Why boycotting Whole Foods is Stupid

http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2009/why-boycotting-whole-foods-is-stupid/

by Anon84 • 17 years ago

62 111 17 years ago

stuff4ben• 17 years ago

Incredibly well said. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - The American President (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/)

smakz2• 17 years ago

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. [might not be Voltaire]

pg• 17 years ago

IIRC it wasn't Voltaire who said this.

ctbarna• 17 years ago

Voltaire never actually said that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations)

mighty3• 17 years ago

I'm sorry, but the idea that the boycott is somehow threatening freedom of speech is utterly absurd.

> A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish.

I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.

amalcon• 17 years ago

I agree that it's pretty stupid, but the people doing this boycott aren't restricting anyone's rights. They're just exercising their own right to choose where to shop based on whatever factors they like, even if those factors happen to be stupid (which they are).

Free speech isn't about freedom from consequences. It's about letting people say what they like, if they're willing to accept the natural consequences. One of those consequences is that, if people disagree with you, they can choose to take their business elsewhere.

Problems arise when the consequences are things that private individuals would not be permitted to do, like imprison or harm the speaker.

To put it more simply: I may disagree with what you boycott, but I will defend to the death your right to boycott it.

halo• 17 years ago

This isn't a free speech issue, and equating it to a free-speech issue is fallacious.

People can say anything they like, even if they are standing centre-stage and making my blood boil, but that doesn't mean I'll want to buy something from them afterwards.

hughprime5• 17 years ago

It's not a free speech issue, but it is an issue of basic civility. I agree that if someone's speech makes your blood boil then it's reasonable not to buy anything from them. But rational people should always be able to listen to reasonably sensible discourse with which they disagree without having their blood boil.

Civil society is poorly served when people can't even bear to listen to any opinion differing from their own.

itistoday• 17 years ago

Couldn't agree more, and somehow the author seems to have missed the notion that boycotting also happens to fall under the umbrella of "free-speech".

I find it odd that he finds their reaction "ridiculous" and that instead they should've had a debate with him. Really? How will they do that? Call him on his cellphone and tell him they don't like what he said? Send him emails? I mean, even if they were able to find out what his email address is, I seriously doubt they're going to change his mind or even illicit a response.

Instead, they chose to do something that seems to be having great results for them. And considering that Mackey essentially said "fuck the 45 million uninsured", their reaction is well measured, I think.

ibsulon2• 17 years ago

I absolutely believe in free speech. I would be the first to yell if he was censored by the government, or was unable to make his logical appeal in the appropriate forum (which it was.)

However, as a consumer, I also try to patronize companies that share my ideals and do not actively work against what I work for. Many progressives do the same, and were shocked to find out that the CEO/founder was a libertarian.

I am not boycotting Whole Foods (though I do not shop there on a regular basis to start), but I do not feel that such an action is censorship.

philwelch14• 17 years ago

Here's the funny thing: Mackey actually was a progressive before he tried to actually run a company.

That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?

apotheon5• 17 years ago

Censorship doesn't have to be government-run to be censorship, and in some cases (such as when a privately run Website's policy says "no swearing or your posts will be deleted") it can even be a perfectly acceptable practice.

I don't think this boycott is really very well thought out, though. It really is (as another HN community member pointed out) punitive rather than corrective; his opinion isn't funded by customers' spending at Whole Foods the way, say, customers' money funds Sony/BMG's use of DRM. Boycotting Sony/BMG for DRM use is corrective, providing a perfect counterexample to the poorly conceived boycott of Whole Foods and its punitive effect.

It's not even a boycott of principle related to how one's money is spent, as far as I can tell.

jswinghammer• 17 years ago

I totally agree that this boycott business is nonsense. I don't understand why some people seem to believe that everyone has to agree with you. Is the case for health care reform so weak that people need to jump on anyone who dissents? Mackey doesn't even draw a salary so by boycotting Whole Foods it isn't affecting him directly. He's a libertarian sort of guy but that's nothing new. I shop at Whole Foods every week and have no plans to stop that any time soon. My wife and I joke that we should be spending more there now that some people are boycotting.

jz2• 17 years ago

I've shopped at Whole Foods once or twice in the past and came to the conclusion that it was a bit pricey. I just started shopping at Whole Foods again to help negate the boycott. I also plan on buying a Ford the next time I need a car. I've always bought GM/Chrysler, but Ford has earned my respect by refusing the government bailout.

hughprime5• 17 years ago

I, likewise, am planning to shop at Whole Foods more frequently now. Actually, one of the reasons I didn't shop at Whole Foods before was that it was always too crowded. Maybe it'll be easier to find a parking space from now on. (It helps that my local branch is in Berkeley.)

mdasen• 17 years ago

The Whole Foods CEO wasn't just having opinions. He was actively opining (which spell check assures me is a word) that we shouldn't have a public health care system.

Why should advertisers not advertise on Glen Beck's show? For those who don't know, Beck opined on his show that President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . . I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." That's an opinion as well.

Beck's opinion is, to most, more inflammatory than Mackey's, but that can make Mackey's all the more dangerous (if you're someone who would like to see public healthcare). The fact is that Mackey seems to be a liberal of sorts (in fact, Whole Foods offers health insurance to their employees) and an at least somewhat successful business person (I don't actually know enough about Whole Foods, but they don't seem to be going bankrupt).

So, his words are quite a threat to the agenda of those who would like to see a public health plan. And his words have that much more power because they're coming from someone who seems to have liberal leanings and is running a business that does provide health care to their employees. If someone is advocating for the opposite of what you would like, should you not take that into consideration? We vote with our feet every day. He took action against public health care in trying to change people's opinions through his piece. I know many who stopped buying CDs because of the RIAA's positions.

I will grant that his piece was a lot more thoughtful and measured than many have passed on, but this is an issue that is very contentious and many people feel (I'm not making any judgement here) that his words contribute to a negative impact on the possibility of a public health plan and that the lack of such a plan will have a negative impact on their life. As such, they don't want to spend their money at his business.

PieSquared• 17 years ago

Go ahead, don't spend money on his business.

But there's no need to make a huge deal out of it, as the boycott is doing. Just read the article, and read the 'About' section on their website, and see whether one seems a justified response to the other.

gloob4• 17 years ago

Go ahead, don't spend money on his business. But there's no need to make a huge deal out of it, as the boycott is doing.

From our perspective, perhaps. I don't doubt the people behind the boycott think there is a substantial need to make a huge deal out of it.

encoderer• 17 years ago

But if your business strategy is targeting a specific demographic, you get what you deserve if you go publicly opposing what that demographic overwhelmingly supports.

tptacek• 17 years ago

If you think it's reasonable not to do business with Whole Foods because of the opinions of its management, it's hard to argue that it's not reasonable to tell other people about your decision, or to promote that decision to other people.

pyre6• 17 years ago

Either way, both sides are just tossing words around. This is the norm for political debate, even if no actual debate is happening. It's called free speech. They're allowed to make as large a deal out of it as they want to, even if it's a stupid decision and entirely out of proportion.

jobeirne4• 17 years ago

"So, his words are quite a threat"

I resent your use of the word "threat" in this context; a threat implies the pending use of force to harm. Are you sure that you want to equate a man expressing his opinion publicly to the promise of inflicting pain?

nonrecursive4• 17 years ago

That's not the only meaning: "a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger". There are economic threats (the threat of bankruptcy), social threats (blackmail), etc. etc.

I think what's important here is that the boycotters perceive the Whole Foods CEO's opining as an actual threat. In the "battle" for ideas, it makes sense that you wouldn't actively support your opposition.

scott_s• 17 years ago

It's pretty clear in English that when we say "threat to X" and X is an abstract concept, we don't heave to mean literal force. It simply means it puts the concept in some kind of danger.

For example, "Your capricious coding practices are a threat to the quality of our code base."

You're stuck on the first entry in the dictionary for "threat." The parent was using the second entry: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat

ZeroGravitas• 17 years ago

"If I were to boycott Whole Foods or critique Mackey it’d be for poor or manipulative timing, and not much else."

Maybe that's enough?

I'm not big on boycotts, but rich business people pissing off their core constituents by opposing reforms they seek and offering fringe ideas as alternatives right in the middle of a big debate about a fundamental part of society just seems dumb. I thought we were pro dumb actions having consequences round here.

hughprime5• 17 years ago

I thought we were pro-"letting other people express their quite reasonable opinions without fear of illegitimate retaliation" around here.

Look, there are certain opinions which are so far beyond the pale that I think it would be reasonable to boycott folks who express them. But these are opinions lying well outside the mainstream Republican/Democrat opinion blob. When the ~50% of society who believe one thing start retaliating against the ~50% of society who believe the other thing, then that's really bad for society, and reflects very badly on those who want to lump all dissent from their own position into the "unacceptable" basket.

gnaritas12• 17 years ago

> I thought we were pro-"letting other people express their quite reasonable opinions without fear of illegitimate retaliation" around here.

Retaliation from the government, sure, but not from the market. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

wolfish3• 17 years ago

I disagree that expressing a well thought out opinion on an important social issue is a dumb action.

gloob4• 17 years ago

Clearly the market disagrees with you.

nonrecursive4• 17 years ago

That's not the entire context. The man has a wider audience than most people because he's the CEO of a well-known, successful company. His words are also given more weight, and he therefore is a lot more able to persuade than most people. If this were D&D he'd have super high charisma.

Part of his success, however, comes from building a brand based on ideology. Whole Foods stands for the values of the Local, Green, and Fair Trade movements, among others. At least some of the people who shop at WF, and who therefore have contributed to the CEO's +100 charisma, do so because they feel like it's a good, responsible thing to do.

However, now the CEO is trying to persuade Americans to pursue a course of action which runs contrary to the values of his customers and the perceived values of the WF brand. From a business standpoint this could definitely be a dumb action. From the standpoint of doing what you believe in even if it hurts your bottom line, it's a stand-up action.

tjic2• 17 years ago

I read a quote somewhere (forget where) saying "folks in favor of universal healthcare keep saying 'lets have a debate'. OK, then Mackey's editorial was a PERFECT example of having a debate ... and he's getting castigated for it. This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position."

I 100% agree.

gloob4• 17 years ago

That doesn't follow rationally, I don't think. The argument looks like this:

1. Some people support universal healthcare. 2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods. 3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare.

Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate.

Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.

gamble• 17 years ago

If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best way to start.

TheElder• 17 years ago

Here's the quote which you are talking about to let everybody make up their mind on it:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...

Legion• 17 years ago

Yet it's a perfect opportunity to show that your "side" is the rational one.

I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking."

The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.

tallanvor• 17 years ago

If people disagree with his position, they have every right to peacefully make their dissent known. If the easiest way they have to do that is to boycott his business, then it is entirely acceptable for them to do so. And lets be honest, the ability for people to engage in a debate with him is limited at best. The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal, and a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings. Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen?

At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.

Perceval• 17 years ago

In an ideal world, the purpose of political speech is to persuade. Mackey's piece, while inflammatory in parts, is an argument that he intends to persuade at least some people.

In an ideal world, the appropriate response to political speech that one find's wrong, objectionable, erroneous, or otherwise misleading is to engage in political speech yourself. The cure for political speech is more political speech.

However, I agree with you that the average person does not have the same level of access to venues for political speech that Mackey does. It's not easy to get pride of place on the WSJ editorial page. Not even terribly easy to get your letter to the editor printed.

Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the boycott is. We can all agree that free people are necessarily free to spend their money where they like, going out of their way to avoid certain brands in favor of others. Usually, we avoid brands because the products that the brand represents are flawed, sub-par, or fraudulent. Obviously, this is not the case with the Whole Foods boycott. Boycotting Whole Foods for the political speech of its CEO is an action not directed at Whole Foods per se, but at the political opinion of one man responsible for the company.

Will affecting Whole Foods' bottom-line persuade Mackey? Will it persuade the rest of the public? Unlikely in either case. A boycott of this sort is not meant to persuade, it's meant to punish. This is why people like the author of the linked article and others think that this kind of boycott crosses the line from civil speech to incivility. The rationale seems to be: if we can't persuade Mackey or achieve a place on a soapbox comparable to his, then perhaps we can punish him enough that he will regret having spoken up.

Seeking to punish Mackey for expressing his opinion is not an equivalent act of free speech. It crosses the line into incivility.

apotheon5• 17 years ago

> The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal

The average person isn't likely to write as well as that article was written.

> a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings.

Those things are just marketing events, anyway. The "debate" is going to happen elsewhere.

> Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen?

. . . the same place it always happens: where it isn't televised. It happens in online discussions like this, and it happens in discussions amongst friends, families, and co-workers.

> At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.

I support that right, even when I think it's being poorly used.

dtf• 17 years ago

He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Maybe he does raise a few interesting points, but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine. It's a perfect "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" moment that shows the man has zero clue what he's talking about. This isn't a cogent argument against healthcare reform that needs defending as free-speech-under-attack; it's just a public relations facepalm of the first degree. The boycotts are stupid, but that's just stupidity responding to stupidity.

philwelch14• 17 years ago

"but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine"

That's not what he wrote. He wrote:

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

I don't know enough about nutrition to discuss the second graf, but he doesn't imply that good nutrition negates the need for health care--people get diseases and injuries that aren't caused by bad decisions of their own the other 30% of the time--but it's equal "stupidity" to think "let's spend trillions of public dollars on treating each other for diabetes and heart disease instead of putting down the cheeseburger and going for a jog".

tjic2• 17 years ago

> He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it.

Thatcher presided over a country with socialized health care and heavily unionized coal mining, and complained about them.

In the US, we are now debating having the government run the health sector. I.e. "socialism".

I don't think that a criticism of socialized healthcare from someone who's been there is quite the same thing as "referencing the third Reich".

neilc• 17 years ago

He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate

Somewhat inflammatory, sure -- but hardly worthy of a boycott. The vast majority of the Mackay piece is a level-headed argument -- one that you can certainly disagree with, but I think calling for a boycott is schoolyard politics.

mattmaroon• 17 years ago

This shows that SOME folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate. The laughable "tea parties" and town hall interruptions show that SOME folks on the other side aren't either.

But then, unless you have the IQ of a watermelon, you really didn't need this to figure out that a lot of people on either side of the political spectrum already have their minds made up.

mikeryan• 17 years ago

If you're going to say:

"This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position."

You have to recognize this happening on both sides of the aisle (Town Hall Meetings anyone?)

apotheon5• 17 years ago

There is a difference:

1. Demonstrating in front of the store and forwarding boycott emails targets consumers, trying to get enough pressure aimed at the Whole Foods founder to get him to recant or shut up and stop contributing to the debate based on his own principles.

2. Making noise at a "town hall" meeting (laughable misuse of the term for Presidential stumping for a Federal program) is just an attempt to make sure the President knows that there are many people who disagree with the idea, more directly addressing the figurehead for the whole policy.

Obama is in a position to directly affect policy; the founder of Whole Foods is only in a position to foster debate.

pyre6• 17 years ago

I can also find people in the anti-'government healthcare' camp whose only objection to the program is the throw up the nebulous term 'socialism' as if just saying 'socialism' means that they won the argument. While many of these same people don't bother to examine many of the government programs that we have in existence today that qualify as 'socialism.' I find these people particularly irritating.

pbhjpbhj2• 17 years ago

You remember that quote verbatim but don't remember where you read it? I thought my memory was screwy ...

jobeirne4• 17 years ago

If anything, a rabid boycotting effort seems detrimental to the case of reformists; fear-mongering and verbal abuse simply because a man authors an eloquent article stating his opinions? That sounds scary to me.

Besides, Mackey's stance has been empirically expressed for a long time now; just examining the way he handles health care internally, with his own employees, should tell much of what he believes in. To rifle and shout for blood now, just because he's released a minor articulation of something he's been advocating a while now, would seem sort of silly on the part of conscious Whole Foods consumers.

martythemaniak• 17 years ago

This seems to be news to many people, but "free speech" does not mean others have to listen to you, agree with you, or least of all financially support you.

The guy delivered a big Fuck You to his customers - the same people who are responsible for him having a stronger voice than an ordinary person. Now he has to pay the price for his stupidity, and they are absolutely right to boycott WF.

jz2• 17 years ago

Did you even read the article? I was unable to find even one instance where he was sticking it to his customers. All his points had everything to do with changes to the health care system, but with a minimal (if any) increase in the deficit.

ezy2• 17 years ago

Did you? Read it again.

It's missing the point and excessively patronizing. He is sticking it to his customers, you just aren't reading critically. To his credit, he's been consistent -- I found articles about the WF health plan from way back where he is equally patronizing about how his employees chose the "Suck Less" health care plan by vote. Gee, thanks. :-)

Lets take some choice quotes:

Covering the naive, self-serving bases we have: "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover", "Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year." Incredibly naive. Just astoundingly so. Also, note the complete lack of concern for the patients in this triangle. Or at least the ones who may not have the privilege of working at WholeFoods.

And under the WTF category: "Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation [for people with no insurance]". Does anyone think this proposal is actually legitimate? This is the most intelligence insulting bit of ass-covering I've ever seen.

But it doesn't end there. He references an article in Investor's business daily which is basically full of lies (look up the rebuttals -- it's quite humorous)

And I love this one. Note the pre-built conclusion: "Why would [Can,UK employees] want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"?" Well, fucking duh, they don't need high deductable insurance from WholeFoods, and they want access to extra benefits in some form. But, he's smart, he knew this already... He just didn't choose to phrase it that way.. for our beenfit, of course. :-)

And we have the patronizing implication in: "Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:". If that isn't a huge fuck you, I have no idea what is.

eli• 17 years ago

People are just unhappy that Whole Foods' senior management doesn't jive with the company's careful constructed image.

Of course, I think I'd starve to death if I boycotted all the stores that don't support my politics.

viggity• 17 years ago

I would die of boredom if I didn't watch movies made by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

noodle• 17 years ago

what is a boycott but an expression of opinion?

i'm not sure how the author would reconcile the fact that the CEO of a company should have the right to express his opinion via the editorial but the consumers should not be able to express their opinion by not doing business with the company (how else will the average joe on the street be able to actually have any direct effect on or interaction with a CEO?).

pyre6• 17 years ago

Yea. The article seems more to the effect of "Your political opinions are stupid, therefore your actions to express those opinions are stupid as well" and venturing into "your opinions are so stupid that you don't have a right to express them" territory.

hughprime5• 17 years ago

Out of curiosity, can anyone point me at some well-argued articles offering a refutation of Mackey's original editorial?

Alternatively, bonus points if you can find me someone supporting boycotting Whole Foods who ridiculed the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks. Or vice versa.

pyre6• 17 years ago

The boycotting of the Dixie Chicks was more ridiculous, in my opinion... By a couple of orders of magnitude.

hughprime5• 17 years ago

Uh huh. How so, exactly?

mcantelon• 17 years ago

Also stupid is screwing your shareholders by pissing off your company's customers.

evanjacobs• 17 years ago

As far as the (stock) markets are concerned, Mackey's opinion piece doesn't seem to have affected the value of WFMI. After a brief dip, the value of WFMI has steadily increased during the past week: http://bit.ly/4BCUjh

doki_pen• 17 years ago

It seems to me that boycot is perfect way to censor people. I find nothing wrong with it. There are social consequences to what you say. This is the way it should be. Government cencorship, on the other hand...

pyre6• 17 years ago

I'd like to take a second to remind folks that this is the reason that companies want to have access to your facebook pages, have you sign away your right to blog in public, etc.

While it's obviously a bit different for a CEO (being more in the public eye, and seen as the 'face' of the company), HR and legal departments are worried about similar backlashes from comments made by 'grunt-level' (or even mid-level) employees.

This is obviously a flawed assumption, because the people at the top of the company have a higher chance of garnering public outrage against a company, yet they are the ones with the most leverage to say 'screw you' to such policies that would limit their free speech and (at least try to) negotiate them out of any contracts.

ranprieur• 17 years ago

Both sides on this issue are failing to understand the vast potential power of the tool of the boycott. It doesn't matter whether Mackey's argument was reasonable. People are fired up and motivated, and that energy can be tapped to influence Whole Foods, and then influence another company, and another. The more we use the muscle, the stronger it gets.

What the boycotters don't understand is that you get nowhere if a bunch of disconnected individuals just stop buying something because they're angry. It only works if you make specific well-publicized demands, continue the boycott until the demands are met, and then end it. A boycott without demands is tactically pathetic. It's a bit late now, but the boycotters could have demanded, for example, that Whole Foods publicly support a single-payer system.

justin_vanw• 17 years ago

Ok, the article seems to miss something.

The whole foods ceo is in the newspaper because he is the CEO of whole foods, not because he has all these interesting things to say. Since his ability to push his opinions through the newspaper is predicated on his position at that corporation, he is writing as 'the CEO of whole foods', not merely as a citizen. That they point out who he is adds to this, since not only is he only invited because of his job title, but the newspaper is also using the title to add weight and authority. If the employees of a company offend you the best and really only way to influence them is to stop giving that company your money.

Really, as a practical matter, no CEO of any company should be out there publicly talking about their personal political views. In fact, it is odd that the company didn't have a written policy preventing employees from using their affiliation with the company in this way. If the guy who makes sandwiches started endorsing panini grills, and the ads used the Whole Foods name, they would be shut down. It is just obvious that the sandwich guy can't use the company's trademarks to push his personal agenda, and neither should the CEO be allowed to.

tc• 17 years ago

You may not be aware, but John Mackey founded Whole Foods (in his garage, no less) in 1978. His identity is naturally rather intertwined with his company.

Why boycotting Whole Foods is Stupid

Related Stories