Faces of DenialBefore I start this post, I just want to apologize in advance if it gets a little lengthy – it’s my response to a Cease and Desist letter I received last week.

Recently, I wrote about Melrose Jewelers and a press release they had issued. The release discussed actor Owen Wilson’s suicide attempt and said that his Rolex watch had played a major part in the actor being alive today.

At the time, I personally found the release to be crass and in poor taste – it smacked of taking advantage of someone’s personal problems for gain (in this case, to sell more watches by Melrose Jewelers).

The comments in the post seemed to agree, as did numerous other views of the same press release. To get you up to speed, I’ll wait while you read the post, if that’s okay.

Last week, I received a Cease and Desist letter from the Law Offices of Peter D. Cole, who is based in Los Angeles and represents Melrose Jewelers. The letter made a number of claims against my post and requested that I remove it. Failure to do so would result in Melrose Jewelers “pursuing other alternatives to mitigate any damages”.

To save time, I’ve scanned the attorney’s letter and transferred it to a PDF file, which you can read here. Again, I’ll wait until you’ve read it so you can compare it to the post in question, if you like. The letter is “as is” – there is no letterhead or registered business numbers on it (which I had to request from Peter D. Cole for clarification). I’ll let you read the letter before continuing.

The attorney for Melrose Jewelers is ultimately saying that I’m causing his client loss of business; that my post is “inciteful rhetoric”; that I’m associated with another Internet watch sales business; and that I wasn’t stating facts. I find that a slight on my character and transparency. Additionally, the request to Cease and Desist under threat of further legal action is never pleasant.

Therefore, obviously, I felt a need to respond. This is it (taken from my emailed response to Peter D. Cole today, and with Cole’s points in bold).

Hi there Peter,

Thanks for you response, appreciate it.

With regards your client’s “claims”, I would respond with the following:

1. “You had conversations with unnamed Rolex executives, to incite Rolex to take actions and/or make comments about my client’s advertising.” There is nothing in the comments that says this. I mentioned I was, and I quote, “speaking to someone today about Rolex’s awareness. He’s in the jewelry industry and was at a big meeting last night where the CEO of Rolex was also attending.” That’s a big difference from knowing Rolex executives. FYI, the person I was speaking to is a director of a pearl company – quite the different market from your client.

2. “…If you yourself are somehow associated with an Internet watch sales business, as my client is informed and believes”. As I mentioned, my “relationship” is with a pearl company – hardly a competitor. Your client’s statement also seems bizarre. I’m guessing if he knows someone that owns a fast food restaurant, he can’t say that he doesn’t like McDonald’s, as that would be seen as “unfair business practices”?

3. “You describe my client as little more than a second hand watch shop”. By your own words, you say that people who “cannot afford to purchase them new, to obtain them pre-owned at a significant discount in price”. So, they’re not new? Which makes them second-hand.

My whole post was about whether or not the press release was crass (by taking advantage of someone’s personal situation for gain), as well as the editorial process that allowed it to be published. The comments that followed from my readers bore this out. Additionally, there are many more sites and blogs that offer a far more disparaging account of your client’s release than I do.

My post was not to “incite Rolex to take actions” – more, it was to question what passes as acceptable PR and why it’s important for brands to be aware of what’s being said in the name of their company.

I have some questions for your client. Did Rolex authorize this release? Did Owen Wilson authorize this release? Can it be factually proven that Owen Wilson’s watch turned him back from the precipice of despair?

Unless your client can answer “Yes” categorically to these questions, then the release (and the original blog post it stemmed from) are merely opinion, and not fact. Something which separates a news release from an opinion piece. Which is exactly what my blog referred to.

Therefore, I will be leaving the post as is.



There are a lot of things wrong with the PR industry. There are a lot of things good about it as well. Like any industry, there are good people and not-so-good people.

One thing that is apparent is that releases like the ones Melrose Jewelers issued don’t help to repair the view that PR professionals are uncaring and will say anything for a fast buck. If there is no concrete proof that Owen Wilson’s watch helped him during some dark times, then saying that it did suggests sensationalism in order to sell more watches.

In my original post, I shared my view of that, and of using PR in this way. I also asked the question what it would do for a company’s reputation that was happy to use PR in this way.

The Cease and Desist letter from Melrose Jewelers gives me their answer. I feel it’s only fair to offer them mine. Which is why the original post will remain.

Thanks for reading. I’d be interested in your take. Is there more than PR and brand awareness being questioned here?

Creative Commons License photo credit: narek781

Sign up for free weekly content

Subscribe to my newsletter and get a weekly email with the latest blog post, recommended reading, quick tips and more. I respect your privacy and will never spam you.

Alternatively, click here to subscribe to the RSS feed instead.

Danny Brown
Co-author Influence Marketing: How to Create, Manage and Measure Brand Influencers in Social Media Marketing. #1 marketing blog in world as per HubSpot. Husband. Father. Optimist. Pragmatist. Never says no to a good single malt. You can find me on Twitter - Google+ - LinkedIn.

Share your thoughts

46 Comments on "Melrose Jewelers, Rolex and Owen Wilson – The Sequel"

Are We In Danger of Losing the Right to an Opinion?
5 months 8 days ago
[…] refused, and instead published a rebuttal post that took apart each of the lawyer’s “statements”, and advised that the post would remain online, as is, as an opinion piece backed by facts. I never […]
3 years 3 months ago
@Cathy Why do I get the impression that your commment is really just an ad for Melrose Jewelers and not a real comment at all?
Rolex daytona
3 years 11 months ago
Used Rolexes... [..]Read used rolexes thought it was good article and wanted to link to it.[..]...
5 years 9 months ago
I actually bought a watch from Melrose Jewelers this Christmas. I don't understand why they would issue a release about that. They seemed like a legitimate company and I love my watch. I saved a lot of money going with them. It looks like they took down the blog and issued an apology. I don't think it's right in the first place but why all the hatred towards them? Here's the watch I bought: http://www.melrosejewelers.com/info/ladies_super_president_404.htm
5 years 9 months ago
I think it's less hatred and more disgust and disbelief at the poor PR decision in the first place, Cathy. Issuing cease and desist letters haven't helped in that department either, it would appear.
Mike Ashworth
5 years 9 months ago
p.s. looks like they had a go with a lance armstrong "press release" about a month before the owen wilson one http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS123333+14-Jan-2009+MW20090114
Mike Ashworth
5 years 9 months ago
having re-read the post above do you think that Rolex is none too ghappy with the actiosn of Melorse, that's the way it reads to me? the MSNBC news story has now been taken down
marianne oconnor
5 years 9 months ago
Given the 1.2M+ lawyers we currently have running around the U.S. and the legions of competent PR folks who are standing at the ready, I'd strongly suggest Melrose "switch out" its current team — and the sooner the better. It's a crime to pay for such ham-handed PR/legal advice!
Adam Singer
5 years 9 months ago
I'm still waiting for the day I get a cease and desist letter...hellooooo web traffic :)
5 years 9 months ago
Danny, 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.
Karthik S
5 years 9 months ago
I feel Melrose Jewelers have resorted to this C&D action ONLY to gain more PR - no PR is bad PR, after all, in their opinion, I suppose. I believe they saw a blog post with reasonably good reach and just went after it in the hope that it'd induce more comments. Guess what...it did! In your case, you did what is right - expose them. They unfortunately gain a lot more in terms of publicity. Lets see how all this publicity translates into business for them - I hope it doesn't and common sense says it wouldn't too...but who knows how they'd spin this further!
5 years 9 months ago
While I've never been a believer in the "all publicity is good publicity" mantra, I know that many others do work by it. As you say, Karthik, perhaps this is the view on this occasion? I guess time will tell.