Grab the wrong kind of attention and you’ll quickly find your company’s reputation in desperate trouble. Contrary to the maxim, there is such a thing as bad PR, and as a rule, the bigger your are the worse it is for you. When Wing 2 (Grab Attention) of your organization’s outreach seems broken, it’s time to swiftly reach out to your customers, employees and partners to learn what you need to do to take flight again.
Of corporate social responsibility and public outrage
Most Americans are aware of the housing crisis caused by a mortgage bubble. The bubble ultimately burst when overly complicated loans created by investment bankers and housing lenders led people to make (really) bad financial decisions. What followed was a deep public mistrust of the banking industry that persists today.
Getting less widespread media attention are the present woes of multinational Johnson & Johnson. For many Americans including myself, J&J products played a familiar and comforting role early and throughout our childhood. The New Jersey-based drug and personal hygiene products company makes and sells many of the world’s most familiar household brand names including:
- Band-Aid
- Benadryl
- Johnson’s Baby Shampoo
- Listerine
- Lubriderm
- Motrin
- Neosporin
- Neutrogena
- Splenda
- Tylenol
The company’s pharmaceutical division also makes drugs for migraines, cancer, ADD, ADHD, mood disorders, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, acid reflux disease and other serious illnesses. Soon, J&J could become the world’s largest maker of implants and orthopedic devices, when it completes its purchase of the Swiss company, Synthes.
Corporate social responsibility, Risperdal and Johnson’s Baby Shampoo
It was the recent $1.1 billion ruling against Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals that caught my eye. Add the Arkansas jury’s decision to settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in South Carolina, Louisiana and Texas since December 2011, and one wonders whether perhaps the lab that keeps my Band-Aids® stuck on me has been overrun by proverbial mad scientists.
Actually, in March 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took over three of the company’s Tylenol manufacturing facilities following the recall of hundreds of millions of bottles of Tylenol, Motrin and Benadryl since 2009.
As bad as this sounds, it seems another public image nightmare might be around the corner, one that would cause even the most seasoned PR pro to wake in a cold sweat. Ironically, that nightmare is Johnson’s® “No More Tears” Baby Shampoo.
It seems that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo contained some carcinogenic substances. After two-and-a-half years of boycotts and pressure following the “Baby’s Tub is Still Toxic” report by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, in November 2011, pressure from public advocacy groups forced Johnson & Johnson’s hand, and prompted a reformulation of the product.
Examining their approach through the lens of The Dragonfly Model, we can see how The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics activated all four wings to achieve their goal.
- Focus: Get carcinogens out of baby shampoo and other products, specifically Quaternium-15 and 1,4 Dioxane.
- Grab attention: Publish the Toxic Baby Tub report.
- Engage: Gather the support of leaders from more than 20 advocacy groups, including the American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Teens Turning Green.
- Take action: Provide resources and support to the coalition of advocacy groups until Johnson & Johnson agrees to modify its product formula.
In “A Response from Johnson’s on Ingredients in the News,” J&Js VP of Product Stewardship and Toxicology, Susan Nettesheim addresses the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the public. The company states it has “begun providing new formulas with alternatives to formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and expect(s) to finish this process in hundreds of baby products around the world within two years, and sooner for baby shampoos.”
The most basic rule of public trust: Provide a safe product
To paraphrase Seth Godin’s Purple Cow: The oldest, most basic rule of selling to the public is to combine a safe, average product with great marketing. To succeed in today’s marketplace requires great products, which will be sought out by the right people.
In light of Johnson & Johnson’s recent history, can the 125-year-old company regain its previous standing as a trusted maker of many brands?
As a long-time customer and a fan of many of their brands, I sincerely hope so. But it’s going to take serious introspection and some very hard work.
Johnson & Johnson might start where the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics did, with Wing 1 (Focus) of The Dragonfly Effect Model. The company then needs to think deeply about what their single, clear focused goal is and focus on an effort that would demonstrate an authentic commitment to becoming a socially responsible company.
J&J is already in the mix, their two Twitter accounts, @JNJComm and @JNJStories, boast over 20,000 followers. These will prove to be useful as they take to the social Web to start engaging consumers and find out how to make them happier.
Got something to say about corporate social responsibility at Johnson & Johnson? Tell us and tweet them!
How about just doing business the right way.
Geeze, how long have we been watching out for what’s in stuff, aware of the ingredients that make up products? Even if just a sliver of their customer base cares enough to check, shouldn’t companies be as proactive as possible to fend off potential problems like this? Isn’t J&J big enough, profitable enough to test stuff, even long-time products, before putting them on shelves and making profits?
Who in a business like J&J is responsible for making sure business is done the right way? Regulations are minimal, base-line quality standards. Don’t you want to exceed that? What if that $1.1 billion went into that effort before the lawsuits happen? Wouldn’t that action focus, grab attention, and engage your customer base instead of watch dog groups wanting to make a name for themselves?
Too idealistic? Well, keep hiring lawyers and paying marketers. Customers pay for it anyway.
Very interesting. Thanks for the blog!