May 24, 2012

Johnson & Johnson’s Faltering Reputation

In the last two years, we have seen big hits to the brands of Toyota, BP and basically every bank in existence. Reputation risk has been an increasingly large concern reported by top execs on surveys since around 2005, but aside from improving crisis response and, maybe, buying insurance to recoup some losses, there are not a ton of clear-cut ways to manage such a nuanced, nontraditional exposure. (This article from our Risk Management magazine, “The Importance of Reputation,” offers some additional advice.)

We can now add one more company to the list: Johnson & Johnson. A recent New York Times article details at how the formerly Teflon brand on Johnson & Johnson has been struggling since its massive recalls.

Little red flags jut out from the shelves at a CVS drugstore in suburban Boston, alerting shoppers to shortages of nearly a dozen Johnson & Johnson products. Among them are Motrin, Rolaids, children’s Tylenol liquid and adult Tylenol, Mylanta, Pepcid AC and even some Neutrogena skin care products.

“Looking for Tylenol pain relief products?” asks one of the signs. The notices at CVS serve as a stark reproof to Johnson & Johnson, whose brands have for more than a century been synonymous with quality.

In the drug business, Johnson & Johnson will not just face lower sales. Their products will now have to compete with the similarly effective generic alternatives that are usually cheaper. The Johnson & Johnson brand used to demand a premium because people trusted it to be safer than store brands. The importance of that trust — particularly trust from parents — to the company is hard to overstate.

What will happen if it becomes frayed?

While the drugstore signs that helpfully suggest “Try CVS/pharmacy brand” are intended to assist frustrated shoppers in identifying alternatives to missing brand-name products, they also serve as constant reminders of another of J.& J.’s continuing problems: It must persuade millions of disappointed customers to once again pay a premium for products that may no longer seem to be of any higher quality than the less expensive store brand.

“I don’t even consider buying them any more,” says Thien-Kim Lam, a mother of two and a blogger in Silver Spring, Md.

Anyone have any suggestions for Johnson & Johnson?

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Risk Management Magazine  is the premier source of analysis, insight and news for corporate risk managers. RM strives to explore existing and emerging techniques and concepts that address the needs of those who are tasked with protecting the physical, financial, human and intellectual assets of their companies. As the business world and the world at large change with increasing speed, RM keeps its readers informed about new challenges and solutions....

212-286-9364

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.