Has Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, been demonized by the left? (Bonus question: has this picture been Photoshopped?)

Lots of copy has been spilled [...]]]> If you’ve been watching the food news this week, then you know all about the Wall Street Journal op-ed of Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, and the boycott that resulted from it.

Has Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, been demonized by the left? (Bonus question: has this picture been Photoshopped?)

Lots of copy has been spilled over this, and it falls neatly along partisan lines. The Democratically inclined are horrified by what seems like a rather crackpot, libertarian contribution to the health care debate, while Republicans are disgusted that the lefties appear to be attacking one of their own for merely exercising his freedom of speech.

Titillating stuff. The food beat is usually not so nipple-tingling.

Let’s take a step back and have another look at the Mackey affair in the light of branding, the business world’s favorite art, science, and religion. Branding is, after all, the final platform of marketing wisdom to which you ascend after you’ve…well, you know, slain all the evil marketing wizards and mastered marketing karate from the strange but powerful old Okinawan man who speaks in riddles.

The marketing department at Whole Foods has spent millions building the Whole Foods brand, and that brand is the company’s public persona, the totality of how you perceive Whole Foods. Marketing people sometimes ask questions like, if Whole Foods were a person, what kind of person would it be? They’ve done a pretty good job of convincing you that Whole Foods is a friendly, middle-aged hippie, who cares a lot about Mother Earth, goes to yoga classes, buys only organic, and whose forward-looking, right-thinking attitude has also made him prosperous enough to be able to afford his own high-priced, gluten-free, dolphin-friendly goodies.

Enter Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, who, like a nincompoop, busts out the keyboard and raps to the world: branding is all 100% fake! It’s total bullshit. Hey, you there! Yes, you. You know, you’d really have to be an idiot to believe all that copy our marketing people spit out about Whole Foods and what it stands for.

Forget about the health care debate for a second and consider the fact that by publicly espousing a right-wing political position (extremely right-wing outside of the U.S.A.), John Mackey is laying bare a truth that makes people deeply uncomfortable. The truth is that our culture, values and beliefs are mixed up with brands, and those brands are artificial constructions whose purpose is to sell stuff. The customers of Whole Foods really, really didn’t want to know that Whole Foods is actually John Mackey and not that friendly, compassionate hippie guy. This flap was over health care, but any political issue would have served just as well.

The CEO of Whole Foods, in effect, just mounted a highly successful attack on his own company’s marketing position.

The Economist weighed in pragmatically with the suggestion that, politics aside, John Mackey owes it to the shareholders to keep his mouth shut. The less customers know about a CEO’s personal views the better. The Economist is right. Mackey should have just kept his lips zipped. But the cynics are also probably right. It would be surprising if the boycott had any significant effect on Whole Foods’ bottom line.

Everybody in this story is free. John Mackey is free to say whatever he wants. Whole Foods customers are free to boycott Whole Foods. What will be the end effect on the company and the health care debate? Sadly, the outcome is usually determined by the large number of people who aren’t paying any attention to any of it.

A few months ago, in the early days of Twitter, an interesting thing happened. Twitter was pregnant with inclusive, bipartisan promise way back then. The future looked bright, like M.J. circa 1988 or Britney before she married K-Fed. Here’s what happened: some of the PR folks at Monsanto responded to the many angry attacks on [...]]]>

A few months ago, in the early days of Twitter, an interesting thing happened. Twitter was pregnant with inclusive, bipartisan promise way back then. The future looked bright, like M.J. circa 1988 or Britney before she married K-Fed. Here’s what happened: some of the PR folks at Monsanto responded to the many angry attacks on that unpopular brand with one or two charmingly personal tweets. They wanted us to know that Monsanto is not staffed by child-eating hobgoblins; that they don’t sprinkle their cafeteria food with the salt of human tears; that they do, in fact, have lovely families, noble intentions and big hearts.

You know what, it’s easy to believe that’s true. I’ve not only met lots of “communications professionals,” I’ve been one. A few are total creeps, like this one slick dude I remember talking to several years ago who was trying to sell bottled oxygen. (A quick search revealed conclusive evidence that the product was worthless, except as a placebo, but did that deter him? No. He informed me that the manufacturers were in the process of commissioning their own scientific study which would tell the customers what he wanted them to hear.) But most are just doing a necessary, inevitable job, and some good souls have even dedicated themselves to the enlightened proposition that doing real good is the best PR play a company can make.

But the size of the hearts of public relations and marketing pros unfortunately, has little to do with the consequences of public relations and marketing. The problem with PR is that you get paid to do it. There’s an enormous bias built in.

Countless millions of dollars are paid to really impressive, intelligent, good people, so that they can tell us all about the positive side of organizations that have a strong financial interest in having us believe nice things about them. At the same time, these good people are being paid not to tell us the negative side, except as necessary damage control during a crisis. The bias is simple and obvious: huge companies like Monsanto can easily afford entire fleets of highly talented PR professionals. But you’re very unlikely to find one of these pros working for the non-profit and consumer advocacy groups that take up the other side of the question. There’s a windy silence over there, poorly filled by volunteers, amateurs, and the thin resources of what’s left of indy journalism.

If there’s evil in public relations and marketing, it doesn’t proceed from the moral qualities of those in the profession. If proceeds from the fact that PR people and marketers have to eat, and pay for their mortgages. Look for them, and you will find them working diligently, honestly and with the best intentions for whatever company and whatever political party has the necessary cash. The net effect of the entire profession, no matter what individuals in it may aspire to, is not the unveiling of truth or the pursuit of the public good, but more power to money.

[This post was brought to you by someone who wasn't paid to write it, and therefore will probably never write something like this again. He has to eat.]