5. Baby care

july30/31 2016
Jancis Robinson on how
to taste wine on holiday
‘I taught myself to clean up
Mexico’s crime scenes’
An intellectual world without
barriers, by Giles Wilkes
The
bathtime
battle
Johnson & Johnson
is struggling to win
over millennial parents.
David Crow reports
on the rise of
‘natural’ babycare

Chemical
vsv
natural
The consumer giant Johnson & Johnson has
dominated the babycare market for more than a
century. But as millennial parents embrace organic,
natural ingredients, the company faces fresh
challenges. David Crow reports
Still life Sam Armstrong Portraits Jessica Barthel

henAlexis andGabe Landes foundout they were
expectingtheir first child, they beganpreparing
their apartment onthe Upper West Side of
Manhattan for thebig arrival. Thenesting instinct
soon took theLandes couple beyondthe nursery
andintothe bathroom, where they disposed of all
themass-produced toiletries they owned.
“Once my wife became pregnant, we thoughta
lot about whatwas going intoher,and intothe kid
in utero, soweshifted all the high-volume,
corporate stuff out of our home,” says 37-year-old
Gabe, whoworks as aconstruction manager for a
solar-powercompany. “It was already bakedinto
our values. Even before Alexis gotpregnant,we
would eatadietlow in meat andbuy our foodfrom
small, local farms.”
Isaacarrived 15 months ago, “adorable, andaton
of fun”, andhis parents were showered –asmany
parents are, in hospital or viamailing lists –with
free samples of babyproducts made by Johnson &
Johnson, the world’s largest manufacturer of
toiletries for infants. But they avoided the
supermarket shelves stackedwith J&J’sbottles and
started searchingfor alternativesthatcontained
fewer chemicals andmore natural ingredients.
“Wewanted to makethe best decisions about
everything we were puttingonhis skin, fromshampoo
to sunscreen,”saysGabe.They settled on ababy
soap made by Dr Bronner’s, oneofthe early pioneers
of natural toiletries.Ratherthan using Johnson’s
baby creams or talcum powders for Isaac’s nappy
rash, they opted for pure coconut oil.
TheLandes family is notalone. An increasing
number of parents in richer countries are eschewing
J&J’s products in favour of premium or natural
alternatives. Thetrendhas resulted in amarked
slowdowninsales of J&J’s babyproducts.After more
than acentury as theleading purveyorofinfant
shampoos, creams, talcum powders andlotions, the
companyislosing share to newerrivals. In thefirst
six months of the year, USsales of its babycare
products slumped to $197m, thefirst timetheyhave
fallen belowthe $200mmark since 2007.
Speaking to journalists in April this year,
Dominic Caruso, J&J’s chief financial officer,
attributed thedeclinetoparents buying “premium,
natural-type brands”,and promised shareholders
thatthe companywould relaunch its range to better
cater totheir tastes. But J&J faces asignificant
challenge in winning overyounger parents, many
of whom mistrust thebig commercialbrands so
belovedbytheir ownparents andgrandparents.
The Landes and their friends are part ofa
generation that tends to be more suspicious of
mass-produced food and cosmetics, and ofbig
business in general. Many scour food labels for
artificial ingredients, andbelievethatsmaller is
better, and organic better still. Their healthconscious
attitude is creating problems notjust for
J&J but for manyother brands too, from McDonald’s
to Kraft –names that were once astaple of
American family life.
J&J’s forayintothe babycare business was
unplanned. Founded 130 years agoby
three brothers in New Jersey, the
company was set up to capitalise on
the theories ofSir Joseph Lister, the
British father of antisepticsurgery.In
1867, Sir Joseph had published aseries of case
studies showing thatsterile surgical procedures
would save countless lives. His work was initially
dismissedbysurgeons, manyofwhomrefusedeven
to wash their hands beforeoperating, but he found
aconvert in RobertWood Johnson, theeldest of
the three brothers, atrained apothecary. After
attending one of Sir Joseph’s lectures at a
Philadelphia medical conference in 1876,Robert
joinedhis siblings in business and, in 1886, they
startedmanufacturing stitches anddressings that
were sterile and affordable, helping to bring
survivable surgerytothe masses.
The company quickly branched out, in 1888
pioneering thecommercialfirst-aid kit to combat
a spike in accidents in the increasingly
industrialised workplace. It also foundsuccess with
its medicatedplaster,anadhesivepatch of rubber
thatpromised to deliver an infusion directly to the
skin to soothepain. Customers liked theproduct
but soon started complaining that the sticky
squares were irritating their skin. J&J responded
by shipping theproduct with atinycontainer of
talcumpowder to sootheirritation, prompting a
raft of letters frompeoplewho foundthe powder
also relieved nappyrash andother skin complaints.
And sothe Johnsons launched “Toilet and
Baby Powder” in1894, the first in aseries of
products thatwould dominate thebabycare market
for more thanacentury.Itcameinatin with an
orange-and-white label, carrying alogo that
has never changed: the family name inastyle
mimicking the handwriting ofJames Wood
Johnson, theyoungest of thebrothers.
J&J went on to build abusiness that came to
occupy aspecial place in the consciousness of
mothers, its products closely tracking changes in
maternal health. Around the time ofthe Baby
Powder launch, J&J began selling maternity kits
designed to improve thesafety of home births, then
themost common wayofdelivering achild.
“It was everything in abox thatthe doctoror
midwifewouldneed to ensureasafedelivery for
mother andbaby,”explains Margaret Gurowitz, a
softly spoken lifelong employeeatJ&J whoisnow
thecompanyhistorian. “Sterile drapes, sheeting
and sutures –and antibacterial soap with a
sam armstrong/black dog represents; daisy ellen floral design
‘Once my wife became
pregnant…weshifted
all thehigh-volume,
corporate stuff out
of ourhome’
Gabe Landes, New York, shown above
with his 15-month-old son Isaac
nailbrush, so that the birth attendants could
wash their hands.”The kits were packagedwith
small booklets containing tips and advice for
youngparents.
As childbirth movedintothe hospital setting,
rendering home maternity kits increasingly redundant,
J&J startedtodevelop arangeofproducts to
carefor babies at home –anappy-rash creaminthe
1910s, asoap in the1920s andamoisturisingoil and
lotion in the1930s and1940s. Then, in 1954, it
startedselling its famous babyshampoo, which
promised there would be “No More Tears”.
Oneofthe first newspaper advertisements for
theproductshowedababygirl positively beaming
as shehad herhair washed– afar cryfrom thetears
andtangles thathad hitherto dominatedbathtime.
“Won’t burn or irritate theeyes,”itpromised. “Pure.
Gentle. Safe.”The product, then 59 cents abottle,
was anear-instant hit andwould go on to become
synonymous with bathtimefor millions of children
across thegenerations.
“I grew up with abathroom fullofthe stuff,”
recalls CatherineEverett, the32-year-old mother
of twoyoung girls, three-year-old Lyra andeightmonth-old
Nina, who lives in Bridge ofAllan, a
small townincentral Scotland. “I vividly remember
my parents washing my hair with J&J babyshampoo,
before beingshowered head to toeinJ&J baby
talc. The smell still conjures up memories of
Sunday-night bathtime.” She still washes her
daughters’ hairwith it because, “I know it won’t
sting their eyes, as Iused it for years myself.” ▶
14 ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
15

Top From left, brothers James Wood Johnson,
Edward Mead Johnson and Robert Wood Johnson,
who founded the company in1886 Above The
company’s first factory, in New Brunswick, New
Jersey Below J&J advertisements for surgical
dressings (1950) and baby shampoo (1954)
◀ Even after thebirth rate startedtodeclineinthe
1960s in thewakeofthe postwar babyboom, sales
of J&J’s infant shampoo continued to rise.The companyhad
startedmarketing theproducttoadults,
arguing thatifwas mild enough for babies,thenit
would be gentle on their hair,too. In thelate1960s,
it enlistedadvertising agency Sullivan, Stauffer,
Caldwell &Bayles to record aseries of radio adverts
aimedatone of the last groups of holdouts: teenage
boys whohad ditched thecrew-cut hairstyles of
their fathers’ generation for themop-tops of the
Beatles. It worked: by 1975, the shampoo outsold
all other adult andbabybrands in theUS.
Thesuccess of its babyrangeisthe foundation
on which J&J built oneofthe world’s biggest consumer
products businesses, with arange including
sanitarytowels, toothbrushes andover-the-counter
painkillers. By 1970, thecompany’shygieneand
babycare lines were generating more than $280m
in annual sales.Adecade later, revenues had swelled
to $1.8bn,making it themostlucrativepartofJ&J’s
business. In 2010 they hit apeak of $10bn.
For the past six years, however, J&J’s
consumer business has been struggling,
in part because of lacklustre
sales of thebabyrange. Thecompany
sold roughly $2bn of babycare products
last year,about 10 per cent less than in
2010. In April, it announcedthatitwould relaunch
therangeafter US sales in thefirst three months
of 2016 fell to $95m,their lowest in more than a
decade. Caruso said thecompanywas losing out in
the battle for “millennial mums”,who have been
switching to organic, natural products.
CatherineEverettisone such parent.While she
uses thecompany’sshampoo, sheactively avoids
its other products. “These days we are advised by
health visitors not toput too much product on
[babies’]skin, as itissosensitive,”she says.“If I
use anything, Ilook for products with fewer chemicals
than J&J.” In an agewhenhealthcarebrands
are tripping over themselves to market their products
as natural or organic, sheinterprets thelack
of anysuch claim on theJohnson’s bottles as asign
of “how potent thestuff mustbe”.
In Washington DC,Robyn Pashby doesnot buy
J&J products for her16-month-old daughter Alexa,
preferring instead to use independently made products
from local farmers’markets near herhome.
“For manyyearswe’d been shopping at our local
farmers’ market for ourfood anyway, andIstarted
to realise thatifwe’re going to be so careful about
whatgoes in herbody, then we should be careful
about whatgoes on it too,”saysthe 39-year-old
Pashby,who adds thatshe is keenly aware thatnot
all parents can afford to makethe samechoice.
Pashbyisparticularly put off by thefragrances
used inJ&J’s ranges –“The scents just smell so
fake” –and thelong list of ingredients. “I became
disillusioned by products madewith things Ican’t
pronounce.I’m meant to put thatonmybaby’s
skin?Whenit’s so fragile?” It is notjustthatPashby
is picking alternatives to J&J but thatshe is using
fewer products altogether. “I don’t really use
powders or lotions. Imight use coconut oil andbuy
an all-in-onenatural soap,”she says,citingTom’sof
Maine (owned by Colgate-Palmolive), which lists
itsingredients on its websiteand alsotheir source.
Pashby says she took her cue from medical
experts. “WhenAlexa was in theneonatalintensive
care unit at thehospital after shewas born, they
Read the label: Johnson’s baby
shampoo vs the independent
organic brand California Baby
Johnson’s Baby Shampoo Ingredients: water (eau),
cocamidopropyl betaine, PEG-80 sorbitan laurate,
sodium trideceth sulfate, PEG-150 distearate,
phenoxyethanol, sodium chloride, glycerin,
citric acid, sodium benzoate, tetrasodium EDTA,
polyquaternium-10, ethylhexylglycerin, sodium
hydroxide, potassium acrylates copolymer, Yellow 6,
Yellow 10, parfum
California BabyShampoo &Bodywash Ingredients:
water, decyl glucoside*, lauryl glucoside*, quillaja
saponaria extract (soap bark), vegetable glycerine
USP*, calendula oicinalis flower extract (calendula),
viola tricolor extract (pansy), yucca schidigera extract
(yucca), aloe barbadensis leaf juice (aloe vera),
simmondsia chinensis oil (jojoba oil), hydrolyzed
quinoa protein, xanthan gum USP, panthenol (vit B5),
pure essential oils of lavandula angustifolia (French
lavender) and salvia sclarea (clary sage), phytic acid
(rice origin), gluconolactone** (and) sodium benzoate;
*=sustainable palm fruit kernel and/or coconut;
** =sourced from corn (non-GMO)
just used cotton wipes with water, andthatworked
fine. Thehospital using only waterwas abig eyeopener
for me.Mypaediatriciansaid unless shehad
irritable skin Ishould notover-batheher.”
J&J contends thathealthcare professionals recommendits
babyproducts more than anyother
brand.Thecompanysaysitdoes more research into
infant skin than anyother companyand thatits
mild products help to prevent moisture loss.
Dr Jon Hanifin, aprofessor of dermatology at
Oregon Health andScience University,pointsout
thatthe companydistributes many free samples
through hospitals.“Whathappens istheydump
tons of it on to nurses, whogiveitto patients, and
then the parents go home and use it,” hesays.
“Putting all kinds of fragrancesonthe skin can lead
to irritation,and J&J has alot of fragrance in their
products, which doesn’t help.”
His advice to young parents is to bathe their
babies no more than three times aweek andthen
to trytolock moisture intotheir fragile skin with
afragrance-free lotion such as Cetaphil andCeraVe.
Such recommendations, however, mightnot satisfy
those whosee their avoidance of J&J as arejection
of big business. Cetaphil is made by Nestlé, the
Swiss food giant thathas been plagued by controversy
for years for promoting its infant formula as
an alternativetobreast milk. CeraVeisowned by
Valeant, aCanadian drugmaker thathas been in
theheadlines for thepast year for sharply raising
thepriceofits drugs.
Infact, manyofthe best-knownpremium
babycare brands are controlled by largemultinational
companies,despitetheir homey
packaging andcutenames.Aveenoisthe
largest, with a15.5 per cent share of theUS
babyand infant skincare market, according
to Euromonitor.Createdin1945, thebrand(whose
mission statement declares, “Webelieve nature
has thepower to makelife beautiful”)was bought
by J&J in 1999, helping to hedgeagainst stalling
sales of J&J’S own-brandproduct. Another leading
premium brand, Burt’s Bees,ismade by Clorox,
best known for household cleaning products
includingbleach (thecompanynameisaportmanteau
of chlorineand sodium hydroxide).
The biggest independent manufacturer of
natural babycare products in theUSisCalifornia
Baby,founded by Jessica Iclisoytwo decadesago.
“Wepositionourselvesasfor mums who want a
natural focus, with no sulfatesorparabens,”she
says, referring totwo of the ingredients most
johnson &johnson
disliked by health-conscious consumers. Sulfates,
containedinmanyshampoos andoften listed on
thelabel as sodium laureth sulfate,are chemical
detergents thathavebeen linked to skin irritation,
while parabens –which some believe affect
hormone levels –are used to suppress bacterial
growth in cosmetics.
The products are not cheap. A19oz (roughly
500ml) bottle of California Baby’s“super-sensitiveshampoo”costs
around$24 on Amazon,whereas
aslightly larger bottle of Johnson’s No More Tears
formula is two-thirds cheaper at about $8.
California Babyisaprivate companyand does
notpublish its revenue figures, but Iclisoysaysan
increasing number of parents are making the
switch despitethe higher prices. “Today, more than
ever,consumers are becoming more educated, and
we are seeing amajor changeover. Originally,the
demandwas from nicheconsumers interested in
health andwellbeing but nowwe’re seeing customers
switching over in Walmart.”
Iclisoy’s main competition is not necessarily
the big corporations but rather the ranks of
independent players who make their wares in
small batches and sell them online and at local
farmers’ markets. More thanthree-quarters of the
$300m US market for premium babycare brands
is controlled by companies with amarket share of
less than2.5 per cent,accordingtoEuromonitor;
manyofthemare “mom andpop”outfits thatrun
their operations out of aspare bedroom.
Patricia Butter started dabbling in babycare
products sevenyearsago,after herseconddaughter
Evelyn developed eczema, an ailment that had
plagued thefamilyfor generations. Shefound that
thetoiletries shewas buying in thesupermarket
only exacerbated her daughter’s condition.
“Everything Iboughtatthe store actually made it
worse,”she says.Aroundthe sametime, shehad
started growing calendula flowers on asmall
vegetable patchinthe back garden of herholiday
cottage inthe Catskills mountains. She soon
noticed thather ownchapped,irritatedhands were
much improvedafter picking theblooms.
“I was able to work out howtoextractthe flower
intoanoil andithelpedimmensely,and then Itried
to blenditwith butter so it could be turned intoa
balm,”Butterrecalls. “Evelynwas athumb-sucker,
andIwas concerned about things ending up in her
mouth, so Iworked only with things youcan eat.”
Butter now sells three products through her
Buttercup Naturals brand: acalendula oil for
eczema, abalmand askin cream. Sherunsthe companyfrom
herhomeinPleasantville in upstate New
York, and sources her flowers from afriend,
ShannonAlgiere,who grows them on anearbycommunalfarm,
StoneBarns. Shesells through Etsy,
thedigital marketplace, andthe farm’sgift shop.
Thebusiness could be bigger,she says,but she
has chosen to keep thingssmalltobalance work
with family life. Shebelieves, though, thatdemand
for thesortofproductsshe sells will only increase
in thecoming years.“It’s partofabiggershift away
from thechemical age, thepostwar excitement
about using artificial foreverything. Nowpeople
are going back and looking at these ingredients
more carefully,” shesays.
In Butter’s view, J&J’s babycare business will
have to adaptifitistosurvive.“As consumers shift
to organic, Ican see J&J having to change the
formula to address parents’ concerns.Theywill be
under constant pressure to do that.”
‘I became disillusioned
by products made with
thingsIcan’t pronounce.
I’m meant to put that
on my baby’s skin?’
RobynPashby, Washington DC, shown above
with her 16-month-old daughter Alexa
Inanother era, thedeclineofJohnson’s baby
businessmight have posed an existential
threattothe entire company. But J&J,the
world’s largest healthcare group with a
market value of $336bn, is averydifferent
business from theone thatwas founded all
those years ago. The group now makes the vast
majority of its revenues andprofits from selling
prescription drugs and medical devices such as
replacement hips.
Just oneofthe company’sdrugs,for example,
thearthritis injection Remicade, generated$3.6bn
in salesinthe first six months of this year –versus
sales of $950m for all its babyproducts combined.
Revenues from allofJ&J’s prescription drugswere
$16.8bn compared to $6.6bn for the entire ▶
16 ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
17

◀ consumer business, which includes notjust baby
products but well-knownbrands such as Listerine
andNeutrogenatoo. These days,financial analysts
whomonitor thecompanyfor investors spendlittle
timetracking babycare sales andrarely mention
thedivision in their reports.
Yetthe numbers belie thereal importance of
babycare to J&J.The late James Burke, chief executive
of J&J between 1976 and1989, once said that
theproducts had built a“reservoir of trust” in the
company. “There is no greatertrust than between
mother andchild. Sothere’s an element of trust
built intoeverybody’s attitude towards J&J that’s
notbuilt into manyother companies.”
The same istrue today, according to Alison
Lewis, the chief marketing officer for J&J’s
consumer business. “It’s thefirst entrypoint of J&J
into aperson’s life, because we’re talking about
children and young mothers, and that’s the
beginning of theJ&J relationship,”she says.
Lewis is oneofthe executives tasked with reviving
sales of thecompany’sbabyproducts. “It’s fair
to saythatour Johnson’s babybusinessoverthe
last few years has notbeen where we want it to be
in performance,” shesays, adding thatthere have
been 25 newcompetitors in thepremium partof
themarketsince 2005. “We’re stilllearning as a
bigiconicbrandhow to connectwithmillennial
Ababy-powder
lawsuit
The reputation of J&J’sbabyproducts
wasdealt asignificant blowinFebruary
2016,when ajuryinMissourirequired
the companytopay $72mtothe family
of Jacqueline Fox, whose ovarian
cancer had been linked to her lifelong
use of the company’sBabyPowder.
Lawyers forFox –who died aged 62,
four months beforethe verdict –said
J&Jhad neglected to inform customers
that itstalc-based productscould cause
cancer.Her case is one of roughly 1,000
lodged in Missouri, while afurther
200havebeen filed in NewJersey.
Beforeshe died, Foxtold her lawyers
she applied the powder to her genital
area regularly,something that is not
recommended by J&J,which warns on the
label that it is forexternal use only.Her
lawyers argued that the group should have
gone further inmaking consumers aware
of the risks,which have been highlighted
in morethan 20 scientific studies. J&J
arguesthat the studiesare basedon
unreliable data, and pointstoother
research that has found no direct link.
The companyhas said it will appeal
the verdict but, even if it wins, it will be
hardtoundo the reputational damage.
All the parentsinterviewedfor this
piece had seen coverage of the trial,
and cited it as one of the main reasons
theywouldavoid Johnson’s products.
“Therehavebeen concerns raised by
mothers –ifyou go on social [media]
feeds, you’ll see that,”saysJ&J’s Alison
Lewis. “What we’redoing is providing the
factsthat areconsistent with the safety
of this product and the standards that we
have had in place forover100 years.”
‘You should expect a
completereinvention
of everyproduct line’
JorgeMesquita, Johnson &Johnson
mums whohavedifferent demands,”she says.“We
need to makesure we are addressing their concerns
aroundnatural andorganic.”
Yet Lewis, who recently returned from a
research trip to thetownships of South Africa, also
stressesthatthe switch to premium productsisfar
less pronouncedindeveloping countries. “There
are 135 million babies born everyyear,and 75 per
cent of those are in emerging markets, so to say
thatall millennial mums can afford aproductlike
California Babyisaproblem,”she says.
ManyofJohnson’s recent productlaunches have
beenaimed at parentsinpoorer countries, such as
an extra-largebabywipe intended to takethe place
of abath when there is no access to clean water.
Far from acheap product, Johnson’s is regarded by
manyfamilies in emergingmarkets as apremium
western brand that is worthpaying more forthan
domestic alternatives, accordingtoLewis.
Even so, J&J’s babyproducts are notdoing particularlywell
outside theUS. International revenues
in thefirst six months of theyear were $754m
–about $200m lowerthan fiveyears agoand their
lowest since 2007.
In the US, the company has launched anew
marketing campaign intended toappeal to
millennials, with oneTVadvertfeaturing twogay
fathers –anod to therapidly changingimageofthe
American family. But Lewis is aware that the
companyneeds to do more to repair its reputation
onTwitter andFacebook, where manyparents swap
scare stories about Johnson’s products.
“That’s the way insocial media –boom,
andthe flick of afew fingers –and it’s notalways
themost educatedpoint of view.It’safeeling, and
it’s alegitimate feeling, but let’s put thefacts out
there andthenlet people decide,”she says.“There’s
alot of internet hyperbole out there, alot of myths,
and alot of ‘mom and pops’ creating stuff in
their bathtub.”
Josh Ghaim, chief technology officer in
J&J’s consumer division, adds thatthe companyis
pushing regulators to implementstricterrules on
howbabyproducts are labelled, which he believes
could help the Johnson’s brand while hurting
its competitors.
“We believe there should be standards,
especially when it comestobabies,”hesays. “It’s
interesting when youhear people say, ‘Wedon’t
use fragrances, we use essential oil.’ Nobody
realises thatessentialoil actually has 40 different
ingredientsinit. Nobody knowswhattheyare, or
whether they are safe.”
Theterm “natural”isill-defined. TheUSdepartment
of agriculture stipulates that companies
whoclaim their products are “made with organic
ingredients”must be at least 70 per cent organic,
but there is no equivalent rule for the term
“natural”. Indeed, the vast majority of babycare
products thatclaim to be “natural”use an artificial
preservative, such assodium benzoate, to stop
bacterial growth.
Ghaim says thatmorethan 80 per cent of the
ingredientsinJohnson’sproducts are “naturally
sourced”,but concedes thatthe wayinwhich they
are processed ofteninvolves artificial chemicals.
One option under consideration is being more
transparent about whatisinthe company’svarious
lotions andshampoos.
“That’s abig area of focus for us. We believe
that every ingredient that’s in the product
should actuallybeonthe label or on our website,
so youcan choose.”
Going much further than thatcould prove difficultfor
acompanyaslargeand complex as J&J.
Whenthegroup committed in 2012 to removing
twochemicals thathavebeen linked to cancerin
animal studies, formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane,
from more than100 babycareproducts, theprocess
took the best partoftwo years.
“It’s not justabout bettermarketing. If it’s done
correctly, itmeans atotallydifferent formulation.
Thattakes time. Even asmall changetoaformula
can takeyears,”saysIclisoy.
JorgeMesquita, whowas hired from Procter&
Gamble in 2014tolead J&J’s consumer business,
says thecompanyisplanning amajor overhaul of
Patricia Butter,founder
of Buttercup Naturals, at
Stone Barns Center for
Food andAgriculture,
upstate NewYork
thebabycare business but he is tight-lipped about
thetiming anddetails because he doesn’t want to
tip off the competition. “You should expect a
completereinvention of everyproductlineand
every element,”hesays. “It’s going to be atotal
reset of our business.”
Mesquita believes there is everything to playfor
–people are becoming parents all the time
andJ&J is still,hepoints out, thegloballeader in
infant skincare, with far-reaching consumer
research operations andmassivemarketingbudgets.
J&J’s plan, he says,“is to transform thebusiness we
have today”. The company’s ownership of
Aveenogives it astakeinthe natural market, and
it recently acquiredVogue, an adult natural haircare
company, for $3.3bn.
“Oneofthe thingswecan learn fromthemis
about the sourcing of products created around
natural ingredients,”saysMesquita.
But from thesoundofit, J&J is notplanning on
turning its babyproducts intoanall-naturalrange.
“That’s very important for asubset of our overall
consumer group,”saysMesquita, “but we are going
to address theneeds of all our consumers.” 6
David Crow is an FT correspondent in New York
18 ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
ft.com/magazine july 30/31 2016
19