Is Whole Foods Wholesome?

[Chad]

Full article here: Is Whole Foods Wholesome: The dark secrets of the organic-food movement from Slate.

It's hard to find fault with Whole Foods, the haute-crunchy supermarket chain that has made a fortune by transforming grocery shopping into a bright and shiny, progressive experience. Indeed, the road to wild profits and cultural cachet has been surprisingly smooth for the supermarket chain. It gets mostly sympathetic coverage in the local and national media and red-carpet treatment from the communities it enters. But does Whole Foods have an Achilles' heel? And more important, does the organic movement itself, whose coattails Whole Foods has ridden to such success, have dark secrets of its own?

In truth, though, the article is more an indictment of "organic" foods and their marketing than it is about Whole Foods. All in all, I find the author's arguments weak. What do you think?

Chad

Edited March 17, 2006 by Chad (log)

[K8memphis]

I'll be honest, they lost me when they used the term 'fossil fuel'. Hey, before you start throwing tomatoes at me, I told my husband today I don't want the lawn service that spreads the chemicals all over the lawn. I get points for that!

But I could care less about fossil fuel--the sky is falling the sky is falling.

I think the earth is here for me. For me to plant or purchase the tomatoes and potates and all the produce and burn fuel and keep warm and cook my potatoes. I mean I wish I could eat them french fried but can't have everything. And if I am wrong then you can point fingers at me while we all drown in the melting polar caps.

It's a nice store. I like capitalism. I'm very comfortable here.

They were just trying to sell newspapers or whatever. Trying to be mysterious and sagacious--didn't work for me.

How easy it is to critique success.

[Chris Amirault]

This smacks of Geraldo Rivera's live opening of Dillinger's secret cache: it's as if the writer wanted to write an exposé of what lies under the WF rock and found dirt.

It's also disingenuous, particularly when criticizing WF of being disingenuous:

Another heading on the Whole Foods banner says "Help the Small Farmer." "Buying organic," it states, "supports the small, family farmers that make up a large percentage of organic food producers." This is semantic sleight of hand. ... There are a lot of small, family-run organic farmers, but their share of the organic crop in this country, and of the produce sold at Whole Foods, is minuscule.

Huh? "[M]iniscule"? What are, indeed, the statistics on this? I mean, is anyone shocked that WF actually tries to market itself positively? And, if not, can't the reporter actually do a little research and tell us why this "sleight of hand" is so outrageous?

I'm no WF booster, but, really, give me a break.

[MarketStEl]

Full article here: Is Whole Foods Wholesome: The dark secrets of the organic-food movement from Slate.[...]

In truth, though, the article is more an indictment of "organic" foods and their marketing than it is about Whole Foods. All in all, I find the author's arguments weak. What do you think?

←

It looks to me like in the end, his criticisms boil down to these three points:

--"Whole Paycheck" is doing little to close the gap between the healthy haves and the overly processed have-nots. But (as he also notes) the same could be said for the whole foods/organic foods movement in general. I wouldn't lay the blame for this at Whole Foods' doorstep. Again, a charge that doesn't stick.

--The USDA bowed to the interests of Big Agribusiness in its drafting of "organic" standards. No doubt true, and no doubt inimical to the original spirit of the organic movement, as accurately described in the article. But as the organic farmers quoted in it point out, not even the organic movement is true to its roots.

--I'll let him make the last one in his own words:

It's likely that neither Wal-Mart nor Whole Foods will do much to encourage local agriculture or small farming, but in an odd twist, Wal-Mart, with its simple "More for Less" credo, might do far more to democratize the nation's food supply than Whole Foods. The organic-food movement is in danger of exacerbating the growing gap between rich and poor in this country by contributing to a two-tiered national food supply, with healthy food for the rich. Could Wal-Mart's populist strategy prove to be more "sustainable" than Whole Foods? Stranger things have happened.

I think this is the most interesting point of all. When the 800-pound gorilla starts demanding better, we will all get better.

[Judd Icious Hand]

To me, this looks like a guy trying real hard to come up with a story.

[moosnsqrl]

The article is long on righteous indignation and short on facts, no doubt.

That said, I am curious if anyone knows the real scoop on their "buy local" policy? I worked as a produce buyer for one of their competitors (let's call them Mild Goats ). I bought as much as I could from local growers. It made my job more difficult (taking it from the mere 60 hours a week that they already pretty much demanded of me to upwards of 80). It is tricky to ensure a steady supply to take care of customers' needs while buying from locals. If you buy from the national (really international) distributors, you mitigate some of the risk of not receiving, for example, celery the week of Thanksgiving or watermelon for the 4th of July. You really have to weigh that, given that most people are going to buy those things from someone and, if you don't have them because you rolled the dice and shot craps courtesy of a hail storm, plague or drought, they will go elsewhere taking their dollars with them. Not everyone is up for the challenge of being a CSA subscriber and sharing the risk with the farmer - we're spoiled and we want to know we're going to be able to make grandma's stuffing or have a refreshing slice of melon at our family picnic.

But the flip side - and the crux of whether WF is good or evil - is whether they allow and/or encourage their buyers to try to buy locally. I was pressured to participate in "bulk buys" and sometimes just told that "you're going to be getting X amount of this or that from the warehouse," meaning that if I bought from locals I would have to sell at below cost to move the produce. I was not always told this in time to warn the growers who would then show up at my door, expecting to sell their crops. On one occasion someone from the corporate office was onsite when a farmer showed up with some beautiful transplants and was in the process of setting them out on the sidewalk on make-shift shelving, as was the custom in the spring to attract buyers. She actually went outside and shooed-away the farmer, much to my horror. Fully expecting to be fired, I interceded and said that I had committed to buy the plants and had to stand by that commitment. I received a harsh warning not to do it again. They also had a bad track record of slow payment to locals, which discouraged them from doing business with us because they couldn't afford to float a nationwide company accustomed to paying "30-net." So regardless of what the official policy is, I would want to know the reality before I judged them on that specific point.

Sorry for the rant - that was a decade ago and I didn't realize I still harbored so much vitriol about the whole situation.

[JohnL]

I thought the article was fine.

IMOP--it is not an "indictment" of anything. it applies some healthy skepticism (an all to rare occurrence in journalism these days) to the marketing tactics Wholefoods employs.

It also questions some of the altruistic claims that the "organic" and local CSA proponents (WF for one) often make.

Interestingly, WF "hedges" their bet by offering many of the same items in both "organic" and non organic versions. Invariably the "organic" is more costly than the non organic.

IMOP the real question is exactly what are we paying for?

I find some of the organic CSA proponents to be a bit over zealous the author raises an interesting bit of irony at the end of his piece when he notes the "elitist" aspect of the whole organic and CSA movements--it is definitely elitist--and operations like WF are capitalizing on this via their marketing efforts.

In the end--I believe we have been prone to scrutinize and quick to demonize big vs small anything. Big agribusiness vs small (CSA's) Big retail (K-mart) vs small "the local "family" run business.

We often overlook the fact that K-Mart started out "small" and local and that Wholefoods and Trader Joe's et al are really big and national (multi national).

We also overlook the big picture--that there are pluses and minuses to both sides of the coin.

We also tend to give a free pass to anyone who develops and displays an "altruistic" mission statement for their enterprise.

The truth is Wal-Mart ain't so bad and WF ain't so good, big agribusiness ain't so bad and CSA'a aren't all good.--it is as simple as that.

These issues are not a question of good vs evil--if we can get past this we can see the good and bad sides to everything and make better choices.

[Catherine Iino]

I hope this isn't too far off the subject of food, but before we equate big Walmart and big Whole Foods, it's no small point that, according to the article, "Whole Foods pays its workers a solid living wage—its lowest earners average $13.15 an hour—with excellent benefits and health care. No executive makes more than 14 times the employee average," while Walmart's wages and benefits are notoriously bad.

[Darcie B]

Interestingly, WF "hedges" their bet by offering many of the same items in both "organic" and non organic versions. Invariably the "organic" is more costly than the non organic.

IMOP the real question is exactly what are we paying for?

←

Mostly you are paying for the higher amount of crop loss due to organic farming methods. My brothers had a certified organic small grains farm for several years and their yield was lower due to a higher incidence of pest and weed damage.

Also, in some cases, you are paying for higher quality. There are some organic growers who produce a superior tasting product. Not all (perhaps not even many) but definitely some.

I find some of the organic CSA proponents to be a bit over zealous the author raises an interesting bit of irony at the end of his piece when he notes the "elitist" aspect of the whole organic and CSA movements--it is definitely elitist--and operations like WF are capitalizing on this via their marketing efforts.

While I am certain that part of the organic movement is elitist as displayed by the smug superiority of some of its adherents, I don't think CSAs are typically elitist. A lot of people I know that subscribe to a CSA are anything but. It might be elite in that there are small numbers who belong to a CSA, but I generally don't find that "superior" attitude. I don't have wide exposure on this to be certain, though.

In the end--I believe we have been prone to scrutinize and quick to demonize big vs small anything. Big agribusiness vs small (CSA's) Big retail (K-mart) vs small "the local "family" run business.

The truth is Wal-Mart ain't so bad and WF ain't so good, big agribusiness ain't so bad and CSA'a aren't all good.--it is as simple as that.

These issues are not a question of good vs evil--if we can get past this we can see the good and bad sides to everything and make better choices.

I agree with you that this is not a "good" vs. "evil" argument. Someone recently posted an another BB that a corporation was "morally bankrupt." A corporation's morals are to make its stockholders a profit, nothing more.

However, I do feel that small companies are often more concerned with environmental issues and see consumers as individuals rather than statistics, etc., qualities that I like. I can see how someone would see this as "good" and the converse as "evil," although they really can't be classified that way.

In the case of WF, I think it goes back to what you were saying - it is being demonized now because it got big.

For me it's a moot point - closest WF is 4 or 5 hours away.

[JohnL]

I hope this isn't too far off the subject of food, but before we equate big Walmart and big Whole Foods, it's no small point that, according to the article, "Whole Foods pays its workers a solid living wage—its lowest earners average $13.15 an hour—with excellent benefits and health care. No executive makes more than 14 times the employee average," while Walmart's wages and benefits are notoriously bad.

←

I think the subject does start to veer away from food and into economics and politics.

I would say though your post is an example of what I was talking about.

we need to look below the surface and beyond altruism.

High wages and lots of benefits sounds good. (it is good) but there is another side of this.

Higher costs to consumers.

I would also point out that some very large corporations are in serious trouble (many thousands of jobs are at risk) because of "high wages" and lots of benefits.

Let's look at that nice "responsible" salary that WF Chairman John Mackey receives ---the piece in Slate says WF claims that no management employee makes more than 14 times the average salary of employees. Mr Mackey's salary is a "reasonable" $342,000 per year.

Sounds great--a company that really cares!

Well last year (2004 tax year) Mr Mackey made $885,216 --see what they don't tell ya about their noble sounding policy is that executives get stock options on top of their "modest" salaries.

bet those folks making $13/hour haven't the chance to cash in to the tune of some $5MM (the value of Mr Mackey's options).

That's my point--we are too quick to take at face value an altruistic sounding statement or marketing tactic.

IMOP --I am fine with whatever salary the board deems appropriate. what I have a problem with is the little white lie used to sell us on WF as somehow a better place to shop.

I am equally skeptical of a lot of marketing claims re: organic etc.

Things are never so simple.

[MarketStEl]

High wages and lots of benefits sounds good. (it is good) but there is another side of this.

Higher costs to consumers.

I would also point out that some very large corporations are in serious trouble (many thousands of jobs are at risk) because of "high wages" and lots of benefits.

Let's look at that nice "responsible" salary that WF Chairman John Mackey receives ---the piece in Slate says WF claims that no management employee makes more than 14 times the average salary of employees. Mr Mackey's salary is a "reasonable" $342,000 per year.

Sounds great--a company that really cares!

Well last year (2004 tax year) Mr Mackey made $885,216 --see what they don't tell ya about their noble sounding policy is that executives get stock options on top of their "modest" salaries.

bet those folks making $13/hour haven't the chance to cash in to the tune of some $5MM (the value of Mr Mackey's options).

That's my point--we are too quick to take at face value an altruistic sounding statement or marketing tactic.

IMOP --I am fine with whatever salary the board deems appropriate. what I have a problem with is the little white lie used to sell us on WF as somehow a better place to shop.

I am equally skeptical of a lot of marketing claims re: organic etc.

Things are never so simple.

←

Of course, you should take everything with a grain of salt, but -- and I'm surprising myself a bit here by coming to the defense of Whole Paycheck -- I'd say that WFM's CEO strives mightily to practice what he preaches.

Whole Foods offers an ESOP to its hourly employees. (ESOP = Employee Stock Ownership Plan. It's a fringe benefit more common in small businesses than large ones. It allows employees to purchase stock in the company out of their paychecks, often at favorable prices. Some ESOPs offer employees part of their compensation in the form of stock, but these are very rare.) On top of that, regular employees get stock options based on hours worked in a year.

So you can't accuse Mackey of taking advantage of something that his employees can't when it comes to owning Whole Foods stock or options.

Info about Whole Foods Market benefits

[Patrick S]

I hope this isn't too far off the subject of food, but before we equate big Walmart and big Whole Foods, it's no small point that, according to the article, "Whole Foods pays its workers a solid living wage—its lowest earners average $13.15 an hour—with excellent benefits and health care. No executive makes more than 14 times the employee average," while Walmart's wages and benefits are notoriously bad.

←

True, but on the other hand, people with lower incomes can actually afford to shop at Walmart.

[Patrick S]

Interestingly, WF "hedges" their bet by offering many of the same items in both "organic" and non organic versions. Invariably the "organic" is more costly than the non organic.

IMOP the real question is exactly what are we paying for?

←

Mostly you are paying for the higher amount of crop loss due to organic farming methods. My brothers had a certified organic small grains farm for several years and their yield was lower due to a higher incidence of pest and weed damage.

←

True, lower average yield/lower efficiency of organic farming methods does explain why organic produces costs more, but I think John was wondering why consumers of organic produce pay more, which is a different question. The answer to that question is answered by a number of organic consumer surveys where people are asked why they buy organic food. There are a variety of different reasons expressed in these surveys, but the dominant theme is always that organic food is percieved to be "chemical-free" and "more healthy or nutritious."

[JohnL]

High wages and lots of benefits sounds good. (it is good) but there is another side of this.

Higher costs to consumers.

I would also point out that some very large corporations are in serious trouble (many thousands of jobs are at risk) because of "high wages" and lots of benefits.

Let's look at that nice "responsible" salary that WF Chairman John Mackey receives ---the piece in Slate says WF claims that no management employee makes more than 14 times the average salary of employees. Mr Mackey's salary is a "reasonable" $342,000 per year.

Sounds great--a company that really cares!

Well last year (2004 tax year) Mr Mackey made $885,216 --see what they don't tell ya about their noble sounding policy is that executives get stock options on top of their "modest" salaries.

bet those folks making $13/hour haven't the chance to cash in to the tune of some $5MM (the value of Mr Mackey's options).

That's my point--we are too quick to take at face value an altruistic sounding statement or marketing tactic.

IMOP --I am fine with whatever salary the board deems appropriate. what I have a problem with is the little white lie used to sell us on WF as somehow a better place to shop.

I am equally skeptical of a lot of marketing claims re: organic etc.

Things are never so simple.

←

Of course, you should take everything with a grain of salt, but -- and I'm surprising myself a bit here by coming to the defense of Whole Paycheck -- I'd say that WFM's CEO strives mightily to practice what he preaches.

Whole Foods offers an ESOP to its hourly employees. (ESOP = Employee Stock Ownership Plan. It's a fringe benefit more common in small businesses than large ones. It allows employees to purchase stock in the company out of their paychecks, often at favorable prices. Some ESOPs offer employees part of their compensation in the form of stock, but these are very rare.) On top of that, regular employees get stock options based on hours worked in a year.

So you can't accuse Mackey of taking advantage of something that his employees can't when it comes to owning Whole Foods stock or options.

Info about Whole Foods Market benefits

←

The issue at hand as per the Slate piece is the use of things like "organic" and "Small farm friendly" to "sell' consumers on one's operation as a better place to shop.

Whole Foods, as the article notes, does this a lot--in fact--it is a marketing strategy the company embraces.

Part of this strategy is letting consumers know that the company is a good citizen and practices good corporate responsibility--therefore one should shop there. I used the Mackey salary thing to

illustrate the point that while the company is eager to let consumers know Mr Mackey and other executives are paid a "responsible" salary ("no executive is paid more than 14 times the salary of our average employee") this is not quite true.

WF marketing is IMOP worth looking at because we are seeing this strategy executed more and more these days as corporations, large and small, seek to gain sales by convincing consumers that they are good citizens and support all the "right" causes.

"we are good for the community so shop here."

This is a departure from--basically offering the best products and services and good value.

It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen (no one would argue with this).

It is quite another when one's corporate marketing strategy includes good corporate citizenship as a tactical message to leverage sales.

IMOP the Slate piece is on target--(no pun intended) there has been a lot of corporate bashing (some certainly justified--but a lot of it just plain wrongheaded) of companies like MacDonald's and K-Mart while other companies preaching good citizenship are escaping any scrutiny.

It is an interesting issue for sure--should we shop somewhere because they have great tomatoes at great prices or somewhere else because they say they support all the right causes.

I would argue that the two are not necessarily--mutually exclusive.

[Pan]

[...]It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen (no one would argue with this).

It is quite another when one's corporate marketing strategy includes good corporate citizenship as a tactical message to leverage sales.[...]

←

Isn't being a "good corporate citizen" primarily P.R.? Nothing new about that. Speaking of which, have a look at this brief article on Ivy Lee, considered by some the founder of modern public relations. I don't think anyone's accusing Whole Foods of the kinds of things John D. Rockefeller was guilty of. But what do we remember Rockefeller for now? For his wealth, for Rockefeller Center, and for the Rockefeller Foundation -- not for the Ludlow Massacre or other notorious crimes he was involved with, all of which are now pretty much forgotten by everyone, except for some historians. That's what effective P.R. does. I can't get too excited over Whole Foods doing a mild and relatively harmless version of it.

[russ parsons]

let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. i don't normally shop at whole foods--it's too far from my house and i don't think their produce is that much better. but they are moving down the right road and while i don't think we should be throwing them any parades, neither should we be tossing stones. i do know from my reporting that in some cases wf has altered their distribution practices to allow local farmers to deliver directly to the stores rather than to the warehouse. this is just about earth-shattering in the supermarket business. and in the case of tomatoes, it allows a pick that's two days later than it otherwise would be--a potentially significant improvement (all other things being equal). at the writer's conference i was just at, there was a representative from wegman's in the new york state area who said they were doing much the same thing. the world is changing, folks. it's not there yet, but compared to even 2 or 3 years ago, things in the produce department are much improved (this, of course, does not apply to all produce departments--change starts small and then when it proves possible--and profitable--moves quickly.)

[JohnL]

[...]It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen (no one would argue with this).

It is quite another when one's corporate marketing strategy includes good corporate citizenship as a tactical message to leverage sales.[...]

←

Isn't being a "good corporate citizen" primarily P.R.? Nothing new about that. Speaking of which, have a look at this brief article on Ivy Lee, considered by some the founder of modern public relations. I don't think anyone's accusing Whole Foods of the kinds of things John D. Rockefeller was guilty of. But what do we remember Rockefeller for now? For his wealth, for Rockefeller Center, and for the Rockefeller Foundation -- not for the Ludlow Massacre or other notorious crimes he was involved with, all of which are now pretty much forgotten by everyone, except for some historians. That's what effective P.R. does. I can't get too excited over Whole Foods doing a mild and relatively harmless version of it.

←

I think that being a good corporate citizen can and often does have nothing to do with PR.

PR is basically a communications tool.

First and foremost though --any company large or small has only an obligation to obey the law--granted many (too many) try to operate in gray areas and some do break laws.

Above and beyond this many companies and their executives are engaged in altruistic ventures motivated by nothing more than a desire to do the right thing.

PR is simply a mechanism for telling people about these"good deeds." A company can actively let people know what they are doing or they can choose not to.

However, I believe the Slate piece is looking at WF as a company that is using not just PR but marketing and advertising that is basically saying to consumers--"we are promoting organic produce and we support local farmers etc etc, so buy from us!"

This goes beyond a traditional strategy of :"we offer the best stuff at the best prices etc."

or even: "we have friendly service or, it's a pleasant experience to shop with us...."

WF strategy (and tactics) raise a few questions:

--just what is "organic?" and is Organic produce better for us? is it better quality? is it worth the extra money it usually costs?

--what about local farms? should we care? should we pay more for locally produced produce?

is small always better than large?

--what about WF?--should we shop there because they are telling us they are good corporate citizens? should we pay more for this? are they really good citizens?

finally, Slate asks an interesting question:

in the end--

Wouldn't just offering good quality at low prices be a better way to help a community?

Are we paying a premium to "feel" better--that we are doing the "right thing by shopping at places that tout their noble intentions?"

Thus the "elitist" aspect of what WF is doing--they are in essence attempting to convince consumers that they are better people for shopping there.

There are no easy answers here--Slate is really asking questions in an attempt to provoke some thought and discussion.

There are always two(at least) sides to every issue.

[ghostrider]

True, but on the other hand, people with lower incomes can actually afford to shop at Walmart.

←

Try finding low-salt anything in Walmart's grocery dept, though. I couldn't. Though if they've evolved & are actually offering healther choices now, good on them.

[moosnsqrl]

Isn't being a "good corporate citizen" primarily P.R.? Nothing new about that. Speaking of which, have a look at this brief article on Ivy Lee, considered by some the founder of modern public relations. I don't think anyone's accusing Whole Foods of the kinds of things John D. Rockefeller was guilty of. But what do we remember Rockefeller for now? For his wealth, for Rockefeller Center, and for the Rockefeller Foundation -- not for the Ludlow Massacre or other notorious crimes he was involved with, all of which are now pretty much forgotten by everyone, except for some historians. That's what effective P.R. does. I can't get too excited over Whole Foods doing a mild and relatively harmless version of it.

←

Exactly.

[JohnL]

Isn't being a "good corporate citizen" primarily P.R.? Nothing new about that. Speaking of which, have a look at this brief article on Ivy Lee, considered by some the founder of modern public relations. I don't think anyone's accusing Whole Foods of the kinds of things John D. Rockefeller was guilty of. But what do we remember Rockefeller for now? For his wealth, for Rockefeller Center, and for the Rockefeller Foundation -- not for the Ludlow Massacre or other notorious crimes he was involved with, all of which are now pretty much forgotten by everyone, except for some historians. That's what effective P.R. does. I can't get too excited over Whole Foods doing a mild and relatively harmless version of it.

←

Exactly.

←

Too simple.

and way too jaded for me.

Every major charity and cause employs PR.--the various "walkathons" are PR events.

many companies support causes because they believe in them first and foremost and not as a "PR effort."

[bandregg]

To summarize what I see as the arguments here (and that's what I see, not what everyone really wanted to say but didn't get across well),

Whole Foods is selling to its customers with a message of local is better, organic is better, and we offer those things.

This has raised the question of whether or not local is better, or organic is better, and most importantly, and the point of the article and several posts, does Whole Foods really offer these things. Oh, and this is different from the tranditional grocery marketing of "good product, good price, good value" that larger chains including Walmart continue to use. Let's turn the tiger by the tail and ask if other stores, selling produce and groceries for less, are doing anything differently in their marketing. Or, "is cheaper better."

My biases are that "good value" to me means that suppliers and employees are offered a livable wage, that I can find local products when they're available, and that I enjoy shopping at a store. I don't have any qualms at all with Whole Foods advertising their "good corporate citizenship" if it exists, and from what I've seen locally, it does. I have many more problems with Walmart setting up shop in small rural towns and providing low cost sundries and advertising that they're "there for the little people, and providing jobs for those without work" when it's their store that closed the local hardware, flower shop, and grocery, which left people without jobs and the inability to shop any place but walmart.

If you can say with proof that Whole Foods doesn't offer local produce, or doesn't offer organic food, or isn't a good corporate citizen, I'll be the first one to join your class action lawsuit; I give them a ton of money a year. But, let's not throw stones when we can't see the sin.

[JohnL]

To summarize what I see as the arguments here (and that's what I see, not what everyone really wanted to say but didn't get across well),

Whole Foods is selling to its customers with a message of local is better, organic is better, and we offer those things.

This has raised the question of whether or not local is better, or organic is better, and most importantly, and the point of the article and several posts, does Whole Foods really offer these things. Oh, and this is different from the tranditional grocery marketing of "good product, good price, good value" that larger chains including Walmart continue to use. Let's turn the tiger by the tail and ask if other stores, selling produce and groceries for less, are doing anything differently in their marketing. Or, "is cheaper better."

My biases are that "good value" to me means that suppliers and employees are offered a livable wage, that I can find local products when they're available, and that I enjoy shopping at a store. I don't have any qualms at all with Whole Foods advertising their "good corporate citizenship" if it exists, and from what I've seen locally, it does. I have many more problems with Walmart setting up shop in small rural towns and providing low cost sundries and advertising that they're "there for the little people, and providing jobs for those without work" when it's their store that closed the local hardware, flower shop, and grocery, which left people without jobs and the inability to shop any place but walmart.

If you can say with proof that Whole Foods doesn't offer local produce, or doesn't offer organic food, or isn't a good corporate citizen, I'll be the first one to join your class action lawsuit; I give them a ton of money a year. But, let's not throw stones when we can't see the sin.

←

No one is talking "lawsuit."

Just a discussion of some issues that Slate raised.

I would argue that:

The views you present of Whole Foods and Wal Mart are influenced by active PR/Marketing efforts and that things are not so black and white here.

[bandregg]

No one is talking "lawsuit."

Just a discussion of some issues that Slate raised.

I would argue that:

The views you present  of Whole Foods and Wal Mart are influenced by active PR/Marketing efforts and that things are not so black and white here.

←

You wrote earlier that Whole Foods had told at least one lie in their promotions, specifically about salaries, which isn't a lie at all. It is commonly accepted business practice for salaries to be equated differently from stock options, health benefits, and bonuses. But, if it is a lie, then it's fraud and actionable, so in the words of the gambler "Put up or Shut up."

More importantly to me,

Don't speak for where my views come from. You don't know me, you don't know my family, and speaking for me shows you as ignorant to the many opinions in this world and how they're formed. And that is black and white.

[Pan]

[...]Every major charity and cause employs PR.--the various "walkathons" are PR events.

many companies support causes because they believe in them first and foremost and not as a "PR effort."

←

When for-profit corporations publicize their funding of charitable ventures, it improves their corporate image and they hope it will thereby improve their bottom line or/and the political environment in which they operate (in regard to taxes, government contracts, private bills, etc.). I don't mean to imply that executives can't be really great people who are genuinely concerned about others and motivated by that concern -- I believe some are. But if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would donate to all these ventures anonymously. (I don't contest your implication that perhaps some do, but that's not what I was talking about earlier.) And the greater the degree to which advertising is involved, the less I can be convinced that altruism is the primary motive. Case in point, ADM gets to put its underwriting statement of "Supermarket to the World" at the beginning of the News Hour on PBS, with no equal time for a reminder that they were convicted of price-fixing and fined hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think that ADM's underwriting of the News Hour is mostly because they're big fans of Jim Lehrer, or because they get that advertisement? Now, compare the arguably misleading promotion by Whole Foods. Isn't that small potatoes?

[moosnsqrl]

[...]Every major charity and cause employs PR.--the various "walkathons" are PR events.

many companies support causes because they believe in them first and foremost and not as a "PR effort."

←

When for-profit corporations publicize their funding of charitable ventures, it improves their corporate image and they hope it will thereby improve their bottom line or/and the political environment in which they operate (in regard to taxes, government contracts, private bills, etc.). I don't mean to imply that executives can't be really great people who are genuinely concerned about others and motivated by that concern -- I believe some are. But if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would donate to all these ventures anonymously. (I don't contest your implication that perhaps some do, but that's not what I was talking about earlier.) And the greater the degree to which advertising is involved, the less I can be convinced that altruism is the primary motive. Case in point, ADM gets to put its underwriting statement of "Supermarket to the World" at the beginning of the News Hour on PBS, with no equal time for a reminder that they were convicted of price-fixing and fined hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think that ADM's underwriting of the News Hour is mostly because they're big fans of Jim Lehrer, or because they get that advertisement? Now, compare the arguably misleading promotion by Whole Foods. Isn't that small potatoes?

←

Perfect example; I noticed not long after their little price-fixing scheme was exposed they became huge supporters of NPR as well. I literally heard a story about the whole thing during a half-hour that was underwritten by them. Now that is some in-your-face PR/marketing/advertising.