Not so, says McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner. He insists the company has no plans to retire Ronald. That kind of corporate denial is typical, even as Ronald’s presence in McDonaldland has diminished over the past year – ever since the negative media publicity started gaining traction.

“He is a force for good,” Skinner has said, defending his beloved clown as an ambassador for the McDonald’s brand. “He communicates effectively with children and families around balanced, active lifestyles. He does not hawk food.”

OK Jim, if you say so, but it’s obvious you’ve put him on the shelf. Your marketing people have openly admitted that Ronald’s role is changing, due to an evolutionary shift in brand strategy, as the company is now focusing on healthier food options and gourmet coffee for adults.

Ronald has had a nice run but every clown has its day. And since there aren’t a lot of job openings for out-of-work brand mascots, like a lot of retired folks, he may have to shift his energy entirely to his work around the House. That would be the Ronald McDonald House Charities. And that would be a good thing.

Interestingly enough, I saw a prime-time TV spot last night, sponsored by McDonald’s, promoting Ronald and his new focus on that charitable cause. I couldn’t help but wonder why the company didn’t employ a proactive PR approach to begin with. Rather than take a defensive position in the media with denial and counter attacks on the consumer advocate groups, they could have leveraged the opportunity to create a positive spin on the story by putting social responsibility ahead of brand ego.

They could have deflected rather than enflamed the negative publicity by simply admitting that they have shifted market focus from kids to adults, with healthier menu options. Then they could have shifted the conversation by admitting they have redeployed Ronald on a full-time basis to the good work he’s been doing with his charitable cause. It’s why PR needs to be better represented in the C-Suite.

More than ever before brands are built on trust, not image. Trust is an emotional state, founded not just on the products but on the integrity of companies that produce them, and the CEOs who lead them. In a consumer-driven marketplace, where public trust has been rocked by numerous incidents of corporate greed and situational ethics in a brutal economic recession, even seemingly invincible brands have become volatile.

Such is the case with Toyota, the crown jewel of automotive brands and the standard of quality for so many years, as it deals with repercussions from safety issues relating to reports of involuntary acceleration and now problems with braking systems.  President Akio Toyoda, grandson of the founding father, appears today before the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about how responsive and forthcoming the company has been in dealing with these issues. It should be interesting to see how the consumer public responds and what kind of damage is done to the brand in this, one of Toyota’s largest and most important markets.

The thing that makes this case more interesting than past public relations crises, like Tylenol and Firestone Tires, is the cultural factor. It has to be excruciating for them. Japanese companies are extremely product-centric, often to the point of arrogance. Once trust in those products has been compromised, it comes down to how well the company can engage with the consumer public and restore faith. In companies where the CEO serves as more a figurehead than a true business leader this becomes exponentially more difficult, especially for Mr. Toyoda who is known to be reclusive by nature. This may well be the most daunting challenge of his career.

Could it be that a changing world has caught up to Toyota, which has failed to adapt to a contracted, customer-centric market environment and lost its competitive dominance? There are a couple of US auto manufacturers who are looking on with great interest; let’s hope they’re learning something.