How to destroy your company's image in one fell swoop

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6938364.stm

 

I am utterly amazed that anyone in their right mind could be so totally ignorant as to think that the money Johnson and Johnson can get from the lawsuit will counteract the negative publicity. Seriously bad management.

[Guard Dog]

There are many charities I am extremely disdainful of but the Red Cross is definitely NOT one of them. No other group has done half as much good world wide as the Red Cross. This stupid lawsuit just proves how utterly cynical this world has become. I expect you are correct, this will become a PR disaster, and i am amazed the folks at J&J cannot see that.

[Gromnir]

actually, the red cross has a pretty well documented history o' deceit and corruption. as a large charity with lots o' paid employees, it probably should come as no surprise that the red cross has taken some considerable pr hits of their own over the years. in point o' fact, in a complete 180 to gd pov, the red cross is one charity that Gromnir would never volunteer monies to as we is quite disappointed with their track record of actually getting a significant % of donated money/supplies to victims.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

actually, the red cross has a pretty well documented history o' deceit and corruption. as a large charity with lots o' paid employees, it probably should come as no surprise that the red cross has taken some considerable pr hits of their own over the years. in point o' fact, in a complete 180 to gd pov, the red cross is one charity that Gromnir would never volunteer monies to as we is quite disappointed with their track record of actually getting a significant % of donated money/supplies to victims.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Would Gromnir mind backing that up? I know there are organisations that are crappy about getting donations to teh stricken, but I thought the Red Cross were good. Up there with Medicins Sans Frontiers.

[Tale]

This is what I could find against the Red Cross: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_..._11_controversy

 

Even after reading that, I still have a high opinion of the organization.

[Gromnir]

google it if you wish... we did the research a few years ago, but is not as if we saved it. search for red cross + corruption or embezzlement. search for american red cross + (add some foreign disaster here.) search for info regarding % of a donated $ that actually reaches victims.

 

...

 

there is a reason that the well-paid red cross president resigned post 9/11. all that media exposure weren't good for red cross.

 

most big charities with paid employees is gonna suffer similar problems... which is why Gromnir tends to avoid such organizations when we donate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

This is what I could find against the Red Cross: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_..._11_controversy

 

Even after reading that, I still have a high opinion of the organization.

Hmmmm. I thought it was the United Way that was caught misappropriating donations following 9-11.

 

My support for RC comes for two reasons that I will admit were personal. After Katrina the dog rescue group I work with sent volutneers to N.O. and Biloxi to help with dog rescue. It was a well intentioned and utterly half-a***d effort on our part. They went there with nothing but pick up trucks, several hundred pounds of dog food, cages, and a single pop up tent/gazeebo. The regular emergency groups there were doing nothing for the dogs, and the animal groups were taxed to the limit. The local red cross let our team borrow one of their trailers, power it off of their generator, and even gave them several dozens cases of bottled water and first aid kits.

 

The other reason I like the RC comes from back in 1991. It was in in the pull out phase of D.S. We were setting up a radar and nav-aids becaon near the airfield at al-Wafrah Kuwait. You can imagine what late summer feels like in southern Kuwait. The air field was in the middle of nowhere and the only thing that was delivered to us on a regular basis was diesel, water and MRE's. Then after nearly a week of operations a Red Cross truck shows up with a freezer full of ice cream (a lot of other stuff too but the ice cream is what I remeber the most). I never saw any other groups out there except RC and the USO. I guess that's why I donate to each group every year.

[Walsingham]

I just generally respect the fact that their ground 'troops' consistently put themselves in harm's way, and that they manage to transcend conflict boundaries on many occasions. What they do isn't always good, but it is often crucial to saving lives.

 

I just picked a book more or less randomly off the shelf, and here's a quote:

 

[uNAMIR driving into a refugee camp in Rwanda]

 

"When we stopped and got out of our vehicles, we were swarmed by a thick cloud of flies, which stuck to our eyes and mouths and crawled into our ears and noses. It was hard not to gag with the smell, but breathing through the mouth was difficult with the flies. A young Belgian Red Cross worker spotted us and interrupted her rounds to guide us through the camp. The refugees huddled around small open fires, a silent, ghost-like throng that followed us listlessly with their eyes as we picked our way gingerly through the filth of the camp. I was deply impressed by the young Belgian woman's calm compassion as she gently administered what aid she could to these desperate souls. It was obvious she could see through tehir dirt and despair to their humanity."

 

Lt.Gen. Romeo Dallaire - Shake Hands with the Devil.

 

But irrespective of how good or bad the Red Cross are, they are certainly seen as good, and picking a fight with them? Sure, and why not punch a few nuns whle you're at it? Genius!

 

*Edited to add emphasis*

[taks]

i think most of the previous controversy was with the american red cross... that said, even in the most corrupt organizations, there are still average joes working for them that are honest and compassionate.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

"But irrespective of how good or bad the Red Cross are, they are certainly seen as good, and picking a fight with them? Sure, and why not punch a few nuns whle you're at it? Genius!"

 

the red cross has loads of dirty laundry. they get a free pass from most of us 'cause they is the biggest charity in this country and we all recognize that they is present at every major disaster. your "punch a nun" example is actually worth mentioning, 'cause for a long time it were also taboo to sue the catholic church. the % of pedophile priests is actually far less than % o' pedophile school teachers or pedophile little league coaches, 'but 'cause of well-documented court cases the church has taken a serious pr hit with the general public. somebody had to be willing to punch a nun somewhere along the way, no?

 

as for anecdotal evidence 'bout how wonderful individual red cross members is... please. taks already pointed out the flaw in that logic, so no need for us to reexamine.

 

regardless, when you give money to the red cross, some significant % of every dollar you donate is going to cover their organizational costs and to be thrown into their interest bearing rainy-day funds. even w/o corruption concerns, the red cross is a business that is in business to stay in business. most people working for red cross is not volunteers. many such employees gots company cars and go to work at offices/facilities that is at least as nice as Gromnir's.

 

you thinks people is gonna stop buying band-aids 'cause of this law suit? HA! red cross is the folks who has more to lose. johnson and johnson is still gonna sell toothpaste and band-aids as long as they makes a good product and sell at competitive prices. red cross, on the other hand, has no product to sell other than their reputation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

you thinks people is gonna stop buying band-aids 'cause of this law suit? HA! red cross is the folks who has more to lose. johnson and johnson is still gonna sell toothpaste and band-aids as long as they makes a good product and sell at competitive prices. red cross, on the other hand, has no product to sell other than their reputation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

It is true that reputation is more important to the RC than it is to J&J, and I agree that the effect of the suit on J&J sales will almost certainly be negligible. But in this case, I don't think that the facts do much to impugn the RC's reputation. The allegation is that the RC is selling stuff using their logo (with the profits going to fund RC charitable activities & overhead), which J&J argues is beyond the scope of the license that J&J gave the RC a century ago. Even if J&J is right on all counts and the judge laughs all of the RC's defenses out of court, I doubt that these facts will cause any current or potential donor to pause before signing a check to the RC. It's a business matter about a really old trademark license-- it's nowhere close to molesting children or buying Bentleys for their executives.

[Walsingham]

I appreciate greatly your dismissive tone, mate. But I think if you concentrate you'll see what I mean.

 

1. I never said we should treat the Red Cross as a sacred cow. Unexamined organisations tend inevitably towards corruption. I'm not saying that they haven't made mistakes.

 

2. The anecdotal example I gave was represented as just that. My point was to illustrate that it would be wrong to represent the Red Cross as an organisation that is just about lining their pockets. I would not want them to lose out on funding because they go places and have a history of compassion, professionalism and morality that stands above competing organisations.

 

3. It's nonsense to suggest that a corporation is unaffected by public perception. Johnson and Johnson do not make anything which is unique to them. There are innumerable other ways one can buy bandaids and skin lotion.

 

4. The fact that the Red Cross has paid employees is not a bad thing. I know some charities where the employees become more concerned about staying in a job than serving the organisation's purpose. But I also know charities run by volunteers where everything is a complete muddle and vast sums of money are wasted due to inefficiency and general lack of time.

 

4.1 A certain degree of flashness can be excused on grounds of providing a good working environment, and as a means of retaining high calibre employees. Running the Red Cross out of a shack in the bayou is an option, but see how fast the best brains scuttle off to six figure salaries in coporations.

[Gromnir]

"It's a business matter about a really old trademark license-- it's nowhere close to molesting children or buying Bentleys for their executives."

 

you and Gromnir both know that facts of the case will not be what plays in court of public opinion. media will dig and find dirt on both j&j and rc for just so long as this is a relevant and juicy news topic. the actual facts of the case will be dry and dull, and that wont stop journalists from making interesting. the rc has dirt... loads of dirt.

 

as for walsingham points... there is many other charities that not spend donated money on organizational costs. you donate money for katrina victims or homeless in Albuquerque and you probably want more than 30 cents on dollar going to those particular causes, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

Perhaps. I guess I don't see this case as particularly "juicy." RC corruption is already a pretty attractive story for a journalist to pursue, whether they're in the middle of litigation or not. I don't know that an IP dispute with a big company increases the visibility of an organization as famous as the RC very much.

 

Although you never know the kind of lurid details that could pop up in discovery...

[Gorgon]

A charity should be judged on eficiency, but there is a tendency to forget that there are costs involved, and that these are comperable to other companies with similar logistic and office operations. Raising money costs money. You think the people who stop you on the street or call you on the phone for a donation work for free ?.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Since the Red Cross threatened legal action against various video game devs/publishers for using a red cross as a symbol for health in various games, I think they are fair game for similar action by others.

[Aram]

That's a terrific point. I'd forgotten about that.

[Guard Dog]

Since the Red Cross threatened legal action against various video game devs/publishers for using a red cross as a symbol for health in various games, I think they are fair game for similar action by others.

Wasn't Atari/Bioware the target of something like that after NWN came out? IIRC the healing kits had a red cross on them. Then after the first patch they were gone.

[Sand]

Yeppers.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Sand

[Tigranes]

Hilarious. Just make it a green cross or a heart..

 

Interesting about the RC v. J&J thing. Potentially, though, because the suit itself is comparatively dull, it has the potential to go nearly completely under the radar - one or two short articles about the result of the suit years later, and that's the end of it. That could very well hpappen. If conditions are right for some journalists and journo institutions to seize upon this and dig up some dirt... well, whether existent or dubious, I'm sure quite a lot could be dug up about the RC, being a large charity organisation. It's kinda inescapable. And if that happens, it will have an effect on the RC - people will often just carry away with them a vague uncertainty about the integrity of the organisation intsead of a concrete idea on what if anything they did wrong.

 

The suit of course isn't completely ridiculous, if it comes down to it, though; J&J is perfectly entitled to protect their legal possessions, and can't give away their logo to any old Joe, no matter how 'ordinary' their particular one tends to be.

[Gorgon]

The real problem must be the sheer number of lawyers pumped out of the schools every year. They need something to do.

[Gorth]

Hilarious. Just make it a green cross or a heart..

Or use "The Staff of Asclepius" (staff with snakes around it). Has the benefit of not being tied up with any one religion when you sell your game all over the world, never mind that the red cross may actually be a trademark.

[Tigranes]

I guess it's because many people may not recognise it, and instead associate snakes with biblical connotations.

[Calax]

Hilarious. Just make it a green cross or a heart..

Or use "The Staff of Asclepius" (staff with snakes around it). Has the benefit of not being tied up with any one religion when you sell your game all over the world, never mind that the red cross may actually be a trademark.

I think that's taken by the HMO Blue Cross.

 

And I believe that if more than 50% of the donations get used for charitable necessities it's still considered a charitable organization.

[Gorth]

Hilarious. Just make it a green cross or a heart..

Or use "The Staff of Asclepius" (staff with snakes around it). Has the benefit of not being tied up with any one religion when you sell your game all over the world, never mind that the red cross may actually be a trademark.

I think that's taken by the HMO Blue Cross.

 

And I believe that if more than 50% of the donations get used for charitable necessities it's still considered a charitable organization.

Just a few organisations who use it (from wikipedia):

 

The World Health Organization

The Star of Life - symbol of the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians

The American Medical Association

The American Osteopathic Association

The Canadian Medical Association

The American Veterinary Medical Association

The British Royal Army Medical Corps

 

it is universally associated with medicine and healing. I seriously doubt any of those would have much luck claiming a millennia old symbol for their own.