Why Toyota is Not Tylenol: Victim, Villain or Vindicator?

In 1982, I was privileged to work with Johnson & Johnson during the first Tylenol crisis. I was asked to prepare CEO James Burke for the critical "60 Minutes" interview that was a key component in communicating the comeback strategy for the brand and the company. I also worked with other senior executives who fanned out to local markets throughout the US to create a local presence in key cities. Other than SARS and 9/11, I can't think of another crisis that matches the unique circumstance of Tylenol. This is because J&J and its Tylenol brand did nothing to cause this crisis. In almost all other crises, there is an aspect of what lawyers call contributory negligence to the events. No company or organization willingly causes a crisis.
However, most of the time, there is an event that precipitates the crisis.

Due to the size and scope of its current crisis, some are comparing Toyota to Tylenol. I don't believe there are many comparisons. Please read the analysis of Toyota vs. Tylenol that appeared in PRNews Online. http://bit.ly/dwZ1gv

Tylenol vs. Toyota

Toyota's January 2010 massive recall and sales stoppage of vehicles has been quickly compared to the recall by Johnson & Johnson of Tylenol in 1982.

Most of the similarities are in the enormity of the recall and the proactive nature of the effort. However, there are more differences in the nature of the problem and the current similarity than there are similarities.

SIMILARITY:
Similar to J&J, Toyota is going beyond what it may legally be required to do in recalling vehicles. J&J went further than what was required by the FBI to pull products from the shelves. Toyota is getting a big splash from total sales and production stoppage.

DIFFERENCES:
Tylenol was a different product, a different situation and a different environment. The difference between Tylenol's facts - and perhaps including SARS and 9/11 as crises - is that there was no "contributory negligence" on the part of the brand or J&J. While no product manufacturer ever wants to have a problem or defect, the fact is that TOYOTA did something that caused the problem. In the case of Tylenol, these were well made tablets that "someone else" tampered with. No one at J&J has ever been accused of doing anything wrong.

And of course, the media world is profoundly different from 1982. While J&J didn't think so at the time, the company had a relatively easy time of controlling the story and the message. The media was print, radio, TV and advertising. Now, it's the kitchen sink, with YouTube, chat rooms, Twitter and blogs the most difficult to control. J&J was hampered by not having a web site to post its information, Toyota is using its http://www.toyota.com/ for releasing information. I'm personally a bit surprised at the relatively small size of the button on the home page.

One more item. During Tylenol, J&J Chairman Jim Burke was the face of the brand and the company. So far, no one from Toyota has emerged to give this terrible event a human dimension. In addition to the web site, I'm surprised that Toyota is not using its YouTube channel with even a brief statement. Now that the crisis has gone global, it would be appropriate to have a faces of the company and post in many languages to reach more customers.

How do you think Toyota is doing?

Power of LinkedIn Groups for Entrepreneurs and Communicators

Here's an ongoing case study of a great use of LinkedIn Groups that solves the entrepreneur's issue of where to go for inputs and advice.

I say ongoing because fellow professionals are still chiming in with advice.

Here's the issue: A solo PR practitioner has a delicate and challenging crisis situation. The details are less important than the concern that unless handled well, the situation could get blown out of proportion through media coverage, negative blogging and community activism.The practitioner doesn't have 4 partners down the hall to brainstorm with, so she put out a request on a LinkedIn PR group for help ASAP. Unlike too many LinkedIn postings which are paper-thin marketing pitches, this one was a genuine request.

Over the past 18 hours I've seen 20+ thoughtful responses, with both analysis and practical suggestions. The responses refer to each other and build into real consultative help for the practitioner. Here's a sample of what the requesting PR person wrote to her colleagues: "You are all amazing! I'm sending a few of you private responses to your questions...We now have solid plans in place for just about every situation we can think of. I can't thank you all enough."

Seems to me this is the essence of what social media - especially among professional communities - is supposed to be about: less self-promotion and more genuinely useful conversations that leverage the knowledge and skills of a particular online professional community. As professional communicators, that's something to remind ourselves about the next time no one responds to a LinkedIn posting.

Anyone else with such a good experience with LinkedIn?

Value vs. Values: Is There Anything We Should Know Before We Pay You A Gazillion Dollars?

A recent harvardbusiness.org article published by Bloomberg used the Tiger Woods fiasco to question the value of celebrity endorsements (http://bit.ly/6kzMMy).

Using celebrities to promote a brand, product or service has been a tried-and-true marketing strategy for decades. Celebrities have reveled in the publicity from image-building campaigns; in turn brands, products and services have harnessed the push-and-pull between celebrities and the public to drive awareness and increase sales. Everybody wins, right?

What has changed? As the article notes, increasingly the personal lives of many celebrities raise ethical dilemmas that - when made public - harm not only them, but the reputation of any associated brand. Skeletons in the celebrity closet are as old as the hills. But here's the not-so-new twist: there's no privacy any more. The explosion of the Internet in the past decade, and of social media in the last five years has taken care of that.

You might say that's "duh" obvious. Yet sometimes it takes a monumental crisis to get a message through. (PS: As we at CommCore Consulting Group like to ask, "Is your brand crisis plan up-to-date?") Just ask former Tiger sponsor Gillette (http://bit.ly/5aWD7Q). It was only a matter of time before a run-of-the-mill Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears-type embarrassment struck a truly global figure and marketing phenomenon of the stature of Tiger Woods. And now that it has, the question posed by harvardbusiness.org is a legitimate one - is the risk of human frailty being exposed worth the return? If this Paragon of Everything can crumble so quickly before our eyes dragging himself, his family and associated good brand names with him, then what chance does your standard everyday celebrity endorser have?

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it IS time to revert to marketing and messages that link customers directly with brands, products and services without the filter of a famous figure. In a time of increasing skepticism about institutions and leadership in general, maybe the best way to communicate a brand story and value proposition these days is simply to say what it'll do for you.

What do you think? Is the marketing and messaging slogan for the next decade going to be, "Ask Not What a Celebrity Can Do for Your Brand; Ask What Your Brand Can Do for Everybody Else?"

Swine Flu & Chrysler Bankruptcy Video Blog