Monster Responds to Mini Golf Backlash
Dec
15
Written by:
Jeremy Glowacki
12/15/2008 5:47 AM
Ok, I get it. You own a copyright and you have to protect it. Otherwise, it’s not worth the paper that it’s printed on. I still have a hard time siding with Monster Cable, even after the company posted a response to the backlash over its lawsuit with the owners of the Monster MiniGolf franchise.
I was pretty tough on Monster Cable last week, but I wasn’t alone. Despite what Monster’s leadership says, they’re the big boys here and don’t need to flex their muscles and protect their brand against a mini golf franchise, even if they are both related to "entertainment" in some way. Maybe Monster Cable, as its owner argues, is not a “faceless corporation,” but it is big enough to have owned the naming rights of an NFL football stadium, while most of us had never heard of Monster MiniGolf... that is until Monster Cable, ironically, introduced us to them through their lawsuit.
Anyway, it’s easy to get sucked into Monster Cable’s response, seeing the $100/year per franchise fee as a nominal expense for Monster MiniGolf to pay as franchising fees, even having those proceeds going to charities, including the Elf Foundation, an organization that I whole-heartedly support. But I’m still conflicted about this whole mess, just because Monster Cable’s reputation was already on thin ice before this recent battle became public. Not mention that $100/month, per franchise, forever, sees a bit extreme.
What it all comes down to an over-inflated ego and a misguided notion that the world really cares about all things named “Monster.” On the contrary, most of us have much better things to do than to get fired up over Monster Furniture, Monster Music (although I enjoyed interviewing George Benson), and even Monster Mints. And I would never, for once, confuse Monster Cable and a mini golf franchise, even though I’m a member the industry that knows all about high-priced wire and cable.