BlogHer - J&J Blogs, Sues Red Cross and Buys Maya's Mom. Miss Marple, What Do These Clues Mean? Part 1 - Comments

Johnson & Johnson Sues Red Cross

Bluestem — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:55:04 -0500

Commendable, that J&J attempts to present a well reasoned explanation of their actions. Of course, we as consumers, have no way to validate what either side has or is saying, whether cooperation is evident, or what may beneath the velvet gloved hand of corporate wordsmiths. I am sure there are legal arguments, technical, bonafide or twisted, upon which J&J has based their position (and the ARC as well for that matter). However, there are moral and ethical bounderies which I believe transcend commercial law, including trademark law. Certainly I am no lawyer - more important however, I am a consumer. You can argue about whether licensing products by the ARC is outside their charter and outside the parameters of Congress' granting to the Red Cross the use of the 'Red Cross' logo. You can argue that the Congressional intent was not to make an exception to allow the ARC to use the logo, but in fact to allow J&J an exception to use the logo. All such arguments are, in my mind, pointless, hollow and sadly academic. The Red Cross is an admirable organization, not without it's faults or miscues; It is an organization that needs funds in order to do the wortk of compassion and assistance that they do. The ARC relies on charitable contributions by the public it serves as well as some minimal support from United Way and, as J&J points out, from corporate contributions including J&J.

In any NPO, creative ways of raising operating capital are needed. If this involves selling items with the Red Cross logo that EVERYONE associates with the International and American Red Cross organization - kudos to their fund raising ingenuity. Johnson and Johnson, by taking possession of what arguably, they have no moral right to possess, is out of bounds. Whether it is technically legal or not, the social benefit created by the actions of the ARC trivialize any social gains (if any) J&J purports to be protecting in its lawsuit. As a volunteer who spends 32 hours a week on-call with the Red Cross Disaster Action Team; as a volunteer who has seen first hand, how the funds expended by the ARC provide food, shelter and clothing to displaced famiilies and children; as a volunteer who feels it is my social obligation to make sacrifices of my time and money to contribute what mean little I can - to stand by and see a conglomerate the size of J&J take actions which they feel are justified by the quest for incremental shareholder value - is just more than I can stand. Justify your actions to the elderly couple I met last week in the ER, whose house had burned to the ground with literally all of their possessions except the nightgowns they were wearing, who by the grace of contributors and fund raising efforts, I was privelidged to play a small role in getting them shelter, food and emergency clothing - stand your reasons and rationale - your "had no choice" up against this couple's concerns: Then go put your Mercedes in the garage, turn out your antique tiffany lamp and say a prayer for your children safe in their dorms at Harvard or Princeton, and have a nice nights rest. As for the American Red Cross and their volunteers, they'll be fiilling sandbags in Minnesota; serving meals in Greensburg or giving a blanket to an elderly woman in Kansas City whose whole life is sitting in ashes.

Great points, Marianne

Kim Pearson — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:02:31 -0500

I too remember when J&J set the standard for corporate communications with its openness. It's striking that companies have retreated from that standard in an age saturated with citizen media.

When I worked for a company magazine at AT&T in the late '80s, we caused some controversy among management (and some excitement among employees) when we decided to print employee letters to the editor, including letters that were critical of the company and its management. We knew that we needed employees' trust to make the difficult transitions the company was trying to make, and that wasn't going to happen if we pretended that there weren't issues.

Then again, perhaps the fate that AT&T has met in the competitive marketplace in the last 20 years makes it a less-than-perfect model for corporate communications (weak smile).

Kim
Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

J&J Blogs, Sues Red Cross and Buys Maya's Mom. Miss Marple, What Do These Clues Mean? Part 1

Marianne Richmond — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:06:41 -0500

Johnson & Johnson has been making social media headlines this summer. There are two parallel paths here; one path, a corporate blog and a corporate law suit. This will be Part 1.

The other a continuation of their transformation of their 10 year old e-commerce site, BabyCenter, into a media company. The latest steps in the latter was the purchase earlier this week of Maya's Mom, a social networking site for moms'. This will be Part 2.

In early June, the corporate blog, JN JBTW, when live with the following welcome from the editor, Marc Monseau,

"Everyone else is talking about our company, so why can’t we? There are more than 120,000 people who work for Johnson & Johnson and its operating companies. I’m one of them, and through JNJ BTW, I will try to find a voice that often gets lost in formal communications."

Hmmm, I think we have a page in our why participation in social media is a good thing for corporations presentation that says something about a conversation going on about your company that you might want to get involved in, right Toby? Someplace before or after the Cluetrain reference. So, as I read those words, I was thinking ......no, I am not going to write one judgmental {cynical} word. Let's take it all at face value and see how it unfolds.

I wrote a blog post a while back mentioning the paradox: we want our clients to blog but nonetheless many of the blogging marketing and social media consultants jump all over every corporation that enters the blogosphere for not doing it perfectly...meaning doing it precisely according to the Koolaid Manifesto. So, not to be tarred by my own brush, I wrote nothing.

Toby Bloomberg and Fard Johnmar raised some valid points in their constructive reviews; Toby mentioned the lack of social bookmarketing and links to J&J while Fard noted the risk of corporate blogs "sounding stiff, safe and boring" which seemed to imply that was how he found this one.

Maybe so at first, but this month, JNJBTW stepped right in front of the Red Cross freight train and answered the question about the fact that everyone was talking about J&J and why couldn't they. They could. And did. And did a really great job. Actually I would have to say that they really did snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They were suing the Red Cross after all; and originally it appeared as if they were suing the Red Cross for using the red cross.

As Paul Herring pointed out on Chaos Scenario, aptly titled, Johnson and Johnsons New Approach to PR. Ray Jordan, Corporate VP of Public Affairs and Corporate Communications, courageously used the corporate blog to tell the J&J side of the story even using an intriguing headline, "Your Doing What?!"

Cam Beck added this in a comment:

"If the blog posts I've read are any indication, at worst (for J&J), people take the side of the Red Cross but can see J&J's point. At best, they take J&J's side.Such is the reward for being unpretentious in fact when communicating with an audience.

Johnson & Johnson's handling of the Tylenol poisoning in 1982 has become the classic case study of handling a corporate crisis. James Burke, CEO stepped up to the plate and so it seemed, immediately invoked a corporate credo that emphasized that the company's first responsibility was to their customers, and ordered the massive recall. Despite the fact that some have said that Burke did not have a choice but to issue a recall, it is nonetheless noteworthy that he reacted quickly, took responsibility, and communicated openly and directly with the public....and without having social media working for him, or against him. old

During the recent Pet Food Recall which had some similarities to the Tylenol poisonings, I reflected that not only was the Tylenol playbook not used by any of the corporations involved, I couldn't really come up with any examples of how after all those business classes and corporate workshops, anyone else had applied the Tylenol principles to a real life crisis. So, it is all the more ironic that J&J seemed to again be setting standards for crisis handling.

Part 2 will discuss how and why the 10 year Baby Center and its faithful sidekick Parent Center hired Tina Sharkey from AOL, Judith Meskill from AOL/Weblogs, and then bought Mayas Mom.

Tags: BabyCenter, Mayas's Mom, Tina Sharley, Judith Meskill, Tylenol, johnson & Johnson, Fard Johnmar, Red Cross, Cam Berk, Ray Jordan, Paul Herrng