Author: Ruth Folger Weiss

As one who passionately builds brands for a living, it saddens me when I am forced to bear witness to the downward spiral of a once-strong brand.  The recent troubles faced by Tylenol and other huge brands from McNeil Consumer Healthcare bear witness to the fact that, while the identity of a brand can help bring a product to the heights of popularity, that same identity, when linked to negative events, can bring the product crashing down in the minds of consumers.

Tylenol has a long history of bumps in the road, starting with drug-tampering problems back in 1982, which resulted in the brand being held up as an example of what to do when disaster strikes your product.  Take responsibility.  Take Action.  Don’t make excuses.

The public was reassured by how the Tylenol scare was handled and sales eventually returned to the brand.  Tylenol came to mean a trusted and safe product once again.  And in a market with unimaginable generic competition, that trust went a long way toward making consumers feel like the branded choice was the right choice.

More recent troubles, however, cannot be blamed on nameless and faceless culprits who are threatening the safety of the American public.  This time the responsibility for manufacturing irregularities fall solidly in the lap of McNeil.  There is no denying that they must take responsibility, there is nowhere else to put it.  But the public is not so quick to forgive this time.

Part of the difference is that this time McNeil is truly to blame for the issue.  And the other part of the difference comes from how the world has changed in those intervening 28 years.  In the world of 1982, the news of the recall and corrective action came through formal channels and gossip about the problem was contained within neighborhoods.  In the world of 2010, news of the recall hit Twitter and Facebook long before it made the front pages of the newspaper or local news broadcasts.  Along with the immediacy of informing the public, McNeil was unable to control the message, and unprepared to deal with the fallout.  Their customer service resources were inadequate, their recall website not up to date, their response times were not up to snuff.

So now, in addition to being worried about the threat that recalled medications might hold for their families, people are angry that McNeil isn’t managing the situation as well as they could.  The brand is breaking.

As the process of restocking medicine cabinets with generic versions of McNeil’s recalled drugs is documented in minute detail via social media networks, more and more people see that generics offer safe, cost-effective alternatives to the branded drugs.  The more social proof that consumers see that the generics are just as effective, the more likely they will be to continue to eschew the branded products.  There is no upside of going back to Tylenol or Benedryl.  Those names are tainted with both the manufacturing issues (real or imagined, it makes no difference) and the customer service disappointments.

The bar for what consumers expect from a generic drug is much lower.  Does it work?  Does it cost less than the branded product?  Is it safe?  Customer service and advertising and image don’t enter into the equation for these purposes.

By dropping the ball so many times, McNeil is training consumers to be satisfied with a less impressive package.  It will be interesting to see if they are able to resolve and recover from this current crisis situation.  As surprised as I am to say this, my bets in this case are against the brand.

According to Jarett Berry, a cardiologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, one must be vigilant about keeping physically active. Yes, in what they used to call “Middle Age.”  Wasn’t that the time we thought would be a little slower, a tad less “vigorous,” an entitlement to ease up a bit? Not if you want to hit 85 says the good Dr. “If you are fit in mid-life, you double your chance of surviving to 85.”

Dr. Berry’s findings, presented last week in San Francisco at the American Heart Association’s Annual Epidemiology and Prevention Conference, are based on an analysis of 1,765 men and women who had physical examinations performed during the 1970’s and 1980’s at the Cooper Institute, the Dallas-based birthplace of the aerobics movement. Put another way: If you’re not fit in your 50’s, your projected life span “is eight years shorter than if you are fit,” Dr. Berry says.

So regular exercise is the most cogent weapon we have to ward off illness and fight disease- as it results in lower blood pressure, healthier cholesterol, and lower blood sugar.

Rest assured… there is a silver lining to all this before you start jogging, digging ditches, or playing singles tennis:  Studies also indicate that exercise’s greatest impact occurs when individuals move from a sedentary lifestyle to embarking on regular moderate exercise regimens.

That’s encouraging. You go, Girl!

There is a definite association between “covert coping” in the face of unfair treatment in the workplace. Men who tend to walk away from conflict at work could be setting themselves up for a myocardial infarction and cardiac death.

In a prospective study of Swedish workers, those who used “covert coping” techniques when they felt they had been unfairly treated were more likely to have an MI or die of ischemic heart disease. Constanze Leineweber, PhD, of Stockholm University in Sweden, and colleagues  in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, expanded on research indicating  that covert coping – or  walking away from a conflict and dealing with the anger “indirectly and introvertly” – increases cardiovascular risk factors. They cautioned that the study didn’t pin down a causal relationship between covert coping and cardiovascular disease. Instead, they said, it raises “an interesting hypothesis, which needs to be confirmed or refuted by future studies.” The researchers analyzed data from a long-running prospective cohort study in Stockholm, the Work, Lipids, and Fibrinogen study, dubbed WOLF for short.

Covert coping was measured by questionnaire, in which the participant was asked about how he or she dealt with unfair treatment from either a boss or a fellow worker. The questionnaire did not measure whether or not the participant experienced unfair treatment at work nor how often covert coping mechanisms were used.

The participants were asked whether they sometimes, often, seldom, or never:

Let things pass without saying anything
Walk away
Feel bad — developing a headache, for instance
Get into a bad temper at home

The results yielded a covert coping score that could range from 8 to 32; the researchers stratified covert coping as low if the score was 8 through 14, medium if it was 15 through 18, and high if it was 19 or more.

They also categorized immediate responses – to the first two options – as low, medium, or high.

Compared with those who had low covert coping scores, the researchers found:

When the unfair treatment came from a boss, those who sometimes or often walked away were three times as likely to have an MI or ischemic death. (The hazard ratio was 3.05, with a 95% confidence interval from 1.23 to 7.58.).

Letting things pass showed a nonsignificant trend to more cardiovascular outcomes for those who did so more often. When the unfair treatment came from a co-worker, the pattern was similar, except that those who said they seldom walked away also had a significant risk for cardiovascular outcomes. The hazard ratio for those who seldom walked away was 4.08, compared with 4.45 for those who said they did so sometimes or often. Both ratios were statistically significant. Neither of the delayed reactions had any association with cardiovascular outcomes – feeling bad or becoming ill-tempered at home – either for unfair treatment from a boss or a co-worker.

Future research, Leineweber and colleagues said, should look at “whether interventions designed to reduce covert coping would alter risk of myocardial infarction and cardiac death.”