Firestone

2 Pages 557 Words

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 ne...