Is Whole Foods Wholesome?

[JohnL]

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.

←

I think you are over reacting.

Please allow me to clarify:

We are all influenced by marketing/advertising and public relations efforts--if you watch TV listen to the radio, read a newspaper, magazines, use the internet, shop in any store. We also get information via first hand experiences and from listening to others.

If you are saying that your and your opinions are formed independently of these sources--then ok I guess you are not influenced by advertising or PR.

No one has accused WF of "lying" nor is anyone attacking WF for criminal activity. a a matter of fact, I shop there.

This whole issue is about how WF markets itself.

I would refer you back to the Slate piece. If you feel that the writer is misstating something or has presented information that is incorrect, then please let us know.

IMOP the writer raises some interesting issues--certainly open to discussion and debate.

The issues raised: "organic", CSA's, high salaries and benefits, local farms among others are not cut and dried, black and white issues. all have been discussed and debated independently of the Slate piece and WF.

If Whole Foods is utilizing these things to market its self then one is certainly justified in bringing not only the "good" side of them but also the the other side.

Unless, of course, one believes that the mere use of the term "organic" is pristine and so noble and carries no downside whatsoever; that the entire health food industry is immune from any scrutiny or criticism.

[Pitter]

WF has a great produce and seafood department.

This is what I know absolutely. I used to sell them most of their cheeses, and quite a few of other things. They have this "saying" that they do not sell any dairy products that have been treated with Bovine Growth Hormone. WRONG!

You simply cannot buy cheese from the British Isles or the Americas without getting cheese that got its milk from the commodities market, and who knows what these cows were treated with.

Also, I applied for a job with them to manage a cheese department with 500 cheeses. I was offered the job, but had to say nay, as it paid $12 per hour, to manage this number of cheeses with the particular knowledge that I have. My response is, you've got to be kidding me. And this was in a very tony town in NJ. Lord knows how they find the proper people to serve the demanding public in these towns in NJ where townhouses go for $500,000 and three bedrooms are 1,500,00 and up.

[JohnL]

It's not the "in your face" kind of marketing we should be worried about!

Guys--

I do not disagree with you. This issue here is not ADM (or anyone else).

It is Whole Foods.

The Slate piece is basically just applying some of the skepticism and scrutiny to WF and its marketing efforts as well as the whole "organic" movement.

If you believe this is wrong or unwarranted--ok--then make the case. There is enough information available from enough sources to indicate there is a "dark" side to the health food industry.

By the way--plenty has been offered about WF right here at eGullet (if I am not mistaken and there is a very recent thread on "organic" wherein one of the major points made by the Slate writer is supported.

We should also understand that there is fraud and criminal behavior by non profit operations as well.

Finally, if one wants to see damaging, misleading and insidious PR efforts, I offer what labor unions have been up to.

See--the Food Lion case and take a look at who is behind a lot of the misinformation about Wal Mart.

(please I don't want to debate Wal Mart--suffice to say they are not angels but they are surely not the anti-christ some would have us believe).

IMOP, the Slate piece is simply taking a look at another (for profit) company and their marketing efforts as well as the whole health food industry and their claims. Should these issues be immune to any scrutiny, let alone criticism?

[russ parsons]

if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would donate to all these ventures anonymously.

←

if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would not be corporations, they would be monasteries.

[Pan]

if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would donate to all these ventures anonymously.

←

if corporations were really motivated only by altruism, they would not be corporations, they would be monasteries.

←

Right, they certainly wouldn't be for-profit corporations. And there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about profit. Profit is what makes the system work, and without profit, the economy would collapse and everyone would be unemployed.

John, I don't think your points are invalid, I just think they're small potatoes and don't feel too indignant about them. And yes, unions and nonprofits can also engage in fraudulent behavior for reasons of perceived self-interest. I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to indict corporations generally for misbehavior, and I certainly am not. What I've been trying to show is that, based on what was printed in that article, Whole Foods is engaging in very mild deception at best in its PR and marketing, by comparison with the egregious cases I've been posting about.

For the record, I find Whole Foods stores generally very overpriced and almost never enter them. I probably haven't been inside of one for years. But hey, if people want to spend money there, that's their lookout.

[Bakerman]

IMOP, the Slate piece is simply taking a look at another (for profit) company and their marketing efforts as well as the whole health food industry and their claims. Should these issues be immune to any scrutiny, let alone criticism?

←

Slate can profile whomever they like, but there was a real lack of quality journalism to the story. Did they contact any of those "small farmers"? Or any vendor at all? The Chile v. New Jersey tomatoes was a highly unlikely example to make the author's point. I'm surprised that someone from the New Yorker would write such a weak piece.

That said, we deal with Whole Foods a lot and in some ways they behave much like any other retailer but in several important ways, they behave very differently. They invite vendors to annual gatherings where they explain strategy and policies, help those whose products they support, insist on "clean" products and generally go the extra mile to be a good corporate citizen. Whether it's to boost their profit or image or sense of self-worth is tough to tell.

Whole Paycheck is in the spotlight becasue of their astonishing success. Between them and TJ's on the high end and Walmart on teh low end, traditional supermarkets are having to improve to compete or die. On the whole, I agree that WF has had a positive impact on both the industry and in the communities they serve.

[ghostrider]

I shop at Whole Foods in Montclair NJ a couple of times a week for reasons of convenience. They are not as overpriced as one might think if one shops carefully, but that's tangential to the issues in this thread.

I haven't seen any advertising emphasis on "Our Commitment to the Local Farmer," as reported in the Slate piece, at this particular WF branch over the past year. Thus I don't know whether this was a tentative marketing gimmick that they were trying out in NYC, or an ongoing strategy aimed at certain specific branches.

Nor do I see much in the way of local produce at this WF store. As a standard of comparison, I think that Shaw's supermarkets in Maine do a much better job of selling local produce than does WF.

Anyway, I'm curious as to just how widespread the WF "Commitment to the Local Farmer" campaign actually is. Have folks in other parts of the country seen any signs of this?

[MarketStEl]

John: I don't think anyone here was arguing that the Slate article should not have been written, or that the questions being raised were not worth raising. What people have been doing is questioning how effectively he raised them.

Upthread, you cited the CEO's stock options as an example of how WFM's more egalitarian pay policy wasn't everything it seemed on the surface. I cited another WFM policy that IMO neuters this skepticism. Most of the criticism of the article I see here is in a similar vein--that there's less to the "accusations" than meets the eye.

Since you raised the subject of PR, may I respond as a practitioner?

You are absolutely right that PR is fundamentally nothing more than "publicity" -- letting others know the good things someone is doing. (It's also about letting others know what someone is doing to right some wrong or redeem himself after making a mistake--what is known in the business as "crisis communications.")

But like all tools, it can be put to bad--or disreputable--use as well as good use. The reason Ivy Lee's work for the Rockefellers is so often cited is because the publicization of John D.'s philanthropy looked like a calculated effort to get the public to forget his less noble deeds. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this is "disreputable"--after all, Lee said nothing that was untrue in his publicity--but it certainly qualifies as "spin," which does have a (sometimes deserved) bad rep on the street.

In fact, the criticism of WFM leveled in the Slate article, like your citing those stock options, is based on the notion that what WFM says it does is somehow different from what it actually does--IOW, that Whole Foods "spins" its actions to make them seem like something they are not, or not quite.

--Sandy, member, College and University Public Relations Association of Pennsylvania (CUPRAP)

[JohnL]

John:  I don't think anyone here was arguing that the Slate article should not have been written, or that the questions being raised were not worth raising.  What people have been doing is questioning how effectively he raised them.

Upthread, you cited the CEO's stock options as an example of how WFM's more egalitarian pay policy wasn't everything it seemed on the surface.  I cited another WFM policy that IMO neuters this skepticism.  Most of the criticism of the article I see here is in a similar vein--that there's less to the "accusations" than meets the eye.

Since you raised the subject of PR, may I respond as a practitioner?

You are absolutely right that PR is fundamentally nothing more than "publicity" -- letting others know the good things someone is doing.  (It's also about letting others know what someone is doing to right some wrong or redeem himself after making a mistake--what is known in the business as "crisis communications.")

But like all tools, it can be put to bad--or disreputable--use as well as good use.  The reason Ivy Lee's work for the Rockefellers is so often cited is because the publicization of John D.'s philanthropy looked like a calculated effort to get the public to forget his less noble deeds.  Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this is "disreputable"--after all, Lee said nothing that was untrue in his publicity--but it certainly qualifies as "spin," which does have a (sometimes deserved) bad rep on the street.

In fact, the criticism of WFM leveled in the Slate article, like your citing those stock options, is based on the notion that what WFM says it does is somehow different from what it actually does--IOW, that Whole Foods "spins" its actions to make them seem like something they are not, or not quite.

--Sandy, member, College and University Public Relations Association of Pennsylvania (CUPRAP)

←

Sandy!

First, I really enjoy reading your thoughts here at eGullet, I look forward to your posts.

I too have a background in marketing and advertising and PR. Though I have left all that to begin a second career in the wine business.

I have read the Slate piece many times and I believe that we are all missing the point a bit.

The Slate article is not attempting to "indict" WF--this is not an attempt to build a case against WF.

What the writer is attempting to do is look at a marketing trend --a bigger picture, if you will.

I believe he is merely raising some issues for thought and discussion not --as I have noted--attempting to provide indictable evidence in support of some criminal action.

IMOP, the Slate piece is attempting to deal with a trend in marketing wherein companies are using their altruism and good citizenship--not in traditional PR manner, But, rather, as the main selling points for shopping there or buying their products.

This may be due to a real sense of altruism, a desire to tap into the sensibilities and values of baby boomers (everyone is wearing some sort of ribbon these days) or a combination of both.

Determining motives is always a murky area.

Conversely, a number of corporations are being demonized because of a lack of perceived belief that they are 'good for the community."--see Wal Mart, MacDonald's etc.

Incidentally, one starting up a company these days would be wise to head off some of these perception or misperceptions by establishing their "politically correct" credentials--regardless of their motivations for being in business.

Thus, WF wraps itself in a banner of "good for the community." All the Slate writer is doing is raising the questions;

--Is WF really good for the community?

--if they are (they do practice what they preach) then is this really that important?

Case in point:

Thus, when WF is quick to "announce" that they only pay their executives 14 times the amount they pay their average worker., one asks: "should this be all that important to the community/shoppers?" and second: "Is WF really practicing this?"

The answer to the first question is open to debate--there is a strong case that things like the "living wage" are at best difficult to define and worse detrimental to the community.

The answer to the second is--WF is being a bit deceptive--they are not lying, they are stretching the truth here--Mr Mackey is not guilty of a crime--many corporations now pay lower salaries to executives as a reaction to the perception that no executive should make what the public perceives as an "obscene" salary. Tax penalties have been enacted to "punish" this behavior.

To circumvent this--many companies have issued huge stock option programs for executives.

So is WF just doing what a lot of companies are doing? Should we care about this overall issue?

Should we care that WF is being a bit deceptive in their marketing here?

But the most important area the writer is looking at is prompted by Whole Foods wrapping itself in the banner of--well--whole foods--using "organic" as a selling point.

There is enough evidence available to warrant debate here. Just what organic means--"small local" farms, CSA's etc etc etc. This issue is--how are these terms defined? Are they really meaningful to consumer to communities?

Should we shop at places (and in many cases pay a premium) because they are really nice folks who support all the right causes and are good for us?

1--because they say they are--"we care."?

2--in the end these issues are easily defined and are proven to be beneficial

or

Is it really more important (and beneficial to the community) to have businesses that offer a good shopping experience, good value and good products.?

I would argue that the two are not necc exclusive but when someone says --"we offer the best tomatoes at the lowest prices"--that is a claim that is easy to resolve--if they do they should thrive and the community will benefit.

However--if someone says:"shop here because we are nice folks and pay our employees a lot and our produce comes from local farms and are organic and are good for you."

Well-- these claims are crossing into a very gray area--

all the Slate piece is doing is attempting to prompt some discussion.

Maybe--just maybe--altruism aside--it may be better for communities if retail establishments stuck to obeying the law and offering the best products and services at the best prices. (oh and maybe supported the local food bank or shelter and supported a little league team) and not try to "save the world."

Then again, maybe not!

[MarketStEl]

When I was at Penn, I occasionally exchanged wits online with an undergraduate who argued that there was really no such thing as altruism--that everybody had selfish or self-serving reasons for acting in others' interest without apparent regard for one's own.

The concept he came up with to answer the obvious objection--that acts of heroism and bravery, where one risks one's own life to save another's, clearly cannot be performed out of self-interest, since the actor has no way of knowing for sure that someone else will do the same should it be he that needs rescue--was that of the "moral high." Much as we might smoke weed or drink because of the feelings of pleasure they generate, he argued, doing good can produce a similar physiological or psychological response.

If this student was on to something with this idea--which he may well have been--then it might go a long way towards explaining Whole Foods' use of virtue as a marketing tool. By wrapping its practices in the mantle of a movement--and if you look at the CEO's blog, Mackey is a movement kinda guy, only his mixes equal parts social consciousness and libertarianism--WFM allows its customers the opportunity not only to buy really wonderful food at prices that range from competitive to almost breathtakingly high, depending on the product, but to feel virtuous about doing so. (I think there was an article linked from eG recently that made similar criticisms of the Fair Trade label for coffee.)

A somewhat relevant tangent: Riding the El to work this morning, I noticed a large billboard--at El level--atop the Freshgrocer supermarket at 56th and Market. It featured the face of an attractive young African American woman holding a cucumber slice over her left eye. The text said simply: "Locally Grown Organic Produce. thefreshgrocer."

Now, the neighborhood around 56th and Market is mostly working class and totally African American--not the sort of demographic that Whole Foods goes after, nor the population segment that marketers usually associate with concern over such things. And thefreshgrocer is not one of these businesses that wears its virtue on its sleeve, either. The owner of this independent chain of four supermarkets, who originally ran several IGA stores in the Philly 'burbs, has stated that he learned he could make money giving urban consumers a high-quality shopping experience after he opened a store next to Penn's campus at 40th and Walnut (after being approached by Penn when efforts to land a Whole Foods Market for the space failed). He built the 56th and Market store from the ground up.

His supermarkets are not that different in merchandise mix or operating philosophy from a better suburban supermarket, in contrast to Whole Foods. And yet he senses that his customer base is also interested in "buying fresh, buying local" and buying organic. They just don't see it as a badge of moral superiority.

(Edited to fix misplaced punctuation.)

Edited March 24, 2006 by MarketStEl (log)

[ghostrider]

Well, I learned something about Whole Foods today. I went to my local branch again and stopped and made a careful inspection of the upper periphery of the interior space. There on the wall, half-covered by the greenery atop the produce shelf, was the notorious "Our Commitment to the Local Farmer" poster.

I bet that 99.999% of the WF shoppers in Montclair have never seen this poster - I hadn't noticed it for a solid year - so it's certainly not a message that they're pushing very hard at this particular branch. Nor is it a practice there. But it now seems clear that this is a standardized part of their corporate message.

As I've indicated, I'm a fan of Whole Foods, & enjoy shopping there. At the same time I think that this particular aspect of the image that they're trying to build is the most questionable. It's not at all clear to me how, or if, they practice what they preach when it comes to local produce. Whatever they're saying with regard to local farmers is starting to look like nothing but hype, and they ought to rethink it or drop it.

[butterscotch]

i still don't understand where WF has deceptive practices, do you think marketing to appeal to values is somehow immoral? i'm aware that organic standards are eroding, but the hazards of chemical farming have been well documented. Look up the South American rose indusry, or what's been happening to the gulf of Mexico because of nitrogen run off from our corn belt.

I know lots of people- including those on a budget- who are willing to spend more for less chemicals and for things that support a diverse local economy. If WF believes that this helps them PR wise, that it is good for their business, and it works, why isn't that okay?

As far as I've read Walmart's idea of good business is not to pay a cent more than they are forced to, to anyone. Large companies are concerned about the low minimum wage because it's hurting their own sales figures, they are requesting the government raise that wage, but would they ever do that themselves? no, it's not their policy to spend a penny they don't have to. and please, don't even use the phrase obeying the law, or good citizens when they lobby and have exceptions to labor laws written specifically for for them and local government ends up picking up the tab for their employees' health care.

you listed the "PR" aspect to WF way of business and walmart being criticised as if they had nothing to do with each other. i think that WF is who it is as a reaction to places like walmart, who have contributed to the demise of the middle class in this country. it is a place for educated middle class and affluent people to, in effect, vote with their pocketbooks. the more good efforts are rewarded, the more likely it is that other companies will see that there is more to business than price. As far as the claims made below being a grey area- never heard the nice salesperson bit- Nordstroms used that- and it was true and it worked damn well for them. It was policy to be damned helpful, go the extra yard- without ever pushing the customer at all, and it worked. There was nothing grey about it. But the percentage of crops bought locally and studies on the vitamin content of organic produce as well as the measurable effects of chemicals on our enviornment are not so hard to find, in black and white no less.

Can Walmart claim in black and white to have the best tomato? Howso? That's not black and white, price is, but quality, not so much.

I would argue that the two are not necc exclusive but when someone says --"we offer the best tomatoes at the lowest prices"--that is a claim that is easy to resolve--if they do they should thrive and the community will benefit.

However--if someone says:"shop here because we are nice folks and pay our employees a lot and our produce comes from local farms and are organic and are good for you."

Well-- these claims are crossing into a very gray area--

all the Slate piece is doing is attempting to prompt some discussion.

Maybe--just maybe--altruism aside--it may be better for communities if retail establishments stuck to obeying the law and offering the best products and services at the best prices.

←

[russ parsons]

hey guys, it's important to remember, when criticizing whole foods' "committment to the local farmer" campaign that in most cases, there just aren't that many. particularly at this time of the year. that doesn't mean they aren't doing their best to get what's available. more than 60% of all the fruits and vegetables grown in the us come from california (and another 12% from florida). compounding this is the fact that whole foods is, after all, a chain and that it does move a lot of produce through the store. sure there may be small farmers near you, but in most cases their annual harvest would fill one store for about one week. and i don't know what the weather is like in new jersey right now, but remember that it takes a couple months to grow stuff. if they really only stocked locally grown produce, you'd probably still be picking through potatoes and cabbage (mmmm, cooked with some fatty smoked pork?). But again, let's not condemn someone who is making an effort to do a good job for not doing a perfect job.

[ray goud]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes anything Slate says, nevermind actually reading them. As has been said above, they are just trying to get attention.

[ghostrider]

Russ, if you go back up the thread, you'll see that my comments on the Montclair WF are based on a full year of shopping there at least twice a week. I can count the # of times I've seen any Jersey produce there on less than the fingers on one hand. I have never seen Jersey peaches or tomatoes there.

I think that's why they keep the sign hidden amidst the greenery. That, at least, is an honest way to present the message.

[JohnL]

hey guys, it's important to remember, when criticizing whole foods' "committment to the local farmer" campaign that in most cases, there just aren't that many. particularly at this time of the year. that doesn't mean they aren't doing their best to get what's available. more than 60% of all the fruits and vegetables grown in the us come from california (and another 12% from florida). compounding this is the fact that whole foods is, after all, a chain and that it does move a lot of produce through the store. sure there may be small farmers near you, but in most cases their annual harvest would fill one store for about one week. and i don't know what the weather is like in new jersey right now, but remember that it takes a couple months to grow stuff. if they really only stocked locally grown produce, you'd probably still be picking through potatoes and cabbage (mmmm, cooked with some fatty smoked pork?). But again, let's not condemn someone who is making an effort to do a good job for not doing a perfect job.

←

Russ--

I don't think there is any attempt to "condemn" Whole Foods. Slate is simply looking at the WF marketing strategy and tactics.

When you strip away the marketing and PR--WF is a supermarket.

What they have done is incorporate a traditional health food store into a traditional supermarket--A and P, Safeway etc etc etc.

Nothing wrong with that.

It is definitely working.

However --just because someone applies terms like health food, organic, local, CSA, and supports causes we like should not provide them immunity from scrutiny.

First to determine if the party in question is, in fact, practicing what they preach and two--the more difficult debate as to what these terms really mean and their real impact on the community.

There are two (and often many more) sides to all these issues.

WF is capitalizing on these things--who would be against --fair wages for employees.?!

However, the issue of what constitutes fair wages and how they impact the community is complex.

"Organic" vs----what exactly? WF is making a case that we should care about this --also complex issue--and pay more.

Just what does WF mean by "local" farms--of course we would want to support local farms--who wouldn't?

Again--not such a simple issue.

The problem is, WF is using the "premise" and the "promise" of all these things as a reason to shop there and to, in many cases, pay a premium.

It is WF who are raising all these issues and questions--I would question why--if "organic" is so much better for the consumer--then why does WF even sell "non-organic" produce?

--let alone try to convince us to pay more for "organic."

I would also question why it should be important to consumers looking for good quality service and value--why we should care what WF pays its executives (or its employees)!

That's what this is about I believe. Questioning what WF is saying to us as consumers--

and weighing this against what they are delivering in terms of quality and value and a shopping experience. They are not just offering traditional goods and services they are offering an chance to feel good about ourselves for having shopped there--a decidedly elitist marketing ploy.

Nothing wrong with that--all luxury retailers and manufacturers offer this via their marketing efforts.

What is fascinating (to me at least) is the contrast with Wal-Mart who has a very simple credo--lowest prices possible,

Neither WF or Wal- Mart are "bad" people corporately. neither of these approaches is inherently wrong or evil. Both are "altruistic" in their stated goals. Yet one is demonized and the other canonized.

I would argue that--there is a lot to be debated and that neither is all good or all bad!

One is a complex credo (WF) and one is simple (WM).

Interestingly, I would ask if WF and their complex credo are really having much viable impact on the areas they claim to be concerned with and conversely, are WM with their simple credo having a very real and much more complex impact in areas they are not claiming to be concerned with?.

Edited March 27, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[bandregg]

I would also question why it should be important to consumers looking for good quality service and value--why we should care what WF pays its executives (or its employees)!

Livable wage pay and proportionate pay betwen executives and workers is one of my values that impacts most of my purchase decisions. That's why I care.

I'd also argue that Walmart is "bad" people corporately, but maybe locking employees in stores, semi-legally discouraging collective bargining, and not helping workers afford health benefits (while executives can and have them as part of their compinsation package) isn't bad to you.

If you value cost as king and price only, then WF may not be the place for you to shop. Maybe that's Walmart. And both firms market themselves to these somewhat discreet populations.

My problem with the original article of discussion is that it's just so poorly written. There are little to no real numbers or sources to back up supposition and complaints about the marketing of local food and organic food ignore that WF tries to provide both. What's worse though, what makes the article so bad in my eyes, is that it wasn't written from the journalistic standpoint of impartiality. The author wasn't standing in a WF one day and saying "why do they offer conventional and organic of the same thing" (that's a good question and one of market dynamics I'd guess). Instead the author says, "There's this store that markets itself as selling organic food. I think there is something wrong with that."