
The CEO of Whole Foods on "Conscious Capitalism" - zackattack
http://www.zacharyburt.com/2010/04/the-ceo-of-whole-foods-on-conscious-capitalism/
======
grandalf
I love whole foods and respect John Mackey tremendously... Some people day
that Mackey is not really a capitalist or that he's an apologist because he
advocates values other than the profit motive.

I think that Mackey's approach is most accurately termed _entertainment
capitalism_. We pay extra for the story behind the purchase, and that story
adds value to the purchase. We identify with the story and feel better about
ourselves after the purchase.

It doesn't matter what the story is... but it's every bit as capitalistic to
sell a story + a good/service ... Apple does it, Harley Davidson does it, etc.
However most people only buy a new laptop or phone or motorcycle once every
few years. Mackey has successfully applied this business model to something
people buy one or more times _every single week_.

If I am willing to pay $7 to go to the movies to be entertained for 2 hours,
why wouldn't I be willing to pay $30 extra for groceries to be entertained all
week long?

~~~
drenkert
'Entertainment' can paint any kind of picture, true or not. There's a huge
cost when a consumer discovers she's been duped. Take, for example,
<http://www.ethicurean.com/2006/05/18/judys-eggs/>

Here's a company, pushing a brand that's supposedly some little, old Judy
who's just figuring out this web stuff and doesn't have time to reply to all
her email... BULLSHIT. It's Petaluma Farms, one of the biggest egg producers
in California.

The cost of this 'entertainment' affects all producers who honestly portray
their products and story. Their messages are discounted and diluted by this
bs.

I've spoken with a grocer in the SF Bay area who say most producers are "liars
and full of it" because of this kind of advertising. That's what this really
is, bs advertising and it doesn't help anyone.

For honest businesses, properly portraying their operations, let's call it
what it is... Transparent Capitalism maybe?

~~~
grandalf
True... but the question is, does it get less entertaining if it's not true?
For most people it doesn't... Mackey himself invoked the quote "The perfect is
the enemy of the good" in response to this question...

So, if you fill up your cart at Whole Foods you may not be 100% cruelty free
and 100% organic.. maybe you're 40% cruelty free and 30% organic.... the
question is, is it worth it to you?

Maybe someone will be able to create a profitable business by making a real
promise in the marketing about what kind of food is being sold... But until
society is ready for it, it won't be a profitable business. For now people
prefer the feel good approach of making a minor difference and signaling it
strongly... Just look around at all the Priuses for an example of this
phenomenon in action.

Anyway... the perfect is the enemy of the good...

~~~
Psyonic
I'm not claiming that he's necessarily right, but Slavoj Zizek claims that so-
called "consumer capitalism" actually does more harm than good. He says the
fiction makes people feel good and complacent, and actually serves to prevent
the frustration that leads to real change. I can't find a link, atm, but if I
do I'll update the post.

~~~
grandalf
I think that's a valid point, but couldn't you argue that any social movement
may be imperfect and may actually serve to prevent "real change". After all,
social entrepreneurs (revolutionaries, thought leaders) often profit from the
existence of the problem they are trying to solve.

~~~
Psyonic
You probably could. I think perhaps whats different here is that the eco-
movement is asking people to do things that make almost 0 difference in
reality (taking a shorter shower, remembering to bring your green bag to take
home groceries in), but still make them feel like they've made an effort.
Perhaps we should only ask people to make changes for things that will make a
significant difference, otherwise we risk squandering their will to change on
basically pointless actions.

Then again, you could argue that getting people involved at all may lead to
better things. Political campaigns use this principle; first they just try and
get a sign on your yard. If you'll do that, then they ask for you to talk to
your friends, call people, etc. Baby steps.

I'm not sure I'm convinced either way, but it's interesting to think about.

~~~
grandalf
That's a _very_ good point. Considering the sorts of things that people are
able to ignore (while paying attention to other, highly insignificant things)
I think it's mostly about what feels good to the people doing it.

In a world in which seeming "socially responsible" and "environmentally
responsible" is a status signal, people will do small things to give off that
signal.... while ignoring all sorts of other areas in which the slightest
awareness or outrage would lead to immediate change.

~~~
zackattack
I've enjoyed reading this discussion.

Psyonic - I'm helping make <http://www.idrumskins.com/CPIT001/index.html> ...
would you like to contribute?

grandalf - I'm curious, what do you do professionally?

-Zack zackster@gmail.com

------
josefresco
I love how the article ends with ...

"Mr Mackey seems like a wise man and I look forward to meeting him one day.
But I’m too price sensitive to shop at Whole Foods – I shop at Trader Joe’s,
where cheap prices, great product, chill staff and convenient delivery make me
a happy customer."

Good example of true capitalism and 'healthy' competition.

~~~
grandalf
Trader Joe's sells a lot of garbage. I shop there now and then but if Trader
Joe's is a substitute for Whole Foods then you are not shopping for the same
sort of items. I've heard rumors that some Trader Joes (such as the one in
Boston) have good fresh produce, but none that I've ever shopped in do.

Trader Joe's is essentially a clever white label branding and merchandising
strategy. It's a great store, but mostly sells processed, frozen food and lots
of junk food and booze.

------
hyperbovine
Oh that's rich. This can't be the same John Mackey who spent years anonymously
trashing a competitor's stock so he could scoop them up on the cheap:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1133440820070712>

~~~
zackattack
It is. Even in the original PDF, though, Mackey explains that they stop their
transparency just short of enabling their competitors.

------
thejo
Related: an excellent debate on the social responsibility of business
featuring Milton Friedman, John Mackey and T.J Rodgers

[http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-
social-...](http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-social-
responsi)

~~~
sy11
Thank for the link. That was an excellent debate and good articulation of view
points.

------
peterwwillis
Rant: There is no point in hiding an entire article just because I disable
JavaScript (noscript default block). View Source and ooh, there's the story.
Even if somebody has a 'good reason' for doing this, it's annoying and i'll
just work around it. I mean, if I have the peace of mind to disable javascript
i'm just going to find another way to view your content without it.

~~~
zackattack
I think it's a bug with the "Flow" theme. Suggest an alternative, I'm
definitely ready to move on.

------
bwelford
As is said, he sounds like an a great guy. However we should not accept what
he says just because of that. The fact is that his business model will lead to
success and that is what should sell it to other CEOs.

His picture looks very similar to the core values in the Lincoln Electric
approach. They have achieved profitable success for over 100 years. What more
could you ask?

~~~
zackattack
Yes, if you look more depth in the PDF, Whole Foods is really killing it,
especially when compared to competitors or even the S&P 500.

