Part of the new branding coming. How they will hide the recalls is up for debate.
11 replies (most recent on top)
they had one?
@ka You’re right that recalls can feel reactive, especially when they follow regulatory or legal pressure. That gap in perception is part of why trust is fragile. Having worked in safety, I can honestly say from the heart: there is no malice. The obligation to make things right remains regardless of how the process begins. And while it may sometimes look like there’s a “Lincoln Lawyer” behind every decision, the truth is Ford doesn’t have some hidden lawyer trying to outsmart customers — safety decisions are made by engineers, managers, and people who genuinely want the right outcome. Legal constraints can make open acknowledgment difficult, but they shouldn’t erase the human side of what’s at stake: people’s safety, people’s trust, people’s peace of mind. Ford knows trust is earned only when customers can see issues faced directly, not avoided, and that the effort to protect them is genuine. The goal is not to win against accountability, but to rebuild confidence so no one has to feel “wronged” in the first place.
@k8 You defend intent, frame recalls positively, say recalls are evidence of good faith, and warns against implying negligence or malice because of litigation risk, which protects Ford from liability meaning the regular person customer-base that tries to hold you accountable has to fight against the "Lincoln Lawyer". You remove the possibility of systemic negligence and frame issues as unintended accidents. You act like Ford never avoided cost over safety until forced. Recalls often happen only under regulatory or legal pressure which undermines the "trust first" narrative. From personal experience as someone who was treated unfairly by Ford and has learned what their "process" is on accountability, I would summarize it as "scary".. there is a reason they're not threatened by accountability on certain matters. It comes down to cost-cutting by avoiding deeper liability and pricing-in the chances they lose. It's not about right and wrong.
@k6 Ford’s intent has never been to harm — not in the past, and not now. The company isn’t threatened by accountability; what matters is that customers feel secure and valued. That’s the purpose of a recall at its best: not just to correct a defect, but to show that safety and trust take priority over everything else. True equilibrium comes when the customer can look forward knowing the past was acknowledged, not ignored, and that the future will be handled with integrity. At the same time, there are limits — sometimes when a recall is publicly acknowledged it becomes impossible to “make it right” in a way that satisfies everyone. With a highly litigious customer base, it would be reckless to imply negligence or malice where none was ever intended.
@jz Ford is only sorry that they get caught and have legal pressure from the recalls. Making things right with Ford means we can find stories where this happened. Ford has not had the right intentions, even with their employees. They play with lives as long as they can get away with it. Recalls aren't an honest attempt.
If you’re trying to change a behavior, reason will take you only so far.
"You do not want to be in a perverse incentive system that’s causing you to behave more and more foolishly or worse and worse — incentives are too powerful a control over human cognition or human behavior. If you’re in one [of these systems], I don’t have a solution for you. You’ll have to figure it out for yourself, but it’s a significant problem."
"They only act when it gets so bad that it starts making them look foolish, or threatening legal liability to them."
That's not good faith at all.
@jv You can’t truly reach balance (“equilibrium”) by pretending the past doesn’t exist, even when we say we're starting from zero. From what I’ve observed, many decisions today aren’t made with long-term stewardship in mind. I'm not speaking from a cynical lens, but from personal observations and interactions. Short-term actions that avoid accountability don’t eliminate risk, they defer it. And when the market eventually catches up, the true cost is often magnified.
Ignoring past harm doesn’t erase it, especially if it still ripples in the contemporary. It compounds, and eventually, someone else inherits the liability that is now much bigger to approach. The past has present-day consequences. Present intent is partial.
Think: reputational risk, cultural debt, regulatory scrutiny, ripple effect, internal morale — all rooted in past actions.
What we do in the present matters most when it includes accountability for the past. Intent without reconciliation isn’t enough. Most importantly those dealing with the inheritance will remember what was never resolved. A new campaign is a distraction from real issues. That is not equilibrium. That is like selling something with hidden fees.
This game theory dynamic creates compounded intended consequences that underscore the critical importance of not pushing risk forward when the growing debt must eventually be reckoned with. Betting on a "greater fool" (theory) to inherit the cost reflects a negligent and selfish mindset among the contemporary executive leadership, risking amplified fallout for future stakeholders and the company's legacy looking back.
It stands as a litmus test for betrayal of honor, character, and integrity. The only time this might be defensible (not under ethics / moral but business) is if short-term decisions are truly necessary for survival, even if imperfect. But is this survival or betrayal? Letting go of the past to avoid paralysis only delays moving forward temporarily. The compounded impact could be far worse.
@jv How can a company like Ford make up for past wrongs, without introducing new liability. Recalls seem like an honest attempt at making things right with the customer. I know that Ford has always had the right intentions, and didn't intend to get anyone hurt with the quality issues, so we fixed them. Some companies can't afford to give away their future monetarily, but rather want to make an honest attempt at making things right.
@jq The past is the past, what we do in the present and our intentions is what matters.
Start with nothing never meant that the past is the past! Equilibrium...
Ready, set, ERASE OUR HISTORY OF POOR QUALITY!
Good to know, thank u