Tylenol Case StudyEssay Preview: Tylenol Case StudyReport this essayTylenol Case StudyThe discipline of public relations is a modern profession which has been in existence for only close to a century; however, it has already taken an important role in the fields of business, government, entertainment and non-profit organizations including educational institutions and healthcare organizations. Public relations professionals are required to have excellent organizational, interpersonal and communication skills and have the ability to persuade the public. It is imperative for PR professionals to effectively communicate with its public in order to establish and maintain a positive relationship. Furthermore, public relations professionals must have the ability to work under pressure and effectively manage crisis which may have detrimental effect on the company and the public it serves. State purpose of paper and an overview of what will be covered in the introduction
Tylenols 1982 ordeal has become a classic example of a successful crisis management. Johnson & Johnson faced a major crisis when their leading pain-killer medicine, extra-strength Tylenol, was found to have caused the fatalities of seven people in Chicago, Illinois. It was reported that unknown suspect or suspects took the product off store shelves, tampered it with deadly cyanide and returned to the shelves. As a result, seven people died and consumers lost confidence and panicked over hearing the news of this incident. Tylenol received massive media coverage which led to an expeditious communication of event to the public. Johnson & Johnson (J & J) took a huge financial hit when it had to recall and destroy approximately $100 million dollars worth of inventory in addition to the loss incurred by the company when the public reacted to the incident (Campbell et. al., n.d.). Tylenols approach was to pull off the products as quickly as possible, stopped production, cooperated with the investigation and the media and halted all forms of advertisement or marketing of the product. Furthermore, Johnsons & Johnsons took the initiative to protect and improve their product packaging which allowed them to regain the publics confidence and paved the way for improved tamper-resistant packaging now used by myriad of manufacturing companies. The fatalities occurred between September 29th to October 1st of the year 1982 and by November, Tylenol had already reintroduced the product with improved tamper-resistant packaging. To regain the publics attention and confidence, Johnsons & Johnsons launched a dynamic marketing campaign to put the products name before the public. Because of this, Tylenol was able to regain the confidence of their consumers and helped quickly rebuild the companys reputation.
Johnsons & Johnsons had to consider all its internal and external public before a public relations strategy could be formed. Internal communications strategy had to be specifically designed for members of the board of directors, shareholders, investors, management and employees who are the companys internal public or audience. At the same token, the companys public relations strategy should include separate public relations communication specifically designed for the companys external public which includes consumers, media, doctors, pharmacists and the United States Food and Drug Administration. Internal publics or audiences are people or entities who are generally associated with the Johnsons & Johnsons organization. Alternatively, external public is composed of people or entities generally not associated with the company. Johnsons & Johnsons promptly responded to the crisis by putting out a public relations program and committing to full cooperation with all types of news media (Kaplan, n.d.). This was a smart move on Johnson & Johnsons part because they needed the help of the media to positively influence the public and regain the publics confidence. Failure to cooperate with the media may result to further damage as some news media organizations may sensationalize or negatively influence the publics opinion of the company.
“Without the help of the media, Johnson and Johnsons program would have been completely ineffective” (Kaplan, n.d.). With all the resources available to Johnson & Johnson at the time, cooperating with all types of media organization was the most effective because it was the fastest way they can communicate to the public. Moreover, J & Js response to the crisis included responding to the publics fears, constant communication and interaction with the public through media and cooperating fully to investigating parties.
Johnsons & Johnsons utilized several tools and techniques to deal with this major crisis. For instance, the companys chairman at the time decided to recall $100 million dollars worth of Tylenol capsules which have negatively impacted the companys finances. However, the chairman saw that regaining the publics confidence would yield long-term benefit for both the product and company. In addition, “once the state of urgency had passed Johnsons & Johnsons agreed to refund or exchange all capsules purchases despite a huge financial loss (eventually totaling $300 million) which he determined this was a loss strategy which would in the long-term pay off” (Bennnett et. al., 1997). In my opinion, this was a risky but calculated move on the part of Tylenol. Although the long-term results far surpassed the short-term sacrifices, losing tremendous amount of money on product refund or exchange. The product recall and production halt were reasonable and strategic moves to take; however,
”‟‴‶‡‷‸•‣․‥…‧⁛⁜⁝‧⁝⁞ ›※‼ ࠶‒‒——‗‗‘’’‚‛“”࠷࠸࠹࠺࠻
Case 1:
The US Department of Agriculture conducted a comprehensive review of the company’s history, processes, and processes to determine if there is a significant risk of loss to FDA. In February 1992, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a hearing to determine in whose interest the recall process was conducted. The hearing was held on September 26, 1992 at 3:30 PM. From that hearing, FDA Chairman Charles M. C. Myers Jr. said that this was something that had already been done, that he had consulted with Dr. Siegel (the Chairman of the Scientific Committee), who was representing FDA during this hearing and advised that this was an important date and that he would not review this matter. He indicated that as a condition of the FDA’s decision to act on this important date, Dr. C. Myers would accept that there was a risk regarding the safety and efficacy of thiamine triazoline. The Committee was divided into three groups, (1) Members of the Scientific Committee, (2) and Members of the FDA, which were all represented on that hearing. Both the Committee members and FDA were briefed on the outcome of this hearing and they agreed that as FDA Chairman, Dr. Myers would have approved the recall request. Thereafter, the Committee appointed Dr. Siegel as its Scientific Chairman. The Committee has not yet acted on the recommendations of that Scientific Committee. However, there can be little doubt that Siegel may be involved in the situation in question. Siegel has been serving at FDA since 1986 as a member of the Scientific Committee of the FDA (Siegel, 1986). During the interview Dr.(s) stated, “We were not involved in the planning of the recall, we were concerned the situation might develop.” Dr.(s) further stated that Siegel had advised her before the first occurrence of this matter involving her company. Upon the information that had been provided by the Committee, Dr.(s) indicated that the Company’s actions in relation to the thiamine triazoline recall are part of a continuing investigation of its product and that the FDA has begun considering the possibility of changing its drug scheduling practices on a case-by-case basis by the end of the year. He stated that FDA Chairman Myers is committed to continuing its investigation and to working to resolve this matter. All three of these factors have the