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
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.
As bloggers, we know that social media is a fluid environment. When attacked, companies and organizations must decide whether to respond quickly to negative sentiment, or wait to assess their response.
Some argue that the percentage of the overall population actively engaging in social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and Digg - though growing - has not yet reached critical mass. But here's the question: is it already a significant enough number, or a critically important enough audience, to warrant constant serious attention by professional communicators?
Was it worth it for Johnson & Johnson's Motrin to pull its controversial ad because of the uproar it caused on Twitter and blogs? According to Ad Age, citing Lightspeed Research, almost 90% of women never saw the ad. Surveys show that more attention was paid to the surrounding crisis and swift corporate reaction versus the ads themselves.
"Too often, communicators act too soon without listening to who are doing the chatting and what it really means to their brand. Sometimes communicators are completely absent from the conversation," remarks social media expert Howard Greenstein.
In contrast, Amazon is currently in the middle of how to continue to react. They had to act quickly last weekend when angry authors (and supporters) of gay and lesbian books whose works were de-listed from the sales charts launched a Twitter-offensive over the Easter holiday weekend. Tagged #amazonfail, thousands posted angry online sentiments about Amazon. Even people who aren't necessarily fans of the de-listed books or authors joined the fray. So far, Amazon is claiming no policy change and that the de-listing was likely due to an algorithm glitch. Amazon called it "an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloguing error." (sic) Question: are they communicating enough? How much would be too much? And are they listening enough first?
In crisis communications, we often talk about the "Golden Hour" a period of time in which you can gather information and respond. It is a phrase from emergency medicine which says that you don't have tons of time, but a little more time than you think. The first five minutes of gut instinct panic responses could lead to the wrong actions in medicine. Taking a little bit more time - but not too much - allows for finding out more data and information, and a more informed response. In social media, we're watching to see if the "golden hour" principle is the rule or the exception.
What has your experience been with social media and situations involving businesses and their services or products that may, or may not, be crises? Do you believe that a quick corporate response is essential even if the scope and scale of the social media conversation remains unclear? Is it enough to respond quickly online, or is immediate corporate action essential as well?
Tylenol Back in the news - It was unlike any other crisis
According to recent news reports, FBI investigators have reopened the Tylenol poisonings case from 1982. A couple of fortuitous events coincided: First, the 25th anniversary in 2007 brought new tips to law enforcement. Second, utilizing new forensic techniques the FBI has seized computer files and evidence from the person originally convicted of extortion in the case. (James L. Lewis was not convicted of the poisonings, just trying to make money from Johnson & Johnson.)
The renewed investigation brings back to mind the general conclusion that this was one of the great case studies in how a company should handle a product crisis. Indeed it was. As one of the consultants who advised J&J on how to handle media and customers, I still believe that J&J made all the right moves. The response was led by CEO James Burke, who was as decent in a closed door meeting as he was answering questions from Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes." The company went beyond what regulatory and law enforcement authorities recommended they had to do.
No two crises are ever the same, and we have had many others that dwarf this one in terms of number of fatalities, lives impacted and dollars at stake. Yet Tylenol is still considered THE case study.
The field of crisis communications has countless more examples of poorly and well-handled responses. One point I always make is that unlike almost all other crises, Tylenol was different in that there was no "contributory negligence" on the part of J&J. In almost all other crises, while not intentional, there is some aspect that the parties are responsible for. No company wants an oil or gas spill, no one wants to have an industrial accident, yet these types of operational mishaps do occur. The companies must shoulder part of the responsibility for the operational or security breakdown.
The key lesson from Tylenol : there is no substitute for appropriate transparency and clarity when responding to a crisis. Almost three decades after the first poisoning, and long after the story had faded from the news, a new investigative wrinkle has moved stories of the crisis back into the headlines. But the stories are about the crime, not a rehashing of the product recall. The initial J&J response ensured that the company actions will continue to be portrayed favorably.
MEDIAtor Blog
