Brand Disconnect

What was he thinking?

That was my initial reaction when I read the now infamous Wall Street Journal op-ed piece by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in which he outlined his vision for improving health care.

The article, which appeared on Aug. 11, detailed eight ideas (or “reforms”) that Mackey said would “greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone.” Among his suggestions: repealing government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. In the piece, Mackey rejected the idea that health care is an intrinsic right, and left no doubt on which side of the debate he stood: less government control.

More than most CEOs, the Whole Foods chief likes to speak his mind. He is no stranger to controversy and has always had a tendency to shoot from the hip. But by plunging himself into the middle of one of the nation’s most heated and politically charged debates, Mackey provoked an uproar that I doubt he ever imagined. The article sparked a flood of calls to boycott the chain. Angry and/or disappointed consumers created a dedicated “Boycott Whole Foods” page on Facebook. It lit up the blogosphere, with both support and criticism.

Mackey addressed the issue on his own Whole Foods blog, noting that he wasn’t speaking for the company. He blamed the column’s headline—“The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare”—for most of the uproar. The chain even issued an apologetic clarification in which it said that Mackey’s intent was to state his own personal opinions and not those of its team members or the company as a whole. It even created a forum on its Web site where users could discuss the issue.

I’m not going to pass judgment of the merits of Mackey’s ideas—I’ll leave that to the healthcare experts. As to Mackey’s retail sense on writing the piece, that’s another matter. Either he misjudged Whole Foods’ core audience entirely, or he frankly doesn’t care. Both smack of a certain arrogance on the part of the CEO—and a lack of regard for his company and shareholders.

It’s no secret that Whole Foods tends to attract a slightly higher-income, better-educated and liberal-minded core audience. The Whole Foodies I know are committed to buying eco-friendly, locally sourced food, and they don’t mind paying a bit more for it. When they talk about the chain, they sound almost like fanatics. Some of them are. The fact is, Whole Foods enjoys an unusually strong brand image, one based, for better or worse, on it being a progressive, liberal-thinking company. I think that’s why Mackey’s column provoked such a commotion: It was out of sync with the company’s perceived image and the leanings of many of its customers.

Mackey’s remarks sparked a major disconnect between the brand and its customer base. That’s never a good thing, and never good for business. But it comes at a particularly inopportune time for Whole Foods which, similar to many other retailers, is trying to maintain sales amid a difficult economy and keep its shoppers from seeking out lower-price outlets. I’m thinking the chain probably has better things to do with its time than deal with a public relations nightmare.

There is an important lesson to be learned here: A CEO is the public face of a company, and the company, fairly or not, is held accountable by his or her actions and words. That’s especially true for retail CEOs whose very livelihood depends on the goodwill and trust of its customers.