When Marketing Kills, Is Communications and PR Partly Responsible?
An advertisement for the Ford BlueCruise level two autonomous driving system showcased a woman daydreaming about conducting an orchestra while driving hands-free with two children in the backseat. This imagery is nothing new; Tesla has been promoting Autopilot for years, followed by GM’s Super Cruise and Toyota’s Teammate.
However, the Ford ad and the promise of autonomous driving moved into sharper focus for a different reason. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) met to discuss its investigation and recommendations following two tragic freeway crashes. Three people were killed in the two crashes where Ford vehicles using BlueCruise struck stationary vehicles on the freeway at night.
The visual promise of the ad was autonomy—a world where the driver no longer needs to pay attention to the road. The fine print offered the reality: “BlueCruise is a driver-assist feature and does not replace safe driving or driver’s attention, judgment, or need to control the vehicle… Always watch the road and be prepared to resume control.” These contradictory messages raise a critical question: What is a company's responsibility to advertise the reality of a system versus its potential? And what happens when these two collide violently, resulting in fatalities?
Traditionally, when Marketing and Public Relations were separate silos, the adage was that PR cleans up the fires Marketing starts. Today, in most organizations, these departments have a unified focus on external communications. While this integration should provide an opportunity to prevent fires before they ignite, it also places communications professionals in an uncomfortable position. In a crowded marketplace that rewards risk, are we responsible for messaging that could kill?
In a more conservative world, the answer would be immediate: the ad wouldn't be produced. But in a hyper-competitive market, Ford must compete with Tesla’s Autopilot and an industry racing to turn science fiction into reality. This creates a scenario where corporate approval might clash with ethical reality. After all, a system that works 99% of the time is acceptable for consumer software—but is 99% good enough for a two-ton vehicle at highway speeds?
Finally, as PR pros, we must ask: At what point does a disclaimer at the bottom of an ad stop being a legal firewall and become a confession that the system isn’t what was promised?
