Firestone tires could have avoided many of their legal and public relations problems if .
they"d used the template Johnson and Johnson established in the 1982 Tylenol scare. .
That's the conclusion reached by Bob Garfield in an article in the August 28, 2000 issue .
of AdAge. The author compares the similarities of the problems both companies faced, .
and the differences in the recovery process Johnson and Johnson took in the Tylenol .
scare versus what Bridgestone/Firestone is doing to combat the negative publicity, and .
regain their customers" trust. .
In October 1982, several individuals died as a result of Tylenol capsules contaminated .
with cyanide. In an effort to save lives, Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Tylenol, .
recalled every single bottle in the country, no matter whether they were on the store shelf .
or your bathroom shelf. They also shut down all production and distribution of the .
medication. Johnson & Johnson publicized the recall with full-page newspaper ads and .
stories on the news. They had an open policy and were willing to answer any questions .
at the expense of their good name. As stated in the article, it was a public relations .
nightmare for the company, but Johnson and Johnson had a "quick and thorough .
response", and the public's appreciation of its honesty and an expertly handled ad .
campaign helped retain most of their customers. Unlike J&J, Firestone's initial reaction .
to their nightmare did not inspire public trust. .
A couple of years ago, when dozens of people died in Ford Explorers equipped with .
Firestone tires, the Bridgestone/Firestone Corp. did not launch an ad campaign to inform, .
and regain the trust of the public. Instead they launched a mudslinging campaign against .
Ford that ultimately resulted in the termination of their 100 year old business relationship. .
In fact, because of their slow action and negligence in alerting consumers, Firestone .
faced public criticism and criminal inquiries.
