When Lawyers Mess With Yogurt
All I wanted to do was ask Stonyfield, the New Hampshire organic dairy products company, why its delicious organic blackberry yogurt had disappeared from the shelves of groceries in northern Virginia. My wife and I love that particular flavor for breakfast.
So, I visited Stonyfield’s Web site and clicked Contact Us and selected Product Questions/Ideas (#3). It was there the friendly image of a somewhat cool organic company ended, and the weirdness began. It was like the page had been turned over to some nutty, obsessive attorney whose goal was to send a message that the company could care less about customer comments:
If you are making a suggestion you must agree to the following terms and conditions:
AGREEMENT CONCERNING SUGGESTIONS Thank you for your interest in sharing your comments, concepts, ideas and suggestions (“Suggestions”) with Stonyfield Farm through the Stonyfield Farm Consumer Comment page of our website. We at Stonyfield Farm believe that Suggestions must be considered under a uniform set of terms and conditions, and that each person who submits Suggestions to us must be aware of and agree to such terms and conditions in advance …
And, so it went for 837 legalistic and obscure words and phrases that I had to accept or decline before the chance to write my question about what had happened to the blackberry yogurt.
I was reminded of how attorneys – when are permitted to mess with an organization’s communications – can kill credibility, damage a favorable image, and ruin reputation. And, here was an example of legal intervention in customer service that had completely changed my perception of Stonyfield to the negative. I was so disappointed, and actually felt somewhat betrayed by Stonyfield.
Later, at a grocery, I saw that Stonyfield’s competitor, Brown Cow organic yogurt, has some nice flavors. So, I bought those, instead.
[Add:] Just read that Brown Cow, located in California, is owned by Stonyfield. Oh, well.
Filed Under: Featured • Reputation management
About the Author: David is a veteran communications strategist ... writer ... blogger ... online publisher ... and Emmy Award winning former CBS Network News correspondent. He lives in the Washington, D. C., area, and works worldwide.
This is a great article David – I really enjoyed it. Brought a wee smile to my face – a great way to start the day. Long live Brown Cow!
Thank you, Robert. I was about to have my first taste of Brown Cow yogurt over Michele’s Organic Granola, the absolutely best granola I’ve ever tasted. Here goes …
Brown Cow yogurt is awesome. Stonyfield’s not bad, though. I simply prefer the vanilla flavor.
Of course, lawyers have a job to do, too. I would hope, though, that other teams within the organization — PR, marketing, whatever they might be — would be able to help legal do their jobs in a way that’s effective for the whole organization, not just “doing what legal needs to do.”
To what extent is this indecipherable legal-ese absolutely necessary? I’d bet (citing no professional legal experience whatsoever, mind you) it’s not at all necessary, in this form. How about a simple, “Please note, if you’re making product suggestions, we must tell you about some legal issues no company can avoid. Click here to read more”? Wouldn’t that do the job? And it’s a hell of a lot more personable, understandable and helpful.
I know – why can’t we manage simple human conversation on the Web? I was moved to begin a blog after receiving an asinine response to an email query from Dannon.
Mike,
Appreciate your comments. Actually, it is counter-intuitive for Stonyfield (or any other company) to assign such legalese when providing a forum for comments. They are giving you and me an opportunity to comment. It’s our opinion, whether they like it or not. But assigning a legal statement as a condition for accepting a comment is not a free, open or transparent exchange of opinion.
David
Lisa,
Completely agree with you. Might add that I avoid Dannon and other products that are infused with the super-sweetener, high fructose corn syrup, which is not a food but an addictive chemical that has been linked to obesity.
David
David: My theory: the more pomposity, obfuscation and hyperformality lawyers can bring to an issue, the more they can justify their fees. My recommendation: Legal Writing in Plain English, by Bryan Garner.
One of my favorites: when a company is “redomesticated.” http://myquillpen.blogspot.com/2008/05/redomesticated.html
Thanks for all your efforts to carry the banner of clear, concise communication. As Lisa notes, “Why can’t we manage simple human conversation…?”
It drove me crazy just a couple of years ago when all the yogurt containers downsized from 8 ounces to 6. I didn’t mind so much that they changed, because it’s a typical move to want to increase profits in whatever way possible.
But, when many of the labels on the “new” yogurt containers ballyhooed that they now contain 25% fewer calories, I knew they think we are idiots and really have no respect for the consumers.
Good piece, David. I have added a link in my sidebar to your site.
Too funny! Perhaps those lawyers were getting paid by the word. LOL
But … as a lawyer myself, I can assure you that the MOST funny & weird stuff I come across in legal documents is when in pro per (people representing themselves without a lawyer)try to sound like lawyers by using legalease in their court documents. Now that’s a real scream. More than once I’ve seen a judge sitting on the bench trying very hard to suppress a chuckle while reading a petition or response from a non-lawyer. Moral: Sounding like a lawyer is an art form … don’t try this at home kids. LOL
Stonyfield needs to find another lawyer. It’s that simple. Just because someone is a lawyer does not mean ipso facto, that he/she is a good one. I know. Because I’m one. How’s that for obfuscation? LOL