July 13, 2007
Whole Foods’ John Mackey: ‘For the sheer fun of arguing’
What was he thinking? That’s the question that many were left asking after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that over an eight-year period, Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey went online to a Yahoo! stock market message board and anonymously touted his own company’s prospects while ripping the competition.
Mr. Mackey, made the submissions under the name rahodeb, wrote in January 2005, “Would Whole Foods buy OATS? Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small.”
Rahodeb, according to The Journal, said Wild Oats (selling for $8 a share at the time) would be sold after its stock tanked or the company was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. At one point, he wrote that management at Wild Oats “clearly doesn’t know what it is doing… OATS has no value and no future.”
Mr. Mackey had something to say about other competitors, as well.
“If you are waiting for Trader Joe’s or Wegmans to slow down the Whole Foods express train you’re going to be waiting the rest of your life. It ain’t [going to] happen,” he wrote in September 2005.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained the postings from Whole Foods and is using rahodeb’s comments to build its case against the grocery chain’s acquisition of Wild Oats.
Mr. Mackey has denied any impropriety in his postings as rahodeb. He wrote on the Whole Foods website, “I posted on Yahoo! under a pseudonym because I had fun doing it. Many people post on bulletin boards using pseudonyms.”
He added: “The views articulated by rahodeb sometimes represent what I actually believed and sometimes they didn’t. Sometimes I simply played ‘devil’s advocate’ for the sheer fun of arguing. Anyone who knows me realizes that I frequently do this in person, too.”
Mr. Mackey has asserted that his postings did not officially represent Whole Foods and he never disclosed proprietary information. He also cautioned about reading too much into anything he wrote. “All of rahodeb’s postings should be read in the full context of the discussions that were taking place on the bulletin board at the time the postings were made. Reading them out of context may lead to serious misunderstandings.”
The same postings, he said, should also not be assessed based on current market conditions but those that existed at the time. “Older postings mean far less today than they did when they were written.”
Evidently, Mr. Mackey’s personality was not particularly well hidden behind his rahodeb alias. A number of members in the Yahoo community outed Mr. Mackey and although he denied it throughout, he came clean on his final posting on Aug. 12, 2006.
“I’ve enjoyed my 8 years on this Board, but all things must come to an end. I wish everyone the very best… Whole Foods remains very strong and the stock will show continued strong growth over the long-term. Surgeon General and Boston Cowboy–you were both right about my true identity all along. Congratulations on your cleverness. Take care everyone. Goodbye.”
Discussion Question: What do you make of John Mackey’s rahodeb postings? Will the postings aid the FTC’s case against Whole Foods’ acquisition of Wild Oats?
- Whole Foods Is Hot, Wild Oats a Dud — So Said ‘Rahodeb’ – The Wall Street Journal (sub. required)
- Whole Foods chief blasted rival on web forum – Reuters/Financial Times
- Who is “rahodeb” and why does the FTC quote this person? – Whole Foods Markets
- Congratulations to hubris and goodbye – Yahoo! Message Board
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
As a corporate CEO, one has a great responsibility to be honest and straightforward, to customers, associates and the larger community. The actions taken by Mackey don’t appear to be that. And every CEO should know that any comment on the internet will be recorded forever.
I believe the FTC issue is more politically motivated. I don’t see much merit on the part of the FTC. But I’m sure the Bush administration will use everything they can to make a “green” company look bad. Generally, blogging is harmless fun but not always.
The first questions I would ask is if Whole Foods has an ethics rule about employees posting on financial message board blogs. The next question is – have employees ever been fired or disciplined for doing so? Has Whole Foods ever filed a John Doe lawsuit to find out who is posting on their message board or discussing them on other message boards? Will this open a Pandora’s box of other employees posting their comments and will it lead to litigation for any employees whom Whole Foods has fired for this?
That being said, I make my living getting competitors to shoot off their mouths. One former employer of mine set me up at work with an out-of-network computer, an AOL account, and an outside telephone line, pretty much just for Internet blogging.
It actually was a very effective tool towards getting our competitor’s employees to discuss a variety of topics and disclose what some might consider confidential information. Blogging has been an excellent method of gathering competitive intelligence. In fact, without the use of blogging I might have never gotten to meet some of my best clients who hired me after reading some of my comments. Through the Yahoo message boards, I have been contacted by some very high level people. I think many would be surprised at the number of other CEOs who do this.
Mr. Mackey should have just been a bit more discreet.
We eventually adopted a rule at work against it. Nash Finch and others have filed John Doe lawsuits to find out who these people are that hide behind screen names. You would be amazed at the number of John Doe lawsuits filed in the county where Yahoo’s corporate headquarters are located by companies who feel trade secrets have been disclosed.
Generally, talking about your company on a blog is grounds for being fired if caught, especially if done on company computers on company time. Do you think Wal-Mart would have tolerated this if a VP engaged in this type of blogging?
There are “Rahodebs” out there using chat lines, message boards, and anonymity to influence perceptions, or doing it just for fun, as John Mackey suggested was the case in his situation. Although Mackey probably should have considered a different venue for entertaining himself, I do believe that message board readers take this type of discussion with a grain of salt due to the anonymity. In the end I don’t think it will influence the total outcome of the acquisition possibilities.
Like yesterday’s posting about Sprint’s firing of 1,000 customers, Mackey’s online activity is something a lot of people in his position dream of doing. Corporate executives at publicly traded companies get anxious, to say the least, at what they perceive as analysts and investors not understanding their business and its potential, and the resulting depression of stock prices. They need to vent that frustration somehow, and Mackey found a novel, if questionable, way to do that. Whether this infringes any securities laws, I’ll leave that question to others, but I can’t imagine the Whole Foods acquisition of Wild Oats will hinge on this issue.
I should probably step in for a second to say that RetailWire does not encourage writing anonymously for the purpose of undermining a competitor or to give a false testimonial for one’s own business. And that if we can detect it, we don’t publish the comment.
Of course, Bill’s right…it happens despite our attempts to police it, and readers should use good sense in considering anonymously posted comments.
All-in-all, however, we are convinced that deceptive postings on RetailWire are rare. Most people are honest and those who aren’t are pretty easy to spot.
Our firm has had a number of interactions with this company, and we have also tracked the company’s behaviors for some time. The culture of the entire organization is quite interesting and unusual.
As part of our work, we have informal discussions with companies all over the world about industry conditions; these discussions are, without exception but that I will mention, friendly, open, and with kind words and gratitude spoken on all sides. We attempted to engage Whole Foods in the same kind of discussions; we received responses such as being yelled at on the phone, being hung up on, angry letters being written to us, and similar responses. Over our 40 year history, we have never had any other company respond in anything like this fashion. Wild Oats, on the other hand, has responded completely the opposite in our industry discussions with them, and we have measured an entirely different culture in that organization.
We have looked at all the data we have gathered on this company, and it is our conclusion that Whole Foods has a Master System that includes an unusual amount of bitterness, anger, and vindictiveness. This is not a condemnation of Whole Foods’ core business–it is a very fine company, and serves thousands of customers very well. This also does not mean that everyone who works at Whole Foods is desperately unhappy–we are unable to say just how unhappy the “average” Whole Foods person is.
We fervently hope that for the sake of customers, workers, and senior management itself, that if this merger goes through, the Wild Oats culture may moderate the other.
Obviously Mr. Mackey thought he was writing under the cloak of anonymity. Wrong. Identities can be traced & people held accountable.
Whole Foods will pay for Mackey’s indiscretions. But in my mind, the bigger question is–What will be the impact of multiple virtual identities? On business? Taxes? Contractual obligations? Social Identity?
In the near future we will all have multiple identities (not to say multiple personalities!)–by virtue of our online handles, usernames and secondworld lives. Even in a small, emergent way, we have alternate identities here on RetailWire. Imagine the scale of this to the power of 20. What if we were taxed on income in Second life? Taxed on the income of Attention-Units online (like GRPs)–for YouTube or MySpace? Can a virtual person “die” in an ARG and leave an estate? Perhaps virtual suicides will be punishable by law.
The accountability question in Mackey’s case is pretty straight forward–for today. Tomorrow, the man behind the curtain may not be so easy to identify.
Someone in his position should darn well know better. He’s weakened the solid wall of support he had among many heretofore. Whether justified or not, it may be just enough to swing the balance against the merger. I’m disappointed in Mackey, and a little angry. I’m also sure I’m not alone in feeling that way.
John Mackey is proof that some entrepreneurs should never take their company public. I’m sure when he was posting online, he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. He was just sharing his thoughts, and having fun doing it. John Mackey was an earth muffin who started a natural food chain. He was not a corporate CEO. The fact that he still talks to his lobsters, and cares about how they are killed, provides insights into the workings of his mind.
His postings were inappropriate for a corporate CEO. But they were right in line with his personality. It is his personality that helped the chain achieve its current status, and people will need to live with his actions. He certainly does.
I have a different point of view on this topic. When I first heard that Whole Foods was trying to acquire Wild Oats, and that the FTC was going to look into it, I thought, “That’s crazy!” In the context of the whole grocery industry, the combination of Whole Foods and Wild Oats is barely a blip on the radar. That industry is way too competitive for this merger to have that much of an impact. But then I started hearing some of the things Mackey was on the record saying, things that showed that Whole Foods executives actually did think that this acquisition would eliminate significant competition. And I suppose if you look at it in the context of “natural foods,” then this combination does consolidate a significant amount of market share.
Mackey should definitely have been more discreet, because his actions have now given the FTC ammunition to shoot down this deal. Is it enough, when it’s combined with the pricing analysis the FTC is doing as well, to sink the deal completely? Only time will tell. But it just goes to show that the things you throw out into the nebulous realm of cyberspace can have a way of coming back to haunt you in very real ways. Everything that goes out on the web is “on the record” folks–even if you think it was recorded anonymously at the time.
John Mackey is a brilliant individual who has a passion for business and a desire to make an impact. It’s this zealous passion and desire to make an impact that is behind him leaving these postings. In this regard, his problem is not that he did it (which I’m not saying is right) but that he is so passionate about his business and its mission. No wonder his employees love him and no wonder his stores attract the type of passionate employees that they do. An old line goes something like; “too much of anything can never be good,” In this case it’s certainly true.
Unfortunately it’s going to require his board to make some very tough decisions about his role in the company. Especially in light of how the FTC is already expressing concerns about comments he has made.
When I first read about this I thought “What’s the big deal?” Nothing I’ve heard since has changed my mind. I don’t believe some of the people who write to RetailWire are using their real names. You come to expect this in most internet based forums. Doesn’t any individual have the right to free speech? Even if he revealed “corporate secrets,” under the alias, anyone intending to act on the information would have to think twice.
As far as the FTC using the information, it may help against the takeover but the entries still only indicate the thoughts of one person (albeit the CEO). In fact, since it was all written under an alias it could be argued that it was not the CEO but rather his alter ego (the evil twin) who prepared the entries. The corporation is governed by the Board of Directors. It is their intent that must decide the fate of the acquisition.
Even the smartest executives are human and humans have flaws. So John Mackey is rahodeb. So rahodeb made fun of Wild Oats. None of that matters. What matters is the business performance of Wild Oats and Whole Foods. Why not merge, rename the company Wild Foods or Whole Oats and get back to business?
One word sums it up…DUMB!
That Mackey’s behavior was irresponsible is without a doubt. Whether it was also criminal is the issue. Mackey deliberately used his anonymous attacks to hurt his competitor, and likely to drive down the value of a stock Whole Foods would try to acquire.
Will the blogosphere’s defenders of transparency rush to condemn this unethical behavior by a supposedly “good guy company” with the same fervor that was directed against other larger corporations? Don’t you think Wal-Mart’s “flogging across America” was pretty tame by comparison?
The smart people on this site must surely be aware that these types of “behind the scenes” machinations go on all the time in the press and on the internet using employees of PR firms and lobbyists. Mackey’s personal interjections were perhaps naive and juvenile, but certainly not unique.
Mr. Mackey’s passion and enthusiasm which has made him so successful is now causing him embarrassment. I would guess that he thought that he could express any views at all with no possibility of anyone finding out his true identity. He could really let it all hang out and say what he privately thought and not have it reflect back on him personally or his company. He could also attack his competitors and trash them to his heart’s content without having to take any responsibility for it. If that sounds too good to be true, it was. We have all seen many times where someone excels at building a company but does not have the skill set to be a CEO.
Duh! Do you think this is the first time this has ever happened? Heck, this is common practice! Every corporation in America who is doing any thinking at all has blog space covered to protect themselves and promote their agenda. I’m sorry folks but we live in a world controlled by Wall Street. I am sure you have heard the old adage “Buy on rumor, sell on news!” Well, the internet is rumor and monitoring blog space is rumor control. As far as bad mouthing competition–that has been going on for years; it’s called competition! With regard to the FTC, these are the [guys] who allowed AT&T to reform the worlds largest monopoly. Don’t they have better things to worry about (HMOs, Insurance Company Collusion, etc.) than two companies in the “natural food” business merging? Gosh, their combined share of the grocery business might approach 3% post merger–WHAT A THREAT!
I also think this is much ado about nothing, though incredibly stupid on Mackey’s part.
What gets me are all the business channels (e.g. CNBC) reporting this breathlessly like the latest Brittany Spears incident. Give me a break.
What I haven’t heard reported was how many people actually read these posts. A few hundreds of the somewhat odd group of individual stock message board posters? So to me, this had no influence on the market at all, no matter what he said.
But why take the risk to yourself and your company?
What’s very troubling is that Whole Foods touts itself as the “healthy” alternative. What’s “healthy” about the mean spirited way Mr. Mackey attacked his competitors anonymously? If this is what comes from eating whole, organic foods from Whole Foods, I’ll stick with Jack Daniels and fast food burgers, thanks.
John Mackey should be in serious trouble–from any vantage point–and should suffer consequences that impact him both professionally and personally. He crossed a line that any objective person should recognize for its potential a)conflict of interest, b)influence on market pricing and–whether intentional or not–c)effect on suppressing acquisition costs. For whatever reason he attributes his actions or purports his intentions, his numbskullduggery may impact his employees, their families and livelihoods through no action of their own. Further, he gives additional ammunition to the real concern of the magnitude of influence that blogs, social network sites and other word-of-mouth e-communities can generate in positive or negative directions. That’s just great–another potential opportunity for a government agency or regulatory body to dig further into ‘managing’ the e-landscape with the rationale being for the greater good of the potential impact upon the economic environment. Mackey’s just brought something to his shelves–a whole new can of worms with his picture plastered upon it.
If you peel away at the onion, past the ethical, political, legal concerns, past the moral indiscretions, you end up with the ego. John Mackay, the man, is as susceptible to an inflated ego as the rest and best of us.
Sorry to jump in again, but just want to make a general observation on behalf of many of us who are unhappy with Mackey. We aren’t so naive as to believe that this sort of thing doesn’t goes on all the time. “Lots of people” post misleading things under assumed names, screw around on their wives and cheat on their taxes. That doesn’t make it right.
As an ‘anonymous’ poster to retailwire.com nearly since its inception, I can’t resist chiming in on this one.
In my case, I use the handle of ‘Scanner’ vs. my own name to ensure that there is absolutely no connection or impression that my opinion and observations are in any way misinterpreted as those of my employer or having any connections with my employer whatsoever. The catch here is that, in this case, I remain anonymous to the reader, but not the publisher. There’s a huge difference. I am known to Rick, Al, et al at retailwire.com. They know my identity and my employer. I’ve shared e-mails with them and they know my background. At times, they have even edited my posts (and should have). I have also shared e-mails with some of the true ‘BrainTrust’. (I am far from one.) I consider them mentors and, in my own hopes, as online friends. In fact, I would hope to have the opportunity to meet many of them at the first RetailWire ‘in person’ forum.
There is a huge difference in this type of environment and that of a Yahoo message board. From my point of view, posting in that manner, from that position, is of the highest of ethical breaches. I have seen it from others as well. It has occurred on the Yahoo message board for my own company where industry consultants have done so as a means of besmirching one company to the benefit of one they are doing business with or to make themselves look better to a potential client. One in particular was ‘outed’ on the message board and has now very little or zero credibility with many. From my view, anyone doing so has zero credibility and has committed a serious ethical breach.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with communicating a positive, accurate and truthful message about your company on any site in that position as long as you sign your name. Or, in the case of myself, if you are known to the publisher.
In my own case, I have always tried to refrain from posting on anything related to my own company when it’s been a subject or, if I had done so, to remain general or to simply provide factual information. Mostly, I e-mail back that I won’t post and/or share information back with the editors. I also try not to comment when posts are even related to any local competitors.
In my own personal case, I have always been grateful for a terrific site where I can exchange ideas with the best of the best. My objective comes from the perspective of an exchange of ideas and to learn. A Yahoo message board in no way offers or delivers that type of an environment in any credible way.
Thanks to all at RetailWire for never allowing this site to be used in that manner and for never allowing ‘true’ anonymity to where that type of a breach of judgment could occur.
Reading through some of the comments posted here I’m truly appalled by a lack of outrage expressed by a number of writers. Ethical standards are important and when compromised by corporate leaders should result in consequences to the guilty party. In my opinion, Whole Foods’ co-founder, John Mackey, should immediately resign all of his affiliation with the company or be fired, his continued presence has now become an anchor on the company that could seriously impact their financial success. The board of directors should demand that a search for a replacement begin immediately.
Mackey’s actions were childish at best. This was devious behavior that will cause some consumers to lose faith in his stores and products.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
As a corporate CEO, one has a great responsibility to be honest and straightforward, to customers, associates and the larger community. The actions taken by Mackey don’t appear to be that. And every CEO should know that any comment on the internet will be recorded forever.
I believe the FTC issue is more politically motivated. I don’t see much merit on the part of the FTC. But I’m sure the Bush administration will use everything they can to make a “green” company look bad. Generally, blogging is harmless fun but not always.
The first questions I would ask is if Whole Foods has an ethics rule about employees posting on financial message board blogs. The next question is – have employees ever been fired or disciplined for doing so? Has Whole Foods ever filed a John Doe lawsuit to find out who is posting on their message board or discussing them on other message boards? Will this open a Pandora’s box of other employees posting their comments and will it lead to litigation for any employees whom Whole Foods has fired for this?
That being said, I make my living getting competitors to shoot off their mouths. One former employer of mine set me up at work with an out-of-network computer, an AOL account, and an outside telephone line, pretty much just for Internet blogging.
It actually was a very effective tool towards getting our competitor’s employees to discuss a variety of topics and disclose what some might consider confidential information. Blogging has been an excellent method of gathering competitive intelligence. In fact, without the use of blogging I might have never gotten to meet some of my best clients who hired me after reading some of my comments. Through the Yahoo message boards, I have been contacted by some very high level people. I think many would be surprised at the number of other CEOs who do this.
Mr. Mackey should have just been a bit more discreet.
We eventually adopted a rule at work against it. Nash Finch and others have filed John Doe lawsuits to find out who these people are that hide behind screen names. You would be amazed at the number of John Doe lawsuits filed in the county where Yahoo’s corporate headquarters are located by companies who feel trade secrets have been disclosed.
Generally, talking about your company on a blog is grounds for being fired if caught, especially if done on company computers on company time. Do you think Wal-Mart would have tolerated this if a VP engaged in this type of blogging?
There are “Rahodebs” out there using chat lines, message boards, and anonymity to influence perceptions, or doing it just for fun, as John Mackey suggested was the case in his situation. Although Mackey probably should have considered a different venue for entertaining himself, I do believe that message board readers take this type of discussion with a grain of salt due to the anonymity. In the end I don’t think it will influence the total outcome of the acquisition possibilities.
Like yesterday’s posting about Sprint’s firing of 1,000 customers, Mackey’s online activity is something a lot of people in his position dream of doing. Corporate executives at publicly traded companies get anxious, to say the least, at what they perceive as analysts and investors not understanding their business and its potential, and the resulting depression of stock prices. They need to vent that frustration somehow, and Mackey found a novel, if questionable, way to do that. Whether this infringes any securities laws, I’ll leave that question to others, but I can’t imagine the Whole Foods acquisition of Wild Oats will hinge on this issue.
I should probably step in for a second to say that RetailWire does not encourage writing anonymously for the purpose of undermining a competitor or to give a false testimonial for one’s own business. And that if we can detect it, we don’t publish the comment.
Of course, Bill’s right…it happens despite our attempts to police it, and readers should use good sense in considering anonymously posted comments.
All-in-all, however, we are convinced that deceptive postings on RetailWire are rare. Most people are honest and those who aren’t are pretty easy to spot.
Our firm has had a number of interactions with this company, and we have also tracked the company’s behaviors for some time. The culture of the entire organization is quite interesting and unusual.
As part of our work, we have informal discussions with companies all over the world about industry conditions; these discussions are, without exception but that I will mention, friendly, open, and with kind words and gratitude spoken on all sides. We attempted to engage Whole Foods in the same kind of discussions; we received responses such as being yelled at on the phone, being hung up on, angry letters being written to us, and similar responses. Over our 40 year history, we have never had any other company respond in anything like this fashion. Wild Oats, on the other hand, has responded completely the opposite in our industry discussions with them, and we have measured an entirely different culture in that organization.
We have looked at all the data we have gathered on this company, and it is our conclusion that Whole Foods has a Master System that includes an unusual amount of bitterness, anger, and vindictiveness. This is not a condemnation of Whole Foods’ core business–it is a very fine company, and serves thousands of customers very well. This also does not mean that everyone who works at Whole Foods is desperately unhappy–we are unable to say just how unhappy the “average” Whole Foods person is.
We fervently hope that for the sake of customers, workers, and senior management itself, that if this merger goes through, the Wild Oats culture may moderate the other.
Obviously Mr. Mackey thought he was writing under the cloak of anonymity. Wrong. Identities can be traced & people held accountable.
Whole Foods will pay for Mackey’s indiscretions. But in my mind, the bigger question is–What will be the impact of multiple virtual identities? On business? Taxes? Contractual obligations? Social Identity?
In the near future we will all have multiple identities (not to say multiple personalities!)–by virtue of our online handles, usernames and secondworld lives. Even in a small, emergent way, we have alternate identities here on RetailWire. Imagine the scale of this to the power of 20. What if we were taxed on income in Second life? Taxed on the income of Attention-Units online (like GRPs)–for YouTube or MySpace? Can a virtual person “die” in an ARG and leave an estate? Perhaps virtual suicides will be punishable by law.
The accountability question in Mackey’s case is pretty straight forward–for today. Tomorrow, the man behind the curtain may not be so easy to identify.
Someone in his position should darn well know better. He’s weakened the solid wall of support he had among many heretofore. Whether justified or not, it may be just enough to swing the balance against the merger. I’m disappointed in Mackey, and a little angry. I’m also sure I’m not alone in feeling that way.
John Mackey is proof that some entrepreneurs should never take their company public. I’m sure when he was posting online, he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. He was just sharing his thoughts, and having fun doing it. John Mackey was an earth muffin who started a natural food chain. He was not a corporate CEO. The fact that he still talks to his lobsters, and cares about how they are killed, provides insights into the workings of his mind.
His postings were inappropriate for a corporate CEO. But they were right in line with his personality. It is his personality that helped the chain achieve its current status, and people will need to live with his actions. He certainly does.
I have a different point of view on this topic. When I first heard that Whole Foods was trying to acquire Wild Oats, and that the FTC was going to look into it, I thought, “That’s crazy!” In the context of the whole grocery industry, the combination of Whole Foods and Wild Oats is barely a blip on the radar. That industry is way too competitive for this merger to have that much of an impact. But then I started hearing some of the things Mackey was on the record saying, things that showed that Whole Foods executives actually did think that this acquisition would eliminate significant competition. And I suppose if you look at it in the context of “natural foods,” then this combination does consolidate a significant amount of market share.
Mackey should definitely have been more discreet, because his actions have now given the FTC ammunition to shoot down this deal. Is it enough, when it’s combined with the pricing analysis the FTC is doing as well, to sink the deal completely? Only time will tell. But it just goes to show that the things you throw out into the nebulous realm of cyberspace can have a way of coming back to haunt you in very real ways. Everything that goes out on the web is “on the record” folks–even if you think it was recorded anonymously at the time.
John Mackey is a brilliant individual who has a passion for business and a desire to make an impact. It’s this zealous passion and desire to make an impact that is behind him leaving these postings. In this regard, his problem is not that he did it (which I’m not saying is right) but that he is so passionate about his business and its mission. No wonder his employees love him and no wonder his stores attract the type of passionate employees that they do. An old line goes something like; “too much of anything can never be good,” In this case it’s certainly true.
Unfortunately it’s going to require his board to make some very tough decisions about his role in the company. Especially in light of how the FTC is already expressing concerns about comments he has made.
When I first read about this I thought “What’s the big deal?” Nothing I’ve heard since has changed my mind. I don’t believe some of the people who write to RetailWire are using their real names. You come to expect this in most internet based forums. Doesn’t any individual have the right to free speech? Even if he revealed “corporate secrets,” under the alias, anyone intending to act on the information would have to think twice.
As far as the FTC using the information, it may help against the takeover but the entries still only indicate the thoughts of one person (albeit the CEO). In fact, since it was all written under an alias it could be argued that it was not the CEO but rather his alter ego (the evil twin) who prepared the entries. The corporation is governed by the Board of Directors. It is their intent that must decide the fate of the acquisition.
Even the smartest executives are human and humans have flaws. So John Mackey is rahodeb. So rahodeb made fun of Wild Oats. None of that matters. What matters is the business performance of Wild Oats and Whole Foods. Why not merge, rename the company Wild Foods or Whole Oats and get back to business?
One word sums it up…DUMB!
That Mackey’s behavior was irresponsible is without a doubt. Whether it was also criminal is the issue. Mackey deliberately used his anonymous attacks to hurt his competitor, and likely to drive down the value of a stock Whole Foods would try to acquire.
Will the blogosphere’s defenders of transparency rush to condemn this unethical behavior by a supposedly “good guy company” with the same fervor that was directed against other larger corporations? Don’t you think Wal-Mart’s “flogging across America” was pretty tame by comparison?
The smart people on this site must surely be aware that these types of “behind the scenes” machinations go on all the time in the press and on the internet using employees of PR firms and lobbyists. Mackey’s personal interjections were perhaps naive and juvenile, but certainly not unique.
Mr. Mackey’s passion and enthusiasm which has made him so successful is now causing him embarrassment. I would guess that he thought that he could express any views at all with no possibility of anyone finding out his true identity. He could really let it all hang out and say what he privately thought and not have it reflect back on him personally or his company. He could also attack his competitors and trash them to his heart’s content without having to take any responsibility for it. If that sounds too good to be true, it was. We have all seen many times where someone excels at building a company but does not have the skill set to be a CEO.
Duh! Do you think this is the first time this has ever happened? Heck, this is common practice! Every corporation in America who is doing any thinking at all has blog space covered to protect themselves and promote their agenda. I’m sorry folks but we live in a world controlled by Wall Street. I am sure you have heard the old adage “Buy on rumor, sell on news!” Well, the internet is rumor and monitoring blog space is rumor control. As far as bad mouthing competition–that has been going on for years; it’s called competition! With regard to the FTC, these are the [guys] who allowed AT&T to reform the worlds largest monopoly. Don’t they have better things to worry about (HMOs, Insurance Company Collusion, etc.) than two companies in the “natural food” business merging? Gosh, their combined share of the grocery business might approach 3% post merger–WHAT A THREAT!
I also think this is much ado about nothing, though incredibly stupid on Mackey’s part.
What gets me are all the business channels (e.g. CNBC) reporting this breathlessly like the latest Brittany Spears incident. Give me a break.
What I haven’t heard reported was how many people actually read these posts. A few hundreds of the somewhat odd group of individual stock message board posters? So to me, this had no influence on the market at all, no matter what he said.
But why take the risk to yourself and your company?
What’s very troubling is that Whole Foods touts itself as the “healthy” alternative. What’s “healthy” about the mean spirited way Mr. Mackey attacked his competitors anonymously? If this is what comes from eating whole, organic foods from Whole Foods, I’ll stick with Jack Daniels and fast food burgers, thanks.
John Mackey should be in serious trouble–from any vantage point–and should suffer consequences that impact him both professionally and personally. He crossed a line that any objective person should recognize for its potential a)conflict of interest, b)influence on market pricing and–whether intentional or not–c)effect on suppressing acquisition costs. For whatever reason he attributes his actions or purports his intentions, his numbskullduggery may impact his employees, their families and livelihoods through no action of their own. Further, he gives additional ammunition to the real concern of the magnitude of influence that blogs, social network sites and other word-of-mouth e-communities can generate in positive or negative directions. That’s just great–another potential opportunity for a government agency or regulatory body to dig further into ‘managing’ the e-landscape with the rationale being for the greater good of the potential impact upon the economic environment. Mackey’s just brought something to his shelves–a whole new can of worms with his picture plastered upon it.
If you peel away at the onion, past the ethical, political, legal concerns, past the moral indiscretions, you end up with the ego. John Mackay, the man, is as susceptible to an inflated ego as the rest and best of us.
Sorry to jump in again, but just want to make a general observation on behalf of many of us who are unhappy with Mackey. We aren’t so naive as to believe that this sort of thing doesn’t goes on all the time. “Lots of people” post misleading things under assumed names, screw around on their wives and cheat on their taxes. That doesn’t make it right.
As an ‘anonymous’ poster to retailwire.com nearly since its inception, I can’t resist chiming in on this one.
In my case, I use the handle of ‘Scanner’ vs. my own name to ensure that there is absolutely no connection or impression that my opinion and observations are in any way misinterpreted as those of my employer or having any connections with my employer whatsoever. The catch here is that, in this case, I remain anonymous to the reader, but not the publisher. There’s a huge difference. I am known to Rick, Al, et al at retailwire.com. They know my identity and my employer. I’ve shared e-mails with them and they know my background. At times, they have even edited my posts (and should have). I have also shared e-mails with some of the true ‘BrainTrust’. (I am far from one.) I consider them mentors and, in my own hopes, as online friends. In fact, I would hope to have the opportunity to meet many of them at the first RetailWire ‘in person’ forum.
There is a huge difference in this type of environment and that of a Yahoo message board. From my point of view, posting in that manner, from that position, is of the highest of ethical breaches. I have seen it from others as well. It has occurred on the Yahoo message board for my own company where industry consultants have done so as a means of besmirching one company to the benefit of one they are doing business with or to make themselves look better to a potential client. One in particular was ‘outed’ on the message board and has now very little or zero credibility with many. From my view, anyone doing so has zero credibility and has committed a serious ethical breach.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with communicating a positive, accurate and truthful message about your company on any site in that position as long as you sign your name. Or, in the case of myself, if you are known to the publisher.
In my own case, I have always tried to refrain from posting on anything related to my own company when it’s been a subject or, if I had done so, to remain general or to simply provide factual information. Mostly, I e-mail back that I won’t post and/or share information back with the editors. I also try not to comment when posts are even related to any local competitors.
In my own personal case, I have always been grateful for a terrific site where I can exchange ideas with the best of the best. My objective comes from the perspective of an exchange of ideas and to learn. A Yahoo message board in no way offers or delivers that type of an environment in any credible way.
Thanks to all at RetailWire for never allowing this site to be used in that manner and for never allowing ‘true’ anonymity to where that type of a breach of judgment could occur.
Reading through some of the comments posted here I’m truly appalled by a lack of outrage expressed by a number of writers. Ethical standards are important and when compromised by corporate leaders should result in consequences to the guilty party. In my opinion, Whole Foods’ co-founder, John Mackey, should immediately resign all of his affiliation with the company or be fired, his continued presence has now become an anchor on the company that could seriously impact their financial success. The board of directors should demand that a search for a replacement begin immediately.
Mackey’s actions were childish at best. This was devious behavior that will cause some consumers to lose faith in his stores and products.