For years of working with organizations to refine and implement vision and core values, I’ve told the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol story. You’ve probably heard it.
In 1982, seven people in the Chicago area mysteriously died after consuming Tylenol. An investigation quickly revealed the victims’ capsules had been laced with cyanide, with no indication of how widespread the threat was.
The manufacturer of Tylenol, the legendary company Johnson & Johnson, took no chance. They pulled 31 million bottles off shelves, absorbing massive costs, while citing their founding credo as a key source of inspiration. Business schools turned it into a gold standard case study of values in action, and leaders have long celebrated J&J’s decision to put people over profit.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. Join the world’s smartest marketers and subscribe here for actionable insights delivered directly to your inbox.
This narrative fit squarely into my learned beliefs. I grew up on J&J products. No More Tears baby shampoo. Baby powder. Band-Aids in every drawer. For millions of families, the J&J brand was synonymous with trust, family, and caring.
But that illusion was shattered when I interviewed Gardiner Harris on the Elevate Podcast. Harris spent five years investigating a pattern of criminal behavior at J&J that he catalogued in his 2025 book No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson.
According to Harris, J&J sold baby powder for decades despite internal awareness of asbestos contamination risks. It heavily marketed its antipsychotic drug Risperdal off-label to children, leading to criminal guilty pleas and billions in settlements. J&J even contributed significantly to the American opioid crisis, supplying much of the raw opioid ingredients used by other manufacturers, aggressively marketing its own opioid products, and downplaying addiction risks.
Over time, these actions led to billions in fines and settlements.
Harris’ portrait of J&J is not one of a company that occasionally crossed a line, but one that habitually pushed legal and ethical boundaries. When the legal system held them accountable, J&J willingly settled, seemingly treating settlements as a cost of doing business.
All of this misconduct, over multiple decades and many departments, reframed the Tylenol story for me. In fact, Harris argued that the Tylenol recall became something of an ethical shield that protected J&J from scrutiny. That single defining moment became institutional armor.
An ethical shield works in two ways.
Externally, this shield influences regulators, the media, and customers. A company known for integrity often receives the benefit of doubt, and missteps are framed as anomalies, rather than warning signs.
Internally, an ethical shield can be even more powerful and damaging. Employees are similarly inclined to dismiss bad behavior as aberrational if they believe they work for a largely ethical organization. If “we’re the good guys” is part of your identity, then evidence to the contrary can be hard to accept and easy to overlook.
This would explain why many scientists, despite being responsible for upholding product standards, did not blow the whistle on J&J’s wrongdoing. It’s hard to challenge a company’s ethical reputation from within and easier to just shrug off occasional bad signs and move on.
We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior. ~ Stephen M.R. Covey
Interestingly enough, Harris revealed that J&J’s salespeople exposed the company’s misdoings. While salespeople were most incentivized for J&J to continue making money, they were also the least insulated from the consequences of the company’s actions, as they’re in the rooms where products meet patients. They hear the objections, see the side effects, and feel the gap between what headquarters says and what’s actually happening. That friction was hard to ignore.
J&J’s powerful reputation protected it for decades, with few people questioning the fact that the company hadn’t added many more altruistic acts over the ensuing years. That’s the deeper leadership lesson. Many organizations have a Tylenol story. The bold pivot. The heroic recall. The principled stand. Those stories matter. They shape identity and inspire pride.
But they are also past, not present.
As a marketer, your job is to compete. Compete differently with The Blake Project.
When someone raises a concern that feels out of character, do you investigate it or defend your identity? When someone tells you a leader isn’t upholding your values, do you hold them accountable or make an excuse?
Past performance is not a guarantee of future outcomes. While your reputation can win you customer and employee trust, only current accountability can sustain it.
If you want to hear the full conversation and draw your own conclusions, I encourage you to listen to my interview with Harris on the Elevate Podcast. It’s a thought-provoking discussion about incentives, culture, and how even respected institutions can lose their way.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Robert Glazer, Founder & CEO, Acceleration Partners, Author of Moving To Outcomes: Why Partnerships Are The Future Of Marketing
At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable at pivotal moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
