Why Johnson & Johnson India’s print ad today irked me
Update, July 15, 2013: Looks like I’m not the only one questioning Johnson & Johnson’s stand on license revocation as something that select media reported! Maharashtra FDA seems annoyed with the wording in the ad. too!
Maharashtra show-cause notice to J&J India (Business Standard, July 13, 2013)
Original post:
As a parent who has stopped buying Johnson & Johnson’s products recently, the print advertisement today from them irks me.

This is the advertisement.

jandj
One, this comes a full 2 months after Maharashtra’s Food & Drug Administration revoked the license to produce cosmetics out of its Mulund plant. I understand J&J was appealing against the order and the latest hearing was earlier this week. I also understand that Maharashtra Government has upheld the earlier cancellation of license.
So, the first question – why is J&J citing, ‘issues raised in certain media around safety of our products’? Did media raise these concerns? Or, was media merely reporting what Maharashtra FDA noted and acted?

Next, why is there no mention of the license cancellation (earlier cancelled and later upheld by Maharashtra Government after an appeal by J&J) in the advertisement that was wants us (consumers) to trust J&J’s products again?

I’m not sure why anyone with a sane mind would want to risk his/her baby’s health after knowing that the brand’s plant license has been revoked for using a carcinogenic.

It’s a different thing that there may be nuances involved – like when the carcinogenic was used, in how many batches, if those batches are still available in shops and if there was any complaints (all of which are explained in the ad.) – but when it comes to personal safety, I’m not sure if people would want to go beyond the obvious – that is, a plant’s license has been cancelled over carcinogenic used in baby talcum powder. That one line is enough to lose trust and look at alternatives.

Unfortunately, the J&J ad comes 2 months late (possibly owing to the appeals process) and seems wishy-washy to alleviate serious concerns.

As a communications professional, I’m wondering what kind of content in the ad. would have made an impact. Something more direct and honest, before launching into nuances? And not blaming media reports (who were merely amplifying what the administration had said) for the reason for the ad.?

Comments

comments