Whole Foods and Michael Pollan: Wrong to the Core

Volatile tempers in the Whole Food smackdown got even hotter last Friday when the Omnivore himself, Michael Pollan, came out swinging on behalf of embattled Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, in the face of a growing boycott against that company.

Called in reaction to Mackey's August 11, 2009 Wall Street journal editorial, which took issue with a public option for health insurance reform, the Whole Foods Market (WFM) boycott is entering its third week -- and buzzing merrily along. Its Facebook page has almost 32,000 members, and the internet is still rocking with WFM-shopper furor, union opposition, and wide-ranging political punditry.

Pollan's entrance to the debate isn't mere punditry, though. As the popular face of the locavore movement in the United States, Pollan's opinions shape and move the natural foods market in ways that even nationally read pundits can't. Just ask John Mackey who famously wrote an open letter to Pollan complaining about his company's treatment in Pollan's seminal book The Omnivore's Dilemma. He knows how important Pollan's opinion is.

But while newsworthy, Pollan's weigh-in may not be enough to mollify the opposition. In fact, in his New Majority remarks on the boycott, Pollan stumbles by falling into hyperbole, fallacy, aand by misunderstanding what's actually happening in this particular food fight. Take this for example:

Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans' health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer... So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support for the farmers matters more to me than the political views of their founder.

If Whole Foods were to "disappear"? Really? Is the boycott going so well that Whole Foods is about to vanish from the face of the planet? Better buy some 365 Fig Newtons before they go!

To be fair, Mr. Pollan is simply drawing out what he says is a logical conclusion, that if the boycott has its way, Whole Foods will take a hit that it can't sustain. But, really, there's a big middle being eliminated here, namely, that this CEO would be fired long before Whole Foods ever took such a hit. Pollan may not agree with him politically, but, obviously, he can't imagine the future of Whole Foods or even the "alternative food system" without John Mackey.

Which brings us to the biggest miscalculation in Pollan's comments. He's treating this boycott as if it's actually calling for some action like the destruction of Whole Foods or the removal of Mackey as CEO. This isn't actually the case.

Indeed, this boycott isn't really a boycott at all. Boycotts are called to spur change or bring about an action. The boycott against Taco Bell, for example, was held to force the company to the bargaining table with the Coalition of Imokalee Workers, and it worked. Meanwhile, a quick glance at the boycott Facebook page or its accompanying blog and you'll see there is no stated call for action, no conditions under which the boycott would be called a success.

So if this isn't a boycott, what is it? How should Pollan, and John Mackey for that matter, approach this webbluster? To get what's happening, Pollan and Mackey need to appreciate that this debate isn't a Punch and Judy fight between health care politicos. It's an uprising of trendsetting customers.

Some shop talk. There are two key customers that drive the natural foods world, the "mid-level" and the "core" (as dubbed by noted natural foods market researchers, the Hartman Group).

If you're mid-level, you're a sensory shopper. You shop for natural foods based on taste, sight, smell, and healthfulness. You're not a "true believer" in organic certification, you don't really read labels, and you'd rather have experts explain complex issues on the fly. Conventional wisdom has long said that future growth for natural foods is married to the mid-level, because you folks make up 56% of the natural foods market.

Meanwhile, if you're core, you shop with big concepts in mind (sustainability, worker rights, environmental, and various political issues), and you want food label claims proven to you. You like research, you like information, and you like knowing how things work in the food world.

But most importantly, you core shoppers are the "trendsetters" in natural foods, according to the Hartman Group, the hum at the center of the hive. And, as "shopping experts," you attract your buddy mid-level shoppers to the stores and products that you deem worthy.

So the core is essential, and Mackey really put his foot in it, not by pissing off his liberal customers (though that dynamic is certainly at play), but by ignoring his core shoppers' reaction to his editorial.

A bit more about the core from the Hartman Group's research:

Core shoppers tend to value attributes such as the shopping experience and the authenticity of the retailer. [Emphasis mine]

From LOHAS:

The core consumer is more likely to choose to buy the product, then decide where to buy it. The "where" decision is based on a number of emotional factors, including which stores have a knowledgeable staff, which stores are perceived as having values similar to the shopper's, and which stores the shopper feels most comfortable in. [Emphasis mine]

Because he's a professor, not a grocer, Michael Pollan can be forgiven for not understanding that the boycott is actually a "core" shopper revolt.

But John Mackey? He helped build the natural foods market in the U.S. He's certainly read the Hartman Group research, and, until now, Whole Foods marketing has been definitively hip, pitching to both mid-level and core shoppers simultaneously for years: Whole Foods' health and wellness initiatives appeal to the midlevel, while their Whole Trade program is a perfect example of marketing to the core (Fair Trade is an almost exclusively "core" value).

Mackey knows Whole Foods needs the core for street cred, and that the core demands authenticity and integrity from its chosen stores. Mackey's competitors know this, too. Wal-mart seeks cred from the core by claiming to be a sustainable business, and Dole, Starbucks and Procter & Gamble's Millstone coffee are all going after the core too (via Fair Trade certification with Transfair). There's been a fight to attract trendsetting customers for half a decade now, and Mackey just broke trust with his core in a big loud fashion.

Worse, Mackey trying to explain it away, saying that Wall Street Journal headline writers betrayed him by using the term "Obamacare," won't do the trick. Neither will celebrity endorsements, even if they come from figures as respected by the core as Michael Pollan.

It will be interesting to see if the "boycott" begins to lose steam, but I don't think Pollan's political cover is going to work. After all, this isn't any of his business -- literally. It's Mackey's to lose or regain, not Pollan's to defend. I'm afraid these "boycotting" shoppers are going to remain angry, skeptical, distrustful, and wary until Mackey addresses his editorial with an apology that doesn't insult the core's intelligence.

 

 

Comments

[condor101]

If you believe that healthcare is a human right, then do what I do.
I buy my food at my local farmers markets and food c-ops and at the local health food store for my supplements.
No fuss, No mess, and No Whole foods!

I want to see more independently owned health food stores. It's better for my community.

[FuturePrez]

Great analysis!

[MinnieLover]

Hmm...Barth Anderson...not only head blogger for so and so site, but also the head guru for marketing and advertising for the Wedge Co-op in Minneapolis. No wonder he 's taking a vocal stance on this issue: it also affects HIS company's bottom line.

I appreciate pieces like this so much more when the author is upfront about who they are and what their motivation is.

[Barth Anderson]

I've been completely up front in my bio: I no longer work at the Wedge Co-op. I'm a full-time freelance writer.

Thanks for keeping track of me, though. :)

[Pearlswan]

What upset me most about Mackey's comments in the WSJ is that he is one of the "core" business leaders for alternative shoppers so his words can be misconstrued as something we all believe or something we would all settle for in our health care system. Mackey's opinions on health care seem opposed to his own vision as a business leader in the whole foods consumer market. I was shocked to read his words and extremely disappointed. In the end, I've come to realize that a business is a business regardless of what market they sell their products to. A business exists for one purpose--to make a profit. So Mackey reveals the true obstruction at the core of health care reform--who makes a profit off all the sick people that a new system might keep well? Mackey might not sell as many vitamins and cleansing kits if people were more healthy and were kept that way by a true health care system instead of the current disease care system. Mackey's bottom line would be negatively impacted while his shoppers' bottom line would be positively impacted if they were healthier and got to keep more of their money because they stay that way. Business, and that includes Mackey, does not want to pay taxes to the government to keep its workers strong and healthy--that's just bad business in the long run and he'll regret it, boycott or not.

[cantbe]

i am planning to increase my purchases at WFM. this guy provides exellent health coverage to his employees and speaks his mind when he sees a dumb thing. whats wrong with that other than some of his customers want socialism and he wants capitalism. bravo

[laocoon]

I stay on a special diet and purchase a number of items that are much less expensive at Whole Foods than at the few other stores which carry them. In fact some items are not carried any where else near me. this is a dilemma.

[drgrph]

Where is the dilemma? Buy what you NEED at Whole Foods. Your health clearly outweighs railing against a leftist with a plan not in sync with the President.

Personally I believe in the 1st amendment and support political diversity, so I plan to go out of my way to buy at Whole Foods.

Tell me when did freedom of thought die? Or is it only the fundamentalist progressives that finds others opinions dangerous and blasphemous? To steal a line from my fundamentalist religious friends, "Progressives said it, I believe it, and that settles it".

p.s. If you feel then need for penance, why not do something actually useful to President Obama. Host a gathering of friends or neighbors to present and promote a public option. I mean, wouldn't it be better to affect several people in a positive fashion than to focus so much energy on 1 man negatively? Live the change (positive vs. negative) that the man you voted for proclaimed.

[beac]

Mackey is NOT a "leftist." He's a self-proclaimed libertarian and has engaged in many shady practices in oursuit of his capitalistic greed.

BTW, Did you support the Dixie Chicks when the "rightists" went nuts of them?????

[beac]

Get Googling. Everything but WF's 360 brand is available online, usually much cheaper, Also, check your local natural foods co-op. Most of the time they are willing to special order things for you that they may not stock on the shelves.

Putting money into the hands of a man who wants to keep all citizens from having access to good health care just doesn't make sense.

[Sence]

I would have thought John Mackey would be a little more aware of the difficulties that occur when your comments seem to conflict with your brand image, but I guess not. He has, like all of us, every right to say whatever he pleases; equally so, he has the right to deal with the fallout from his comments. Why didn't Mackey talk about the difficulties associated with price supports for corn and the like that make it easier and cheaper to get unhealthful food? That's something he could have discussed without alienating his core shoppers, and he was in a unique position to do so. Basically, he outed himself as just another businessman, undoubtedly leaving a lot of people wondering if he has been taking their money and laughing all the way to the bank.

The cynic in me also wonders if Pollan isn't financially in cahoots with Whole Foods. The idea that we NEED Whole Foods is a bit much anyway; most of us in the non-cool areas don't have access to the store at all, and yet we live. I can easily find good selections at my own supermarkets and at the local farmers' markets. Frankly, it's not to my advantage to worry about an expensive, health-food box store that has gobbled up other, smaller stores.This is just business.

[Barth Anderson]

Michael Pollan is responding out of a sincere sense of duty to the sustainable foodie and farmer movement. I think he's on the up and up -- he would rather see Whole Foods improve its practices than have it go away entirely.

I just don't agree that Whole Foods is in danger of going away.

[beac]

"taking their money and laughing all the way to the bank"

I'm afraid this is what Mackey is really all about. Look under his store's supposed principles, and you'll see a lot of shady behavior.

[murphy80]

WF shoppers are not sheep.
WF shoppers do not want to be preached at.

Mackey needs to trim his sales and do something positive in a healthy way (punny intended)

[bbrecht]

I support Michael Pollan on this. Getting Mackay fired won't impact the health care debate. It's not strategic.

I can think of other good reasons to avoid whole foods-- I'd give them a C, they've done some good and some bad in the food world.

[satanlite]

I avoid WF for several reasons, the biggest is the low pay for their employees. A company that professes to care about society should be one of the top paying employers to work for, and that pay rate should extend to ALL of its employees not just the the ones near the top.

[bgoodric]

I _do_ want Mackey to resign, and won't return to WF unless and until he does. Mackey was identifying himself as WF CEO with his column, not speaking as a private citizen. I don't want the money from my grocery shopping being managed by some irresponsible hypocrite in the grips of a fantasist theory, whose meddling in policy could cost more innocent lives. (Actually, I've heard terrible things about WF from employees, too. The poor pay is only one among many problems.)

Here in Colorado. WF bought out our locally developed Alfalfa's _and_ Wild Oats markets. Fortunately, we still have the small chains such as Vitamin Cottage and Sunflower Market.

Lots of readers avoid the notorious Walmart chains. Similarly, we need to avoid WF.

[beac]

Whole Foods has become the Walmart of the grocery world.

[hippie4ever]

Ha! Wait 'til you see the total: you won't be shopping there for long!

[JohnnyWalkerBlueLabel]

I'll be exclusively shopping at Whole Foods, from here on out...

[Montana 123]

You must make a boatload of money.

[IndolentFlourish]

Thank you Mr. Anderson for an articulate, thoughtful post. Your analysis gives true perspective to this issue.

[Barth Anderson]

Thank you kindly.

[ElTiante]

Excellent article! Very insightful.

I think everyone who reads Pollan should do so with the following observation in mind:
"Pollan stumbles by falling into hyperbole, fallacy, and by misunderst­anding..."

Even though I agree with much of what Pollan has written in a "big picture" sense, I found these "stumbles" too often in his writing to be much of a fan of his. As a result, I'm not at all surprised by his distorted view of this Whole Foods situation.

One memorable example was from a Salon.com interview several years ago: Pollan said a vegan "ideal" was unworkable because heavily populated centers in the Northeast could never grow enough vegetables in the region to feed the population. Apparently, then, people in New York and New England could raise enough cattle or hogs to be omnivores. When Pollan decides he doesn't like something, logic goes out the window, which is a sign that maybe he put the "ideal" smack-down on the wrong theory
.

[HelloFunnyWorld]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson - Did'nt know we where 'core' shoppers ~
:)

And just for the record - our response, is not about some one's right to their own "personal opinion" - We are (all) concerned about our health and well being and our Food is at the top of the list! Right next to Banks & Financial matters, Healthcare, Education. All of which impact the quality of people's daily lives.

In his position John Mackey (and Michael Pollan too) - at their level of influence and public exposure, these boys have an obligation to not only, not be dismissive, or arrogant, they also have an obligation to behave far better after they have! "To whom much is given...." and all that. They probably know the rest.

Character matters. Especially when it comes to our children's Food. How can they now be trusted with anything regarding our Food? We shop, make that shopped, at WF.

We further suggest, that Michael Pollan remember the plug he gave Raj Patel's book ("Stuffed & Starved: The hidden battle for the World's Food System" ) - on the front cover.
A book, Naomi Klein called "....a gift to a world hungering for justice." - Our sentiments exactly. Our kids come first, their food right behind.

[Barth Anderson]

Thanks for your comment, and you're very welcome.