Johnson & Johnson and the Tylenol Poisonings
In 1982, Johnson and Johnson’s fell victim of a deadly crime that nearly caused the downfall of their company. Even though seven people had died from taking extra-strength Tylenol laced with cyanide, the case was never solved. Johnson and Johnson had set a reward of 100,000 dollars. After posting such a reward, Johnson and Johnson received an extortion letter from an individual named James Lewis, whose intention was to profit from the event. Nevertheless, Lewis served 13 years in prison for extortion, but was never charged with murder. (Ghillyer, A. W. 2014). According to the analysis, Johnson & Johnson should have reacted the same way even if the firm was at stake because the firm responded accordingly to the Tylenol crisis and took the proper precautions in removing more than 31 million bottles of product nationwide. Had the firm did anything less, it may have been detrimental to the company. Had the firm did anything less than remove all Tylenol products they would have jeopardized their relationship with their customers and consumers would be skeptical about the safety of the product. With the recall Johnson & Johnson made to the lot to which had tainted capsules had been traced. The recall affected thirty-one states even though the deaths only …show more content…
To recall the entire product worldwide and not just from the Midwest was imperative because as a consumer, knowing the contaminated product was only pulled from the Midwest would cause a decline in revenue and business. Therefore pulling the contaminated product worldwide made consumers more comfortable knowing the way of justification for continuing to purchase Tylenol products would be legible if all products were removed and reconstructed to ensure safety. Needless to say, had Burke reacted differently to this crisis and refused to recall all Tylenol capsules, Johnson and Johnson would have fallen and not successfully
In 1982, Johnson and Johnson’s fell victim of a deadly crime that nearly caused the downfall of their company. Even though seven people had died from taking extra-strength Tylenol laced with cyanide, the case was never solved. Johnson and Johnson had set a reward of 100,000 dollars. After posting such a reward, Johnson and Johnson received an extortion letter from an individual named James Lewis, whose intention was to profit from the event. Nevertheless, Lewis served 13 years in prison for extortion, but was never charged with murder. (Ghillyer, A. W. 2014). According to the analysis, Johnson & Johnson should have reacted the same way even if the firm was at stake because the firm responded accordingly to the Tylenol crisis and took the proper precautions in removing more than 31 million bottles of product nationwide. Had the firm did anything less, it may have been detrimental to the company. Had the firm did anything less than remove all Tylenol products they would have jeopardized their relationship with their customers and consumers would be skeptical about the safety of the product. With the recall Johnson & Johnson made to the lot to which had tainted capsules had been traced. The recall affected thirty-one states even though the deaths only …show more content…
To recall the entire product worldwide and not just from the Midwest was imperative because as a consumer, knowing the contaminated product was only pulled from the Midwest would cause a decline in revenue and business. Therefore pulling the contaminated product worldwide made consumers more comfortable knowing the way of justification for continuing to purchase Tylenol products would be legible if all products were removed and reconstructed to ensure safety. Needless to say, had Burke reacted differently to this crisis and refused to recall all Tylenol capsules, Johnson and Johnson would have fallen and not successfully