Here's a really interesting item from The Motley Fool by Brian Orelli, Ph.D. that will probably send Johnson and Johnson PR people running for big bottles of Tylenol and cartons of Band-Aids. In essence, it is about the lawsuit Johnson & Johnson is mounting against the American Red Cross over a trademark J&J owns (the red cross on a white background) but has let the American Red Cross use for about 100 years.

On the one hand, it seems to me J&J has a legitimate gripe. Writes Mr. Orelli:

The shared symbol wasn't a problem… until the Red Cross started licensing it out to companies that make disaster preparedness supplies.

On the other hand, the J&J suit reads like it was prepared by a financial vampire. Returning to Mr. Orelli's report:

…Johnson & Johnson's suit asks that the charity do more than just stop using the symbol on products it sell. It wants the Red Cross to destroy its inventory, hand over any profits to Johnson and Johnson, and pay punitive damages, including legal fees.

That doesn't seem appropriate, especially for a company that according to this Wikipedia entry is ……known for its corporate responsibility and consistently ranks at the top of Harris Interactive's National Corporate Reputation Survey. It's inappropriate, too, because because the American Red Cross, which has crossed a line with its use of the trademark, is nevertheless a charitable organization. Clara Barton was a founder for crying out loud.

Seems to me there's no question that J&J would prevail in a suit that simply required the American Red Cross to stop licensing the trademark to others. For a Fortune 500 company that is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average this is, indeed a PR disaster in the making.

If you're the VP of PR at J&J what would you advise the company to do? Conversely, if you were the VP of PR at the American Red Cross, how would you mount a response to this suit? I have my ideas, but I'd rather hear from you.

Share This

Does Cindarella object to the sight of poor people in her midst? Is Mickey an elitist?

Here, from an AP story by Gillian Flaccus appearing in the Press-Telegram, is an overview of the basic story being played out in Anaheim, California:

A City Council decision that could pave the way for low-income housing at Disneyland's doorstep is a jolt to the cozy relationship that Anaheim and its largest employer have enjoyed for more than half a century…a zoning change that could open the door for 1,500 condominiums, including more than 200 affordable housing units, just a few blocks from Disneyland and across the street from Disney-owned land that could someday be the site of another theme park.

Disney, however, lobbied hard against the proposal and has sued the city over environmental issues tied to the zoning change.

The story leaves you with more questions than answers. Are there legitimate environmental issues and are they what Disney really cares about? Is this just a local government compensating for years of feeling manipulated by a big local employer? Is low income housing really a factor in Disney's behavior?

It's interesting that Disney's objection is juxtaposed to the fact that the development will include low income housing. That's clever anti-Disney positioning on the part of someone favoring the condo complex, don't you agree? It's likely Disney does not object to poor people but they're getting hammered over how this looks. Seems to me they could have handled it better. If you have experience in community public relations, and assuming this isn't really about Disney's view of poor people, what would you have done to avert this?

Share This

Cliff Edwards at BusinessWeek’s online Tech Beat blog grants us a glimpse at the dark, smelly underbelly of traditional, establishment, high-stakes public relations.

Mr. Edwards’ post is about a call he received from PR people representing the interests of a company that, in my opinion, would like to see Research in Motion float way-far out to sea atop a fast-melting Canadian iceberg… all never to be seen or heard from again. His opening:

Kick ‘em while they’re down!
As if Crackberry addicts and corporations that subscribe to Research in Motion’s Blackberry service weren’t complaining enough, Microsoft’s PR team is in high gear.
A spokeswoman just called to helpfully point out that such widespread outages as what’s occurred with Blackberry overnight in North America wouldn’t happen with Microsoft’s push email solution.

I like that Cliff Edwards gets to the main point quick. Of course, the negative positioners won another round. BusinessWeek online after all, publicized their point. I’m sure there were high fives all around the the caller’s cube.

Is this sort of thing bad? It is what it is. It’s been going on forever. It’s done to companies of all types, all sizes and at all levels. It’s done in business, politics, and even to a degree among average people to one another. One way to intensify the light on you is to pour a coat of darkness on a rival. It’s a short cut. Sometimes it’s a last resort.

But it never feels good. Why? Because if a product is truly superior, then staying on the positive script ought to be enough. When the product isn’t superior, or isn’t recognized as such, or it came too late, or it comes from an unlikely source or from someone otherwise held in lower esteem… the old script won’t work, or won’t work as fast as it needs to.

Lastly, what about the timing? Look, the competitors didn’t cause the outage. RIM isn’t a person; it’s a corporate entity. Every PR person worth the retainer would advise the client in this case to strike while the opportunity to be heard is hot. [The NOC issue has been talked about before, but this week people were obviously listening a little harder and hearing more relevance.] And don’t think for a minute that the next time RIM gets to score a three-pointer against this competitor they won’t jump at the chance to take their shot.

—–

Share This