How could public not side with Red Cross?
|
|
August 9, 2007 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well, members of the public that understand the underlying issue would side with J&J. Not average dumb Americans that believe any sensational headline.
The issue is that the Red Cross is now selling products for profit in direct competition with J&J. J&J has spent decades building up brand awareness for their consumer products. Now Red Cross is going to be taking advantage of this by selling their own products.
Though J&J is right on this one, the way the media is spinning it makes them look like real bad guys. I feel sorry for J&J. It's bloggers like you that make it seem like "greedy" J&J is suing the Red Cross for the red cross symbol and all its uses.
If the red cross is open for everyone, how would you feel if J&J showed up with red cross vans and uniforms during your apartment fire, helped you out, then afterwards tell you that they are actually J&J and you have to pay them for their services. Oops, you thought they were The Red Cross. Too bad, you have to pay. (obviously that would be an even bigger PR debacle, but it's just for illustration)
Red Cross is taking advantage of the goodwill it has as a noble non-profit. Shame on them.
Posted by: Bubb Rhubb | Aug 9, 2007 3:24:19 PM
j&j are on to a loser here. a huge corporation suing the RED CROSS for using a red cross? they look like greedy idiots. there could be no other outcome. serves them bloody right.
Posted by: GROW UP! | Aug 9, 2007 4:57:06 PM
Agreed... J&J are right legally, but will lose in the long run in the public eye. The thing I don't get is where does J&J use the cross? I just searched there site and couldn't find and use of it.
Posted by: Tim | Aug 9, 2007 5:15:48 PM
i understand the issue here but still can't align myself with J&J, they're handling this badly.
it's just plain stupid that J&J even asked for the 5 millions profits from red cross, which are going to be used to save lives.
J&J either should fire its PR team or it's just greediest asshole ever.
Posted by: Boo.... J&J | Aug 10, 2007 1:36:28 AM
J&J may win legally but will definitely lose the PR war.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 10, 2007 7:13:52 AM
This really is the definition of a Lose-Lose for J&J. Or being between a rock and a hard place, whatever.
Either:
A) They sue Red Cross for misappropriating their corporate assets, i.e. brand equity and look like total losers and a-holes for doing so (though technically they are right),
or
B)they can shut up and lose potentially millions of dollars in the marketplace since someone is essentially stealing and using one of their trademarks.
Either way, sucks to be J&J.
Posted by: Bubb Rhubb | Aug 10, 2007 9:10:45 AM
Sometimes it actually does not matter who is truly right.
Posted by: Herbert | Aug 10, 2007 9:31:44 AM
I blogged about this yesterday: (Shameless Plug: http://tangerinetoad.blogspot.com/2007/08/file-this-under-what-were-they-thinking.html)
The amount of business J&J will love to the ARC is pretty minimal. But the PR damage to their brand is tremendous.
And sorry Bubb, most people who understand the trademark issue are smart enough to realize that they're not in any danger of losing "millions of dollars" from the ARC selling disaster kits with a red cross on them. If anything, I'd say they stand to gain from the association with a such a well-liked, well-respected charity.
Posted by: tangerine Toad | Aug 10, 2007 10:46:17 AM
I agree with Bubb. It's not that the ARC is selling the kits, it's others making profits -with the approval of ARC- at the expense of J&J. I do think there is something wrong in all this, and I'll agree with the comment on J&J's PR group. J&J management and their PR group should have taken a different approach. They should have told the story to the public, their good faith efforts with the ARC (donation, use of trademark), and how the ARC was allowing a third party to profit from the use of the trademark. After allowing that to settle in, and if no action was taken by ARC, then they could have talked of litigation.
Posted by: Ed | Aug 10, 2007 12:34:44 PM
Its called unfair competition by the Red Cross. J&J has that trademark registered under its corporate name, its intellectual property. No other company or organization, can legally use that trademark in direct competition with J&J.
The Red Cross was classified as a charity, and now its sells products with aim to profit regardless whether it will be used to save lives or not... therefore it no longer is a charity, but a corporation. To think different is a mistake.
J&J spent years and millions promoting and building customer loyalty to their products, and The Red Cross shouldn't be allowed to get a free ride.
The Red Cross should and will get crossed out.
Posted by: Haitham | Aug 10, 2007 7:01:25 PM
j&j are idiots for pursuing this. end of story. have they no clue? not even a smidgen of a connection to the real world? clearly not. well folks, there are consequences in the real world.
love all the j&j employees posing as commenters btw. yet more evidence of cluelessness. it's 2007 people!
Posted by: JJ
I've been seeing the red cross for THE RED CROSS and for Johnson&Johnson for my entire life. I know they are different identities. To me that red cross is almost a generic symbol and doesn't matter. I don't pay much attention to it. (It seems like THE RED CROSS should have the red cross.) J&J just look like jerks for pressing the matter.
Posted by: Tdave | Aug 13, 2007 4:10:24 AM
Not sure who pissed in whose cherrios that morning at J&J but sounds like a P.R. nightmare.
While J&J makes many fine scented Lanolin based products, pulezze, the world would go by tickity-boo without them.
The red cross should win out sheer value to the world and community.
J&J, take your lanolin and wax based (cheap as pennies) products and shove them.
How anyone can charge 4.99 for a bottle of sheep sweat/lanolin (where all your lotions come from) and bit of cheap scent, I'll never know!
Posted by: Robert | Aug 13, 2007 9:32:36 AM
This is a complicated issue. If the Red Cross were called the "White Swoosh" and their logo looked just like Nike's, then would we look at this differently? It just happens most of us are more familiar with the Red Cross logo applying to the Red Cross, not J & J. However, it is pretty lame to sue a company that is trying to save lives. In this case, if I were J & J, I would have just let it go.
Posted by: thatguy | Aug 14, 2007 9:35:30 AM
I love all The Red Cross employees posing as commentators here :P
Get with the program. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view doesn't necessarily make them a part of some secret, evil conspiratorial organization.
Posted by: Bubb Rhubb | Aug 14, 2007 11:09:15 AM
Bottom line here folks:
J&J should fire their entire PR team.
They really screwed the pooch on this one, as evidenced by all of the negative comments J&J is receiving now, even though they really are correct in trying to defend their intellectual property.
Posted by: Bubb Rhubb | Aug 14, 2007 11:11:49 AM
I wonder what a poll that asks people "What do you think(of) when you see that red plus sign?" would show?
Posted by: Tdave | Aug 16, 2007 1:34:28 AM
No. J&J PR team should not be fired, or even brought to book. They were quite aware of the potential downsides of going forth with the decision, as were the management. Don't think for a moment from your little armchairs that J&J's lawyers are so antagonistic that they started with a litigation right away. Common business practice and courtesy would have made sure that Red Cross was informed and requested to stop mis-appropriating a tangible business asset of another company, and I bet J&J must have done so. It is a pharmaceutical company, and they have to be doubly cautious, egregiously cautious, unabidingly cautious, about how their name is tinkered with -- whether it is by a pseudo-charitable organization or not.
People ignorant of how business works can sit ensconced on their high horses all they want. If something goes wrong with J&J, even cursorily related to J&J (recent example anyone?), these very same cretins would be the first to stampede to their blogs and criticize a company for being so in the wrong. Well, stand up to it. If Red Cross or Mother Teresa or The Salvation Army flout a law, they do not get away with it just by virtue of what they represent. I expect the Red Cross to come out and do what is right, not righteous from a puerile perspective of the emotional masses.
Posted by: Erick | Sep 22, 2007 9:23:34 PM
There is no dearth of the hoi polloi who will make emotional comments on blogs without bothering to dig a little further beneath the surface of what it's all about.
The Geneva Convention protected the Red Cross as a symbol of safety and protection and yet the Red Cross, themselves, are licensing it to fly-by-night outfits just to make a buck?
At least, under the law, J&J had rights to the symbol and were particular about what it was placed on (notice that it's nowhere to be found on their contact lenses or diapers).
What's next for the Red Cross - selling donated supplies on the black market to make a few extra bucks?
Get over it. Red Cross does some good things, on occasion, but if it gets greedy and starts getting lax with the legal ramifications, I'm afraid I'm fully with J&J on this one.
Posted by: Shanx | Sep 22, 2007 9:40:07 PM
