Question 1:
Although Johnson & Johnson took a massive short-term loss as a result of its actions, it was cushioned by the relative wealth of the company. Should it have acted the same way if the survival of the firm were at stake?
Response:
I believe that Johnson & Johnson should have acted the same way even if the survival of the firm was at stake. The firm responded appropriately to the Tylenol crisis and took the proper steps in removing more than 31 million bottles of the product nationwide. If the firm had done anything less than what they did I believe it would have been detrimental to the company. The survival of the firm would be even more at stake if they didn't remove all Tylenol products worlwide. Customer loyalty would significanlty drop and consumers would still continue to be skeptical about the safety of the produts. The 1982 Tylenol Crisis has gone down in history as one of the must successfully handled crisis management cases. The firm should have acted the same way even if the survival of the firm was at stake.
Question 2:
James E. Burke reportedly said that he felt that there was no other decision he could have made. Do you agree? Could he, for example have recalled Tylenol only in the Midwest? Was there a moral imperative to recall all Tylenol?
Response:
I agree with James E. Burkes when he stated that there were no other decisions that could have been
made. I believe that it was necessary for him to recall the product worldwide and not only in the Midwest.
I believe that there was a moral imperative to recall all of the Tylenol. As a consumer, I would not feel comfortable
purchasing any Tylenol product knowing that several bottles have been tampered with. The only way I would justify continuing to purchase Tylenol products would be if all products were removed and reconstructed to ensure safety. "James Burke, the company's chairman, was widely admired for his leadership in the decision to pull Tylenol capsules off the market, and for his forthrightness in dealing with the media." (Rehak, 2002)
Johnson & Johnson would not have been able to bounce back from this crisis as successfully as they did, if they only removed the Tylenol from the Midwest. In this case there was no othere decision that could have been made and James Burke made the right choice in recalling all tylenol products nation wide.
Although Johnson & Johnson took a massive short-term loss as a result of its actions, it was cushioned by the relative wealth of the company. Should it have acted the same way if the survival of the firm were at stake?
Response:
I believe that Johnson & Johnson should have acted the same way even if the survival of the firm was at stake. The firm responded appropriately to the Tylenol crisis and took the proper steps in removing more than 31 million bottles of the product nationwide. If the firm had done anything less than what they did I believe it would have been detrimental to the company. The survival of the firm would be even more at stake if they didn't remove all Tylenol products worlwide. Customer loyalty would significanlty drop and consumers would still continue to be skeptical about the safety of the produts. The 1982 Tylenol Crisis has gone down in history as one of the must successfully handled crisis management cases. The firm should have acted the same way even if the survival of the firm was at stake.
Question 2:
James E. Burke reportedly said that he felt that there was no other decision he could have made. Do you agree? Could he, for example have recalled Tylenol only in the Midwest? Was there a moral imperative to recall all Tylenol?
Response:
I agree with James E. Burkes when he stated that there were no other decisions that could have been
made. I believe that it was necessary for him to recall the product worldwide and not only in the Midwest.
I believe that there was a moral imperative to recall all of the Tylenol. As a consumer, I would not feel comfortable
purchasing any Tylenol product knowing that several bottles have been tampered with. The only way I would justify continuing to purchase Tylenol products would be if all products were removed and reconstructed to ensure safety. "James Burke, the company's chairman, was widely admired for his leadership in the decision to pull Tylenol capsules off the market, and for his forthrightness in dealing with the media." (Rehak, 2002)
Johnson & Johnson would not have been able to bounce back from this crisis as successfully as they did, if they only removed the Tylenol from the Midwest. In this case there was no othere decision that could have been made and James Burke made the right choice in recalling all tylenol products nation wide.