Hi Courtnee: Two Best Strategies For A Crisis

Another issue regarding the pharmaceutical industry is scandal. In 2009, there was a huge pandemic of the H1N1 virus, also known as the “Swine Flu.” According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (2009), 3,900 U.S. residents have died from swine flu; five percent of that being children. The distribution for the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine was one of the biggest scandals. According to SocialistWorker.org (2009), “President Obama promised in July that 160 million doses of swine flu vaccine would be available by the end of October. The Department of Health and Human Services revised that estimate to 40 million and then to 28 million--enough doses

In a competitive market to which Johnson and Johnson operates, the smallest of errors can lead to consequences which can cut revenue. When large mistakes occur, millions of dollars are lost, and even worse, there is a loss of customer confidence. Johnson and Johnson has had numerous recalls in their consumer healthcare division recently, which rocked the organization’s once sound image, and diminished its profits. These recalls have hurt Johnson and Johnson’s stocks and cost the company about $900 million in sales last year (Rockoff, 2011).

Consult www.phrma.org, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. What steps is the branded industry taking to address the

My recommendation would have several steps. First and foremost, I would recommend that the line-forcing policy be removed. This would allow for their products to be placed into smaller stores whereby more customers would be allowed to purchase the items they want. People are fickle creatures, if they cannot find the brand they want on the shelf they have no problem moving on to the competitor. Let’s put Golden Valley Food’s product on the shelf instead of leaving that market open to the competitor. Next, review the entire product line. What sells and what doesn’t? What is profitable and what isn’t? By looking at how each individual product is performing, an informed decision can be made on which products need to be eliminated. It is better to concentrate on producing a few items with exceptional quality than to have 65 mediocre items.

Managers and leaders do not welcome crises because they don't realize that problems and crisis if handled with intelligence become an opportunity for the company. The purpose of writing this paper to discuss the case of "Johnson & Johnson" that became a hero in the eyes of public (Rehak, 2002) and gained their market share back with the help of their effective public relations plan. They accomplished this by making good relations with public and by proving how much they were concerned about the safety of their consumers.

The twenty-first century has seen pharmaceutical companies grow in unprecedented size and strength. Due to the unprecedented growth the larger pharmaceutical companies have gained leverage and power in the prescription drug industry, but they lack innovation to market and they seek ways to help the business continue to increase its profits. The pharmaceutical industry was once ethically sound and was a valuable player in the development of human health. However, overtime with the lack of innovation pharmaceutical companies are becoming an unethical market that exploits patients, doctors and anyone else it can to increase its profitability. With eyes only on profitability this can create a hazard for patients because there

Johnson and Johnson’s is a multi-billion dollar company that has been around for 129 years. The company was founded in 1886 by Robert Wood Johnson joined his brothers James Wood Johnson and Edward Mead Johnson to create a line of ready-to-use surgical dressings in 1885. The company produced its first products in 1886 and incorporated in 1887 (Johnson).Since then the company has built a reputation on its “Credo”. Simply stated, the first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses, patients, mothers and fathers who use the products then, employees, and finally shareholders. This lines up with the humanistic view of putting people over profits. As Johnson and Johnson’s grew, the company moved form a simple structure, offering just ready to use surgical dressings into a divisionalized form of many departments. With a host of products from band aids to high-margin medical devices: artificial hips and knees, heart stents, surgical tools and monitoring devices; and from still higher-margin prescription drugs targeting Crohn’s disease, cancer , schizophrenia , diabetes , psoriasis , migraines , heart disease and attention deficit disorder (Brill).This decentralized organization structure of management offered autonomy to mid and lower level manager . The issues that arose as the company grew under the structural from where Did Johnson and Johnson’s hide Risperdal study results from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Moreover, was there illegal marking of Risperdal?

During the Tylenol tampering scandal at Johnson and Johnson (1982) where seven people died, CEO James Burke and his team led a company culture that admitted the problem and set out to rectify it. He did not wait for the problem to fade away or just react to regional problems. He launched a Public Relations (PR) campaign and recalled several products whilst remaining calm and in control under the spotlight. He launched a further recall in 1986 costing Johnson and Johnson more than $200 million, when one person died after ingesting a capsule laced with cyanide (Yang, 2007). By doing so, James retained employee and customer loyalty. His achievement was of dealing with a crisis; he did not know cyanide was being planted into bottles, nevertheless he dealt with it. He remained trustworthy, transparent and engendered confidence. As an example, whilst at Johnson and Johnson, had James used questionable means for the success of the business, the organisation and the public would probably have forgiven him, following his conduct in the Tylenol tampering scandal. Not because they eventually forgot, but due to the importance in which

Ghillyer (2014), explains that how organizations are operated and controlled as corporate governance. Pharmaceutical companies have been the focus of questionable conduct in regards to corporate governance for years. Unlawful promotions and marketing of drugs as well as failure to properly and accurately report safety date led to several off-label lawsuits (Ghillyer, 2014).

CASE 35 – CHURCH & DWIGHT: TIME TO RETHINK THE PORTFOLIO? I. INTRODUCTION A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Summary statement of the problem: Church & Dwight, more commonly known by its brand name “Arm & Hammer,” has held a commanding lead in the sodium bicarbonate product market for over 160 years with virtually 99 percent of all consumer products in households within the United States. However, in order to promote growth and diversity while maintaining a steady profitability rate of 3-5 percent per year, the company has expanded uses of sodium bicarbonate products so that it

Pharmaceutical companies, like other companies involved in development of new products and services, must find equilibrium in stakeholder interests. Often, the interests of one stakeholder cluster will conflict with the interests of another stakeholder group. For instance, productivity and sales may benefit shareholders and employees, but may not help consumers, if a product is unsafe. The safety of the new AD23 drug for Alzheimer 's comes under supplementary scrutiny, as it did not receive FDA approval before being presented to patients. Pharma Care bypassed FDA consent by evolving a subsidiary, Comp Care, to serve as a compounding pharmacy filling instructions for the drug ordered by physicians. The ethical concern is based on promoting a product without knowing all the possible side effects or harm caused to patients, without the improvement of conducting clinical legal proceedings and seeking FDA approval. Off label use of prescription medicines is often promoted with little rigid data to help clients and their physicians make sound, safe choices for usage.

I feel like this article has created outrage within our country. It definitely made a negative impact on this company and their CEO. I’m sure other pharmaceutical companies are feeling the backlash too as stories and articles are getting out about their own price gauging. Hilary Clinton was even mentioned in the second article, stating if she were president she would ensure there were limits on how much people would have to pay for their medications out of pocket each month. I’m hoping other presidential also catch on to this problem and address it as well in their upcoming

This case study focuses Burroughs Wellcome and their drug Retrovir. Retrovir is a drug that treats AIDS and AID-related complications. In 1987, Burroughs Wellcome obtained approval from the FDA to market azidothymidine (AZT), also known as Retrovir, as a treatment for AIDS. Retrovir was the only kind of drug on the market. Because of this, many critics accused Burroughs Wellcome of price-gouging, as the price of Retrovir was $188 for a hundred 100mg capsules sold to wholesalers. The president of Burroughs Wellcome, T.E Haigler, defended the high price, stating it was due to uncertainty in the market, the possibility of new drug therapies, and profit margins created by new drugs. Even though Retrovir’s price was dropped 20 percent in December 1987, and 20 percent more in September 1989, due to the House of Representatives launching an investigation, there was still pressure to lower the price. The big question faced in this case is what is Burroughs Wellcome’s next move regarding pricing?

A turnaround strategy needs to address the following: a suffered reputation, lost patent protection on several drugs, a slowing pipeline, and a decreasing stock price. Merck is not shying away from lawsuits and is taking cases to court. Its legal defense budget was increased, but it did not set aside funds for liabilities showing that it confident it will win. The opinions of 200 employees were solicited in deciding the company’s future strategy. Cutting costs

(4) Absent any resource constraints, which of the four departmental directions do you think is the most viable? Which is the second best strategy? Which is the least viable? In my humble opinion the most viable option would be to follow Eric Stanger’s advice to go ‘back to basics’. In order to underwrite the new line of LR trademark and experiment with more new products, they had in effect been milking the OM lines. Their price increase on several of our more critical items had outpaced those of their key competitors, in order to always deliver more bottom line profits. They had shaved their A&P budgets for the same purpose and this was resulting in slippage in value and trust among our consumer franchise thus the declining sales and share. They thus needed to cut on