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

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.

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|