Winning back lost Customers Discussion

If the Tylenol incident were to happen today, it would be quite hard for Johnson and Johnson to win back my trust. In her article, Sheehan (2019) acknowledges the trauma caused by news about people dying from consuming a drug which ironically was supposed to improve their situations and prolong their lives. The innocent people out of the trust they had for the brand put their lives on the line using the products offered. Being sick, the only wish one has is to get better and continue living a normal life.

It is therefore quite unfortunate that a product which one trusts while sick is actually being used to end life. Notably, the product used to lace the drugs is cyanide, a highly lethal chemical that upon ingestion, the victim has almost zero chances of survival. If the case had involved the use of a less poisonous contaminant, it would have been easier to trust the brand as it is normal to have human error. However, an error that leads to the loss of one’s life is too difficult to handle.

Additionally, the incident proves a lack of accountability from Johnson and Johnson Company and a lack of regard for human life. Given the sensitivity of medicine, the process of manufacturing should be closely scrutinized to avoid any errors which could be detrimental to the users of the drug (Sheehan, 2019). This explains why medicine is accompanied by comprehensive instructions that covers the side effects and contraindications of a drug. It is therefore quite sad that a company that is supposed to safeguard the safety of the public is the source of such unfortunate incidences. The incidence thus shows carelessness on the part of the company which makes it hard to trust. Trusting such a company for medicine is simply equivalent to putting my life on the line, a risk I am not willing to take.

If a friend of mine were a victim of the ‘Tylenol murders’ incident, it would take a lot of effort to win back my trust. First, I would need a full report of what transpired together with verified police investigations of the same. To show accountability, as Yoo, Cha and Kim (2020) observe, companies wishing to win their customers back after crises should provide credible explanation of what transpired. Johnson and Johnson should have an explanation of why a chemical as lethal as cyanide was found in their medicine and more so get unnoticed even when the company is expected to have a quality assurance unit. Most importantly, those who failed in their job for such an incident to take place should willingly take responsibility and state their intention when engaging in such an inhumane act. If the report is credible and convincing, then I would consider trusting the company.

In addition, the company must show commitment to preventing a re-occurrence of such an incident in the future. After customers express their dissatisfaction, a manager should show proof of ways developed to rule out the possibility of such an incident in the future (Shetty & Kalghatgi, 2018). After such a gruesome incident, Johnson & Johnson should invest heavily in proving that such an incident is not likely to happen again in the future. First, all those who contributed to the lacing of the drug should be made to face the law and be charged in court.

This will help scare away future culprits. Additionally, the company should show their commitment by establishing strict measures in all levels of production and distribution to ensure that medications are not contaminated. Notably, the company developed tamper-proof bottles which is a viable move towards preventing contamination. Nevertheless, Johnson & Johnson should also show actions taken to eliminate the possibility of contamination during manufacturing. By proving accountability at all levels, then it would be easier to trust the company’s products once again.