Reply to comment

The guidelines may not be greatly different from other companies (although I'd argue the various language claims, including the unprecedented 'licence' by which journalist are allowed the use of the company's name provided they do not criticise the company, are radically different) . The point is we have another unchangeable decision handed down from on high without I suspect, a lot of review or consideration. The company that may not be named suffers from corporate schizophrenia. If you ask why a boot is sticking out of your posterior then the company that must not be named is all touchy-feely caring-sharing and we're all in this together. If you use the company name in unapproved ways they'll sue the tripes out of you and your issue unto the fourth generation.

This approach suggest there is no strong hand in decision-making and too many decisions are being made at too low a level in the company.