Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (5015)	2/10/2004 1:24:39 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Companies in Crisis - What to do when it all goes wrong Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol Crisis need not strike a company purely as a result of its own negligence or misadventure. Often, a situation is created which cannot be blamed on the company - but the company finds out pretty quickly that it takes a huge amount of blame if it fumbles the ball in its response. One of the classic tales of how a company can get it right is that of Johnson & Johnson, and the company's response to the Tylenol poisoning. What happened In 1982, Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol medication commanded 35 per cent of the US over-the-counter analgesic market - representing something like 15 per cent of the company's profits. Unfortunately, at that point one individual succeeded in lacing the drug with cyanide. Seven people died as a result, and a widespread panic ensued about how widespread the contamination might be. By the end of the episode, everyone knew that Tylenol was associated with the scare. The company's market value fell by $1bn as a result. When the same situation happened in 1986, the company had learned its lessons well. It acted quickly - ordering that Tylenol should be recalled from every outlet - not just those in the state where it had been tampered with. Not only that, but the company decided the product would not be re-established on the shelves until something had been done to provide better product protection. As a result, Johnson & Johnson developed the tamperproof packaging that would make it much more difficult for a similar incident to occur in future. Cost and benefit The cost was a high one. In addition to the impact on the company's share price when the crisis first hit, the lost production and destroyed goods as a result of the recall were considerable. However, the company won praise for its quick and appropriate action. Having sidestepped the position others have found themselves in - of having been slow to act in the face of consumer concern - they achieved the status of consumer champion. Within five months of the disaster, the company had recovered 70% of its market share for the drug - and the fact this went on to improve over time showed that the company had succeeded in preserving the long term value of the brand. Companies such as Perrier, who had been criticised for less adept handling of a crisis, found their reputation damaged for as long as five years after an incident. In fact, there is some evidence that it was rewarded by consumers who were so reassured by the steps taken that they switched from other painkillers to Tylenol. Conclusion The features that made Johnson & Johnson's handling of the crisis a success included the following: They acted quickly, with complete openness about what had happened, and immediately sought to remove any source of danger based on the worst case scenario - not waiting for evidence to see whether the contamination might be more widespread Having acted quickly, they then sought to ensure that measures were taken which would prevent as far as possible a recurrence of the problem They showed themselves to be prepared to bear the short term cost in the name of consumer safety. That more than anything else established a basis for trust with their customers Links: Johnson & Johnson website News stories Coca-Cola learns what's untouchable - Alex Brummer, June 19 1999 Guardian (refers to Johnson & Johnson case) Survey - Mastering Management: the value to be found in corporate reputation - Charles Fombrun, Dec 4 2000, Financial Times Other sources "Risk issues and crisis management" - Michael Regester and Judy Larkin, Insitute of Public Relations. 1997. ==== This page is part of the Corporate Social Responsibility site of Mallen Baker. It is constantly updated with analysis and opinion pieces on different aspects of CSR - with a mostly international focus. Case studies such as this will be covered, and updated, periodically on the site, and in the free CSR fortnightly email newsletter associated with the site, Business Respect. The easiest way to keep in touch is to subscribe.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (5015)	2/10/2004 1:27:26 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5582

Well, at least the article referred to it as "alleged health problems". Given the unknown health conditions of complainants, what other things might have caused their anosmia, or what other things this handful of people have stuck up their nose, it is difficult to know how serious this threat is...."Avalanche of lawsuits" may be a bit of an overstatement... but it sounds great. Re:<<The main health question in the Zicam spat concerns whether zinc-based products such as Zicam can permanently destroy a person's sense of smell by inducing a medical condition known as amnosia.>> Amnosia...what exactly is that? Just a guess but sounds like a condition of failing to remember where one left their nose....or perhaps forgetting the last thing someone shoved up their proboscis... Re: <<Nasal Spray>> Yeah, this fellow did a thorough job of research on the product before writing the article. But hey, we got Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart and Floyd Schneider in on the act so what else is left...except maybe a few Dennis Kozlowski's for good measure. If it were me, Don Meredith would have closed with a throaty rendition of "Turn out the lights, the party's over". I can't figure out why MTXX doesn't just throw in the towel with so many super sleuths on their case.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (5015)	10/16/2004 12:17:12 PM
From: agrd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

This is obviously a campaign to destroy this product, Zicam. The complaints even started in Kalamazoo, Mi., home to Upjohn and Eli Lilly! (-"the first of the product liability suits filed against Matrixx - in Kalamazoo, Mich., on Oct 13, 2003,-") Interesting? This stuff works! Why do you think it jumped up to 18-19 last year? Because the word of mouth, the "anecdotal evidence", was astoundingly good. I have used Zicam for 2 years with no problems, as have my kids, my wife and friends, and it is works. These drug makers have to kill Zicam or the company that makes it and they are effectively doing so. And now you have fakers lining up at doctors' offices with their lawyers to get a piece of some imaginary pie from these law suits. Why am I bothering to write this? Because I have suffered in the past from bad cases of the common cold and now I am being helped by Zicam. And it makes me angry to see these obvious scare tactics being eaten up by the press. Come on, wake up. Look into the complaints, investigate that.