How Johnson & Johnson has somehow survived scandal after scandal

On Sept. 29, 1982, Mary Kellerman woke up emotion sick. The 12-year-old woman from Elk Grove Village, a suburb of Chicago, asked her parents to enactment location from school, and they gave her 1 extra-strength Tylenol capsule. She was dormant a fewer hours later.

The doctors assumed she’d died from a congenital bosom information aliases possibly an aneurysm. But past six much group crossed nan Chicagoland area, ranging successful property from 19 to 35, besides died nan aforesaid time from mysterious circumstances.

Before long, firefighters realized that each nan deaths had 1 point successful common: Tylenol. After nan bottles were scrutinized by a aesculapian examiner, it was discovered they’d been laced pinch cyanide.

The deaths became “one of nan astir extensively covered news events since nan assassination of President John F. Kennedy almost 20 years earlier,” writes Gardiner Harris successful his caller book, “No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson” (Random House), retired now.

“All 3 nationalist networks made nan poisonings nan halfway of their broadcasts for weeks. Almost each newspaper successful nan state covered it done nan fall, pinch much than 1 100 1000 individual stories.”

It was a scary clip for consumers nationwide. But it was particularly daunting for executives astatine Johnson & Johnson, 1 of nan country’s astir beloved brands. 

“Few American corporations person ever faced specified a disaster,” writes Harris.

Tylenol wasn’t conscionable a apical seller for Johnson & Johnson; it was nan company’s astir important and iconic product.

“Sales successful 1982 were expected to attack $500 cardinal and relationship for astir 20% of its profits,” writes Harris. “Now each awesome media statement connected nan satellite was linking Tylenol pinch death. The institution had to rescue nan franchise, but how?”

It didn’t thief that Chicago’s ain mayor, Jane Byrne, held a news convention imploring metropolis residents to bring their Tylenol to nan nearest constabulary station.

“Don’t return Tylenol,” she said, “not moreover successful tablet aliases liquid form.” It was, to opportunity nan least, nan worst nationalist relations infinitesimal imaginable.

Johnson & Johnson was astatine a crossroads. Depending connected really executives responded, it could either scare their loyal customers distant everlastingly aliases beryllium they were a institution and a marque to beryllium trusted.

In nan end, they managed to propulsion disconnected nan latter.

Their consequence “has agelong been seen arsenic nan astir ethical, honest, and effective situation guidance successful American firm history,” writes Harris.

Johnson & Johnson has faced a batch of scandals complete nan years that could person (and successful galore cases, should have) destroyed them.

From lawsuits claiming their antipsychotic supplier Risperdal didn’t pass astir broadside effects like antheral bosom growth, to a 2020 nationwide recall of their babe powder aft grounds surfaced that it was contaminated pinch cancer-causing asbestos, to FDA restrictions of their COVID vaccine owed to life-threatening humor clot risks.

But it was nan Tylenol ungraded that would everlastingly specify nan company. Before nan poisonings, “few group knew that Tylenol was made by Johnson & Johnson,” writes Harris.

But aft their response, polls recovered “near cosmopolitan recognition.” Last January, Fortune mag classed Johnson & Johnson arsenic 1 of the astir admired corporations successful nan world for nan 23rd consecutive year.

“If location is simply a much American — ­quintessentially American — institution than Johnson & Johnson, I do not cognize what it is,” Tyler Mathisen, a longtime CNBC anchor, told a web healthcare convention successful May 2019.

How did Johnson & Johnson not conscionable past but thrive aft nan Tylenol panic of 1982? First and foremost, they acted fast. J&J executives agreed to propulsion each Tylenol capsule connected each shop shelf—­about 31 cardinal bottles. “It was nan largest supplier callback successful history and costs J&J $100 cardinal to manage,” writes Harris.

They besides quickly added protective seals to each caller Tylenol products, pinch a integrative ringing astir nan necks of pill bottles and a foil placed complete nan bottle’s mouth.

“These measures were soon adopted by each over-­the-­counter supplier manufacturer,” writes Harris.

But while it appeared that nan institution was decisive and expeditious, they were really well-prepared for this moment.

“In nan erstwhile 3 years, nan institution had received 300 complaints astir contaminations,” writes Harris. Johnson & Johnson was already moving connected tamper-­resistant packaging, truthful erstwhile nan Tylenol poisonings happened.

They besides had thing other that helped nan institution protect its nationalist image: nan astir corrupt FDA commissioner successful history. 

Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., who served arsenic nan FDA commissioner betwixt 1981 and 1983, “believed supplier regularisation should beryllium a collaborative process,” writes Harris. His thought of collaboration progressive bribes from supplier companies.

The Tylenol poisonings allowed him an opportunity to beryllium his loyalty to nan aesculapian supplier behemoth. Hayes “lost small clip successful publically exonerating Johnson & Johnson,” writes Harris. “FDA officials moreover took pains to show reporters that nan 2 tons linked to nan poisonings were not being termed ‘recalls,’ which would connote a manufacturing defect.”

There’s nary conclusive impervious that J&J ever paid Hayes a dime during his clip arsenic FDA commissioner, “but he spent overmuch of nan remainder of his life (after retiring arsenic commissioner) moving for a nationalist relations patient owned by a erstwhile apical J&J executive,” writes Harris.

When Johnson & Johnson relaunched Tylenol conscionable a fewer months later, connected Thanksgiving 1982, pinch tamper-­resistant packaging, it was concisely nan only over-the-counter medicine pinch nan other furniture of safety, “providing nan merchandise pinch a halo it ne'er surrendered,” writes Harris.

It wouldn’t beryllium nan past clip Tylenol became a headache (no pun intended) for nan company. In 1994, Antonio Benedi, a erstwhile scheduler for President George H.W. Bush, sued Johnson & Johnson, claiming that he suffered liver nonaccomplishment aft utilizing Tylenol Extra Strength to dainty nan flu.

The assemblage awarded him astir $9 cardinal successful damages, and tribunal documents recovered that “Johnson & Johnson had known for years that mean drinkers — a explanation that applies to astir Americans — ­could suffer catastrophic liver harm from mean doses of Tylenol,” writes Harris.

The problem had started decades earlier, erstwhile J&J upped nan magnitude of acetaminophen from 325 to 500 milligrams per pill to combat user belief that Tylenol, while safe, was little effective than different brands.

The FDA was reluctant to adhd a liver informing connected bottles, deeming it unnecessary.

“The agency said it didn’t want group who were contemplating termination to cognize nan harm nan supplier could do,” Harris writes. 

The brand’s avowed information — its astir iconic advertisement claimed it was nan symptom reliever “hospitals usage most” — was, ironically, what made it truthful deadly.

A University of Pennsylvania study recovered that galore patients who developed liver harm from Tylenol ne'er bothered to publication nan recommended dosage arsenic “they thought nan supplier was truthful safe,” Harris writes. 

Despite nan ineligible wrist slap, Johnson & Johnson emerged almost unscathed and coming is still 1 of nan largest and astir trusted healthcare companies successful nan world.

The 1982 Tylenol poisoning has go a lawsuit study for students astatine Harvard Business School, which “used to thatch thousands of executives-in-training that if they do nan correct point moreover astatine sizeable expense, customers will reward them,” Harris writes.

Even wrong nan J&J soul ranks, a belief has solidified that “the institution was a uniquely beneficial unit for bully successful nan world.”

They had a level of spot from consumers that was “all but intolerable to degrade,” Harris writes. It was, he adds, “Corporate gaslighting connected an epic scale.”