Introduction

Tylenol was one of the most successful over-the-top products and contributed immensely towards Johnson & Johnson’s profitability. The current study evaluates the Tylenol poisoning case to discuss different problem-solving techniques and recommendations that could have led to the more effective management of the crisis along with a brief outline of their limitations.

Figure 1: News report from The Daily Herald about the Tylenol incident

(Source: Braithwaite, 2020)

Understanding of the case

Tylenol was the clear industry leader in terms of painkillers, far outpacing its competitors like Anacin, Bayer, and others (Taken from source). However, during September 1982, reports began to come out, stating how several Tylenol users were dying from Tylenol due to cyanide poisoning. Discussing the problems faced by the company, Johnson & Johnson encountered extreme credibility issues as more than seven people died from the incident (Lee, 2016). Questions were being asked about the company’s manufacturing line’s quality control mechanisms, and the massive outcry was gradually creating a dent in its public image.

Recommendations

While Johnson & Johnson received global acknowledged in terms of how it instantly shut down Tylenol’s production line until a tamper-free packaging was developed, a few recommendations could be made that could have potentially managed the crisis more effectively.

The company could have taken a proactive approach towards the issue as opposed to the reactive and responsive nature of their response. This approach would entail early initiatives, along with an emphasis on business recovery (Švarcová, Hošková-Mayerová & Navratil, 2016). It could include strategies such as immediate reparations and compensatory awards to the victims of the poisoning incident.
The marketing route could also have been taken to paint the company as the victim while overlooking the lack of responsibility on its part in terms of managing the quality of the medicines. It is aligned with the situational crisis communications theory, as it divides crises into three clusters comprised of the victim cluster, the accidental cluster, and the incidental cluster (Dulaney & Gunn, 2017). It could have led to better results financially as opposed to simply shutting down the production and spending millions on developing tamper free packaging.
Diminishing strategies are also extremely effective, especially in the context of downplaying the seriousness of incidents and preventing further harm to the corporate image of a company (Vardarlıer, 2016). Johnson & Johnson could have certainly downplayed the issue in terms of how they did not have any direct involvement in the poisoning, and it was carried out by individuals who remain anonymous.

Justification of the recommendations

In terms of justifying the recommendations, it would be imperative to highlight the role of media and playing the victim in crises to save the organization’s image. Salvador & Ikeda (2018) argue about the importance of using information and awareness to limit the negative impacts of a crisis. While Johnson & Johnson’s move to stop production and invest heavily into developing tamper free packaging won accolades, it cost the company millions and significantly brought down the valuation. Furthermore, Kriyantono & McKenna (2019) argue that playing the victim has historically proven to be useful for companies that find themselves in an unprecedented crisis, albeit in the presence of good leadership competencies. The company could have adopted a proactive approach where a mix of strategic marketing and victimization could have potentially proved to be more profitable towards managing the situation.

Shortcoming and limitations

The recommendations suggested are in line with acknowledged crisis management theories, but suffer from limitations and shortcomings. For instance, the adoption of marketing strategies could lead to counterproductive results, where the brand image of the company suffers a severe impact over time (Liu, Shankar & Yun, 2017). Playing the victim card could also be dangerous, as Johnson & Johnson was a massive company. The Tylenol brand itself was valuable enough individually to be considered a Fortune 500 company back then. Business recovery could have potentially been more difficult than the challenges faced post stopping the production and looking towards developing am untampered packaging.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it was identified that the Tylenol poisoning incident primarily involved the lacing of tablets with cyanide and no individual was charged with the incident till date. Although Johnson & Johnson, managed to handle the crisis effectively, the financial implications were substantial. Media-based strategies and playing the victim card were identified as plausible recommendations although inclusive of limitations such as a poor long-term impact and delayed business recovery.

References

Braithwaite. (2020). COVID-19 and Tylenol’s 1982 Crisis – Braithwaite Communications. https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/covid-19-and-lessons-from-tylenols-crisis/

Dulaney, E., & Gunn, R. (2017). Situational crisis communication theory and the use of apologies in five high-profile food-poisoning incidents. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 20(1), 5. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=jiass

Kriyantono, R., & McKenna, B. (2019). Crisis response vs crisis cluster: A test of situational crisis communication theory on the crisis with two crisis clusters in Indonesian Public Relations. Jurto Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 35(1). http://103.219.237.47/mjc/article/download/23446/9171

Lee, W. M. (2016). Acetaminophen and the liver: poison or panacea?. https://utswmed-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2152.5/3165/123_052016_protocol_LeeW.pdf?sequence=1

Liu, Y., Shankar, V., & Yun, W. (2017). Crisis management strategies and the long-term effects of product recalls on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 81(5), 30-48. https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MSI_Report_17-121-1.pdf

Salvador, A. B., & Ikeda, A. A. (2018). Brand crisis management: the use of information for prevention, identification, and management. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 20(1), 74-91. http://www.academia.edu/download/55821279/Miolo_RBGN_ING-20-1_Art5.pdf

Švarcová, I., Hošková-Mayerová, Š., & Navratil, J. (2016). Crisis management and education in health. In Proceedings of the 7th ICEEPSY International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology, Rhodes, Greece (pp. 11-15). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarka_Hoskova-Mayerova/publication/310742181_Crisis_Management_and_Education_in_Health/links/583f30f408ae2d217557dda5/Crisis-Management-and-Education-in-Health.pdf

Vardarlıer, P. (2016). A strategic approach to human resources management during a crisis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(2). http://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2019-02-16/1550305146_E11767-e-tarjome.pdf