Updated branding gives J&J 2 segments sharing 1 name

A healthcare logo familiar to Americans since the 1800s has gotten a makeover.

Johnson & Johnson says it’s scrapping the historic visual identity—which was adapted from the signature of company founder Robert Wood Johnson (1845-1910)—in favor of a modernized version. (See photo.)

In the new typography, the company explains in a Sept. 14 announcement, “each letter is drawn in one pen stroke, creating a contrast that delivers both a sense of unexpectedness and humanity.”

The logo refresh is only part of the story.

The company is re-badging Janssen, its pharma business, as Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.

Its medical technology segment will continue to identify as Johnson & Johnson MedTech. 

The company says it’s making the changes while reinforcing the common name to “demonstrate [our] collective power in healthcare.”

“Our Johnson & Johnson brand identity communicates our bold approach to innovation in healthcare while staying true to the care we have for our patients around the world,” adds J&J’s executive VP of global corporate affairs, Vanessa Broadhurst. “We take immense pride in leading healthcare for more than a century and are seizing on our scientific momentum to profoundly impact health for humanity.”

Full announcement here.

 

Dave Pearson

Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.

Around the web

The American College of Cardiology has sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that outlines some of the organization’s central priorities and concerns. 

One product is being pulled from the market, and the other is receiving updated instructions for use.

If the Trump administration continues taking a laissez-faire stance toward AI—including AI used in healthcare—why not let the states go it alone on regulating the technology?