PR Industry's Amicus Brief Has a Flaw

The amicus brief filed by five PR groups in the Nike vs. Kasky case has a fatal flaw. It cites Johnson & Johnson's handling of the Tylenol murders in 1982 as an example of ideal communications. J&J stood some of the key facts of this incident on their head via a massive ad/PR campaign.

The Nike vs. Kasky case aroused our interest because the issue of free speech is involved.

Also, the five PR groups (PRSA, PA Council, Institute for PR, Page Society and Council of PR Firms) have jumped in on the side of Nike, spending what appears to be tens of thousands of dollars on an amicus brief via the prestigious law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton.

But what really got us interested was the two pages in the brief that referred to Johnson & Johnson's handling of the Tylenol poisonings in 1982 as an instance of ideal communications.

Says the brief: "Johnson & Johnson's swift public response to Tylenol cyanide tampering in 1982 would, under Kasky, expose it to strike suits."

At another point in the brief it says, "It is difficult to think of a more stark example of the public benefits that can flow from the free flow of corporate speech than J&J's response to the Tylenol cyanide crisis...in the hours following the first news of the crisis, J&J made the crucial decision to communicate everything it knew to the public."

This being the 20th anniversary of the tragedy, the fall PR Strategist of PRSA did eight pages on Tylenol (articles by Lawrence Foster, former VP-PR of J&J, and Carole Gorney, PR and journalism professor at Lehigh University and a national board member of PRSA).

What Did They Do about the 8 Days?
We read both the brief and the articles with one fascinating question in mind: how were they going to finesse the eight days (or minimum of seven) it actually took J&J to order the nationwide removal of the Tylenol capsules?

This was days after most stores had already done the removal job themselves.

The poisoned pills were ingested by some of the seven victims on Wednesday, Sept. 29, 1982 and by the next day medical authorities and the police had determined that cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules were the murder weapon.

'J&J was just another case of normal corporate foot-dragging during a crisis.'

By Thursday night, media had made the tragedy the No. 1 story nationwide and by Friday and Saturday there were AP and other reports of nationwide chains removing all Tylenol products from their shelves.

J&J's initial response was to focus attention on lots MC2880 (93,000 bottles) and 1910 MD (171,000 bottles) that were mainly distributed in Chicago. J&J decided to postpone national action until after the weekend.

On Tuesday, Oct. 5, the Food & Drug Administration announced that a man in Oroville, Calif., had convulsions after taking Tylenol capsules that contained strychnine. The FDA said J&J was now asking retailers to withdraw the capsules from sale nationwide.

On Thursday, Oct. 7, J&J announced the national withdrawal of 31 million Tylenol capsule bottles at a cost of about $100 million.

Although it took about a week for J&J to order the withdrawal (which was somewhat after the fact by that time), that is not how the withdrawal has entered public lore thanks to a massive advertising and PR campaign conducted by the company.

Two PR textbooks, Effective PR and PR Strategies & Tactics, use the term "immediately" in referring to the Tylenol recall. The latter textbook dropped mention of Tylenol altogether in its 2000 edition.

Actor Russell Crowe, in the 1999 movie, "The Insider," stated the Tylenol myth in its full glory while talking to actor Al Pacino in a car:

"James Burke, CEO of Johson & Johnson, when he found out that some lunatic had put poison in Tylenol bottles, he didn't argue with the FDA, he didn't wait for the FDA to tell him, he just pulled Tylenol off the shelves in every store right across America instantly."

Russell Crowe, right, states Tylenol myth in its full glory in "The Insider."Crowe emphasized the "instantly" point by making a sweeping motion with his arm as if to clear a table. Seven or eight days make a week by our reckoning and that definitely is not "instantly."

J&J was just another case of normal corporate foot-dragging during a crisis.

No Press Conference Was Held
The Debevoise & Plimpton brief for the five PR groups says "Johnson & Johnson maintained an open dialogue with the press and public throughout the crisis."

It says the company's "forthrightness with the public not only saved the Tylenol brand and perhaps even J&J itself, it contributed to the way American consumer goods are packaged and labeled to be tamper-resistant."

We don't think J&J was that open and forthright at all. It never held a press conference but chose to handle some 1,500 press calls on an individual basis. Probably nearly all of these were phone calls.

Who knows what J&J told or didn't tell these individual reporters?

Its public stance was that it had no special knowledge of the case and therefore had nothing to say to reporters in a press conference.

It did make one mis-statement. It said cyanide was not kept in any of its facilities when it turned out that J&J did use cyanide for testing purposes.

Focus Was on Wrong Thing
J&J put the focus on the packaging rather than the product, saying it would introduce a tamper-resistant bottle that would solve the problem.

A pharmacist told us he never sold Tylenol capsules because they were so susceptible to doctoring. All one had to do, he noted, was to open the bottle, pry apart the gelatine capsules, and introduce another substance.

J&J, undaunted, re-introduced the capsules about six weeks after the seven Chicago murders. In 1986 a 23-year-old Yonkers, N.Y., woman died after taking cyanide-laced capsules from a bottle that had never been opened.

Foster's article in the Strategist says the FBI discovered how that capsule and five others in another bottle had been contaminated but would not make this public.

Tylenol Has to Be "Untaught"
PR professors tell us they have to "unteach" the Tylenol episode because so many of their students are ill-informed about it.

The J&J campaign shows how a large company, aided by its many friends in professional groups and trade associations plus a complacent media, can establish a certain viewpoint in the minds of the public that does not square with all the facts.

It's a good instance of the "framing" that both PR and the media are guilty of, as described in the new book, Press Bias and Politics by Dartmouth's Jim Kuypers.

Framing means ignoring certain key facts that do not fit into a viewpoint or message that is being delivered.

J&J avoided a press conference because questions would have been directed at the vulnerable capsule method of drug delivery.

Readers interested in working conditions in China, the Philippines, Taiwan and other countries should read No Logo, by Naomi Klein, who visited many of the factories.

Although the public believed capsules acted quicker and were digested more easily, scientists at the time pointed out that tablets act just as quickly.

Gorney, in her article in the Strategist, says J&J, "in today's legal climate," would have been dealt with more severely.

Writes Gorney: "The accusations would go something like this: J&J knew its capsules were vulnerable to tampering. It is obvious that tamper-resistant packaging already was on the drawing board, which is why the company was able to introduce it as part of its recovery plan in less than six weeks after the poisonings. Besides, the FDA already had issued a national mandate before the poisonings requiring tamper-resistant packaging."

TMI Had Hurt Nuclear and PR Industries
Another reason for PR's love affair with Tylenol was that the nuclear industry and PR had taken a pasting in the 1979 Three Mile Island Nuclear incident.

The dissembling by officials in the first few days of the incident resulted in a deep loss of faith in the American nuclear industry. No new nuclear plant was ever ordered after 1979. The PR industry wanted a success story to talk about and Tylenol filled that bill.

It's about time J&J itself stepped forward and corrected the Tylenol story, showing the timeline of the events. Also, hardly any mention is ever made of the Chicago victims. It took them eight years to get a settlement out of the company.