Over the past five months, the Johnson & Johnson name has become synonymous with quality control problems, thanks to successive recalls of millions of over-the-counter products, many of which were for children, that smelled musty or contained too much active ingredient. The episode has blossomed into a full-blown scandal as the FDA mulls a criminal investigation, a Congressional committee threatens to issue a subpoena for documents and news that hired contractors sent employees to pose as consumers to buy Motrin bottles rather than issue a recall (see this).

This is a huge comedown for a company that has served as a role model for crisis management ever since the 1982 Tylenol scare. But is the storied J&J image sullied forever more? In a conversation with marketing consultant Laura Ries, we asked whether the healthcare giant is making the right moves to win back its customers. So far, she says, J&J execs have gotten some things right, but have a lot more to do…

Pharmalot: J&J created quite a mess for itself. And the congressional committee that’s investigating the recalls is obviously willing to turn up the heat – two hours past a deadline for turning over documents, there’s a statement saying a subpoena could be issued. So how damaged is the storied J&J image?
Ries: Like the BP case, this is a situation where a company didn’t enough to prevent a problem. They had issues and they didn’t address them. Very few brands can say they have something close to owning trust, and J&J is pretty darn close. That’s why I think the stories are so shocking. You can’t just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. It’s similar to Toyota. You have a brand that really embodied reliability, but internally, they fell down on certain aspects…But I don’t think they have been as badly damaged as one might expect. You know, unlike Toyota, we haven’t seen tragic fatalities.

Pharmalot: I suppose it’s also true that the Toyota and BP disasters benefited J&J.
Ries: Oh yes, it’s given them the opportunity to fly slightly below the radar, at least in terms of the intensity of the media coverage. So in large part, the story gets played less in contrast to other stories out there and there are some bigger stories out there. I would say the J&J story is not the one people are talking about at the water cooler. The BP story is so huge it makes the J&J situation seem small, although for the pharmaceutical industry, it’s obviously quite a big story.

Pharmalot: Okay, so how can the company recover? And are they taking the right steps so far? The ceo passed on testifying before Congress because of back surgery and another exec was sent, so the public then didn’t see the top official before the cameras. They’ve used their corporate blog twice and gave what looked like a highly selective video interview to Fortune magazine, and only a blurb was available. What next?
Ries: Obviously, people want to see the public lashing of the ceo, and know they’re accountable. But what they have done well is they’ve kept a relatively low profile on this whole thing. They want to be seen as cooperative and giving interviews and getting information out there, but not in a way that makes it a bigger story. Full-page ads in the newspaper, which is what BP has done, makes a story bigger and makes you look more guilty. They’ve avoided that type of mistake, which is one many companies tend to make. You have a situation where consumers seem to want to give them some benefit of the doubt. I think if they can come up with explanations in a timely manner it would help. I think they learned in the 80’s, when they had the Tylenol scare, to show they’ve learned something and do something tangible. The act of doing is always helpful.

Pharmalot: Such as what? The latest problems are about quality control in a plant, which no one sees. With the Tylenol scare, there was a change in packaging.
Ries: Yes, the safety caps. And you could see it and feel it. They need to do something big enough that can be conveyed. It’s a difficult challenge. In some way, they have to be able to communicate and demonstrate that they take this seriously, and have taken the steps so that it never happens again. If they can do that, it’ll go a long way toward a speedy recovery. But something too broad and too general will be difficult for people to get their heads around.

Pharmalot: Sounds like you’re saying J&J is stuck at the moment.
Ries: The reality is you can’t have a playbook about what to do when you get in a crisis. They don’t all work the same for every company. And to an extent, whether a company weathers a storm is less dependent on how you react than how strong your brand is. But J&J is so big that acting quickly is impossible – there are so many layers of lawyers and advisers. And the ceo is not a household name. One thing in their favor is that this doesn’t involve just one product. It’s almost counterintuitive, right, because there are so many products involved, but there’s no one name that people will rattle off to intensify the story. With so many products, people may pay less attention. Again, in 1982, it was just Tylenol.

And the reality is that people forget. This is not as big a story as in the 80’s. In five years, it’s likely to go away, if they’re able to correct the safety issues internally. But in the short term, it’s going to have an effect and make some consumers think twice before picking up a Tylenol bottle or some other bottle…But the time to talk to consumers is when you have some new to give them besides denials. The initial ‘I’m sorry’ is good, but come back to them when you can demonstrate you’re on the road to correcting the problem…

You don’t get too many chances, but with a strong brand, there can be a second or third chance. People want to believe you can continue with the product. But they have to get the whole congressional thing finished. The longer it goes on, and the more time and attention they have to pay to it, that isn’t a good thing. They need to close the chapter.