Total Recall

by Randall Hull of The Br@nd Ranch®

AKA: "Oh What a feeling".

Unless you have been on a trek to one of the poles or living in a cabin deep in the woods somewhere, you have likely heard about the huge problem facing Toyota Motor Corporation and its U.S. organization Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Here's a quick recap just in case:

Toyota Motor Corporation began a recall in late 2009, which – as of March – totaled 8.5 million cars globally due to braking problems and accelerator pedal defects which were initially blamed on other things such as "floor mat entrapment". The initial recall included Toyota's Corolla, Matrix, Camry, Highlander SUV, RAV4, as well as Tundra and Sequoia trucks. After Toyota admitted the 2010 Prius had a design defect in its anti-lock brake system, it too joined the list, and the U.S government began investigating the automaker.

And then there's the Black Box. As in commercial airlines, automobiles have "black boxes" known as Event Data Recorders, or EDRs, which keep a data record of various things the automobile was doing a few seconds prior to and after a crash. The EDRs in Toyotas use a proprietary software which, according to an Associated Press investigation, until recently could be read by only one laptop in the U.S. In response to growing pressure Toyota has delivered three laptops to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the software capable of reading their EDR data. The AP investigation also found that Toyota was not offering full disclosure about what their device did and did not record.

Discussing the legal implications and what was and was not disclosed is beyond the scope of this article and my expertise. I want to focus on how this could throttle the Toyota brand and how they can put the brakes on this situation before it spins out of control. After reading all the news releases and legal saber rattling, "Oh What a feeling" is taking on a whole new meaning for me.

Toyota has been producing vehicles since 1936, and up to now, safety and reliability has been the foundation of their brand. Yet, in the middle of all this Toyota officials admitted the company's rapid growth may have gotten in the way of maintaining the highest standards of quality control. Its the familiar company profits before customer safety scenario -- hardly confidence building.

Added to this poor communications mix, when Toyota should have reassured the world they had the recall situation in hand, they made a fundamental faux pas, overlooking the importance of not only what you say but also how you deliver the message. In January, a Toyota executive addressed television cameras wearing – gasp! – a surgical mask. Perhaps this is common in Japan during cold season, but the message was broadcast worldwide, where a cultural nuance such as this could easily be misconstrued. First, it projected a "we are in toxic triage" image, and secondly, CEO Akio Toyoda should have delivered the message – sans mask. The U.S. marketplace, particularly, does not take kindly to aloof leadership in a crisis, and quite simply, this was a crisis of confidence, where brands live or die.

This debacle holds so many lessons for brand managers and executives, alike. Primary amongst them what not to do when your product demonstrates a performance problem that puts your customers at risk. When building public trust in your product and your company, transparency followed by action is fundamental. The risk in failing to staunch eroding customer confidence is forever tarnishing your brand.

The Toyota recall, of course, is not the first time well known brands have faced a crisis.

In 1994, a professor at Lynchburg College reported a bug in the Intel Pentium floating point unit. He sent a memo to Intel reporting what became know as the Pentium FDIV bug. Intel, caught by surprise, had no crises strategy in place and chose to deny the problem. When public pressure became too great, Intel announced a recall and Andy Grove, Intel CEO at the time, offered one of the greatest mea culpas in corporate history. Although jokes prevailed for some time, the public forgave and moved on.

Johnson & Johnson had a huge headache in 1982 when cyanide-laced Tylenol in the Chicago area resulted in 7 fatalities. Johnson & Johnson took only 6 days to respond and recalled 30 million packages. At the time the incident was thought to be fatal to the company, but the public saw the action as a prime example of corporate responsibility. The final result was tamper-proof packaging on medications and Johnson & Johnson's brand intact.

Perrier recalled 160 million bottles of mineral water in 1990 when traces of benzene were discovered. Although the amounts were not considered enough to present a risk, Perrier acted to protect its reputation and was hailed as responsible public citizens.

Companies, who have dealt with critical challenges promptly and well, demonstrate how a brand can be guided through crises and emerge untarnished, if not stronger for it. A genuinely sincere apology timed appropriately will go far in winning back customer loyalty and restoring trust. Many companies have learned their customers listen most closely when they honestly admit failure.

Toyota is one of the world’s strongest brands according the Interbrand's rankings. CEO Akio Toyoda must utilize his best public communication skills and convince the public that he has taken control of this crisis. Then act swiftly and effectively. Should Toyota successfully address the many product issues, they will recover with nothing more than a bloody nose. But should they fail to resolve the problems fully, as recent reports indicate, the damage incurred may be fatal and the Toyota brand could be so severely tarnished, it will take years and millions of dollars to restore. "Oh what a feeling" that would be.

Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

What a Croc!

It's not every day you get a chance to use that phrase in a headline. But, what may become known as the "The Cayman Kerfuffle", presents the perfect opportunity.

Would a reasonable person find these confusingly similar?

         

 

$51,000 Blue Cayman                                                      $30 Blue Cayman

Let's see, one is a sleek, pricey, well-engineered, high performance sports car that is available in a variety of colors, the other is a stubby, inexpensive, molded plastic clog-like sandal that is also available in a variety of colors. Hmmm.

Even though the Porsche vs. Crocs dust up was discussed widely in November 2009, the seeming inanity still grinds on my nerves. So I can't resist another airing.

If you missed the coverage, here is the kerfuffle catalyst from the Crocs, Inc. Form 10-Q:

"On May 11, 2009, Crocs Europe B.V. received a letter from Dr. Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") claiming that the Company's use of the "Cayman" shoe model designator infringes upon their Community Trademark Registration of the mark "CAYMAN" in class 25. Porsche is requesting that Crocs Europe B.V. immediately cease and desist use of the Cayman mark and pay Porsche's attorney's fees in conjunction with the issuance of the notice letter. On July 30, 2009 the Company was served with notice of an injunction against Crocs Europe BV's use of the Cayman mark in Germany. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims."

Granted, Porsche has a registered trademark for "Cayman" in several international classes including 025, which does encompass footwear, and sells a line of Porsche Design shoes, although, apparently, not under the Cayman label.

I might understand Porsche being embarrassed by the possible association with the popular foam resin clogs spotted on the feet of celeb-kinder in Hollywood, South Beach, and other trendy locales. But infringement? Seriously? Shouldn't Porsche be more embarrassed for making this an issue? Likelihood of confusion is doubtful, unless Porsche dramatically changes its fashion strategy.

Realistically, few people will confuse Crocs Cayman clogs for a Porsche Cayman sports car or one of their designer driving shoes. Fewer still will think they originate from Porsche. Should they, a quick check of the Crocs logo on the shoe itself would correct any incertitude.

Several thoughts arise: Since the Crocs Cayman line was available commercially as early as 2004, five years before the registration issue date of April 2009 for Porsche, does Crocs have prior rights? Should International Truck Intellectual Property Company, owner of the Cayman trademark in International Class 012, which includes sports cars, seek redress from Porsche for infringement? Should Lacoste file an amicus brief since they have an oblique interest? After all, a Cayman is a type of alligator, and should Porsche prevail -- I don't see how, but lets pretend – based on their interpretation of infringement and confusion, the Lacoste logo, shown below, would be a likely next target.

Stay with me on this. It is probable that people driving Porsche Caymans could also be wearing Lacoste clothing, so confusion of origin is surely immanent. Hey, is that a Cayman polo shirt you're wearing?

On the subject of confusion, perhaps the Cayman Islands should pursue Porsche and Crocs for infringement. It is likely to find both products on the Islands, even at the same time and place, and wouldn't the Cayman Islands have prior rights, if we follow the labyrinthic logic in this argument? Toss in people wearing Lacoste fashions, and since most can't tell a Cayman from a run of the pond alligator, it could start a whole reptilian-brand confusion-fest and who knows where that would lead!

This could become a Trademark Infringement Smackdown with, say, Crocodile Dundee headlining. Although, come to think of it, this has certain "The Real Housewives of Intellectual Property" (surely an oxymoron) qualities to it and could spawn a new reality series on Bravo. The notion is no more ridiculous than the Porsche accusation -- and indubitably more entertaining. 

OK, my tongue is tired of being in my cheek.

The old maxim "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" seems apropos. The ill will engendered by overly aggressive enforcement, where likelihood of harm is not apparent, is damaging to a brand, even one as famous and resilient as Porsche. It will likely appear to consumers as needless bullying. That perception can cost far more to rectify than any possible impact of the perceived infringement.

Who's the likely winner in this spat? Certainly not Porsche. Crocs stands to gain from the publicity generated by this action. It is not exactly the way a company wants to gain visibility, but as a creative guy managing brands, I'd take what I get and spin it into branding silk – at the expense of Porsche, of course.

Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®

Whatever Happened to the Adversarial System?

My job sometimes is rescuing attorneys, often from themselves. Perhaps the quintessential illustration is a comment made by a corporate general counsel recently, whose organization was responsible for a number of victims, including fatalities. Her opening line to me was, “We’re not the empathy department in this company.” However, the reason she was talking to me was that the organization was about to be inundated with lawsuits from survivors, additional victims not yet known, and the unintended negative visibility that generally accompanies these situations, especially when your organization is considered a perpetrator.

Clearly, the adversarial system works in the courtroom—a rigorously controlled process and environment. Outside the courtroom, the adversarial attitude quickly brands one as cold, arrogant, callous, and anti-victim.

One of my clients is among the largest losers in an intellectual property lawsuit involving copyright infringement. For some 25 years, this firm distributed (via the most convenient mechanism available) copies of a small, highly focused financial advisory newsletter to all of its agents, associates, and franchises. At the end of 25 years, the author of the newsletter decided to sue for infringement. When I heard about the case, my first question to the client’s legal department was, “What’s your plan to settle this case?”

I received two immediate responses: “We’re not interested in settling” and “We have a good defense.” “What,” I asked, “could possibly be a defense that passes the straight face test?” The lawyers’ response was that the individuals involved, “waited too long to file a lawsuit.” “They knew all along what this client was doing with the materials.” My response was, “Even as a non-attorney, my guess is they have you dead to rights. Try to get them paid today. It’s only going to get worse if you wait.” The answer was something along the lines of a trial being inevitable.

The lawyer was prophetic and, of course, the trial was worse and sillier than one can possibly imagine. The jury threw the book at my client. The verdict was never appealed even though there was some bluster at the time that, obviously, such a huge jury award would be appealed.

The lesson for all attorneys is getting clearer by the day: Even though our system is adversarial at its root, as the number of cases getting to trial decreases, more and more forces are pushing for settlement. Increasingly, the answer is to find and hire lawyers who are comfortable being empathetic. Being empathetic is the opposite of being adversarial. Empathy means doing things that matter, where actions speak far louder than words. The concept of empathy is often described as “putting yourself in someone’s shoes.” If that other person is a victim, you’ll be causing yourself and your argument, as well as your attempts to settle, extraordinary damage. Better to step back and look at what the “victim” needs that you can provide, promptly, as a means of settlement and resolution.

Ninety-nine cases out of 100 filed will be settled, arbitrated, negotiated, dropped, or dismissed. Having your day in court is getting to be a pretty rare event.

Oh, and did I mention learning how to apologize? We’ll save that for another blog post.

-- James E. Lukaszewski, The Lukaszewski Group Inc.
 

Lion's Tap Shouldn't Have Sued. At Least Not So Soon.

A brief study in how the Lion's Tap could have had its burger and eaten it too.

I have to say, in the interest of full disclosure, I have an irrational love for the Lion's Tap.

Ever since I worked in Eden Prairie back in the 1990s, I've been hooked. Fast forward the better part of a decade, put our family a cool 35 miles away in Shoreview, and we still find ourselves driving nearly an hour on special occasions to grab a burger.

That's part of what made me so damn mad when I saw McDonald's latest billboards. Who's your patty? For Angus burgers? You've got to be kidding. Lion's Tap is "my" patty, thank you very much! They've had the slogan on their tastefully tacky t-shirts for over four years.

I thought about it though. I know Lion's Tap. But my guess is that only a small smattering of people do (perhaps 3-4% of the Twin Cities population if you were to survey). Who are they going to think came up with the slogan? And if they walked into Lion's Tap tomorrow, who would you think was ripping off whom? That's right. You guessed it.

It bugged me. I was a bit upset. I was ready to come to my restaurant's defense.

Until they sued.

You can read more here, but the fact of the matter is that Lion's Tap decided to run to the courts to remedy what is calls a trademark infringement case.

Here's the problem, instead of coming off as the victim (which you could argue Lion's Tap is), they come off as another coffee-in-the-crotch, show-me-the-money, lawsuit-happy opportunist. Just read some of the news stories and read some of the comments to see what I mean, here, here, and here.

Ick.

Let's explore what Lion's Tap "could have" done differently, and how it might have panned out.

Step 1: Calm down. I can't stress this enough. Righteous indignation is a dish best served carefully crafted. Yes, trademark infringement stings, and it can seem like a personal attack, but it is not. It's just business. McDonald's creative team could not have had an expectation of prior knowledge of Lion's Tap.

Step 2: Call the lawyer, but don't take off his leash [yet]. Your lawyer needs to understand the situation and begin preparing your case, but now isn't the time to act. Patience.

Step 3: Break out the digital video camera. Here's where you walk around your cozy little restaurant and ask your loyal customers what they think of McDonald's doing this to you. If they were like me, their candid responses would have been worth their advertising weight in gold.

Step 4: Get to YouTube. Post the video responses on YouTube. Right away. Start building a groundswell of support. Other people will make their own videos. People will comment. The videos would likely go viral quickly.

Why go though the trouble of Steps of 1 through 4 (instead of jumping ahead to Step 5)?

McDonald's -- your antagonist -- ends up looking pretty stupid, as though they copied someone else's good slogan. Or worse, they look like they're beating up on the little guy. There's no way Lion's Tap could pay for that type of positive exposure. Now, instead of a local hideaway, Lion's Tap could turn into a citywide sensation, introducing thousands of new people to the restaurant.

Now, Step 5: Sue the bastards. With public opinion behind you, now go after the money. No matter how it turns out, Lion's Tap would win. They win with broader exposure, they win with a reputation hit to McDonald's, and they could win a few bucks in court.  

Sorry Lion's Tap, you screwed up the "order". Only this time, you can't send it back.

Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

UPDATE: Here.

All About Taglines and Advertising Slogans: Who's Your Patty Anyway?

Taglines and advertising slogans can be wonderful branding and marketing tools, but I'm thinking (not Arby's, by the way) that McDonald's is probably not thinkin' that its (likely) famous I'm lovin' it tagline accurately describes its taste for the federal trademark infringement lawsuit that Twin Cities-based Lion's Tap recently slapped on McDonald's for its whopper of an advertising campaign -- promoting its new Angus Third Pounders -- served up with the clever and simple play-on-words advertising slogan and question: Who's Your Patty?

No doubt, McDonald's likely will not make a run for the border, instead, it likely will instruct its team of lawyers to think outside the bun in designing a successful legal defense and response strategy, in the hope of not hearing the court say to Lion's Tap in the end, have it your way

For your reading pleasure, here is a pdf copy of the complaint filed last Friday in Minnesota federal district court. As you will see from the Minnesota State Who's Your Patty? Certificate of Registration (attached to the filed complaint), Lion's Tap waited to register its claimed mark in Minnesota until August 18, 2009, ten days before filing suit. As a result, Lion's Tap clearly did not register the tagline "four years ago," or back in 2005 (the year it claims to have commenced use), as incorrectly reported ad nauseam, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Well, at least a couple of the media outlets covering the story avoided the mistake, and got the registration date right.

So, why is the date of registration significant? If McDonald's didn't know about Lion's Tap's use before rolling out its own use of "Who's Your Patty?" -- an entirely plausible scenario, since the mark was not registered, even in Minnesota, until well after and apparently in response to McDonald's already commenced use -- it starts to look like a much different case for Lion's Tap (more un-Hamburglar-like), for reasons I'll explain later.

For now, and to me, what is most surprising about the complaint is the very casual opening tone and pun-filled prose, a style of writing typically left for bloggers, some select federal judges, and David Letterman types, not litigants bringing serious claims in federal district court. Seth Leventhal of Minnesota Litigator Blog more gently referred to the complaint as having a "somewhat light-hearted tone not normally associated with complaints initiating lawsuits." 

Consider the stark contrast of style between paragraphs 4, 24, and 47 in the complaint:

4. So, where's the beef between our local favorite "David" (Lion's Tap) and the mighty global "Goliath" (McDonald's)? In a move worthy of the Hamburglar or Captain Crook, McDonald's recently started utilizing Lion's Tap's "WHO'S YOUR PATTY?" trademark in conjunction with McDonald's Angus Burgers. Lion's Tap is forced to "Grimmace" and commence this lawsuit to protect its valuable "WHO'S YOUR PATTY?" trademark.

                                                      * * * * *

24. Lion's Tap has been seriously damaged by McDonald's activities complained of herein, and unless such activities are preliminarily and permanently enjoined, Lion's Tap and its goodwill and reputation will suffer irreparable injury of an insidious and continuing sort that cannot be adequately calculated or compensated in money damages.

                                                       * * * * *

47. Lion's Tap further seeks judgment for three times the amount of McDonald's profits, Lion's Tap's damages, and Lion's Tap's reasonable attorneys' fees, due to the nature of McDonald's conduct.

With respect to paragraph 4, my patty, sorry, my daddy, always taught me that there is a time and place for humor, and the last time I was in court, the lawyers and litigants were all wearing suits with ties, and the federal judge was wearing a black robe, so my thought is leave the humor to those who aren't being paid to convince others to treat the claims seriously. Might this be an example of PR consultants and legal teams working in harmony, as described by Guest Blogger Rose McKinney, and elaborated in a Comment by crisis management veteran Jim Lukaszewski, or did a PR consultant simply win over the client on how to draft this portion of the complaint?  

In any event, gaining the attention it apparently desired, many in the media have quoted the most colorful language in the Lion's Tap complaint, and some even refer to it as "priceless," but it remains to be seen how this lighter approach is viewed in the courtroom.

So, does McDonald's deserve a break today? We'll see.

Has Lion's Tap proven with its rather casual approach to this lawsuit that it should look in the mirror when wearing t-shirts bearing one of its other taglines: "Any Fresher and It Might Get Slapped"? We'll see.

There is no question that Lion's Tap has "come hungry" to court, the question remains, will it "leave happy," perhaps, with some money. But, it's not about the money, right? We'll see, well maybe.

Stay tuned for more legal analysis of this interesting case. Suffice it to say for now, if litigated, I'm thinkin' this case likely will come down to the strength and scope of Lion Tap's claimed tagline "Who's Your Patty?" Why?

Basic taglines -- unlike the truly famous Just Do It and Don't Leave Home Without It taglines -- have not consistently enjoyed a meaningful scope of protection: For example, in a somewhat similar reverse confusion case, a 2002 opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cohn v. Petsmart ruled that Critter Clinic was unable to stop Petsmart from using the identical tagline "Where Pet's Are Family," in part, because both parties used the trademark "merely as a tagline to their distinctive business names" and this "emphasis on these housemarks 'has the potential to reduce or eliminate likelihood of confusion,'" as the Petsmart and Critter Clinic housemarks "present the dominant commercial identity." Does the same reasoning apply here?

By the way, with respect to housemarks, that is, long-co-existing housemarks, anyone heard of Lyon's Pub (not to be confused with Lion's Tap)? They apparently have pretty decent burgers in the Twin Cities too.

UPDATE: Here, here, and here.

Really, Facebook? Really?

Hot on the heels of Dan Kelly's prediction of the eventual fall of social networking sites, it seems that Facebook has embroiled itself in another controversy.  The upshot of the most recent story is that Facebook is essentially using its power of cyber eminent domain to sieze and use photos posted by users for advertisements unless they change their privacy settings.

For me, this raises two questions:  The first is, whether or not Facebook users might have an action under right of publicity laws.  Generally, a right of publicity claim requires the plaintiff prove that somebody (1) appropriated plaintiff’s name and likeness to their advantage, (2) without plaintiff's consent; and (3) resulting injury to the plaintiff.  Typically, these claims are limited to celebrities because non-famous people usually don't have value in their name and likeness that the misappropriation injures.  However, its not unthinkable to believe that there is a conceivable theory of injury for Facebook users to pursue these claims.  (On a side note, I'm sure Facebook's terms of use give them some level of authorization to use photos, so that would be a likely hurdle as well.)  

The second question is, does Facebook really need this revenue?  It seems like the outcry from users would be pretty predictable.  Although the public expects and accepts a certain level of encroachment by advertisement, there's a line.  If you cross that line, you risk alienating a substantial portion of your audience.  The stakes are even higher when the people you are alienating are responsible for the content on the site.  If Facebook really has to go this far, it would seem that social networking sites are doomed to fail.