Comments on: Ruin Your Corporate Image 101

By: Sean Dix

Sean Dix — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:06:07 +0000

I could not have described the true character of the current Johnson & Johnson corporation any better then J&J did itself by suing the American Red Cross. It is the moral equivalent to suing Mother Teresa.

Sean Dix

By: C. Reaves

C. Reaves — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:56:51 +0000

Mugs, I didn’t visit his blog to refute one of his posts, and I didn’t refute anything he said. What I did do was offer my own interpretation of events so people might see that all is not what it may seem with the ARC. The ARC is not Santa Claus as most people seem to automatically assume. Now Ploafmaster has branded me as “Jolly Old C. Reaves” - as smarmy a piece of name calling as I have seen. Let me give you some advice Ploafmaster: deal with people’s IDEAS, not their persona. Don’t track people’s identities down if they disagree with your interpretation, even in the name of “protecting your readers” What baloney.

Clearly, Ploafmaster, you expect everyone to agree with what you say. How boring. Why accuse me of working for J&J simply because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the facts? Do you not recognize that as a typical unspeak technique - to cast doubt on a dissenter’s motives even with no evidence at all? Also, why give me a smarmy moniker because I don’t agree with your interpretation? That’s another propaganda ploy - give the dissenter a funny name so he won’t be taken seriously. Can you spell bias?

As for positng links, who here can’t do a Google search? I have to PROVE my position in writing and no one else does? Isn’t that yet another manipulative ploy - hold the other party up to a higher level of proof than yourself? Not gonna work for me, and the remaining 4 readers shouldn’t put up with it either.

By: Ploafmaster General

Ploafmaster General — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:54:08 +0000

I don’t want anybody to be afraid that I know little facts about who’s posting on my site, but I think it’s important that I disclose certain pieces of info. Nell, just like Stephen Hall, posted from an ARC computer. Now, I think everybody here can tell that I’m on the ARC’s side here, but I also think it’s fair for other readers to know that certain posters’ opinions are possibly influenced by other affiliations.

Nell, I’m not telling you not to post (I’m glad you did - another comment!), I just wanted to level the playing field a bit.

BTW, in case everybody doesn’t know - when you leave a comment, the site automatically tracks the IP address of the computer you post from. That’s how I could identify the ARC commenters. As for Jolly Old C. Reaves - well, it’s not often you see somebody fiercely fight for the giant corporate entity over a charity, so I decided to see if I could find out more about him.

I’m not doing research on all my readers - I don’t have time for that

By: Nell

Nell — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:28:58 +0000

Before you pass judgement on the Red Cross, I think it’s important to know the facts of the case. I also think it’s important to know the facts about the Red Cross. J&J claims that it began using the Red Cross emblem before the American Red Cross. In fact, the Red Cross began using the red cross emblem in 1881, six years before Johnson & Johnson began using the emblem in 1887!! The organization isn’t peffect nor does it claim to be, it did not steal money from 9/11 - in fact the donated money helped thousands of victims and still today they provide services. If you believe everything you read or hear than you do yourself a disservice by not finding out the facts first.

By: Mugs

Mugs — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:45:41 +0000

C. Reaves,

I believe he’s looking for proof about claims that you’ve made, such as the one about the phony Katrina relief program. The accusations he has made are factual statements: Johnson and Johnson is indeed suing The Red Cross, which even you acknowledge. The nature of his accusations could be called in to question, which you are trying to do, but since you are visiting his blog to refute one of his posts, factual backup would do you much better than trying to turn it back on him.

He didn’t attack you. He asked you to furnish proof for claims that you were making. If you can’t do that, why bother making the claims in the first place?

By: Jacob Kelly

Jacob Kelly — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:45:14 +0000

Poopy…I felt that would be an intellegent way to start my response. SERIOUSLY!!! When will corporate greed end. I agree that the ARC has not been a perfect institution, but I do believe they are a good organization. Size lends itself to corruption, and it is a fine example. On the other hand, a red cross?? a red cross??? My father is a graphic designer and I know a bit about branding. Are the crosses identical in proportion of width and such?? Cause I can think of a million stores with a yellow seashell on their sign at the beach but I don’t see anyone suing them about it.

On the other hand, are the makers of the ARC marked products making a profit. Most likely, so perhaps it is problematic.

But at the end of the day, problematic or not, the dispute should be ended by the ARC stating it will not after this campaign continue, and J&J should shut up, and get over it. I imagine most of their stockholder, no matter how blue blooded really aren’t in the mood for the fight.

What ever happened to communication? Whatever happened to ethics? All this crap bothers me. All I can say is:

POOPY!

By: C. Reaves

C. Reaves — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:20:05 +0000

You made the initial accusations Ploafmaster. It’s up to you to provide facts rather than just opinion. You felt that a 100 year old agreement that ARC would not use the trademark commericially was an unimportant detail!?

And no, I don’t work for J&J. I just know that the ARC is not the perfect little angel it pretends to be.

And no wonder only five people read your blog if you research and attack people who post their observations here. Duh. I’m outta here so make it four.

By: Albert

Albert — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:34:31 +0000

Here some historic contributions: The Red Cross Movement was born in 1863 by a Swiss business man, and the Red Cross emblem is created using the inverse of the Swiss flag. Clara Barton traveled thru Europe where she learned about the movement, and then she returned and founded the American National Red Cross in 1881. Mr. Robert Wood Johnson founded Johnson & Johnson in 1886, five years after the introduction of the Red Cross emblem in the US, and 23 years after the conception of the Red Cross emblem by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It looks like Mr. Robert Wood Johnson got the idea of the Red Cross “logo” out of the widely use of the emblem by the American Red Cross National Society and the ICRC. Now about the Barton Agreement: “In 1895, when Congress was first considering legislation to charter the Red Cross, J&J went to Clara Barton and negotiated an agreement (the “Barton Agreement”) that would have permitted J&J to continue to use the red cross emblem if Congress gave the exclusive use of the emblem to the Red Cross in a charter. The Barton Agreement was effective only if Congress passed a specific law that would have prohibited J&J from continuing to use a red cross symbol. Congress did not pass the law, so the agreement never took effect. Thus, the Barton Agreement was effectively rendered null and void. J&J admitted this fact in testimony before Congress in 1942 in hearings in the House of Representatives on the “Protection of the Name and Emblem of the Red Cross.” 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 279-81 (1942).”

So, this whole show perfomance named “lawsuit” by J&J doesn’t seems to me but a mistaken way to carry attention to J&J over the use of the red cross, don’t you think?

By: Ploafmaster General

Ploafmaster General — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:43:30 +0000

Look C. Reaves, I know Stephen Hall is from the ARC (IP address gave you away, dude), but you surely must be from J+J. I mean, I know you do that Polaroid art stuff, but perhaps it’s just a side gig to your J+J day job?

I didn’t mention the 100 year-old-agreement because I didn’t want to regurgitate the whole article, which I linked to. You still haven’t linked to any of your stuff. You just keep dropping these accusations for stuff that ARC did. I don’t have time to dig that up - some links would be great.

Hit us with some links, and then we’ll see what’s what.

By: C. Reaves

C. Reaves — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:59:10 +0000

Maybe the ARC would have been better not violating the logo co-use agreement with J&J in the first place if they wanted to save legal fees. Although Ploafmaster did not mention it, a 100 year agreement allowed ARC to use the logo as long as it was not used for commercial purposes. The ARC violated that agreement when they licensed the logo to a manufacturer of cheap tweezers and nail clippers to make a buck. I’m no fan of corporations, but enforcng an agreement made in good faith is an acceptable thing for J&J to do. If ARC wanted to have more money for relief maybe their CEO should return some of his $400,000/year salary.

The Red Cross is still up to its shenanigans. Just this week it was disclosed that they had an aid program for Katrina victims that they did not disclose publicly, required a 20-page application form to discourage people from applying for it, and then never contacted many of the people who did manage to apply. Sure, a $40 million Katrina aid program looked good in the books and on Powerpoint slides, but then they characteristically tried to keep as much of the money as possible.