This paper compares and contrasts how Saturn and Audi managed major product recalls, analyzing the action plans each company developed and the offensive and defensive tactics they employed. Saturn proactively issued a voluntary recall for a faulty front seat reclining mechanism, communicating openly with customers and resolving the issue swiftly. Audi, by contrast, delayed addressing serious transmission-related safety failures until compelled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The paper evaluates crisis preparation, recognition, containment, resolution, and recovery strategies for both companies, while arguing that total quality management practices could have prevented or mitigated both crises. Ultimately, Saturn's transparent accountability is identified as the decisive factor in preserving its brand reputation.
One of the major challenges for most corporations is dealing with product recalls, because companies must inform customers about defects while simultaneously protecting their image and brand name. To determine how this can be successfully achieved, this paper examines product recalls from Saturn and Audi. The analysis compares and contrasts both cases by examining the action plans that were developed, identifying the offensive and defensive tactics that were utilized, analyzing what security measures were needed, and evaluating the chain of accountability — along with which brand prevailed and why. Together, these elements provide insight into how a corporation can effectively manage the product recalls it will inevitably face from time to time.
One month after Saturn began mass-producing its vehicles, the company discovered a problem with the front recliner seat mechanism. After conducting an extensive analysis, Saturn determined the underlying cause of the problem and issued a voluntary recall of 1,480 models (Smith, 2000, pp. 64–68).
In 1986, Audi of America was pressured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue a voluntary recall of its 1984 and 1985 5000 S series vehicles. A number of injuries and deaths had been linked to the automatic transmission, which caused the car to lurch out of control when shifted from park to drive or reverse (Smith, 2000, pp. 73–76).
In the case of Saturn, the problem was primarily associated with seat quality. Although the faulty reclining front seats did not pose a direct safety risk, they could damage the company's reputation and product image. Audi, by contrast, faced major safety issues that were resulting in injuries and deaths — issues the company had been ignoring. Saturn was upfront and open about its challenges through a voluntary recall, while Audi continued to disregard obvious safety failures until it was forced to address them by the NHTSA (Smith, 2000, pp. 64–68; Smith, 2000, pp. 73–76).
"Action plans and tactics each company employed"
"TQM as a preventive crisis management tool"
"Five-stage crisis lifecycle framework applied to both cases"
These principles identify the offensive and defensive tactics required during a recall, the security measures needed, and the chain of accountability that must be established. Saturn put these principles into practice during its recall, while Audi continued to ignore its problems until they became too large to overlook (Smith, 2000, pp. 66–67; "Dealing with Defects," 2011; Vogel, 2009).
When comparing Saturn and Audi during their respective product recalls, it is clear that Saturn prevailed. The reason is that Saturn quickly accepted accountability for its product flaws, communicated openly with customers, and fixed the issues promptly. This demonstrated a genuine commitment to going the extra mile for customers and to improving quality. Audi, by contrast, was slow to respond, and the solutions it proposed were only half-measures that proved ineffective. This slow, inadequate response caused lasting damage to Audi's image and raised serious doubts about the quality of its products. It was at this point that negative public perceptions began to build against the organization and its ability to manage the challenges it faced.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.