The Tylenol case represents perhaps the worst sort of dilemma a company can face. Through no fault of its own, Johnson & Johnson was faced with the destruction of one of its most important brand names. An unknown assailant used the product to murder a number of people at random, and the story was one of the most widely covered events in media history. Within the first week it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the American public were aware of what had happened. This situation left the product in a very bad position - no one wanted to use Tylenol in case there had been some tampering with the product. Johnson & Johnson had done nothing to betray the public's trust in the company, or its products; yet that trust, a great deal of revenue, and a large market share segment were gone. One horrible event and the excessive media coverage that followed, put Johnson & Johnson in a position where it needed to salvage its image and revenues even though the company had done nothing wrong.
Americans were bombarded with information about the Tylenol incident. The volume of information pertaining to the cyanide-induced deaths was incredible. The fact that the story received so much attention probably saved the lives of people who would have otherwise unwittingly taken cyanide-laced Tylenol and died. Consumer response immediately after the tragedies showed what the makers of Tylenol were up against as demand for all brands of pain relievers and sleeping aids dropped by 16.7 percent. Johnson & Johnson reported it had lost 87 percent of its market share, with the remaining share coming from Tylenol tablets, which had not been linked to the tragedy.
The company was placed in a very difficult position in terms of trying to revive its brand and also in terms of the damage that might be done to the company as a whole. It was not entirely outside the realm of possibility that the Johnson & Johnson company name could become linked with the problem just as surely as was Tylenol as a brand name, and therefore the consumer might begin avoiding other Johnson & Johnson products, perhaps in the mistaken belief that the company was somehow responsible for what had happened. The company had to walk a fine line between restoring its product and thus seeming to be interested only in reviving sagging sales and in showing a real and genuine concern for the consumer. The fact that the company had always shown such a concern demonstrated that it was not merely being opportunistic because of its own problems, but convincing the consumer of this might be more difficult than was first apparent.

Before the cyanide poisoning incident, Johnson & Johnson was a very successful company in all respects. Moreover, it led the world in sales of painkillers. The company produced many other products, but as a company it had maintained a low profile in the press. In the past, it had turned down most requests for interviews and existed as an image promoted through its advertising and its products. The corporate culture of Johnson & Johnson included adherence to a rigid code of ethics, and the company had on more than one occasion sacrificed its own interests in profit for what it perceived as the best interests of the consumer. The Tylenol poisonings thus damaged the corporation's sense of itself and its mission. The linking of the product with these deaths and with the bizarre aspects of the case was particularly devastating to the company image, quite aside from any damage to corporate earnings.

If Johnson & Johnson had been in a less morally defensible position in any respect, it is likely that they would have been ill-equipped to deal with the repercussions of the poisoning incident. Because it was clear that Johnson & Johnson had consistently taken a strong ethical and moral stance, it was easy for the public to believe that they were innocent of any wrongdoing in this situation. However, if Johnson & Johnson had a history of poor business practices, or a reputation for negligent behavior, then it is possible that they would have never been able to recover from the Tylenol incident; they would have looked guilty no matter how much the weight of evidence was in their favor.
Even in light of the evidence, and goodwill gestures on the part of Johnson & Johnson, the company faced a number of expensive lawsuits. One lawsuit was a class-action that "demanded refunds for every person who had bought Tylenol products in the entire country for the year of 1982," and it was estimated that this would be equal to about $600 million. While the case against the company had no hope of success, it was still very expensive for the company to defend itself. There were a total four class-action suits filed against the company, and the expense of defense was enormous
Johnson & Johnson had done nothing wrong; no guilt could be ascribed to the company. They were simply the unfortunate producers of a product that was used as the instrument of a very sick crime. But because of that crime, and a nearly unprecedented amount of media coverage, Tylenol became associated with poison and death in the majority of American households. Perhaps the media had the public's safety and well-being in their coverage of the story, however, that very coverage was probably responsible for a lot of damage to the public, and to Johnson & Johnson, as well. If the story had been given less attention, it is likely that panic levels would not have reached such a feverish pitch; it is also likely that damage to the company would not have been as extensive in terms of geography or time.

No matter what the cost, however, it is clear that the people at Johnson & Johnson were willing to go to any lengths to clear the company name and restore product faith. The FDA had publicly proclaimed that the makers of Tylenol were innocent of any impropriety regarding the incident, but for Johnson & Johnson that was only a first step. The damage had been done to their product's sales and image, and it would take a very long time and an extraordinary amount of effort to restore it. Ultimately, the company must be commended for its responsible and ethical behavior before and after the tragic event.

Johnson & Johnson's business practices and treatment of the situation serve as an excellent model for other companies to follow. A final lesson that can be learned is that of responsible media coverage. Obviously, the media served an important function and saved lives, but there was a lack balance that should have been recognized and amended in the coverage of future events -- though, sadly, this has not been the case.