1- Discuss the implications of Pepsi's strategy, specifically.
Putting Public First
By putting public first, it show to the public that they care about this crisis seriously and they will treat this matter accordingly and their image become better when they get the consultation from the FDA, because they know that the FDA's credibility is high and people will believe what ever that FDA recommend them to do. In the meantime Pepsi also know that this problem is not come from their side but it just they want to gain back public trust and
Taking full responsibility for solving the problem.
By taking full responsibility, Pepsi has shown to their public that they listen to the their customer ...view middle of the document...
Pepsi also confident that the all the syringe that has been found in the can are in the can that has been open. From the beginning that they know that the best way to do is not the defensive strategy in dealing with the crisis but the offensive way. So they have concentrate to find a way to tell their public that this allegation is not true. So from this they truly confidence that that is not their part for causing the syringe to be in the can. They also made this decision after the series of detail investigation in all plant and all line of their machine that has a connection with their product. And their decision is in line with the FDA statement that this crisis is not from the Pepsi side. They want to reassure that this crisis is not the manufacturing crisis. The minusses of this action not to recall the product is the cost will be increasing and it show that Pepsi do not have a confidence in their product and believe the allegation. But the plusses of recalling the product is people will view Pepsi as a company the really put the customer safety first and it will show to the public that if the allegation is not proven, but the company willing to carry a cost as long as the customer safety is reassure.
3- on June 10, 1993 other option that peps have is to pay the compensation to the first person who make the claim and ask the person not to report the story to the press. Another option that Pepsi can take is to ignore the claim and act as it never happen. I think this company has choose the correct action because if the company pay the person who make the claim, there will be hundred of person who also want to make the claim and this will affect Pepsi in the long run. But if the choose to ignore the claim and act if it is never happen, it will show that Pepsi doesn't care about their customer. But from the action that has been choose by Pepsi it really give the good effect by Pepsi because through this action that Pepsi can show that the crisis is not a manufacturing crisis and it can restore Pepsi image in the eyes of their customer. Other choices that could company take is to set up a free commission to investigate the allegation without having any Pepsi representative. So that the commission can do in-depth investigation about the allegation. Because Pepsi confident that this is not a manufacturing crisis so this action will not have an effect to Pepsi and this action also will show that Pepsi is confident to their customer about their claim that this is not a manufacturing crisis.
4- This crisis could not be avoided because it is the allegation make by people who want to make a quick fortune in expense of the big company. And there is no action that can prevent this from happen and this is the type of crisis that most feared by many corporation, it is like a natural disaster where the source of the crisis is uncontrollable. We as a person also cannot avoid if other person want to make allegation...