Tylenol

1. Once the association was made between the Tylenol cases and the reported deaths, open declarations were made cautioning individuals about the utilization of the item. Johnson & Johnson was confronted with the difficulty of the most ideal approach to manage the issue without annihilating the notoriety of the organization and its most gainful item. Taking after one of our rules of securing individuals first and property second, McNeil Consumer Products, a backup of Johnson & Johnson, directed a quick item review from the whole nation which added up to around 31 million containers and a loss of more than $100 million dollars. (Lazare, Chicago Sun-Times 2002) Additionally, they stopped all promotion for the item. Although Johnson & Johnson knew they were not in charge of the altering of the item, they accepted obligation by guaranteeing open wellbeing first and reviewed many their cases from the business sector. Truth be told, in February of 1986, when a lady was accounted for dead from cyanide harming in Tylenol containers, Johnson & Johnson forever expelled many the cases from the business sector. Once the item was expelled from the business, Johnson & Johnson needed to think of a battle to re-present its item and restore certainty back to the …show more content…
Both organizations Air France and Johnson & Johnson communicated well with the media. They provided all the required information to the media and did not show any deaf ear to media. They took their responsibility and accountability of the action very well. Johnson & Johnson showed excellent management skills. They immediately developed the plan in an effective manner. Teams were well divided and managed. The root cause of the issue was identified and that also planned to get the complete information in minimum possible time i.e. few days. Whereas British Airways showed deaf ear attitude to the media and they took one month of time to give the explanation. This attitude was not appreciated by the consumers and