It is all over the news. Johnson & Johnson is suing the American Red Cross because the latter is now licensing the “red cross” logo for use on commercial products.
Johnson & Johnson own the trademark to the “red cross” logo and, according the various press releases and reports, the company argues that the Red Cross Charity by licensing out the logo for use on first-aid kits and other general health and beauty items like combs and toothbrushes is violating a deal the two made some 100 years ago.
Materials issued by Johnson & Johnson state: “Johnson & Johnson began using the Red Cross design and "Red Cross" word trademarks in the United States in 1887, predating the chartering of the American Red Cross. The Company has had exclusive rights to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products within our longstanding product categories for over 100 years. Since its creation, the American Red Cross has had the rights to use the Red Cross trademark only in connection with its non-profit relief services.”
They argue they had a deal with Clara Barton who founded the Red Cross on this whole area. However, the current Red Cross President calls the multi-million dollar lawsuit “obscene”.
Johnson & Johnson use the logo on some of their wound care products in the USA.
From a PR and Corporate image point of view this is an interesting and, some argue, a brave move. And I think everyone can learn by watching how it unfolds and what they final outcome is not only in the courts but also in image, share price and so on.
I think it raises an interesting dilemma that every corporation will face at some point in time. Do you follow the “right legal route” to protect your assets, when the possible impact on one’s image is undeterminable? How do you decide on what is best in the medium and long term when you know you may take an uncomfortable short-term image or PR hit? An image hit that may end up not being short-term and sticks with you forever, like it does for Nestle over milk powder for infants?
As postings on blogs and online already show on the one side of the court, both literally and in the minds of consumers you have the rational argument about trademarks and agreements. Then on the other side you have the emotional arguments about how the Red Cross does great work, and so even J&J win will they lose? Even if the company wins the legal fight if the courts decide J&J is in the right, will they lose the emotional fight and suffer a cost greater than the potential lost revenues from products associated with the “Red Cross” logo?
The emotional connection for Johnson & Johnson with their customers, doctors, nurses, parents and consumers is very important and sets J&J aside from the other colder and more clinical pharmaceutical companies. J&J is associated with Baby Products (Johnson’s Baby) and this gives the company association a lot of emotional warmth.
However, of course, Johnson’s baby is a very small part of the actual business. But again it shows the role of emotion to the whole J&J name and image.
They argue they had a deal with Clara Barton who founded the Red Cross on this whole area. However, the current Red Cross President calls the multi-million dollar lawsuit “obscene”.
Johnson & Johnson use the logo on some of their wound care products in the USA.
From a PR and Corporate image point of view this is an interesting and, some argue, a brave move. And I think everyone can learn by watching how it unfolds and what they final outcome is not only in the courts but also in image, share price and so on.
I think it raises an interesting dilemma that every corporation will face at some point in time. Do you follow the “right legal route” to protect your assets, when the possible impact on one’s image is undeterminable? How do you decide on what is best in the medium and long term when you know you may take an uncomfortable short-term image or PR hit? An image hit that may end up not being short-term and sticks with you forever, like it does for Nestle over milk powder for infants?
As postings on blogs and online already show on the one side of the court, both literally and in the minds of consumers you have the rational argument about trademarks and agreements. Then on the other side you have the emotional arguments about how the Red Cross does great work, and so even J&J win will they lose? Even if the company wins the legal fight if the courts decide J&J is in the right, will they lose the emotional fight and suffer a cost greater than the potential lost revenues from products associated with the “Red Cross” logo?
The emotional connection for Johnson & Johnson with their customers, doctors, nurses, parents and consumers is very important and sets J&J aside from the other colder and more clinical pharmaceutical companies. J&J is associated with Baby Products (Johnson’s Baby) and this gives the company association a lot of emotional warmth.
However, of course, Johnson’s baby is a very small part of the actual business. But again it shows the role of emotion to the whole J&J name and image.
J&J is usually rated at the top of most admired companies in the USA and so we will see very quickly as this plays out what impact this will have. Although the share price fell a bit, this is harder to separate from the general market turbulence and I suspect that Wall Street knows that the vast majority of J&J profits comes from products consumers have no idea the company makes and it is probably consumers who may react. Consumers, even then, have little idea of the breadth of J&J whose brands include everything from Neutrogena, RoC, Reach, Listerine, Carefree and on and on.
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment