Whole Foods Markets, the world’s largest retailer of natural and organic foods, has carefully cultivated its brand image as an environmentally-conscious and socially responsible organization, through support of local farmers, organic foods, fair trade policies, sustainability, microcredit financing and community giving. Not by accident, its target customers tend to be college educated and higher income, and more often than not, progressive and socially liberal. “Crunchy granola” might refer to either a special in Aisle 4, or the political bent of many of their loyal customers.

So what are we to make of the editorial by co-founder and CEO John Mackey in the August 11 Wall Street Journal? Titled “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare“, the article criticized the current health care reform proposals being advanced by Congress and the Obama administration as “a massive new health-care entitlement” that the country could not afford. He proposed as an alternative eight reforms that be believes would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone, including promoting the use of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (which Whole Foods offers at no cost to all employees working 30 hours per week).

Regardless of your agreement with his position and proposals, Mr. Mackey clearly did himself no favors by including this provocative statement: “A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This ‘right’ has never existed in America.”

To call the reaction a firestorm would be an understatement. In less than 2 weeks, a Facebook group called “Boycott Whole Foods” has 28,000 members. A Health Care Reform forum on the company’s own website has over 18,000 posts, compared to 898 total posts on all Healthy Living / Healthy Planet boards. Boycotts and protests are being organized nationwide, which could have a material financial impact: the loss of 10,000 loyal customers would result in a 1% drop in revenues.

This reaction is not hard to predict. The same customers that Whole Foods courts as its target – educated, affluent, liberal – are overwhelmingly supporters of President Obama and his position on health care reform. Speaking vocally against the President’s health care proposals is seen as a betrayal by the Whole Foods faithful; a backlash certainly to be expected by a businessman as astute as Mr. Mackey, named by Barrons as one of the 30 best CEOs in 2006 and 2007.

And yet he did it anyway. Never mind his right to say whatever he wants – that right IS in the Constitution – he must know that a company and its CEO are inextricably linked. His publicly stated views will be seen as the views of the company – just ask Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza, whose outspoken views on reproductive rights earned his company a boycott campaign by the National Organization of Women in the late 80’s. While Mr. Mackey’s courage to offer intelligent and passionate dialogue on an important issue is admirable, the key question still remains: Why would he choose to put his company, its brand, and its financial health, at risk? Does he owe it to his shareholders, store associates, suppliers, and other stakeholders to stay on the sidelines? Or do CEOs have a responsibility to voice their conscience on important social and economic issues, regardless of the impact on their companies?

Let us know what you think.

Anger at town halls has been in the news a great deal as of late and the public relations difficulties which they have created for the White House provide an interesting backdrop to examine issues of customer satisfaction experienced in the marketplace.  A major component of many customer relationship management (CRM) strategies is to avoid retention of those customer segments providing little profitability.  As we are seeing in the public domain, to do so may be quite problematic, leading to an unforeseen erosion of position.

Pundits, pollsters and social scientists are trying to understand the degree to which the sentiments expressed at meetings are representative of those of the American public.  From business we know that each voice of dissatisfaction represents so many more who too are dissatisfied, but we also know that customers are more likely to register complaints rather than compliments. So, how can we gage emotion and interpret numbers of complaints, and yet more importantly, how can we discern those voices to which we should listen from amongst the noise?  One answer is to understand the opinion leaders in our respective markets.  Regarding social influences, the more criticism is heard, the more likely others are to be critical.  Most often those presenting their opinions for public consumption have an agenda and may understand their potential influence.  It is not uncommon for some we satisfy to become proselytizing disciples, or for some dissatisfied to become zealots bent on a firm’s ruin.

We must pay attention to potential opinion leaders but we must also notice the broader implications.  With respect to the President, political junkies are looking at declining satisfaction numbers—in business we look to other key metrics to see if opinions in the public sphere gain traction.

The political ramifications will be played out in the coming weeks and longer.  A key lesson with respect to business is to understand how dissatisfied customers can disrupt a firm’s marketplace stature.  Incorporating customer dissatisfaction as a key feedback mechanism toward strategy development is often a simple but critically effective tactic toward business success.

If you want to succeed in today’s market, it is imperative that you speak “Women”.

Being the “alpha consumers of plant earth” (as Bridget Brennan CEO of Female Factor says) today’s women are responsible for more than 80% of the household purchases. So while the man purchases the DVR, the woman is purchasing the whole wheat bread, the calcium fortified milk, the sensitive skin soap, the new Dora lunch boxes…even the Old Spice deodorant.

So how can we speak “Women”? The winners in our book are:

1. Target with its current “Expect More, Pay Less” campaign that celebrates women’s superhero powers to exercise, lead a conference call and play with her son, all at the same time.

2. Cadillac with its campaign featuring Private Practice’s Kate Walsh. The woman is the driver, instead of the decoration. Fascinating.

3. And of course, Dove’s ground breaking “Real Beauty” campaign that shook all media waves across the globe.

All these brands have proven they can speak “Women” fluently. The insights are powerful and can hold true across borders. But why hasn’t anyone spoken about getting the man off the couch and having him make the chicken casserole? Isn’t this also a universal insight that women share?

Celebrity athletes have long been cash cows for brands across the globe. After the 2008 Olympics, Michael Phelps was one of the most marketable men on Earth and was poised to join the ranks of the Tiger Woods and Michael Jordans of the world after winning a record-breaking eight Gold Medals. He had multi-million dollar deals with Speedo, Omega, AT&T, Subway, and Kellogg’s, with many more lucrative deals on the horizon.

Early in 2009, Michael Phelps’ image took a major hit when a British newspaper published a picture of the superstar swimmer smoking out of a cannabis pipe while visiting friends at a college town. The picture spread like wildfire across the world and sponsors were quick to make statements regarding their relationship with Phelps. He acknowledged the mistake and reassured the media that it would not happen again. The only major sponsor to cut ties with Phelps was Kellogg’s. Although it’s not confirmed to be directly correlated, it’s interesting that Kellogg’s was also the only publicly traded sponsor of Phelps’ whose stock took a hit immediately following the scandal. Many other sponsors put campaigns on hold, but not for long.

Phelps is already back in the pool and making noise with his performances and his advertisements. Subway has recently released their campaign featuring Phelps that they previously put on hold following the scandal. Speedo is getting tons of publicity for their LZR suit that Phelps donned during his record breaking performances at the 2008 Olympics and 2009 World Championships. He is also set to appear on an ABC family friendly reality television show with Shaquille O’Neal where the gigantic basketball player will race Phelps in the pool. Phelps also recently broke the world record in the 100 meter butterfly at the FINA World Championships in Rome, Italy despite being banned from US Swimming for three months. For a sport that is typically not highly publicized except during the Olympics, Michael Phelps is surely bucking that trend.

How forgiving would sponsors be if another scandalous picture surfaced? How much are sponsors willing to deal with?  Barring unforgiveable acts like murder, rape, felonious assault or electrocuting pitbulls, it seems as though successful superstars can maintain their marketability quite easily. When the 2012 Olympics come around, will the marijuana scandal still be smoking? Only time will tell.

It is hard to ignore the state of our economy. We can all recite the statistics about the economy, the unemployment rate, consumer confidence levels, and the stock market. The good news is after six months of the grim news we are finally seeing some rebound. Looking back over the last six months, it is interesting to see if the economic downturn has affected some consumer groups more than others.

There is one consumer segment that weathered the storm pretty well and is a good target in strong and poor economic times…geeks. Normally, I would not use this term, since some may find it offensive, but being a self-proclaimed geek myself (comic books, action figures, video games, etc.) I feel I can accurately describe this demographic. This demographic used to be the coveted 18-35 male so loved by numerous consumer and electronic goods companies; however, the geek segment is more diverse and widespread than many think.

So is this a good demographic to target?

Let’s see. Of the top 20 grossing movies in 2009, five were targeted at geeks:

· Transformers ($379M and still going…)

· Star Trek ($254M)

· Wolverine ($179M)

· Terminator Salvation ($124M)

· Watchmen ($107M)

These movies have totaled over one billion in box office receipts. This does not include the revenue from DVD sales, action figures (anyone want a vintage Spock?), and other consumer goods. Some further research into the audiences attending these blockbusters reveals that these movies not only draw the 18-35 males, but in many cases two generations of geeks and, in case of Star Trek, three generations!

Next, what about conventions? If convention attendance is any proxy for future demand, take the recent San Diego Comic-Con. This is by far the largest pop-culture event in the United States and features all elements of geek media – comics, figures, movies, television and video games. The event sold out 2 months before it started and attracted over 125,000 people. Not bad in recessionary or boom times. Additionally, as with the movies, attendance was multi-generational and gender. Comic-cons have become a family event. In fact, one enterprising network with a television show targeted at mothers, set up a small Mom-i-con respite for mothers to relax away from the crowds at Comic-Con.

Finally let’s look at comic books themselves. We see the headlines (online of course) that print media is dead. However comic books still seem to be going strong. Total sales in July were $37 million, up 1% for the same month last year and up 25% for the same month five years ago. Perhaps advertisers should shift their spend from other traditional print media to comics!

Is the geek segment a good one for you? Let us know what you think. Be warned however: this group can be especially vicious if your product, movie or messages are off the mark.