When the Rubber Came Off: Firestone–Ford Recall Lessons 25 Years Later
A Product Recall That Rewrote Crisis Communications Playbooks
On August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a 6.5 million–tire recall tied to deadly rollover accidents involving Ford Explorers. The move would become a defining crisis communications case study, reshaping how corporations handle product safety issues and public trust.
From Early Complaints to a Corporate PR Failure
In the mid-1990s, isolated complaints of tread separation appeared in hot-climate countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. By the summer of 2000, similar incidents in the U.S. linked to Ford SUVs were too numerous to ignore.
When the recall hit the headlines, it wasn’t just a mechanical failure—it became one of the most studied corporate PR failures in history.
How Firestone and Ford Managed — and Mishandled — the Crisis
From the moment Firestone announced the August 9, 2000 recall, the story was already in high gear. But instead of coordinating a unified message to reassure customers and regulators, Firestone and Ford quickly drifted into open disagreement over the cause—each trying to protect its own reputation, often at the other’s expense.
Firestone’s Approach
Initial Framing: Firestone’s executives framed the problem as one of vehicle design and maintenance, not manufacturing flaws. They pointed to Ford’s recommendation that Explorer tires be inflated to just 26 psi—lower than typical—to soften the ride and improve handling. Firestone argued that this lower pressure increased heat buildup inside the tires, especially in hot climates, accelerating tread separation.
Public Statements: Firestone U.S. CEO Masatoshi Ono and Bridgestone Corporation executives publicly stated their commitment to safety, but often in the same breath shifted focus to Ford’s role. This defensive posture diluted their expressions of concern and made it harder for consumers to know who to trust.
Recall Execution: The recall targeted ATX, ATX II, and certain Wilderness AT tires, with Firestone prioritizing replacements in the hottest states first (Arizona, California, Texas, Florida). While logistically logical, the staggered approach made customers in other regions feel less urgent protection.
Congressional Testimony: In September 2000 hearings, Firestone admitted to quality-control issues at its Decatur, Illinois plant—such as insufficient bonding of tire belts—but continued to emphasize vehicle design as a contributing factor.
Ford’s Approach
Early Cooperation, Then Separation: Initially, Ford publicly supported the recall effort. But as Firestone’s statements increasingly pointed to the Explorer’s design, Ford shifted to defending its SUV’s safety record and highlighting tire defect evidence.
Public Messaging: Ford’s CEO at the time, Jacques Nasser, emphasized that “our priority is our customers’ safety” and announced that Ford would replace suspect Firestone tires on its own—going beyond the recall scope and offering replacements globally.
Technical Narrative: Ford brought forward internal data showing that similar accidents occurred far less frequently when Explorers were fitted with other tire brands, bolstering their case that Firestone manufacturing was at fault.
Crisis Logistics: Ford mobilized dealerships worldwide to handle tire replacements, even in markets where no official recall had been issued. This helped Ford project responsiveness but deepened the divide with Firestone.
The Damage of a Divided Front
The most damaging element of their crisis management was the absence of a shared, consistent narrative:
Mixed messages fueled media speculation and public uncertainty.
Customers received conflicting advice about whether the problem lay with the tires, the SUV design, or both.
Lawmakers and regulators became more aggressive, perceiving that neither company was being fully transparent.
By May 2001, Ford and Firestone officially ended their 100-year business relationship—a rare and dramatic example of a crisis not only harming public trust but also destroying a longstanding corporate alliance.
The Fallout: Market Share Loss, Severed Partnerships, and the TREAD Act
The consequences were severe. Firestone’s U.S. market share fell from 18% to under 5%. Ford ended its century-long supply relationship with Firestone in 2001.
The U.S. Congress responded with the TREAD Act, introducing stricter reporting and consumer notification requirements—changes that remain a key part of product recall public relations strategy today.
The passage of the TREAD Act increased responsibilities for corporations in cases of faulty products and forever changed product recall PR.
Have the Companies Learned Their Lesson?
The Bridgestone/Firestone–Ford recall left both companies with deep scars—lost market share, public distrust, and a public breakup of a century-old partnership. But it also forced each brand to reexamine how it approached product safety, supplier relationships, and crisis communications. Over the years, both have made measurable changes that reflect lessons from 2000’s missteps.
Firestone: From Defensive Posture to Proactive Safety
In 2000, Firestone’s messaging often sounded like a defense brief—technically detailed, but short on customer empathy. Since then, the company has worked to flip that script.
Faster Recall Decisions: Where the 2000 recall followed months of mounting pressure, Firestone now moves quicker to initiate recalls, often working directly with regulators before media coverage escalates.
Global Quality Overhaul: The Decatur, Illinois plant that was at the center of the 2000 crisis was closed in 2001, and Bridgestone invested heavily in modernized manufacturing and inspection technology across its network.
Consumer-Facing Transparency: Firestone now maintains an online tire recall lookup tool, promotes tire safety education campaigns, and issues recall notices with more direct, plain-language instructions—removing the technical jargon that confused many in 2000.
Unified Messaging Protocols: Internal crisis plans now emphasize coordinated public statements with OEM partners to avoid the public finger-pointing that sank their credibility.
Ford: From Reactive Defense to Customer-First Crisis Response
Ford’s biggest mistake in 2000 was allowing the public dispute with Firestone to become the story, rather than customer safety. In the decades since, Ford has reoriented its crisis playbook to ensure that action and communication center on the consumer.
Expanded Supplier Oversight: Post-2000, Ford implemented stringent quality audits for all suppliers and created integrated engineering teams to identify potential safety risks before vehicles hit the market.
Crisis Mobilization Systems: The company now has a standing “Rapid Response” network of dealerships and service centers capable of executing large-scale recalls quickly—an evolution of the global replacement effort during the Firestone crisis.
Advanced Safety Technology: The automaker accelerated the rollout of electronic stability control and rollover prevention systems, in part to address the Explorer’s reputation issues from 2000.
Pre-Coordinated Messaging: Ford now uses unified media and customer communication strategies with suppliers and regulators to avoid contradictory statements in public.
From Adversaries to Industry Example
Although Ford and Firestone never resumed their formal business partnership, both companies have become examples in their industries of how a major failure can spark lasting structural improvements. They learned that speed, empathy, and coordination are not optional extras in a crisis—they’re the foundation for recovering trust.
The lesson for today’s leaders is clear: it’s not just about fixing the product—it’s about fixing the way you talk about the problem. In 2000, the absence of that alignment became the crisis. In the years since, both companies have built systems to ensure it never happens again.
Four Lessons From One of the Biggest Corporate Crises in U.S. History
Act Quickly – Delays breed suspicion and allow others to shape the narrative.
Speak With One Voice – Unified messaging protects both brand credibility and consumer trust.
Lead With Empathy – Address the human impact before diving into technical details.
Be Ready Before the Crisis Hits – Maintain a tested, deployable crisis communications strategy.
Why the Bridgestone/Firestone–Ford Recall Still Resonates in 2025
In 2000, this crisis played out over weeks; today, social media and AI-powered news cycles could collapse that timeline to hours. The stakes for corporate reputation management have never been higher.
At Holler Strategic Communications, we use cases like this to help clients anticipate challenges, respond with credibility, and protect their brand under pressure.
Need to strengthen your crisis communications strategy?
Contact Holler Strategic Communications to build a plan that ensures you can lead with confidence when it matters most.
