-
Website
http://dannybrown.me/ -
Original page
http://dannybrown.me/2009/03/13/melrose-jewelers-rolex-and-owen-wilson-the-sequel/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
You made it even more clear with this reply and responded with smarts and class.
You are right, Melrose Jewelers is wrong to exploit the serious issue of suicide to sell watches.
Shame on you Melrose Jewelers! ( and for the record that is my OPINION, feel free to counter with legal action).
This isn't a legal case. It's called bad publicity. It's called journalism. My advice to Melrose - hire Danny Brown to help you with your messaging and it won't go wrong next time.
And thanks for the referral - though I think my bridges are a little burned there... ;-)
Oh, shit. Maybe I'll get served now too.
Keep your cool, Danny. You did nothing wrong. At its basic level, a blog is a "web log" or a personal journal. No different than the company's blog.
If you are forced to remove your content, then MJ should be forced to remove that post about Yo-Yo Ma, because unless that photo of the cellist was taken by blogger John Lavitt, there is no Creative Commons licensing attribution or link to the source.
Good point about the Creative Commons.
Extracting two sentences...
All blog postings on the MJ Rolex Watch Blog are submitted by independent Rolex enthusiasts and not by Melrose Jewelers.... The MJ Rolex Watch Blog is provided for entertainment purposes only & Melrose Jewelers makes no representations as to the validity....
Are they for real? Their blog is not *their* blog and they admit it's entertainment?!? I highly doubt Geneva-based Rolex SA would construe their products as "entertainment fodder."
In that light, Danny, the legal letter is hilarious.
MJ, Tacky, tacky, tacky - and am convinced very few watches would be sold based on the fact that they might someday save another life.
And not a word of apology about, nor a ringing defense of, that awful press release.
Shocking that Melrose does not seem to realize how very silly(and desperate) they look.
Hang in there.
This is just ridiculous. I know it's easy for me to say "Stand your ground" since I am not the one getting the cease and desist letter but what are they going to do?
Here's the thing, PR is about creating buzz. These guys have done that. Just because they have no sense of taste is their problem not ours.
Apparently Rolexes can save other things as well!
MJ and its attorney are operating from what I would call an old paradigm, one in which big corporations with lawyers historically have had all or most of the power. No more, but some are still operating as if they did--some won't give it up gracefully, and it appears to be somewhat generational in nature.
It is the democratizing and leveling power of the Internet that they don't get yet--but they will, sooner or later--in this case, definitely later. You did nothing illegal, libelous, slanderous or inappropriate, it seems to me (but I would talk to my lawyer). Instead of MJ sending you a cease and desist letter, they should pull any related advertising, quickly and quietly, do standard PR damage control, e.g., a press conference, offer an apology, and perhaps go the extra mile by contributing some money to an organization that assists in suicide prevention. That would be far more appropriate at this juncture, it seems to me, than this silly pecking at you.
The MJ executives need to understand that transparancy and the use of social media are much, much more than offering an "entertainment disclaimer" for blog posts and sending threatening letters to people who write blogs that don't share their views. It makes them look even more ridiculous. They are attempting to fit a legal solution to a problem that is not a legal problem. They won't get anywhere with that approach, although maybe 20 years ago, they might have. They need to learn to do business differently in today's world. That's what Pfizer is doing because of the Motrin moms--MJ needs to learn from the experience of other big corporations.
Having been a teacher, I am giving the MJ CEO and lawyers a homework assignment--go read Social Media Marketing One Hour a Day by Dave Evans. Social media is ignored by corporations at their own peril. They just don't get it yet--but they will--later.
Oh, and MJ, if you are reading this, I'm providing this for entertainment purposes only.
Yet by sending the letter that they did, it's Melrose themselves that have re-opened everything. Additionally, as Michael Schechter said earlier in the comments, maybe a lot of the negative reactions came from the press release itself.
The blogs and sites that reported on that were only repeating statements made by that release, then offering an opinion. If the opinion was pretty much universally negative, is that really the fault of the bloggers or the issuing company?
Perhaps, "Mr. Cole" and client are banking on your posts?
I for one, considered buying a second-hand watch from Melrose after reading about Owen Wilson's near suicide attempt.
Can anyone tell me how to insert an eye-rolly emoticon on this thing?
Maybe you should add a disclaimer to your blog stating it's for entertainment purposes and that will make everything ok too.
Just wow. What a bunch of effing nonsense.
Clearly they didn't really read your original blog post though, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to censor unfavourable opinions about their massive screw-up. I don't care if "joe six-pack" wrote the blog, the company should be monitoring the type of content that's posted on a site that is linked to them. They're logo is at the top of the page!
Hopefully they get their things together and realize how ridiculous this is, and it goes no further than this. I wonder if anyone else got a letter like this, or if they just think that they can pick on the "little guy"?
The blog is on a sub-domain of the main Melrose Jewelers website. Therefore, they should be actively monitoring what's being said in their name. If they leave content that's posted by others, they're then saying that they're happy for it to be there.
In which case, if something is seen to be in poor taste, doesn't that then reflect on the host?
http://michaelashworth.wordpress.com/2009/01/07...
Don't know if i'll be getting one of these letters too, drop me a line, you have my full support on making the wider world aware of the actions of Melrose and by association Rolex.
The Melrose / Rolex campaign ~I can imagine the headline on the online press release :-)
Mike
I think you are 100% on point that this is more than a PR issue. Our human institution of ownership is coming crashing down. The modern world built upon the 'bottom' need for the 'top'' product has come upon a brick wall. This 'bottom', the customer base, now has a real-time tool to meet their own needs through each other. The big boys with the keys to the castle are shaking in their boots and issuing out cease and desist letters like hotcakes.
You are setting such a beautiful precedent by calmly and transparently exposing it. We must do our part to show that our collective supportive response is more powerful than their century-old model of feeding us the shit we don't need and owning the media channels to remind us of all we lack without it.
Yet, here we are. And it doesn't look we're going anywhere.
Power to you Danny!
Although it took a couple of days for Motrin to react, the job they did was excellent. They invited moms to their offices to discuss how best to deal with the flak that occurred; they removed the offending ad and issued a full apology; and they listened to what was being said and worked with the relevant people towards a common goal.
People make mistakes or errors in judgment every day. So do businesses. It's a natural process. It's how these errors are dealt with that make the real news.
Good for you. In some instances, I think the 'no publicity is bad publicity' works. I think that statement is accurate when the publicity is drummed up as a result of something neutral (e.g. negative comments on a controversial blog post incite heated discussion which drive more comments). In this case, the publicity is 100% negative which may increase their awareness but won't benefit their brand. To quote @brandingexpert "everyone knows about cancer, but how many people actually want it?"
Thanks for posting.
the MSNBC news story has now been taken down
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idU...
Here's the watch I bought:
http://www.melrosejewelers.com/info/ladies_super_president_404.htm
Issuing cease and desist letters haven't helped in that department either, it would appear.