What Are the Similarities in the Way Johnson & Johnson Dealt with the Tylenol Crisis and Exxon with the Exxon Valdez Crisis?
2) What are the similarities in the way Johnson & Johnson dealt with the Tylenol crisis and Exxon with the Exxon Valdez crisis?
In many business situations, the best way to solve problems is to admit that the problem is indeed there and to find the best way possible to solve the crisis. A great example of this is Johnson and Johnson’s ability to rebound after the Tylenol Crisis of 1982. The first thing that they did correctly was put the people first by recalling all of the capsules to protect anyone else from getting hurt, and they stopped all of the advertisements. Even though they weren’t responsible for the product tampering, they assumed full responsibility. They permanently removed the capsules from the market after a woman died from cyanide poisoning. Exxon on the other hand took a very long time to send aid for the oil spill in Alaska. Their chairman didn’t fly to Alaska until two weeks after the spill, instead they sent an untrained team to deal with these problems. This lead the public to believe that Exxon didn’t think the oil spill was a big deal. While Johnson & Johnson actually announced the suspension of their product, Exxon only communicated with the small town of Valdez. In contrast to Johnson & Johnson, Exxon didn’t take full responsibility for this accident. The biggest difference between these two companies and their crises and their later successes or failures is that one company (Johnson & Johnson) took responsibility of their actions and kept communications with the public about their incident, therefore leading to the success of their product’s reintroduction. Exxon on the other hand neglected any responsibility and didn’t seem to care about the environment or the loss in tourists’ dollars. One thing that the businesses appear to have in common is that they have both managed to get back on their feet. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall02/Susi/exxon.htm
In many business situations, the best way to solve problems is to admit that the problem is indeed there and to find the best way possible to solve the crisis. A great example of this is Johnson and Johnson’s ability to rebound after the Tylenol Crisis of 1982. The first thing that they did correctly was put the people first by recalling all of the capsules to protect anyone else from getting hurt, and they stopped all of the advertisements. Even though they weren’t responsible for the product tampering, they assumed full responsibility. They permanently removed the capsules from the market after a woman died from cyanide poisoning. Exxon on the other hand took a very long time to send aid for the oil spill in Alaska. Their chairman didn’t fly to Alaska until two weeks after the spill, instead they sent an untrained team to deal with these problems. This lead the public to believe that Exxon didn’t think the oil spill was a big deal. While Johnson & Johnson actually announced the suspension of their product, Exxon only communicated with the small town of Valdez. In contrast to Johnson & Johnson, Exxon didn’t take full responsibility for this accident. The biggest difference between these two companies and their crises and their later successes or failures is that one company (Johnson & Johnson) took responsibility of their actions and kept communications with the public about their incident, therefore leading to the success of their product’s reintroduction. Exxon on the other hand neglected any responsibility and didn’t seem to care about the environment or the loss in tourists’ dollars. One thing that the businesses appear to have in common is that they have both managed to get back on their feet. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall02/Susi/exxon.htm