Whole Foods Under Financial Pressure

by: tremayne

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 21:16


The Whole Foods Boycott, now nearing 15,000 members on Facebook alone, is putting financial pressure on the grocery company. Monday the stock took a big drop but partly rebounded during today's trading. That is, before CNN ran a story critical of CEO John Mackey at 5 p.m.

The company was already under some stress before the boycott, according to CNN:

Whole Foods, like most other retailers, has struggled to grow its sales through the recession as consumers..... clamped down on their spending or shift more of their purchases to lower-priced offerings.....

Michelle Chang, analyst with investment research firm Morningstar, said the company has been struggling with declining store sales for the past three quarters.

They've been trying to lose their high-price image, said Chang. She said the retailer's acquisition of rival Wild Oats in 2007 also was a "costly endeavor" and its international expansion hasn't been as successful as it had hoped.

So it probably wasn't a great time for the CEO to alienate most of his customers.

"Whole Foods relies heavily on its brand and image," Chang said. "Any concern about its image would damage sales heavily."

"Whole Foods holds a certain appeal to consumers and if it deviates from that it could see some negative reaction from consumers," she said.

The above quotes are from the meat of the story, the lead is even more devastating:

Whole Foods' CEO John Mackey is known for his tendency to shoot from the hip.

This time, Mackey may have shot himself -- and his company's brand -- in the foot by getting too personal on the very public issue of health care reform which has sparked calls to boycott the grocer.

"Certainly when our customers tell us they are unhappy to extent that they are boycotting our stores, we are concerned," said Libba Letton, spokeswoman for Whole Foods. "We don't want them to leave us."

So this story ran at 5 p.m. today right during after hours trading. Guess what happened to Whole Foods (WFMI) stock? Details inside.

tremayne :: Whole Foods Under Financial Pressure

CNN is consistently neck and neck with MSNBC for largest online news audience. Not surprisingly, when the CNN story hit the web at 5 p.m., WFMI fell 0.59 during after hours trading, a more than 2% drop. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. The stock is unlikely to go up if people read this trading advice column titled "Why Investors Should Cross Whole Foods Off Their Shopping Lists." Even Jim Cramer has noticed the boycott and is advising against the stock (for now) with an article called "Taking a Bite Out of Whole Foods."

If there's one thing Wall Street doesn't like it's controversy and uncertainty. Those two things pretty well describe Whole Foods in the current climate and I won't be surprised to see the stock sink lower in the days ahead. John Mackey, as noted previously, had the foresight to sell more than 1.39 million dollars worth of Whole Foods stock just days before he would have submitted his anti-Obama health care piece to the Wall Street Journal. The interesting thing about that sale is both the timing and that it dwarfed his previous sales of stock going back 2 years....the largest of which was less than $300,000. Happy coincidence?

Final note: the purpose of the boycott is to demonstrate the economic and political power of progressives. Those in positions of power, be they politicians or CEOs, need to understand that large collections of "little people" have power too. Hopefully this effort will help to clarify that and clarify what we want in this case, which is pretty much the opposite of the health care "solutions" offered by Mackey.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Whole Foods Under Financial Pressure | 61 comments
Wild Oats = "costly endeavor" (4.00 / 5)
Wow, buying your competitor and closing their stores is expensive.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Right before this whole blow-up, there was a gig on NPR about (4.00 / 3)
Whole Foods putting candy in their store for the first time, as they were losing sales.
Absholutely yumsh! (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
So it turns out pissing on your customers (4.00 / 5)
is not a viable long-range strategy? You'd think they'd teach that in B School.

Montani semper liberi
No MBA (4.00 / 4)
Mackey does not have an MBA.  In fact Mackey does not have a college degree having dropped out six times from the two colleges he attended.  He claims to have 130 credit hours, mostly in religion and philosophy.

Even in the days when I was getting my MBA, Mackey's behavior would have been seen as foolish.  Heck, even in the days when I was getting my college degree (dual majors in history and religion) that would have seemed foolish.

Success can go to people's head and that appears to be what happened to Mackey.  The funny thing is, he did that at the very moment that his miche store would be most vulnerable.  The home psychology folks will have a field day with that.

[ Parent ]
Foolish? More like unstable and narcissistic (4.00 / 4)
He strikes me as one of those wavy gravy 60's types who come across as soft-spoken and "spiritual" and thus "enlightned" to credulous types in need of a guru to fill in spiritual gaps in their lives, straight out of the whole 70's self-actualization movement, but who figured out a way to turn it into a business empire. I'm sure that he's a very likeable and magnetic person if you meet him. But those tend to be the ones to watch out for. Charisma is often a cover for lack of true human and spiritual depth. Ironic that two very rich people whom no one would confuse with a spiritual guru (nor their companies with the New Age ethos), Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are the two biggest philanthropists in the world. But also, I think, apropos.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I think Mackey (1.33 / 6)

is as bad as Hitler and Timothy McVeigh.

We should try him on war crimes. I bet he supported the invasion of Iraq.

[ Parent ]
Did you ever notice that using too much irony... (2.67 / 3)
..is bringing negative results, Desider? There is a point beyond which exaggeration is not seen as satirical anymore, but just as nuts.
[ Parent ]
You mean (1.60 / 5)
more nuts than punishing a college-dropout vegetarian who went from a clerk in a co-op and built a health food chain for being a "wingnut"?

You mean crazier than punishing free speech under the guise of "free speech"?

You mean they'll take my card-carrying liberal card away?

You mean crazier than Obama & Rahm letting Republicans hijack health reform?

All sorts of crazy out there.

[ Parent ]
And you are one example of it (2.40 / 5)
Or just full of it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Your forte (4.00 / 2)
You mean crazier than punishing free speech under the guise of "free speech"?

Isn't the boycott a form of free expression?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
A boycott is certainly not speech (4.00 / 1)
It may be free expression, but it
is an action, not words, not "speech".

It is a coordinated action designed
to hurt someone financially.

It is roughly the same kind of economic
pressure GE used to get Olbermann to stop
talking trash about O'Reilly. Theoretically,
Olbermann can keep speaking out, keep using
that precious free speech we have. In practice
he got gob-smacked and won't be coming round
no more-no more-no more-no more.

(Dan Froomkin it seems didn't take a hint
very well. He'll just have to carry on that
"free speech" somewhere else - that's kind of
the price we pay for "free"")

[ Parent ]
By that reasoning, no protest would be considered free speech (4.00 / 2)
Take the recent Town Hall disruptions for example.

These were a coordinated action designed to hurt someone politically.

Were they not? Oh, but maybe hurting people politically is OK...

...maybe its just the "financial" part that bugs you. Is Mackey above question because he has money?

Totally different than Olbermann issue because he was smacked down by his corporate BOSSES. John Mackey is being smacked down by his CUSTOMERS. Completely different form of leverage, no?

No one is trying to make Mackey stop stating his opinions in public. No one is trying to silence him. All the boycott does is remind him that his opinion matters to his customers. It matters more to them than the food choices he offers.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
So you think (4.00 / 1)
disrupting Town Halls was "free speech"?

I'm actually torn on that one -
if "free speech" means yelling someone
down with no interest in the actual
content of the speech, it might as well
be called "free sound" and I can crank
up my jack hammer.

Still, that act of disrupting the Town Halls
was related to the event and its content,
and not specifically a personal threat or
punishment to anyone involved. No one would
lose their job or be hurt financially or
physically harmed.  

[ Parent ]
I happen to think that citizens have the right to protest (4.00 / 3)
even if those protests are disruptive.

I could use the example of a labor strike and a picket lines, too. Or the March on Washington. Of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Which of those would you say was not legitimate free expression?

Let's just cut to the question you've never answered:

Why don't the customers in a capitalist society have the right to decide which businesses they support and which they do not?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
They have the right (4.00 / 1)
to boycott a store by not
buying there. Whether it's
a good idea is another
question.

Can you imagine the sympathy
MLK would have gotten boycotting
the bus system because "they
said they don't agree with our views"?

I'll give you an example where
I think a boycott was reasonable -
when Anita Bryant led the anti-gay
Save Our Children effort that
besides being against equal rights
regardless of orientation, was
suffused with rather horrid bigotry.
In this case, Anita Bryant's career
was destroyed, and I have no sympathy
for her whatsoever, except to the
limited extent that she was frequently
a puppet for her abusive and controlling
husband.

[ Parent ]
So you don't think (4.00 / 3)
that civil rights leaders organized boycotts of unfriendly businesses? Wow. Read some history.  In just two places I've lived, Chicago and Phoenix, I know for a fact that in the mid 60s, civil rights leaders organized financial pressure on places that discriminated.  It may not be what MLK was remembered for or even mostly a part of, but most of the civil rights movement wasn't MLK. It was local activists and leaders who brought pressure to bear in all sorts of ways.  Without them, MLK would have been a footnote at best.
[ Parent ]
Unfriendly businesses? (4.00 / 1)
No, they targeted
businesses that
discriminated in
hiring, et al.

Whole Foods doesn't
discriminate. It
provides good
health insurance.

Mackey's health views
are to the left of
Joe Lieberman's and
likely Kent Conrad's.
The difference being
Mackey just wrote an
op-ed. He's not part
of government or
actively involved.

[ Parent ]
That's your assessment of the situation (4.00 / 1)
Fine. Don't participate in the boycott.

Maybe I've been mis-reading you, but many of your comments seem to suggest that the boycott is wrong - on principle. That because mackey has built a successful business his customers should just ignore the content of his free expression and keep spending their dollars at his business because one should not participate in organized actions that aim to hurt other financially.

There are many other things to protest besides discrimination, by the way. Mackey isn't looking to find excuses to stage an invasion of a sovereign nation either.

On the issue of whether ot not "money" is free speech. In terms of blocking campaign finance reforms, most politicians consider that donations are to be considered free expression. Same applies to money spent (or not) in regard to business transactions. Its my money, I'll spend it any damned way I please. Or not.

Why does the goal have to be putting WF out of business? As far I've heard, no one is calling for Mackey's resignation, or that he be publically flogged. He's not selling off his real estate, or moving to a cheaper home, so he hasn't been ruined. Just smacked in the bottom-line. Oh well, that's life. A self-described libertarian should get that fact.

I apply personal economic sanctions in many cases. They are not all permanent. If I'm poorly treated at a local business, or they display some political sign with which I disagree, I withold my $ from them. Could be a few months, could be a few years. I still have not returned to the local hardware store that refused to sell me an American flag in the spring of 2003 because they claimed that, due to my long hair and pro-peace T-shirt, I was likely to burn it. (Not my intention).



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Nobody's saying (4.00 / 1)
what they really want.

Political contributions
are limited by law, at
least for the presidency.

The boycott is wrong
on its lack of principle
and hypocrisy. Rahm tells
you to STFU after $750 Mill
and you roll over. Someone
writes an op-ed speaking his
mind and you go postal. Enjoy.
Count me out.


[ Parent ]
What is "discrimination" if not "unfriendly"? (4.00 / 1)
Unfriendly to an extreme, sure, but certainly the term fits.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
You made (0.00 / 0)
your Procrustean Bed,
now lie in it.
[ Parent ]
Humor (4.00 / 3)
not troll-worthy

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Yes, when it goes Godwin (0.00 / 1)
Tasteless, lazy, dishonest, and admitting of its own lack of ideas and seriousness. I.e. trollish.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
exploring alternatives (4.00 / 4)
They really messed up on this one. I'd recently settled into a routine of shopping at Whole Foods. The prices have been surprisingly reasonable this year compared to what I remember them being years back. Also, they've got just enough more variety I've been preferring Whole Foods over Trader Joe's.

Now that the CEO has stepped in it, I have just the motivation I need to start exploring non-chain area co-ops and natural food stores--I like supporting them better anyway. They're not quite as convenient and may be a little more expensive, but there are a few I've just never taken the time to try out... if they are even close to reasonable I could easily fall into the habit of going there instead.

Once you tarnish a brand or alienate a customer it's really hard to win them back.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
Prices more reasonable? More variety? (0.00 / 0)

People won't like hearing that.

They have Whole Foods pegged as unreasonable price gouging.

[ Parent ]
So That Whole "Healthy Food, Healthy Body, Healthy Mind" Thing (4.00 / 2)
sorta took a hit, too I guess.

If there were a futures market on philosophies, I'd hate to see what happened to it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

It's been Deepak Choprahed to death (4.00 / 2)
But you still get a tote bag and a Doo Wop DVD if you donate $100...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Heh.. (4.00 / 3)
As an aside...  One time, I wanted to try some food from their prepared section... the BBQ stuff looked and smelled awesome... so, I grabbed ONE rib bone and a couple wings just to get a taste and went to the register... EIGHT DOLLARS for ONE rib bone and a two wings!!!

That was, quite literally.... insane!!!

Ironically, their prices on eggs and milk are the lowest in town...  especially eggs...

They do have stuff I like to buy which is hard to find anywhere else... so, the boycott has been painful for the family (the kids go through milk like crazy, and we prefer organic), but, I'm not going back until there is some real apology from them or the government passes a real health care reform bill with a public option...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Kroger carries organic milk. (0.00 / 0)
In fact I think everybody does.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Aw hell, I hated Whole Foods before it was cool! (4.00 / 2)
I've always avoided the place cuz I find their marketing particularly insidious. By selling you on your ability to achieve fulfillment and enlightenment, it suggests that by buying their products you can transcend marketing (you can be an "enlightened consumer" who is actually helping the world by buying a bunch of processed crap). But of course that's all just marketing. Which is to say: it's a big lie - a bigger lie than regular marketing, which doesn't try to convince you it's anything other than marketing. So by posing as the opposite of what it is, the Whole Foods branding apparatus actually becomes a worse version of the thing from which it promises to provide consumers an escape.

Gee. And we were surprised this guy's a Republican?

Ever since a bunch of slick marketing-oriented types (4.00 / 2)
realized all the money there was to be made by exploiting liberal guilt and idealism, in the 70's I think, I've been leery of any outfit that tries too obviously to cater to such types. Ooh, it's got super-pure nectar extract from a flower that only grows in a tiny valley in Nepal, and locals have been using it for centuries to cure blah blah blah, and surely it's worth $32.99 a bottle!

Um, yeah. And my aunt Edna is a faith healer (only $40 a visit!).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
but (0.00 / 0)
Final note: the purpose of the boycott is to demonstrate the economic and political power of progressives. Those in positions of power, be they politicians or CEOs, need to understand that large collections of "little people" have power too. Hopefully this effort will help to clarify that and clarify what we want in this case, which is pretty much the opposite of the health care "solutions" offered by Mackey.

If that's the purpose, wouldn't it be better to demonstrate it on a company that is far worse to their employees, and is less representative of the kinds of companies progressives should be supporting?

I mean, but just about all accounts that I've read, Whole Foods is a pretty good company, as companies go.  Yes, I wholly disagree with what the CEO wrote (though at the same time, of all the arguments against the kind of reform Obama wants, it was one of the least insane).  

It just seems to me that, of all the targets for a progressive boycott, there are far nastier targets than Whole Foods, even if their CEO disagrees about how to reform health care.

This was kind of the point (4.00 / 9)
If the CEOs of WalMart or Exxon come out against UHC, who cares?  That's what you expect.  MacKay's op-ed takes the form of the old "even the liberal new republic says..." style stab in the back.

MacKay isn't a progressive ally, but the broad perception of WF as such gives his Op-ed extra juice.  The WSJ is saying "See libs, even your granola crunching grocery stores think you're full of shit"

Besides that on a purely tactical level, it's hard to start a boycott based on no particular event.  Unless Walmart or Exxon does something in particular to piss off progressives, trying to start a boycott against them will just go in the pile with other 750,000 boycotts against them.  MacKay's op ed lit a match, so he gets the fire.

[ Parent ]
Or... (4.00 / 2)
If the Whole Foods boycott works, it makes the next one easier to pull off.

Plus, let's not forget that the majority of Whole Foods shoppers are probably politically center-left, and thus easier for progressives to get to join such a boycott, whereas WalMart or Exxon shoppers are across the political spectrum (and if anything likely more tilted towards the right in both cases), and getting progressives to boycott them would have less impact, especialy since they're much bigger companies with worldwide operations.

The political analog would be targeting a Blue Dog as opposed to a Repub.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
And what is the goal? (0.00 / 0)

What is the purpose of this boycott?

To ruin Whole Foods? To get a better apology?
To get them to cough up money to support health reform?
(you'd think the administration already had this)

What is the precedent you're setting for other companies
that might be similar to Whole Foods?

What is the lesson you expect them to learn?

[ Parent ]
Man are you a shill (4.00 / 2)
I hope they pay you well for it, at least.

And if by "similar to Whole Foods", you mean other dishonest companies that sell vastly overpriced products by manipulating the gullible and guilty, who trash labor and health care reform and stand in the way of progress and do nothing to substantively help the truly unhealthy people in our society who can't afford $8/lb beets, then the precedent is stand in our way, and it'll cost you.

You are such a dishonest person, it's almost comical.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I'm dishonest (0.00 / 0)
and you're claiming the only thing Whole Foods offers
is $8/lb beets.

"stand in our way, and it'll cost you" - I think you mean:

"stand in our way, and if it doesn't make us
break a sweat or actually force us to do something
effective and useful, it'll cost you"

Subtle difference to the Gastropods of the political world.

I hear Obama was out this weekend complaining about how
crappy the Post Office, and thus the public option, is.
Wanna boycott him for standing in the way of progress?

(I think progressives were his constituency - isn't it
a little irritating to find after $750 million in donations
he still doesn't take you seriously? Could that be a greater
betrayal than Mackey's?)

[ Parent ]
Come on, calm down folks! Desider isn't dishonest, ... (4.00 / 2)
...he just too easily gets carried away. Reduce the shrillness, Desider, and, Kovie, no personal accusations, pls.

Right now, you're heading into a nasty catfight, imho. Nothing good can come out of this.

[ Parent ]
Cat Scratch Fever? (0.00 / 0)

Okay, okay, I enjoy twisting tails fer sher.

But the irony for what I think are some of the left's worst points seem to remain. Anyone who becomes successful financially gains a certain amount of enmity as a capitalist. The ability to attack people for whatever infringement, little sense of degree, they disagree = they're an asshat wingnut, with all forms of retribution justified by "they deserve it".

Over at MyLeftWing someone gives a pretty interesting rendition of why the public option won't work:

http://www.myleftwing.com/show...

Public Enemy #2? Obama has tried to drop it. So at that point, why is anyone else's version of reform that doesn't include public so much worse? Democrats gave $750 billion to get Obama elected - where's payoff day on health reform? Isn't that betrayal worth more than Mackey's? I'm noting that Obama wouldn't campaign for Jim Martin in a runoff, but he'll campaign for Arlen Specter in the primaries - how about dem apples?

Anyway, I made my points, no use pounding sand.

[ Parent ]
...$750 million, small donations (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Concern troll = dishonest (0.00 / 1)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Clueless Troll = Pathetic (1.33 / 3)

[ Parent ]
I am a troll like you are a lollipop (2.00 / 2)
Enjoy teh suck!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Wow! I have to admit, my predictions only seldomly come true. (0.00 / 0)
But this is what I foresaw: Pure catfight! Gr8, boys.
|-(
[ Parent ]
No it's not. (4.00 / 1)
I gave justifications for
where I was coming from.
I kept the the invective
down except that going away
response to the "troll"
comment.

People here confuse a boycott
against Whole Foods with some
kind of civil rights actions -
we're all Rosa Parks now.

People can't get their heads
around the fact that it's not
"free speech" if it comes with
repercussions. It makes little
difference whether I thrash
you with my cane or get you
fired or make you pay a load
of money or threaten your
family's safety - I'm finding
a way to shut your opinion up,
or at least others who might
try to go down that free speech
path.

Why can Robert Novak or Pat
Buchanan express their opinion
with no repercussion (except
lots of pay), and John Mackey
can't? Mackey's certainly not
as controversial as the other
two, and it's hard to see a
benefit like healthy food that
Novak and Buchanan have brought.
Except that alternative ideas
are healthy food, whether we
accept or reject them. The gut
needs some fiber to scrape along,
something to clear it out.
A diet based on easy-to-digest
pap is simply not healthy.

[ Parent ]
Jon Stewart got Novak fired from CNN for being a lying dick IIRC (4.00 / 1)
Pat Buchanan was mysteriously absent from MSNBC for nearly a month after he called Sotomayor a racist. Al Campanis was fired for saying that blacks were inferior to whites. Imus, now Glenn Beck, others in the past, there's a long history of getting people fired for saying innappropriate things, and punishing companies for supporting or having bad policies. It is inherently American to do this, and there is absolutely ZERO "right" to free speech as you envision it, in the sense that one has a "right" to not have oneself ostracized for being an asshole. It's not only democratic, it's a time-honored HUMAN tradition. Societies self-police. This is an example of it. You have absolutely no legal or moral basis for objecting to this boycott. If you object to it so much, help the anti-boycott boycott over at RedState.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I know there can be justifications for letting a discussion become personal (0.00 / 0)
But here at OpenLeft we don't accept them. No personal attacks, pls! And this means both of you.

Really, folks, that's just a waste of energy. Direct them at those who deserve it: Freepers, Townhallers, and those false Dems who want to sell the party out.

[ Parent ]
Obama wasn't trashing the public option (4.00 / 2)
by comparing it to the Post Office. Get your facts straight. He said to criticize all gov't entities as a threat to the free market is hyperbole that ignores reality.  Then people like you turn around his argument and play "gotcha" by saying the Post Office is a failure so the public option will be a failure too.  So which is it: the public option will takeover a 2 trillion dollar industry or it will be a pathetic failure that can't compete at all?  

As far as breaking a sweat, I think this boycott is inconveniencing a lot of people, especially those who don't have comparable stores in their communities.

The lesson is simple: don't pose as a socially conscious business and then undermine your employees and customers at the same time by opposing health and labor reform (not small issues).  Jesus used the same logic: he said he'd much rather have people who are hot or cold. This lukewarm shit gets really old, really fast.  

[ Parent ]
The public option like co-ops? (0.00 / 0)
It will be luke-warm spit like you decry.

Meanwhile, Mackey worked for a living.
Most of your representatives are luke-warm spit,
but that's what keeps the Democratic coalition
together - politicians who ignore voters for
the sake of a few campaign contributions,
and voters who forgive them and run off to
burn a witch now and then.

[ Parent ]
Good points. Tis was necessarry. But what is the exit strategy... (4.00 / 1)
..that the protestors offer to Whole Foods? I mean, it can't be in the interest of liberals to ruin their business. What can Whole Foods do to get back into good standing aqgain? Fire MacKay? Is that a target that is really in reach?

On the other hand, I wonder if a personal apology would be good enough. Would make MacKay look like a hypocrite. Would people believe him?

[ Parent ]
Personal apology won't cut it. (4.00 / 2)
It would need to be backed with some positive action toward progressivism-and Mackey will not countenance that.

[ Parent ]
Why don't you (0.00 / 0)
ask Rahm for an apology?

Both for sidelining Dean, and for this
horribly weak health reform effort?

$750 million raised to get Obama in the White House,
and only a TARP bailout and GM/Chrysler bankruptcy
to show for it.  

[ Parent ]
Good question (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Today I finally decided to continue my lifelong boycott of Whole Foods (4.00 / 2)
Never shopped there, never intend to. Previously, it was their high prices and transparently patronizing effort to appeal to well-paid "lifestyle liberals" who get off on believing that they're saving the world by shopping at such a place when the extra money they're giving to Whole Foods would be vastly better spent on things that actually make the world a better place. Now, it's that, plus this. I'm telling people I know not to shop there too.

I can't believe so many yuppie types are taken in by their marketing. Although, personally, I suspect that most of them WANT to be taken in because it salves their guilty liberal consciences, and Whole Foods absolutely realizes this and exploits it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

OKCupid has some guidelines (0.00 / 0)

on when boycotting semi-progressive corporations might
be useful, specifically with some insightful methods on evaluating people like Mackey.

You can check it out here.

Umm yeah. (4.00 / 2)
Because you are so much the expert on when boycotts are a good strategy, I am totally reading your link.

Wait, what?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Strange. At least one of my comments disappeared.. (0.00 / 0)
..if not two of them. Does anybody remember my question about the "exit strategy" for Whole Food? What the eff happened to it? Or am I suffering under halucinations?

I guess I need an aspirin. Heavy party yesterday...

Aw, fuhgedaboutit, i'm blind. (0.00 / 0)
Does someone have an aspirin for me, pls? Seems like there was something wrong with the 2004 Talavera Reserva yesterday. Prolly dioxin in it, or radioactive pollution, dunno...
=%/
[ Parent ]
cake (0.00 / 0)
I'm going to miss Whole Foods's chocolate cake-for-two.  Oh well.
I see. But did you really share it? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't it true that you ate the whole thing alone?
Come on, confess!
:D
[ Parent ]
Whole Foods Under Financial Pressure | 61 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox