Firestone and Ford This scandal broke out because due to a very high rate of tire failures equipped on the vehicles produced by Ford Motor Company. In particular, one should speak about such models as Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer. These tires were manufactured by Firestone, a company that was a supplier of Ford for a long time (Nutt, 2009, p. 2). It is believed that these tire failures resulted in 1100 accidents and 119 deaths (Nutt, 2009, p. 2). These accidents attracted the attention of governmental organizations and consumer advocacy groups. As a result, both companies were accused of irresponsibility. It should be noted that at the beginning, these organizations began to blame one another for these accidents (Vance, 2009, p. 138). For example, Ford representatives argued that these problems could be explained by the tread separation of the tires. They could disintegrate when a car was running at a relatively high speed; therefore, such a vehicle could eventually rollover (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). In their turn, the executives of Firestone argued that these incidents could be attributed to the faulty design of Ford Explorer and the specifications that this company set for the tires of this vehicle. Therefore, it is possible to say at the beginning, the communication strategy chosen by this organization was based on the complete denial of any accusations. However, later they tacitly admitted that their products could be malfunctioning. For example, one can mention that Firestone had to recall millions of tires (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). In this way, this organization tried to avoid accusations and lawsuits. The main problem is that the representatives of Firestone did not speak openly about the underlying causes of this problem. Moreover, they did not specify what they would do in order to eliminate possible risks. In turn, Ford tried to settle various disputes out of the court. In both cases, these companies tried to avoid negative publicity, but they did not achieve this goal because they were portrayed as irresponsible corporate citizens. This case led to several important outcomes. In particular, one should mention that Ford and Firestone broke up their long-standing partnership (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). Secondly, it is important to remember that the sales of Firestone plummeted when the company began to be perceived as the major culprit for numerous accidents and deaths (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). In its turn, Ford began to pay more attention to the quality control methods used by their suppliers. These are some of the main details that should be considered. There are several alternative strategies that can be adopted by the organizations involved in the case. For instance, Firestone should have focused on the possible causes of tread separation and eliminate this dangerous defect as soon as possible. Secondly, instead of denying their mistakes, the executives of the company should have explained what they were doing in order to address this problem. This strategy could enable the company to protect its reputation. Similarly, Ford should have immediately responded to the increased rates of incidents in which their vehicles were involved. They needed to identify the caus