August 3, 2007 5:42 am : Comments 001
First, let’s be clear about this post’s title. Gloria Steinem is not our guest author today. We’re talking “no-men” as opposed to “yes-men”, those stereotypical, risk-avoiding, empty-headed execs who cower from taking any position that doesn’t fall in step with that of the person in the corner office.
And it is on that note that I feel kind of sorry for John Mackey, the embattled CEO of Whole Foods who faces mounting pressure to step aside. Yeah, I know, you have to wonder about the judgment about an executive who publicly questions the integrity of the public servants at the Federal Trade Commission, laces his blog entries with over-the-top rhetoric, promotes his company’s stock on Yahoo message boards using a pseudonym, and waits several days before apologizing for his dimwitted actions. But none of that is why I pity the guy.
Rather, it is because he is clearly surrounded by people who don’t seem to have the stomach, backbone – or any other body part for that matter – to save him from himself.
Then again, maybe I’m too quick to judge. Maybe they’re not mere “yes-men” but rather people whose judgment and counsel he is simply too quick to dismiss. After all, one has to think that someone within Whole Foods’ legal and PR functions must have seen the inherent operational and reputational risks to some of these untraditional CEO behaviors and tried to warn him of the likely fallout. If so, they obviously failed to get his attention.
By all accounts, Mackey is extremely outspoken and impulsive, personality traits I happen to share. But I’m fortunate to be surrounded by strong-willed people who feel free – and don’t hesitate – to challenge my decisions and rescue me before I go off the deep end. I’ve had a lot of good ideas in my time, but have had some synaptic misfires on occasion as well. Truth be told, I have bought my colleagues more than a few rounds of drinks for talking me out of some of the more impulsive things that have crossed my mind over the years.
One of the core reasons that companies retain Starkman & Associates is because they know that they can count on us to give them our best counsel and to tell them honestly when they are veering off course. It is an essential element in the partnership model we pursue with clients. After all, there’s no point or value – ego-stroking aside – to hiring an outside agency to simply rubberstamp ideas thrown out by the internal PR function head.
I expect no less when it comes to our own inner workings. When people ask me what the toughest thing is about building a successful company, the issue that always comes to mind is that notion of creating a real culture of “no-men” instead of “yes-men” – people who are not afraid to speak up, to question prevailing ideas or propose radically new ones. Fortunately, the people here are all quick studies – much to our clients’ benefit.
It’s too bad Mackey isn’t as fortunate. A few rounds of drinks for his team would have been a far, far cheaper price to pay than the final cost he’s now facing.
Share This Post
July 13, 2007 10:27 am : Comments 000
Well, it seems Wal-Mart isn’t the only retailer practicing deception on the Internet. John. P. Mackey, the vegan yogi CEO of Whole Foods Market, has been unmasked by the Federal Trade Commission as Rahodeb, an inveterate Yahoo message board contributor who touted the specialty retailer’s stock and had a certain fondness for its leader’s grooming. Rahodeb, I mean Mackey, reportedly posted more than 1,000 entries over a seven-year period.
In case you haven’t been following the saga, John Mackey wants to buy rival Wild Oats Markets, but the FTC wants to deep-six the deal. Mackey wants to deep-six the FTC. He has questioned the agency’s legitimacy and accused it of being “hostile and adversarial towards Whole Foods.”
Well, Mackey’s got that right. The Rahodeb disclosure was contained in a footnote of a document made public by the FTC late Tuesday and reported late yesterday by the Wall Street Journal Online. I can’t imagine where the little birdie came from who told the Journal to look for the footnote. Government bureaucrats can be awfully touchy when a CEO they are challenging publicly questions their ethics and integrity.
But let’s give Mackey his due. Wal-Mart reportedly pays Edelman some $1 million a year to come up with such ideas as the infamous “Wal-Marting Across America.” It appears that Mackey concocted and executed his deception all by his lonesome at no cost. Whole Foods’ shareholders gained further value for the $1 a year Mackey takes in salary.
From a crisis communications prospective, I also give Mackey credit for choosing to post a statement on Whole Foods’ website, rather than granting an interview to the Journal � he would no doubt have dug himself a deeper hole. But his unnamed spokeswoman did him in instead. “(Mackey’s) comments weren’t illegal” she told the Journal. Yes, but that begs the question, “does he still beat his wife?”
Mackey isn’t the only one with egg on his face (organic or otherwise). Ethisphere Magazine, a national magazine “dedicated to illuminating the correlation between ethics and profit” in May named Whole Foods “one of the world’s most ethical companies.” Step seven in the magazine’s methodology is to screen their pared-down list of companies through a Who’s Who of corporate watchdogs including The Business Council for Sustainable Development, The Center for Business Ethics, and several for-profit consultants and investment firms like The New Alternatives Fund, SustainAbility, and Winslow Management Company, among others.
Hmm… I look forward to seeing how a magazine focused on ethics handles its own public relations crisis.
Share This Post
June 22, 2007 10:31 am : Comments 000
As originally posted on Strumpette.com on June 23, 2007.
I’ve always been dubious about the “taken out of context” defense. It’s like the proverbial dog-ate-my-homework excuse. Sure it’s a possible explanation, but nobody really buys it.
Merrill Lynch gave it a shot when it first became public that its once-high-profile analyst Henry Blodgett was singing the praises of certain stocks publicly while privately referring to them in emails as “crap” and “pieces of s***.” Ouch. Merrill, to its credit, came clean a week later and acknowledged that the analyst’s e-mails were “unacceptable” and “inappropriate and well below the standards that Merrill aims to achieve.”
Flash forward to this year and you have former Wal-Mart marketing executive Julie Roehm giving the “taken out of context” defense a whirl. Roehm was fired for various alleged improprieties, including an inappropriate relationship with an underling. She claims that some of the risqué comments in a series of lovelorn emails to subordinate Sean Womack are “easily explainable” and don’t prove that she violated the retailer’s policy against employee fraternization. If that’s the case, I’d love to see the rest of Wal-Mart’s HR manual. I just can’t figure out any scenario under which “I think about us together all the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me…” could possibly be deemed appropriate corporate-speak.
Don’t get me wrong – I am hardly declaring Goliath victor over David in this PR battle. Wal-Mart has had plenty of its own missteps in the public handling of this affair – ahem, no pun intended – but we’ll leave that Monday morning quarterbacking for another day.
So back to current headlines and more people with context issues. This time it is John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, who is waving the “taken out of context” flag. At issue are some seemingly damaging comments he made in emails and other correspondence that the FTC subsequently cited when issuing its rationale for blocking the retailer’s proposed acquisition of rival Wild Oats Markets. Among the remarks was a discussion about how the acquisition would enable the company to “avoid nasty price wars” that could harm gross margins. Hmmm, that sure smells of antitrust aroma to me.
Here’s the kicker: Turns out Mackey’s comments really were taken out of context and “easily explainable” as well (eat your heart out, Julie Roehm).
How do I know? Rather than ask the general public to blindly take their word for it, Mackey and the folks at Whole Foods took the bold step of posting the alleged damning documents and other related materials – including a confidential memo to the board of directors outlining the rationale for the Wild Oats acquisition – to its website. And you know what? Mackey makes a pretty convincing business argument why the Wild Oats acquisition isn’t anticompetitive.
While Whole Foods certainly gets some positive points for backing up its claims of comments being taken out of context with tangible evidence, they are offset by demerits earned for two negative outcomes generated by their transparency play.
First, Whole Foods’ leadership lets its collective frustration get the better of themselves by launching a highly questionable and very vitriolic attack on the FTC as part of its posted defense. Questioning the legitimacy of the agency and the ethics of government bureaucrats before whom you have significant business dealings is not a smart negotiating tactic.
The second related cringe-inducer is from a PR standpoint: As shared in his blog, Mackey argued that Whole Foods faces formidable competition from mainstream supermarkets, not just ones specializing in natural foods. He is especially passionate about Wegmans Food Markets, an upscale Northeast supermarket chain with legions of fans, including one of my colleagues, who lives for its chocolate chip muffins.
To wit: “Wegman’s (sic) operates huge stores with excellent quality of perishables and low prices and it is difficult for us to effectively compete against them“. (emphasis mine).
If I were Wegmans, I’d have my advertising team working on full-page advertisements with the following headline: “Even Whole Foods Raves about Our Excellent Quality and Low Prices.” John Mackey has already written the ad copy.
Share This Post