In October of 1982, someone began to put poison into Tylenol bottles, and seven deaths resulted. Johnson & Johnson, the owner of the brand, responded immediately and aggressively to the consumer reaction, and the response has become a model for corporate crisis managers, and a famous "case study" at Harvard Business School. Commentary on the episode has always focused on the company's decision to put the public interest first. Historian Tamara Kaplan wrote this on the subject:
(quote)"The public relations decisions made as a result of the Tylenol crisis, arrived in two phases. The first phase was the actual handling of the crisis. The comeback of both Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol, was the second phase in the public relations plan. The planning for phase two began almost as soon as phase one was being implemented."
"Phase one of Johnson & Johnson's public relations campaign was executed immediately following the discovery that the deaths in Chicago were caused by Extra- Strength Tylenol capsules. As the plan was constructed, Johnson & Johnson's top management put customer safety first, before they worried about their companies profit and other financial concerns."
"The company immediately alerted consumers across the nation, via the media, not to consume any type of Tylenol product. They told consumers not to resume using the product until the extent of the tampering could be determined. Johnson & Johnson, along with stopping the production and advertising of Tylenol, recalled all Tylenol capsules from the market. The recall included approximately 31 million bottles of Tylenol, with a retail value of more than 100 million dollars."
"This was unusual for a large corporation facing a crisis. In many other similar cases, companies had put themselves first, and ended up doing more damage to their reputations than if they had immediately taken responsibility for the crisis." (end quote)
What does this have to do with anything going on right now? Let's compare and contrast what the Johnson & Johnson folks did with what has happened at CBS News the last few days.
Dan Rather probably had a negative value even before this fiasco. The producers that gave him this forgery, the shoddy backup work, and the unpersuasive experts can easily be replaced from the vast pool of would-be producers. In other words, there is no downside to walking away from the story. However, enormous damage is done to the brand by refusing to come clean and admit what every objective observer -- including the Los Angeles Times -- has figured out: "CBS News was had."
For whatever reason, the Board of Directors of Viacom is watching the value of the brand burn to the ground without lifting a finger to put the fire out. This isn't about a one week drop in ratings. It is about letting loose an entire generation of news viewers to check out other networks.
What CBS and Viacom have done, or not done as the case may be, could very well be taught in business schools as the companion lesson to the Tylenol case. And all because no one above Dan Rather has remembered that the journalists first duty is always to truth.
So, what will be the legacy of RatherGate? It is likely that this episode will signal the rise of the New Media. Many media observers have noted the role of internet journalists and bloggers not only in exposing this scandal, but in driving the story forward. But they were not alone. Key elements of the story were discovered by Old Media stalwarts ABC News and the Washington Post.
The New Media will not destroy the Old Media, but it is a fine supplement. The power of the blogosphere is in its instant global reach. Experts in every field are just a click away. What the New Media offers the Old Media is immediate feedback and fact checking. And while there are some in the blogosphere who actually do original reporting, most rely on the Old Media for stories and sourcing.
Think of it as a long overdue system of Checks and Balances for the Fourth Estate.
