding the people/orgs in positions of power to account and this is important but who holds the Utubers to account? The web sure doesn't.

Do we care about facts anymore?

Sorry a bit of a ramble

Posted by PaulH at August 25, 2009 3:38 AM

"With the influence comes the responsibility."
PaulH--I think the level of influence is less than conventional wisdom would have us believe. Just because a person can go on the intertubes and rant (or rave) to a POTENTIAL audience of millions, doesn't mean anyone is actually paying attention. I would be willing to wager a sawbuck that there is absolutely no discernible decrease in Whole Foods' sales the remainder of '09.

viagra store usa Posted by Mike at August 25, 2009 8:04 AM

Why can't we have some discerning debate and dialogue?

The debate is over - I won't buy anything at whole foods again

Posted by zorro at August 25, 2009 1:22 PM

Well, it’s a week later and 14,000 more people have joined the Whole Foods boycott at Facebook. We’ll have to wait and see whether respondents here are right when they doubt it will make a carrot’s worth of difference to Whole Foods’ sales. As to the long term impact of mass reactions like this on other CEO’s propensity to speak out, I sincerely hope that none are discouraged from getting their voices out there on matters of social import about which they hold strong opinions. I’m sure business “normality”, when it returns, will look and feel different than it did before we all slid into this recession. In what ways things will be different also remains to be seen. Sorry zorro. It does look like the debate on this subject is over, for now at least.

Posted by Richard King at August 28, 2009 8:58 AM