What did Firestone do wrong in its approach in South America and the United States, and why did the company delay informing customers about the problem?

Firestone, a tire company, became widely known for a serious product safety issue in the late 1990s and early 2000s involving tire tread separation on several of its tire models. What Firestone did wrong in its approach in South America and the United States can be explained as a combination of product design, quality control failures, and unethical business practices, resulting in a significant danger to consumers.

1. Product Design and Manufacturing Flaws: The main issue began with the design and manufacturing of certain Firestone tires that were prone to tread separation, particularly the ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT models. These tires were often fitted on Ford Explorer vehicles and other SUVs. The flaw could result in tread peeling off the tire carcass, leading to a loss of control and potential crashes.

2. Ignoring Early Warning Signs: Firestone had received reports about tire failures from as early as the mid-1990s, particularly in hotter climates such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. However, instead of investigating and acting upon these reports immediately, the company delayed in acknowledging the problem and failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation.

3. Insufficient Response in South America: When similar issues started emerging in South America, Firestone initially treated them as isolated cases. There were accusations that the company tried to blame the drivers for the incidents, suggesting that overloading vehicles or under-inflating tires were responsible for the failures.

4. Delayed Recall: Firestone's recognition of the scale of the problem and its admission to the public were considerably delayed. Although some recalls were started in foreign markets where the failures were first noted, substantial recalls in the United States did not begin until August 2000. By this time, many accidents had occurred, and lives had been lost due, in part, to the defective tires.

5. Communication and Transparency Issues**: Numerous reports suggest that Firestone was slow to communicate the potential hazards associated with their product to consumers. Furthermore, it was revealed that both Firestone and Ford had internal documents showcasing awareness of the problem well before the recall, yet they did not inform the public promptly.

The delay in informing customers about the problem is often attributed to several factors:

- Financial Concerns: Recalls are costly, and companies sometimes delay recalls in an attempt to manage financial repercussions. This can lead to a company trying to minimize the issue or find cheaper solutions.

- Reputational Damage: The concern over reputational damage might lead a company to avoid or delay recall announcements. Acknowledging a defect can harm the brand's image and lead to a decline in customer trust and market share.

- Legal and Regulatory Strategy: Companies may also delay information disclosure due to legal and regulatory strategy concerns. By delaying, they might be attempting to minimize the scope of liability or to buy time to develop a legal defense.

In the case of Firestone, the delayed response and failure to promptly address the problem resulted in a widespread public outcry, congressional hearings, and a tarnished reputation for the company.