John Mackey, the CEO of organic foods giant Whole Foods is revealed to use a sockpuppet. According to Wikipedia, "A sockpuppet is a secondary online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. A sockpuppet is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet." Mackey spent 8 years in online forums speaking ill of rival Wild Oats using the name Rahodeb (an anagram of Deborah, his wife's name).

John Mackey photo from Austin 360.

He was outed this week by The Wall Street Journal. The story came to light this week as part of an antitrust lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission to block Whole Foods from buying the rival, Wild Oats. The WSJ said,

"Would Whole Foods buy OATS?" Rahodeb asked, using Wild Oats' stock symbol. "Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small." Rahodeb speculated that Wild Oats eventually would be sold after sliding into bankruptcy or when its stock fell below $5. A month later, Rahodeb wrote that Wild Oats management "clearly doesn't know what it is doing .... OATS has no value and no future."

The comments were typical of banter on Internet message boards for stocks, but the writer's identity was anything but. Rahodeb was an online pseudonym of John Mackey, co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. Earlier this year, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million, or $18.50 a share.

You can see several more comments typical of Rahodeb at Crossing Wall Street.

News of the deception has flown around the globe, with business news articles appearing everywhere from France to South Africa within hours of the WSJ publication. Most reporters and bloggers agree it is unethical and embarrassing, but no one is pushing the idea that it was illegal.

I'll begin the blog reactions with Dr. Melissa Clouthier's

The only people who are truly anonymous on the web are Russian mafia hackers and even they get caught sometimes.

At Kerfuffles and Flourishes the question was "Who's Who and What's What at Whole Foods Market Market? Kerfuffle nattered,

Beginning in the late 1990s, Rahobed seems to have trolled the Internet with mischief in mind and corporate greed in his heart. In real life he was known as a Yogi and vegan Texas rancher. Are America’s consumers going to continue trusting their organic food purchases to someone who attempted to tarnish another food company’s good name and stock price? Are investors going to keep up the cash flow?

Lasandra Brill, writing at Marketing in a Web 2.0 World, said,

The ramifications of John Mackey’s darker side will be that the FTC, which is already trying to block his purchase of competitor Wild Oats, is going to use his “aggressive” comments to show that he’s trying to suppress competition, etc.

I’m all for executives using wikis and forums and social networking to promote the brand. But is it time for marketing to build a “Rules of the Road” or messaging document to guide them on how not to get persecuted for socializing in a connected world? This is obviously a corner case but it certainly makes you wonder what your executives are saying on their MySpace page.

Ann Althouse, blogging at Althouse, didn't have much to say herself, but the comments are very interesting reading.

Melissa Tan's article at The Huffington Post takes a political slant, suggesting that the FTC is trying to block the proposed acquisition of Wild Oats by Whole Foods because Mackey has never given a cent to either the Democrats or the Repubicans. She is more interested in the antics of the FTC than in the organic sockpuppetry of John Mackey.

No one seems to be asking the underlying question: Why the hell is the FTC trying to block the proposed acquisition of Wild Oats by Whole Foods? Are they really concerned about the possibility of Whole Foods having an unfair competitive advantage in the food and grocery industry? Or is this really about keeping the small fish small, so that the big boys -- mainstream grocery store chains -- can continue to dominate the landscape? This can't have anything to do with the fact that commercial farmers, who sell to large supermarkets, donate millions of dollars to political campaigns, can it? Why, this would make the FTC ... the henchman of government and big business.

I think Off the Kuff hit exactly the right note with this post, which is why I saved it for last. It applies to all sorts of online behavior, not just to this incident.

It's still possible to be anonymous on the Internet, but the more you're out there making self-serving statements, especially ones that are harmful to others, the more likely that someone is going to be motivated enough to try and put a real name to whatever handle you're using. And if you're an insider of some kind, posting stuff that only an insider could know, I guarantee that someone will figure out who you are. It's really not that hard.

But honestly, someone in a position of prominence should never make public statements under any name other than his or her own. Either speak officially or listen to your lawyers and shut the hell up. All other ways eventually end in sorrow. As I'm sure John Mackey will now realize.

Maybe corporations—and their CEOs—don't want to behave transparently, but the free information world of the blogosphere is forcing it.