Shame on the American Red Cross
There was some fascinating discussion over dinner about the Johnson & Johnson defensive lawsuit against the American Red Cross.
In a nutshell, there is a 112-year-old agreement between J&J (which has owned the red cross trademark since the 1800s) and the ARC in which J&J granted them the right to use the red cross symbol to promote themselves, raise money, and do everything except brand products in the US which would directly compete with J&J’s own first aid supplies.
The American Red Cross has been violating that agreement, probably as a calculated risk that no company would want the PR nightmare of having to sue them. The ARC was wrong.
So if you donate to the American Red Cross, you might be interested to know that your money is being pocketed by lawyers who have, I would guess, given the go-ahead to the ARC’s violations all along and will now profit further from the lawsuit.
Ray Jordan, who is the top banana at J&J when it comes to communications, has written quite a frank blog post about the matter on JNJBTW. Kilmer House, a J&J blog which covers the lengthy history of the company and its people, has some incredible archive items which give further background on what happned 112 years ago.
These remarks from Samizdata commenters most interested me:
Back in the 70’s and 80’s I worked for a private third world relief and development agency. Johnson & Johnson was one of the companies that provided the stock that we in turn shipped to third world hospitals. (Johnson’s Wax and Servicemaster also come to mind.) These are totally private companies doing what QuaNGOs like Red Cross/Red Crescent would have you believe requires the force of law.
These companies are the free market/libertarian answer to congressionally voted foreign aid programs. And the fact that they make really good products at a competitive prices is all the better.
I’m a volunteer with them. I’m certified as one of their instructors, and teach for them about once a quarter.
The ARC’s training is very much a profit center. A class in general first aid and adult-infant-child CPR, sponsored by the chapter and taught by a chapter volunteer costs $65 a head from them. If I want to rent the dummies and course materials (with mandatory non-refundable book purchase) and run the class on my own it’s about $30 per person. If I don’t want to rent a damn thing, but want to still be able to claim that the course met ARC standards and followed the ARC curriculum, there’s still a fee even for that.
Of course, God help you if you need to get something out of them that you already paid for.
…I guess my point is, they’re a non-profit only in a technical sense. They seem to be primarily a vehicle for turning volunteer instructor time (for which they typically collect $50/hour on average) into salaries.
I have hated the ARC’s tactics since 1983. I was a medical lab tech in the USAF. Twice a year we held major blood drives to fill their coffers. We used government supplies, our facilities and our personnel to conduct those drives and GIVE them more than 3000 units for each drive. One day while working in the Blood Bank department I was short a pint of whole blood (rarely occurred) and contacted the ARC to send us one. They did at a cost of more than $800! I petitioned that we no longer conduct blood drives for them, but the brass wouldn’t listen. When 911 happened and the ARC started taking donations I told my wife that money would NOT go to the victims and we weren’t donating to the ARC. Friends wanted to start helping the ARC and I told them not to do it because all monies go in the main fund and only a small portion would go to NYC. They looked at as if I were crazy. But when the news broke about the ARC’s plans with the money, I gave a big I told you so. This classless tactic by the ARC is not surprising to me.
This is, I hasten to add, the American Red Cross, not the Red Cross. I have heard from disinterested but very knowledgeable sources that Geneva is going to come down on the ARC like a ton of bricks for these shenanigans. Good.
I’ll disclose what I can: I am not a totally disinterested party in this matter, but can’t get into why. Let’s just say that if anyone has any evidence or argument that they think would change my mind on this, I am very open to seeing or hearing it.
Filed under: Life
Even though J&J may claim they own the logo, they are not being completely honest. Red Cross has issued a detailed rebuttal of J&J’s claims at http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_6910,00.html
Though I admit, the J&J blog is a great idea - it really puts a human side to this “cold corporation suing a poor non profit” image they are having right now.
I am surpirsed at your comment - shame on the American Red Cross? I am a former employee and current volunteer, and I have nothing but the utmost respect fo the organization. It is the largest humanitarian org. in our country, and they have done so much to help millions of people. During Katirna, Red Cross employees were there 24/7. Please tell me - what were you doing? Most people were on their couch, watching the news from the safety of their home, but they are so eager to jump on point their fingers at others. Nobody responded well to Katrina. Nobody.
Red Cross is a charity, but in order to be effective, it also need s to function as a business. They provide all their services for FREE. If your house burns down, they are there with food, water, shelters, hotel vouchers, medications - and they never send you a bill. How can they do this without money? Red Cross does get a lot of donations, but not nearly enough to keep up with Mother Nature. They have to make money somehow, and doesn’t selling first aid kits go with their mission? All the money goes back to their humanitarian programs - trust me, there are no plasma TVs or pizza parties goingo on (at least in the chapter I worked at). Blood services it he for-profit sector of the Red Cross. It generated money, and all the money goes back into the Red Cross for humanitarian programs and yes, admininstration. (Red Cross employees need to get paid too!) With all the test that every blood donation has to go through, there is absolutely no way the Red Cross can just give the blood to hospotals.
The issue with 9/11 - After 9/11, the ARC received a lot of donations for the victims. Some chapters mishandled the money and used it towards other disasters and administrative purposes. From what I know, they were fined by National Headquarter, and had to pay back the money that were supposed to go to 9/11. I can’t speak for other chapters, but for the one I worked at, we make sure all donations are posted to the right fund.
Red Cross is a huge organization, and no organization is perfect. They have their flaws, but I’ve seen first hand all the good that they have done and continue to do. The people i have worked with there are unbelievably selfless and passionate. Its quite a contrast from working at a for-profit corporation. I admit, there have been some poor leadership choices in the past, but some people are greedy, selfish and corrupt, and unfortunately, some of them do reach positionso of power. Non profits are not immune to this. But don’t let the greed of a few people eclipse all the good the Red Cross has done and the millions of people it has helped.
Jackie, I don’t think its as clear as that - if you read into it in a bit more detail you will find that the Red Cross had use of the badge beforehand, and it is probably very arguable that a red cross is in the public domain (if not owned by the national Red Cross), and at the very least has not been enforced by J&J - who use it on only one product apparently - for 100 years.
And notwithstanding nice cop PR bloggers, its not a good play - they probably lose even if they win.
Guys, it’s pretty simple:
The American Red Cross had a longstanding legal agreement.
The American Red Cross broke the longstanding legal agreement.
As Seth Godin blogged:
This is all about trademark law - different beast. Check out some of the trademark lawyers blogs on the subject if you are interested in taking it any further. Patent Baristas is a typical one.
Notwithstanding that, would you really suggest J&J did this frm a PR pov?
Alan, why do you insist on speaking about this as if J&J is wrong, and as if there is some legal consensus against them? It is tiresome and not a little annoying.
As for doing ANYTHING from a “PR pov,” where did I ever suggest any such thing?
Please stop wasting my time with comments like this.
You wrote:
“Let’s just say that if anyone has any evidence or argument that they think would change my mind on this, I am very open to seeing or hearing it.”
If your responses are examples of openness, I’d rather not see what closed minded looks like !!
Alan, I didn’t think it needed stating that I wasn’t open to people putting words in my mouth, misconstruing what I said, or misrepresenting the facts. My bad.