This weekend, a lot was said about Motrin on Twitter and in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, it was not the kind of conversation that we here at McNeil had hoped to be at the center of.

For those who haven’t been following this, it all began when we ran an advertisement online over the weekend that talked about babywearing – which is a term that we used to describe carrying a child in a sling or wrap.

It was meant to engender sympathy and appreciation for all that parents do for their kids, but did so through an attempt at humor that missed the mark and many moms found offensive.

Now as you can imagine, we certainly didn’t mean to offend moms through our advertising. As a mom of three girls, I understand many of the comments made and agree that we know what’s best for our kids and for ourselves.

On behalf of McNeil, I’m sorry if you found this advertisement insulting. We are are in the process of removing it from our website. Unfortunately, it will take longer for us to remove this advertisement from magazines as several are currently on newsstands and in distribution.

One bright spot is that we have learned through this process – in particular, the importance of paying close attention to the conversations that are taking place online. It has also brought home the importance of taking a broader look at what we say and how it may be interpreted

After planning for months and going through some challenging days before Camp Baby even began, I must admit I had a few butterflies as I entered the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick. I mean, I knew we had put together a fun and educational program, but still…

Turns out, I ended learning as much – if not more – then the mommy bloggers who attended our Camp. I know many of the bloggers in attendance have already posted their recaps of the event, (such as here, here and here) but I thought I’d give you some of my favorite moments:

A night of laughter - Kicking off Camp Baby with Bravo’s “Top Chef” member Ted Allen was tons of fun. It was a way for everyone to enjoy a relaxing night of laughter, meet each other and set the tone for the entire conference. My personal highlight was when I told everyone that breakfast started at 6:30 AM the next day instead of 7:30 AM. I almost had a revolt on my hands — but quickly put it down by explaining that was “my” call time for breakfast, not theirs –the crowd roared in laughter.

Eye-Opening Moment – As a communications professional, I’ve been working with traditional media for more than 15 years, but Camp Baby brought home to me how different things are now. When introducing a speaker, I looked out into the audience and saw more than 50 computers open and women happily Twittering. For me, it confirmed that the media climate has transformed and so must we all.

Hugs, Common Ground And Fresh Beginnings – Without any doubt, my absolute favorite part was meeting all the bloggers and learning from them. (Some photos of Camp Baby for your viewing pleasure — and, yes, I’m in there too…) Gaining insights and starting this new dialogue was very meaningful to all of us involved. I also appreciated all of the hugs (can never get enough) and kind words. I felt humbled by the entire experience.

So what were my key learnings?

· While having virtual connection is the way of the world, there is nothing like real in-person contact. Having the opportunity to actually speak directly to each of these bloggers was invaluable. I enjoyed every single conversation I had.

· When working with bloggers, I firmly believe that perfection is impossible and flaws will always be magnified. But as long as you are honest and transparent, in the end the benefit will always outweigh the risk.

· Don’t ever forget that mommy bloggers are unique to the general blogosphere and have their own unique expectations. While we didn’t anticipate it all at the beginning, we now have a much deeper understanding — which was the entire point of doing something like this in the first place. Ultimately, building what I hope will be a long-lasting relationship with these 56 bloggers was well worth it all!

But perhaps most importantly, Camp Baby gave me and my colleagues a chance to connect with these women in a real and meaningful way. I truly respect all of them for their unique perspectives and individuality. We’ve Come a Long Way Camp Baby and we know this is just the beginning of a long road ahead.

(P.S., Thank you to all the bloggers for taking this journey with us and for all of those that supported this program along the way. I’ll see you again soon at BlogHer in July.)

This morning, I gate crashed the breakfast (unlike Rob and Ray who crashed the Camp Baby “pajama party” last night… but that’s another story…) and heard a bit of what the mommy bloggers in attendance had to say — such as:

1) Don’t underestimate moms — and don’t be patronizing. Mommy bloggers are well educated (they are scientists, physicians, lawyers, teachers, etc., etc., etc…) and all are capable of figuring out complex and sophisticated situations and want much more information about products.

2) Mommy bloggers would like to have more direct conversations with companies — and are more than happy to provide their candid thoughts and opinions.

3) When doing these kinds of events, companies should talk less about their own products. Point taken. (Though some dissident mommy bloggers did say they wanted more information about just which products we made.)

4) Mommys are people — people with children.

Oh, and that one of the bloggers had so much Johnson & Johnson surgical equipment in her that she could be a traveling sales display for the company.

There was much, much more discussed this morning, and I left the mommy bloggers with a spring in my step — after all, I got to sit in on the kind of conversation that companies like Johnson & Johnson should be having EVERY day with people.

But as we know, this is still something that companies find tough to do — and some of the missteps that preceded this event provide a good example of how we still have more to learn.

This sea change has been a hot topic for me, my colleagues and friends. For 100 years companies have been pushing what they think people are interested in out through one way communications channels. But now that people are redefining the rules of engagement, companies have to rediscover how to interact with people. It’s about unlearning a lot of behaviors and reacquiring the voice that businesses used in the days before mass advertising and promotion in the conversations that occurred between the village storekeepers and the people in the community. It’s hard to do, but by listening to people (remember the earhorn?) and not being afraid to get involved in the conversation, companies can slowly find that voice.

In my career, I’ve learned a lot – but never so much in so short of time as I have in the past 24 hours – all while spending part of my day on Jury Duty in NYC!

Here’s my story. I work in the Johnson & Johnson Group of Consumer Companies and handle PR for the Johnson’s baby brand and, like many of my colleagues, I’ve been working hard over the past few years to better understand how to work with bloggers and others in this changing media landscape. To me, it’s all about figuring out how to start having two way conversations. That way not only do others get to learn from me, but I can learn more about them – and about what they are looking for.

As we considered such two-way communications, me and my colleagues got to thinking about summer camps. Sitting around campfires, telling stories, sharing news. That’s where some of the best, most intense conversations can take place.

So we struck upon the idea of creating our own camp – Johnson’s Camp Baby.
Rather than setting up on some lakeshore in the woods, we decided to bring together 50 mommy bloggers in New Brunswick for a 2-day conference (April 2-4). To provide news and value to this important group of women, we’d bring together a group of third party experts as well as some of our own people who could talk more about our products, research and thinking about childcare and motherhood. For me and my colleagues, it would provide a great way to learn more about how to work better with these important mommy bloggers. To get this right, we worked hard to try to understand the needs of our guests.

For instance, the first step was to develop the guest list. Limiting this group to only 50 bloggers was very tough given there are hundreds of amazing blogs on the topic of parenting. However, since we really wanted to keep this an intimate experience, we decided from the beginning to keep the group small. To build the list we used loads of tools such as Technorati and Google, drew upon our existing relationships and asked bloggers to let us know if they had friends we should invite. While no list is perfect, we felt we did the best job we could. So after all of these good intentions, here is what we didn’t get right.

Last week, after we sent out many email communications to bloggers to register, we soon found we were oversubscribed. Though we ended up extending our invitation to an additional six bloggers, we eventually closed out the registration like any event based on a first-come-first-serve basis.

So while I’m at the New York City Court House yesterday morning (yes, jury duty!), I found out about a few bloggers who felt we were dis-inviting people and not doing a good job doing so. I was in this situation where I wanted to act quickly, yet I was sitting in a room filled with people – and I couldn’t control being called for questioning. The good news – by the afternoon we were dismissed so I could come back home and really focus on figuring out what went wrong, and what I could personally do now to explain our methods.

Probably the most concerning complaint we had was based on the experiences of one blogger – Mother Goose Mouse.

We decided from the beginning that we wouldn’t open this conference to any children since we had a jam-packed schedule and, in such a short period of time, we wanted to ensure we could focus on the program and various evening activities. We realized that another popular conference, BlogHer, is open to all family members, which is a different conference from our own. While this would mean clearly that we’d miss a few key bloggers who are nursing we thought for a first event we’d fill it with those who were able to attend an “adults only” gathering. We always knew the date, location, and childcare wouldn’t be perfect for everyone – but we tried to take an approach that would be fair to everyone.

What I’ve learned – and yes, learned the hard way – was that we should have been much more overt about this policy and explain why and how we came to this decision. While we handled it on a case-by-case basis and thought that was sufficient, it was not.

So while I wish yesterday didn’t happen, it did and we know better now. I will share this learning with my colleagues and do whatever we can to improve how we work with bloggers and others online. I am sure there will be a few bumps along the way, but the point is taken – we heard you, we think you are important and we are dedicated to build and grow our relationship with each of you.

Bruce Ertmann, corporate manager of Consumer Generated Media (CGM) from Toyota Motor Sales, USA, walked through how the company’s move into CGM began about 18 months ago. Toyota didn’t have its own turf in the blogosphere, but knew it was a space it needed to address. The company initially jumped into the mix on other third-party sites like Edmunds.com and AutoBlog when its 2007 Toyota Camry encountered some transmission problems and the company wanted to respond in a simple, transparent way. Such monitoring and responding has continued.

Success won Bruce more support and this June Toyota unveiled their own Open Road blog. Here’s a note from Bruce’s initial post:

So whatever we want to call this rapidly expanding consumer-generated media, it’s all about the conversation along the open road, it’s about listening to those who think your products rock as well as those who think they stink. The venue isn’t perfect, but it is instantaneous–and it does demand an uncompromised level of transparency and authenticity. What a perfect place to unveil Toyota’s newest corporate communications tool, the Toyota Open Road Blog .

Toyota’s case studies about how they have handled some product issues seemed to stay very true to this sentiment about transparency and authenticity and Bruce continually stressed how Toyota uses this medium as way to “listen” to its customers, not just speak to them.

In the McDonald’s presentation, I was struck by how they are using this space to deal with some of their toughest critics. Heather Oldani, director of Communications for McDonald’s USA, recognizes that there are some people McDonald’s will never be able to convince about the food quality and nutritional aspects of their menus, but to their credit they took a real risk that seems to be paying off.

McDonald’s invited six real mothers to be “Quality Correspondents.” These mothers were brought in to headquarters to meet with McDonald’s menu development teams, top chef, the chief operating officer. They visited McDonald’s suppleirs and even worked behind the counter of a local restaurant. The mothers were able to see firsthand how McDonald’s foods are made and prepared. They were able to ask their tough questions. And then they posted unedited (GULP!) journals (link) to the McDonald’s site. One example:

People have, and still continue to ask why I chose to represent McDonald’s when their food is bad for our health. For the record I do not represent McDonald’s, I represent my children. Why wouldn’t I want to know what goes into the food they eat? As an African American, I am abundantly aware of the increased risk of health related issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity that affect not just my race, but every race. However, I think McDonald’s is working hard toward providing a wider range of healthy choices. If people don’t select these choices both in McDonald’s and at their grocery store, then who is really to blame for the rise in obesity in this country? Until this tour, I wasn’t even aware that McDonald’s posted nutritional statements on their food containers and tray liners. I think this is crucial in allowing people to make informed decisions.

Talk about transparency, authenticity and risk taking.

The discussion of transparency and authenticity recurred throughout these and other presentations during the day. I think it was Russell Meyer, chief strategy officer of Landor, who expressed this nebulous concept of authenticity best when he described it as, “Are you who you say you are?”

In other words, are your statements and beliefs in the social media world consistent with the actions and values that you demonstrate in the real world. Some fries … I mean food for thought.

Tough news for Johnson & Johnson, right? Wrong. The story actually has little to do with Johnson & Johnson.

When you read the article, you quickly discover that the 22-paragraph story is all about Abbott Laboratories’ Xience stent, favorable results of its comparison to Boston Scientific’s Taxus stent, and the desire for more data on its safety profile.

So, why is Johnson & Johnson referenced in the headline?

It comes down to two words. Name Recognition.

We’ve questioned Bloomberg in the past about their indiscriminate use of the Johnson & Johnson name, and we’ve always been told that it is “Bloomberg style” to put company names in their headlines – and the bigger the company, the wider the readership.

It’s ultimately a case of Market Value – not News Value – that factors heavily in Bloomberg’s editorial equation. Johnson & Johnson has a market capitalization of nearly $190 billion. Abbott Laboratories’ market capitalization is about $83 billion and Boston Scientific’s is about $20 billion. You can do the math.

In fairness, Cypher, which is actually made and sold by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Cordis Corporation, was a passing reference in the story (two of the 995 words), but does that merit a headline? And why should an industry issue about potential clotting complications be laid solely at our feet? I guess Bloomberg had to pick someone, but what happened to Rock, Paper, Scissors for such choices?

Anyway, next time you see Johnson & Johnson or other companies referenced in a Bloomberg headline, be mindful that there may be other “market” factors at work in the editing.

Thanks to the unpredictable nature of my day job, though, I wasn’t able to catch much of the conference — which involved a lot of discussion around how new social media technologies and approaches can be used in healthcare.

But one of the speakers that I did catch — Dr. Kenneth Youner — reminded me of what a powerful tool the web can be for people trying to manage their health.

Dr. Youner told of how he was diagnosed with a cancer that — although he was a physician — he knew little about. Turning to the web, he found a wealth of information that not only helped him learn more about the disease and various treatment options but also helped him connect with other cancer patients and survivors. The wealth of information available on the web enabled him to take an active role in his care and treatment and helped him feel that he wasn’t alone.

I don’t have the exact words, but he basically said that:

The internet probably saved my life.

My brother had a similar experience several years ago when his son — then just a few years old — was diagnosed with an unusual form of cancer. Turning to the web, he found other families that were struggling with the same, rare disease — and eventually learned of some of the few specialists in this country who were familiar with it. Connecting with other couples struggling with the same issues, they too learned how to cope.

At last week’s conference — and at the Health 2.0 event in San Francisco last month — there was a lot of talk about the projects and technologies that promise to make a difference to health care.

But it was Dr. Youner’s remarks that really hit home with me — because they provided a powerful illustration of the real impact these new social networking tools could have to health care — by empowering people. They promise to give us a way to take charge of managing our health, to learn about new treatment options and to engage and share experiences. These connections will help aide an ongoing shift away from being passive, couch potato-like “consumers” who accept what they are told to having the knowledge that helps them question, argue and reason to take charge.

No surprises there — sometimes journalists just slightly rejigger press releases and claim them as their own articles.

But Peter’s post — which described how the story was pitched — got me thinking again about how nothing is sacred any more. We’ve seen internal GOP message points circulated on the internet, a candidate’s confidential image assessment splashed across the pages of the nation’s newspapers and many blogs openly discussing the complex dance of developing, reviewing and approving official statements.

Just as the Wizard of Oz was shown to be a humbug once who was really responsible for his awesome visage was revealed, the reputation of public figures — and organizations — will crumble if people feel that this image has been carefully managed and manipulated — and doesn’t match reality.

That’s why it’s not only important to speak clearly and candidly, but also to provide perspective and useful information in an open and transparent way. Particularly in an age when how the story is developed, served-up and disseminated is a matter of public discussion.

As I’ve described before, sometimes there are limits to how much info can be provided. For instance, though there were a several posts on JNJBTW that described our position in our dispute with the American Red Cross, there came a point when there was not much more to say since this case is now working its way through the courts.

What’s great is that transparency cuts both ways — and the media is also fair game. A real “aha” moment for me on this topic came last year when I saw a presentation on how General Motors took on the New York Times and revealed all the hoops they were told to jump through in their attempt to get a letter to the editor published. (BTW: Ray Jordan, who runs my department describes his thoughts on this event on his blog.)

Just like Mr. Rost provided insight into the mechanics of PR, how the news media works doesn’t have to be a mystery any longer. Hallelujah.

For instance, I think about the time a former colleague of mine worked with a reporter at the New York Times for many months on a story, providing loads of information, only to have his response boiled down to a few lines about how the company had declined repeated requests for an interview.

Or the many, many times that reporters come to me at the last minute for a comment but only have a little “slot” for my perspective. (Something that makes me want to scream “What???!!! Don’t tell me the story is already written!!!”)

Hey — there are good, solid reporters, bloggers and writers who work out there. But it’s nice to know that when confronted with some of the more outrageous behaviors, quirky rules or outdated approaches, it is now acceptable to pull back the curtain and point them out.

“…We have generously supported the American Red Cross and its charitable endeavors and will continue to do so. However, we ultimately felt we had no other choice but to seek protection of our trademark rights to the Red Cross symbol through our justice system. For many months, we tried unsuccessfully to resolve the differences on an amicable basis and even requested that the parties enter into mediation to achieve this objective, but the American Red Cross refused to do so.

“Sometimes it is important to keep things simple in discussion. Here are some simple facts about the civil complaint Johnson & Johnson filed against the American Red Cross:

“1) We are not asking the American Red Cross to stop using the Red Cross symbol for its legitimate purposes.

“2) We are asking that the American Red Cross stop licensing the Red Cross symbol to for-profit companies that use the trademark to compete with Johnson & Johnson products that have had exclusive rights to use the Red Cross symbol for over 100 years.

“3) We continue our long-standing support for the primary mission of the American Red Cross in humanitarian relief.

“4) We expect to contribute or direct monetary gains from the lawsuit itself to philanthropic purposes. Our focus has always been on the protection of our intellectual property.

“5) If we did not pursue this action, we would jeopardize rights to one of Johnson & Johnson’s longest-lived, most trusted trademarks and establish a dangerous precedent.”

As a former journalist, I appreciated how undeniably juicy the story would be: Johnson & Johnson sues the American Red Cross and other parties over…. What?! … the use of the RED CROSS?!

It was almost too easy.

I also know that companies, like Johnson & Johnson, built on innovation and long-lived brands must resolutely defend their rights in these innovations, and in these brands.

One of Johnson & Johnson’s oldest trademarks is the Red Cross design. We 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 products in certain categories for over 100 years. Since its creation, the American Red Cross has had the rights to use the Red Cross trademark in connection with its non-profit relief services.

Here’s a collage of our early products, including a couple using this trademark (click to enlarge):

If you’re interested in the history of Johnson & Johnson’s use of the Red Cross symbol, our history blog, kilmerhouse.com, will have some additional background and photos available later today. Interestingly, Clara Barton herself acknowledged and affirmed our rights to this exclusive use of the mark back in 1895.

It was disappointing to discover in recent months that the American Red Cross had started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes on all types of products being sold in many different retail and other commercial outlets. These products include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers, as well as products that fall within Johnson & Johnson’s longstanding product categories. This action is in direct violation of a Federal statute protecting the mark as well as in violation of our longstanding trademark rights. Here’s a photo of some of these products (these particular ones are sold by Learning Curve International, Inc., under license from the American Red Cross, and manufactured by RC2. Click to enlarge):

From my perspective, with responsibility for Public Affairs at Johnson & Johnson, I was delighted that we were attempting to resolve this issue through cooperation and discussion with the American Red Cross, an organization for which we have much respect (and to which, by the way, we contributed over $5 million cash and additional product and volunteer time over the past three years).

I was saddened, of course, to learn that, unlike in decades past, the American Red Cross was not working through this issue with us. In fact, they had rejected our offer to turn to third-party mediators to find an agreeable resolution, even after we had indicated our willingness to use a mediator recommended by the American Red Cross itself.

Johnson & Johnson was left with no choice but to seek protection of our trademark rights through the courts. A suit was filed yesterday morning in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

As mentioned in an earlier post , Johnson & Johnson seldom comments on lawsuits in progress, preferring to leave to the courts the difficult job of assessing fact and interpreting law. Nonetheless, the American Red Cross issued a strongly worded press release Wednesday evening objecting to our action. We worked energetically Wednesday night to provide the media with fair balance on this story, including public issuance of our own statement concerning the suit and providing some night-time telephone interviews to better inform reporters.

Our small media relations group was reduced even further by summer vacations (including Marc Monseau, who does double duty as our chief resident blogger – that’s why I’m pinch-hitting this posting). Nonetheless, we felt most every journalist we engaged with (including bloggers) gave fair hearing to both sides of this matter.

So, I’ve now lived a classic corporate public affairs nightmare: announcing a lawsuit against the American Red Cross. Would I have chosen this exercise as a reputation-building opportunity for Johnson & Johnson? No, of course not.

But keep in mind that the law requires organizations and individuals to act against infringers of trademarks or they lose their rights. In other words, as much as we might respect the American Red Cross, if we didn’t act we could open the floodgates to all infringers of our trademark and could do nothing about it. So even though we remain committed to supporting the primary mission of the American Red Cross through our philanthropic efforts, we simply can’t give them a pass on violating our trademark rights.

The goal of our complaint is to restore the long-standing legal boundaries that have surrounded the use of the Red Cross trademark. We certainly regret that we had to take this step, but we are confident that the courts will protect our legitimate rights to this venerated trademark.