The CEO of Whole Foods on "Conscious Capitalism"(zacharyburt.com)
zacharyburt.com
The CEO of Whole Foods on "Conscious Capitalism"
http://www.zacharyburt.com/2010/04/the-ceo-of-whole-foods-on-conscious-capitalism/
6 comments
That's what the wise marketers preach.. you must sell an emotion, something that enhances a person's narrative/ego. Otherwise you are selling a commodity. I wonder how this applies to my blog!
'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?
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
It is. Even in the original PDF, though, Mackey explains that they stop their transparency just short of enabling their competitors.
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-...
Thank for the link. That was an excellent debate and good articulation of view points.
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.
I think it's a bug with the "Flow" theme. Suggest an alternative, I'm definitely ready to move on.
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?
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?
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.
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?