The mark of a successful advertising campaign is one that’s remembered—and reflects positively on its sponsor and products. These days, I forget most commercials within nanoseconds of watching them. For the life of me, I can’t recall a single Super Bowl ad from last February—except one featuring a plus-sized Black woman bringing fried chicken to a house party.
I remembered that ad not because it was compelling, but because I thought it showed poor judgment. Featuring an overweight person of any race, creed, or color serving fried chicken reinforced unhealthy stereotypes, particularly given the well-established link between fried food and obesity. Tellingly, I don’t recall the brand behind the commercial, which is just as well. On the rare occasion I eat fried fast food, it’s from Chick-fil-A.
For decades, I’ve been fascinated by advertising. I even worked briefly as a copywriter. In the ’60s and ’70s, ad creatives produced some of the most memorable work of the modern era. A few years ago, I posted this column titled, When Advertising Was Brilliant and Evocative, paying tribute to that golden age. To this day, I remain in awe of the team that launched Miller Lite, the first light beer, with the ingenious slogan: Everything you always wanted in a beer. And less. Highlighting “less” as a benefit—and spelling “light” incorrectly—was sheer brilliance.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have Bud Light’s catastrophic social media campaign featuring Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender social media influencer. Mulvaney may have been an influencer—but not in the way Budweister hoped. The campaign tanked sales and became a textbook case in marketing misfire.
One campaign I underappreciated until recently but now see as one of the most memorable and effective, was Ford’s “Quality is Job 1.” Introduced in 1981, the campaign ran for 17 years—an eternity by today’s standards. Most modern CMOs, seemingly afflicted with collective attention-deficit disorder, would scoff at the idea of sticking with one campaign slogan for nearly two decades. They’re too busy chasing TikTok trends and AI-generated digital wizardry.
Ford’s final “Job 1” ad aired in 1998—nearly 30 years ago. Yet the campaign is frequently being recalled, not by Ford, but by critics who invoke it as a reminder of what the automaker once stood for—and how far it has fallen.
Ford is a deeply troubled company. For several years running, it has led the industry in safety recalls. It’s also faced massive legal setbacks, including landmark $2.5 billion and $1.7 billion verdicts in Georgia over claims it sold Super Duty trucks with roofs that couldn’t withstand rollovers. James Butler, the attorney who secured both verdicts, told me: “Ford is unique and singular in the extent to which they exhibit disdain for the law, for courts, and for jurors.”
So far this year, Ford has already issued more than 40 safety recalls, despite CEO Jim Farley’s repeated claims that Ford had taken meaningful measure to improve its quality control. Since being named CEO in 2020, Farley has collected $107 million in compensation—including $25 million last year. It seems quality isn’t much of a consideration when Ford’s compensation committee determines Farley’s paydays.
As Ford’s recall tally grows, so does public nostalgia for its long-abandoned slogan. Reporters routinely cite “Quality is Job 1” in recall coverage, as do commenters on forums and social media. In an article for Carscoops, journalist Mark Gauthier wrote:
Ford used to proudly declare ‘Quality is Job 1,’ but these days, it seems that quality might be someone else’s responsibility. The result? A growing list of recalls that’s starting to chip away at their once-sturdy reputation.
On the Bronco Sport Forum, a thread from August 2022 was titled simply: “Recalls are Job 1.”
Even a tribute page for actor Jack Lord, star of Hawaii Five-O, references the slogan. The page notes that Ford, which supplied vehicles for the series’ 12-season run, was once known for high production standards—just like the show itself.
Ford’s “Quality is Job 1” wasn’t just an ad campaign—it was a company-wide call to action under then-CEO Don Petersen, whose emphasis on humility and teamwork stands in sharp contrast to Jim Farley, who appears to relish glowing media coverage and rarely misses a chance to appear on television or podcasts.
As recounted by Wall Street Journal veteran reporter James Hagerty, Petersen—named president of Ford in 1980 and promoted to CEO five years later—led one of the most remarkable turnarounds in automotive history. At the time, Ford’s vehicles were so riddled with problems that critics joked the company’s name stood for “Fix or Repair Daily.”
Facing billions in losses, Petersen made tough decisions to cut costs. But just as critically, he brought in renowned quality expert W. Edwards Deming, then in his 80s. Deming had long been revered in Japan for his manufacturing principles but largely ignored by U.S. automakers. Under his influence, Ford shifted its approach from detecting defects at the end of the line to building quality into the process from the beginning.
Petersen believed that if Ford focused on building better products, profits would follow.
“Managing only for profits is like playing tennis with your eye on the scoreboard, and not on the ball,” he said.
The “Quality is Job 1” campaign was a bold move. If Petersen failed to improve Ford’s reputation for poor workmanship, the slogan would have become a punchline for late-night comedians. The campaign was overseen by legendary ad executive Robert Cox, who is credited with several iconic campaigns, including Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” anti-drug initiative.
Reviewing Cox’s work for Ford, I was struck by its focus on humanizing the brand and amplifying the company’s core values. The ads prominently featured Black and female employees at a time when few corporations made any visible effort toward diversity. As I’ve noted before, Ford was championing gay rights and practicing DEI long before it was fashionable and even acceptable. While founder Henry Ford was notoriously antisemitic, his grandson, Henry Ford II, was a strong supporter of Israel and maintained close ties with Detroit’s Jewish community.
Under Don Petersen’s leadership, Ford experienced a major turnaround. The company was losing billions when he was named president in the early 1980s but rebounded dramatically in the latter half of the decade—outperforming both General Motors and Chrysler.
As for Ford’s current crop of advertising and PR professionals, dishonesty strikes me as Job 1. The company has rolled out a series of red, white, and blue–themed commercials portraying itself as a champion of American values, manufacturing, and consumer choice. But that supposed commitment deserves scrutiny.
Ford proudly manufactures the electric version of its iconic Mustang in Mexico, alongside its wildly popular Maverick pickup and Bronco Sport. The company also operates the largest engineering center in Latin America, where it increasingly shifts high-value work that was once the domain of its Dearborn, Michigan headquarters. In addition, Ford employs more than 12,000 people in India, with plans to add as many as 3,000 over the next few years, while downsizing its salaried U.S. workforce.
In 2022, Ford agreed to pay $19.2 million to settle multistate lawsuits alleging the company had knowingly exaggerated the fuel economy of its hybrids and the payload capacity of its Super Duty trucks.
Ford’s marketing may extol its U.S. manufacturing roots, but reality tells a different story. A closely watched industry survey released this week found that Ford’s relationships with its suppliers continue to decline—ranking second worst in the industry, just ahead of Stellantis. That’s no small concern: U.S. auto suppliers employ around 900,000 workers, compared to just 250,000–300,000 employed directly by U.S. automakers, also known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).
Not surprisingly, Toyota leads the pack in supplier relations. That advantage shows up in quality ratings and surveys ranking Toyota and Honda among the most American-made vehicles sold in the U.S.—outperforming even GM and Ford when origins of parts and components are taken into consideration.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe dishonesty in advertising and marketing is often symptomatic of deeper cultural issues—where employees witness a disconnect between what management says and what it does.
In Petersen’s era, selling subpar vehicles meant financial losses and reputational damage. Fortunately for Jim Farley, today’s U.S. customers seem willing—even conditioned—to tolerate shoddy products from both Ford and GM.
Ford sold 1,995,912 vehicles in the U.S. last year, a 7.1% increase over 2022, marking the company’s best domestic performance since Farley took the helm. Given that, you can hardly blame Farley if his attitude is: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—even if a few million recalls suggest otherwise.