Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 45
1
2 They could have had every good intention of that being so,
3 but decided that the second page was beneficial and got
4 good response and, therefore, decided to extend its life.
5 It is very, very common for an advertiser in America to
6 make commitment to a placement of an advertisement for one
7 or two quarters and then either modify, discontinue or
8 continue it. Their plan initially goes only so far; if
9 the advertisement is a success, they will extend it beyond
10 their initial plan. That is a very real possibility that
11 does not require any bad faith or other negative
12 attribution to McDonald's intention, but merely that their
13 intention changed.
14
15 I cannot say from what they published to the McDonald's
16 family in December 1986 what their plans were in April or
17 May 1987 regarding those advertisements.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Rampton is suggesting to you that it is
20 a compelling invitation to take 101 and 171 together that
21 the original plan was that after the first insertion only
22 the first page would appear?
23 A. I would agree with that inference as to the plan as it
24 existed whenever McDonald's drafted, but the Time mock-up
25 of December 1986, presumably, I could not agree with that
26 later because I have seen many instances where advertisers
27 have changed their plans.
28
29 MR. RAMPTON: You recognise -- this is not meant to be an
30 offensive question -- you are a trained lawyer with many
31 years of practice in litigation -- the difference between
32 assertion, proof and speculation, do you not?
33 A. Yes, Mr. Rampton, that is why I could not answer your
34 question as you wished me to.
35
36 Q. But looked at with the clear mind and the precise training
37 of a lawyer, taking those two documents together, it is
38 compelling evidence that your intervention had nothing
39 whatever to do with the removal, as it were, of the second
40 pages of those advertisements?
41 A. It is some evidence, I do not find it compelling. Had
42 that been brought to my attention at the time, I would
43 want to know what other documents existed at McDonald's in
44 the December to May time-frame dealing with the placement
45 of those advertisements that would show, in fact, that
46 McDonald's intention was, what were the internal
47 documents.
48 Those I have not seen. Because we received assurances
49 that the advertising that we were concerned about was not
50 continuing, then we did not need to take it further.
51
52 But that is exactly what we would have gotten had we
53 needed to get into the question of whether our
54 intervention caused it. It is, in fact, nothing we would
55 have done because, from our investigative standpoint, we
56 did not view it in the public interest to try to see
57 whether or not we got credit or blame for stopping a
58 series of advertisements.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is the reference to "year-long" in the
