Case Study Analysis – Johnson & Johnson Tylenol crisis
This case is a great argument for corporate integrity, and it needs to be stressed that the company started out with a good reputation, a mission statement it upheld, and several steps from the onset that it didn’t have to perform. The poisoning incidents were clearly not caused by the company nor they occur within its facilities. Nonetheless, to protect the public, the first step was a recall.
The incident involved four specific “publics” – the management at Johnson & Johnson, its employees, the consumers and the stores which were selling Tylenol. By communicating with the management and employees (internal publics), the company reinforced the mission statement and its dedication to serving the consumers as well as possible even when it was not an internal problem. This served to make these people willing partners in finding a solution as well as handling the recalls. Such communication brings the people involved “into the fold”, into a cohesive team. It instills a sense of community. A good example of this approach is the current Tylenol television ads featuring the employees of the company and their pride for producing a safe and effective product.
The communications to the consumers and store owners (external publics) served to reaffirm that the company did accept responsibility – not blame – for the situation and acted immediately not only to ensure that no more tampered products were on the shelves, but also Johnson & Johnsonwas immediately acting to find ways to prevent a recurrence. Because all the information was forthright and timely, the consumers felt a sense that nothing was being hidden; this was very important to the chances of the company itself recovering from the exposure of a terrorist act. Store owners emptied shelves quickly; one important reason for this was that the location of tainted bottles was communicated; no store owner wanted his store named in connection with bad containers. And by absorbing the costs of the recall, Johnson & Johnson encouraged the stores to cooperate. The actual job lotnumbers were publicized, so people could go to their own medicine cabinets and ensure that they have safe medicine. The communication that it would be wise to throw out any Tylenol encouraged trust in the company.
While this was a very impressive approach, a little more could have been done. The majority of information came from news media. A campaign to reach the public via television, radio and newspaper ads would have been more effective for demonstrating that the company was acting according to its mission statement; many people did not get the information directly but by word of mouth. The people should have been encouraged to return the purchased Tylenol to some specific source, both for tracking where the damage was perpetrated, and to give consumers more of a sense that the wrong will be righted. To state weeks later that they will replace the recalled items is too late – most people threw out the bottles, as requested in the beginning.
Public relations appeared (to the public) to not be the purpose of the communications; this in itself is a public relations tool! Publishing the “credo” – the company mission statement – was good for three reasons. First, most people are not aware that companies even have mission statements. Second, such mission statements are not necessarily ‘toward the public good’, but rather ‘toward the financial good’. Last but not least, letting the consumers know that the company was not only dedicated to this credo, but actively implementing it was a very effective public relations tool.
Another public relations tool used was the opening of two-way communication, asking for public input and feedback. This empowers the consumer or store owner to be less of a victim, and part of the solution as well. News conferences and news releases were the most obvious public relations tools, but they were also handled with grace and compassion; this went a long way toward maintaining public confidence in the product.
If I were to add to the public relations, it might be to involve the consumers more in the solution. Johnson & Johnson immediately tried to find a way to prevent recurrences, first with capsules and later with tablets. The FDA jumped in with regulation as a reactive move; Johnson & Johnson should have publicized their efforts, which preceded the FDA announcement, and even guided the FDA on what would be acceptable solutions. It would have been a good idea to have consumers testing the proposed new packaging ideas, since they would be approaching it from the user’s perspective, as one with a raging migraine and a new bottle of Tylenol. Explanations of how the poisoning was achieved, so that the consumers doing the testing would understand jut what has to be prevented, would help during the testing.
Today, things might be a little different. Surely the availability of information is faster and more wide-spread due to the popularity of not only the World Wide Web, but of PDAs (personal digital assistants) and cell phones. On the Internet, Johnson & Johnson could set up a page on their site with regular updates; this page URL could be placed in any advertising as well as being given out in news releases. Update statements could also be given to “wi-fi” companies for text news broadcasts. It’s hard to say that the outcome would change today since they did act quickly on the recall. What would be better is that more people would be reached right away.