Whole Foods--A Halfway Attempt at Communications

Whole Foods has banned their top executives from online forums. The amendments to their business code of conduct is in response to the scrutiny they faced in July. Their CEO posted unfavorable comments on a forum under an alias about their competitor, Wild Oats, and now they are banning any such activity to regain control. According to their code, "
no member of Company Leadership may make any posting to any non-Company-sponsored Internet chat room, message board, web log (blog), or similar forum, concerning any matter involving the Company, its competitors or vendors, either under their name, anonymously, under a screen name, or communicating through another person."

Kristin Maverick from "Bitemarks" says, "In my opinion, Whole Foods made a mistake and took the heat. They shouldn't ban online forums completely from their company but rather move forward and set an example that transparency (the one thing that their CEO didn't comply with) can actually be positive for your company and something that they are striving to improve upon."

I also think it shows a complete misunderstanding of social media. It is a great thing to take responsibility for your mistakes and even helps to cultivate the idea that is at the very heart of two-way communication: letting the consumer know that you aren't holier than thou. Corporations make mistakes too, and the best way to correct a mistake is to improve in the future. Whole Foods has completely taken that option off the table. Plus, if they see how they can leverage social media, and decide to change their policies in the future, they may catch even more flack for their "duh" moment.

Maybe this post is useless because there will be no response from their side of the story, at least from someone in a leadership position. Is this just another example of social media misunderstood and a desire for control or does Whole Foods have a valid need for their ban?