Force For Good Communications

Had Mackey Worked For Wild Oats, Would His "rahodeb" Postings Have Violated Ethics Policy?

Update to the John "rahodeb" Mackey story ...

I noted on my previous post that I have tried to contact the media relations people at both Whole Foods and Wild Oats for comment. Wild Oats was first to respond.

Wild Oats still supports the proposed "merger" of the two companies, says Sonja Tuitele, senior director - Corporate Communications & Investor Relations for Wild Oats. She also noted that her company has an ethics policy prohibiting unauthorized statements about the company to external audiences, including the Internet.

(While Mackey clearly was authorized to speak to media and other external audiences about his company, did anyone at Whole Foods know about his thousands of chatroom postings under the psuedonym "rahodeb?" We'll have to wait to see if we hear from Whole Foods.)

While Tuitele's responses were quite guarded, as one might expect, I applaud her quick response and include the full text of our e-mail interview below:

• Does Wild Oats have an ethics policy regarding company officers engaging in conversations with investors on chatrooms using an alias? and specifically regarding posts speculating about future company stock prices as well as denigrating another company that would later become a take-over target?

We have a policy that prohibits any employee from making any statements about the company to external audiences unless otherwise authorized. This policy does include Internet and blog postings.

• What is Wild Oats' company position regarding John Mackey's Yahoo! postings over the past several years denigrating Wild Oats as a company and calling its stock price over-valued?

We don’t respond to individual web postings about our Company or our stock and believe this is one person’s opinion. We, therefore, don’t have a comment here.

• What was the reaction of Wild Oats' senior management upon learning of the rahodeb postings?

I can’t speculate what senior management was thinking when they learned of this activity.

• Does Wild Oats still support the "merger" of the two companies?

Yes, we believe that the merger continues to be in the best interest for Wild Oats and all of our stakeholders.

• How have you addressed your stockholders' concerns about this matter since the story broke last week?

We’ve reassured them that we still believe the merger is in the best interest of the company and all our stakeholders if it does go through. We also share our strategies as a stand-alone business and the progress we’ve made toward driving improved business results over the last 9 months.

• When will Wild Oats address this issue with a statement on its investor website recognizing that it must surely be the hottest topic on your shareholders' (and employees') minds lately?

We do not believe it is our place to respond with a statement about another company’s CEO’s web postings.  Therefore, we will not be posting a statement on the IR section of our website.

Wacky Mackey Epitomizes Another Media Archetype

Journalists and editors aren't immune to prejudice, of course, and stories written to prevailing media archetypes are the result. Previously I've written about the "David and Goliath" archetype in which the perceived "little guy" is given a free pass on any journalistic scrutiny in his battle against the big, "evil empire" (which may just happen to be the company you represent).

In my previous post, I wrote about the seven-years of anonymous stock investor chatroom rants  by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, praising his own company and panning the stock of a smaller, rival company that would just happen to become his take-over target. I described the archetypal blinders that seemed to be restraining both mass media and bloggers from going after Mackey (left) with the fury that surely would have been unleashed if, say, the CEO of Exxon or Wal-mart had done the anonymous postings praising himself and putting down a smaller rival in advance of a hostile take-over. As a "good company" committed to social responsibility, Whole Foods earns a lighter treatment than other corporations might. Companies that do the right thing often do earn at least a temporary benefit of the doubt but should not abuse that right. Whole Foods' Board of Directors should act quickly to investigate Mackey's behavior separate from ongoing FTC and SEC investigations. Even if the government agencies decide that his actions were not technically illegal, the company's board should hold Mackey to a higher standard consistent with the high ideals portrayed by Whole Foods.

Back to the media and blog analysis. This Mackey matter illustrates two other media archetypes to consider: "laissez faire" and "wacky Internet Age genius."

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal opines that the SEC shouldn't unleash its legion of ambitious "27-year-old lawyers" investigating what the WSJ sees as innocuous actions by Mackey. This "laissez faire" archetype holds that government regulators should back off interfering with business practices as long as they aren't demonstrably criminal. This archetype is only prevalent in the libertarian press, however, so don't expect blanket exemption from scrutiny if your company strays from the straight and narrow.

The other archetype is a newer one, that of the wacky Internet Age entrepreneur. His or her maverick behavior is excused as part of some mythic genius. We certainly see this archetype played out in much of the "what's-the-big-deal?" blog coverage of the Mackey musings, like this and this.

But being a unique character will only buy you so much slack. As the FTC and SEC continue their investigations, and maybe even the Whole Foods' Board shows a little backbone, Mackey's actions ultimately will be judged against the same ethical standards any publicly traded company face.

It is interesting to look at the coverage today vs. last Friday when the story first broke. Media now are taking a deeper cut, focusing on the SEC investigation and the blogs now are leaning decidedly against Mackey's behavior, such as this one.

Note: I have sought comment on this matter from both Whole Foods and from Wild Oats and will update the Force for Good blog if they respond.

- Jon Harmon   

Whole Foods' CEO Throws Ethics Out Window, Where is the Media and Blog Outrage?

The anonymous postings of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey slamming a smaller competitor, Wild Oats, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, have certainly been the fodder of much media and blog discussion the last two days. The basic facts of the matter are not in dispute -- Mackey admits on the Whole Foods news site to years of venomous posting against Wild Oats under the pseudonym "rahodeb." He says he did it because "I had fun doing it," and that he "never intended any of those postings to be identified as me." To that last point we can be sure -- he never intended to be exposed.

But something is missing from all the coverage to date. Neither media nor the blogs have jumped into the story with the same fervor they would have if say, the CEO of Exxon or Wal-Mart had done the anonymous attacks. Here's the story as reported by ABC News. Obligatory comments from experts criticizing the lack of transparency to be sure, but it's all downplayed as "not exactly new news" considering such past ethical violations as the Wal-Mart-Edelman flog.

Where was Diane Sawyer asking Mackey if he planned to resign as she asked the President of Virginia Tech the morning after the VT massacre? 

That Mackey's behavior was irresponsible is without a doubt. Whether it was also criminal is a key issue: Mackey deliberately used his anonymous attacks to hurt his competitor, and likely to drive down its stock price in advance of Whole Foods' attempted takeover of Wild Oats. That's worse than shady behavior.

So why haven't journalists and bloggers rushed to condemn this unethical behavior? Why has Mackey's lame excuse -- that it was harmless prankish behavior -- played without criticism.? Don't you think the "Wal-Marting across America" flog was pretty tame by comparison?

The kid gloves treatment Mackey has received to date is clearly a case of media archetyping. Whole Foods has been a poster child for good behavior -- entrepreneurial company, organic food, environmental social responsibility, etc. This type of company plays the "good guy" in archetypical reporting, both in the media and in the blogosphere.

There is so much to genuinely like about Whole Foods. But the serious ethical (even if they don't prove to be technically criminal) violations of its CEO should not be swept under the rug. There should be a blog storm calling for his resignation whether or not the FTC (or SEC) seeks criminal charges against him.

So let's get it rolling. John Mackey needs to resign or be fired. Period.   

- Jon Harmon

If Companies Were Skin Colors, We'd Call It Rascism: Breaking Free of Media Archetypes

In this followup to my last post, I'll explore further the idea of archetypes in business media coverage and how to tell your company's story when faced with unfavorable type-casting in the media.

From the UK, Heather Yaxley's comment to my last post undoubtedly speaks for many in the media and in university journalism schools the world over -- wary of corporate spin-meisters packaging news in the form of a saccharin narrative but much less conscious of the preponderance of archetypes masquerading as balanced coverage in the media.

Journalists and editors indeed are often influenced by their preconceptions. Story assignments are made necessarily based on incomplete reporting -- a television station cannot commit a crew's time to develop a piece until there is a sniff of important news, or better yet, scandal. Reporters often select or even bend facts to fit the assumed script that has earned a piece of the news budget. If a reporter comes back with something less or different than what an editor expects, the reporter is often sent back to do more reporting. 

Victims need sympathetic qualities; heroes speak virtuously; villains act maliciously. Facts and details that don't quite square with the preconceived story-line are sometimes rejected out-of-hand (by bush-league editors or those on deadline). More astute editors see these incongruencies as important ingredients to the story, adding nuance and depth to otherwise one-dimensional characters. 

But sometimes these at-odds-with-the-storyline-as-we-see-it facts are indications that the story does not so neatly fit with the archetype and therefore a new thesis must be considered. In science, this is seen as progress. The scientific method entails the testing of hypothesis after hypothesis until truth emerges. Thomas Edison remained committed to his project of developing a workable light bulb even after repeated failures to find the right material for a filament to burn inside the bulb, saying: "If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. Every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward."

Edison also said: "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."

Those aren't the words of a editor on deadline.

In my last post, I discussed the "David and Goliath" archetype in which members of the Fourth Estate depict a heroic "little guy" trying to stand-up against an evil empire. If the company you represent is being forced into this archetype, you must work to show the many human faces truly at work at your corporation. Do not let your company be portrayed as a impersonal monolith callously putting profit before safety. Show real-life engineers at work problem-solving. Invite the journalist in to see the real people behind the scenes. This may mean persuading cautious senior leaders (and legal counsel) against taking the easy way out and replying in writing to media questions -- but a terse written statement (or worse, an inscrutable block of legalese) reinforces the stereotype of monolithic, inhuman corporation. Find a well-spoken, likable and real representative who can tell your story well. Slickness is not the quality we're going for here; but rather an ordinary "someone like me" who the reporter (as well as the viewer or reader) can empathize with. 

Remember, though, that you may be inserting characters that play against type and you might have to persuade the journalist (or editor) that the people and the actions you show them are real. Prejudice is an insidious blindness; countering it can be very difficult. If your company is being unfairly force-fit into an archetype, you have to push back hard to make the blind see what's truly there.

What other archetypes do we find in business media coverage? How can the public relations manager combat the negative stereotypes included in these forced story lines?

- Jon Harmon

Do Media Archetypes Predetermine Whether Your Company Is Portrayed As Good or Evil?

(First in a two-part series on media archetypes).

It's amazing, really, how news media can research and report a steady stream of stories, quickly and, for the most part, accurately in a continuously flowing tableau recording our society's memorable moments. ("Accurately" meaning that each individual fact in a story is arguably correct but not necessarily meaning that the piece in total is fair, balanced and representative of a complex reality.)

Journalists and their editors synthesize enormous amounts of information, continuously making choices about what it is relevant and what is not, what can be presented as fact and what is merely opinion requiring a quote from another source to represent an alternative point of view for balance. A piece of breaking news is supplemented by additional information for context and historical perspective. Visuals are sought out to help tell the story and add emotional impact. All these pieces are packaged in neat, tidy parcels for easy consumption by the news media's readers, listeners or viewers.

Understanding the way news is packaged is critical to successful corporate news management. Simply put, the arbiters of what is reported in each package make important decisions long before all the reporting is done, decisions that can determine whether your company or product is good or bad, whether you are on the "right side" of the issue or in the wrong.

In morning news budget meetings at newspapers and television stations and networks each day, editors sit around a table and quickly choose winners among various potential stories that their teams of reporters are working on. Resources are scarce; so is air time. Stories that have drama, action and some element of sexiness or intrigue win out over the straight but dry news that makes up most our lives and our companies' and our countries' daily doings.

The way these news-budget decisions are made often comes down to two factors that public relations practitioners must understand:

• "If it bleeds, it leads." Or more accurately, "If we have good tape of it bleeding, it leads." In the broadest sense, this means that strong visuals can propel an otherwise uninteresting story to the front page or the lead of the newscast. Local television news is especially swayed by this consideration -- which is why house or building fires are such a staple of local news. The story you're pitching can't compete with a three-alarm blaze, but you can make sure you have strong visuals -- stills as well as b-roll -- that add interest to your story. Remember, visuals can add emotional weight to a story -- whether they come from you or from an adversary group attacking your company or product.
  .
• News budgeting means binning stories into established archetypes. There is going to be a good guy and a bad guy, a white hat and a black hat. We don't have time for gray. Again, this is a trait of television news, for sure, but in-depth print stories reflect it as well. And remember, the arbiters of the news budget often are deciding how the elements of the story match their predetermined archetypes before the reporter has even talked to your company because they're afraid of losing their scoop to the competition. So you may be wearing the black hat before you even open your mouth and type on your keypad.

Roy Peter Clark has a fascinating piece on Poynter Online today on how stories are played to archetypes. He begins by recounting how a student reporter writing for a high school newspaper had covered a wheelchair bowling tournament and written an up-lifting piece about the experience. Later, Clark spoke to the young woman who said that the handicapped bowlers had been "cranky, dismissive, angry, horny (and) obnoxious."  Why hadn't she written this, he asked her. "I wanted to write a good story," she told him, "about people over-coming obstacles."

She wrote to an archetype, ignoring the less-than-inspiring reality because it didn't fit.

Too often business reporters write to archetypes, often at the direction of an editor or managing editor. The "David and Goliath" archetype, for example, is pervasive in stories where a "little guy" (an average-Joe consumer, an ex-employee whistle-blower, or perhaps a crusading lawyer) is pitted against an unfeeling, inhumane, rich monolith (the big corporation you happen to represent). The archetype says that the little guy is the sympathetic character. There is no need to check for a profit motive behind his accusations or an unspoken axe he may be grinding. He's the "little guy" and the investigative journalist is looking out for him.

Meanwhile, the only obligation toward the evil-empire that is playing Goliath in this archetype is to provide minimal airtime or space in the column for a perfunctory denial. News media is the self-proclaimed "fourth estate," the watchdog over various centers of power, whether Big Government or Big Corporation.

CBS' long-running and popular gotcha-mentary "60 Minutes" is built on this formula and has spawned countless copycats from Geraldo to your local investigative TV "on-your-side" guy. But the original is still the best example of the archetype. Almost like clockwork, at least one segment on "60 Minutes" each week will be structured to the "David and Goliath" script. In a 10- or 12-minute package, a neat and tidy melodrama will play out with the bad actor being exposed as guilty with no room for doubt, no shades of nuance. It's all very reassuring theater but it often leaves out messy facts and perspectives that don't fit the script.

In my next post, I'll explore other media archetypes and ways to tell your organization's story against an unfavorable archetype.

- Jon Harmon