 |
|
|
|||||
BMW has issued a recall of 87,394 vehicles over a defect that could cause the engine to overheat and start a fire. The recall, issued on Jan. 30, covers models made between 2021 and 2024. It includes nine BMW models, as well as one Toyota model, which shares similar structures and parts. The recalled BMW vehicles include: Toyota Supra, 2021-2023, BMW 5 Series, 2021-2024, BMW Z4, 2021-2022, BMW 2 Series Coupe, 2022-2023, BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe, 2022-2024, BMW 4 Series Convertible, 2021-2024, BMW 4 Series Coupe, 2021-2023, BMW 3 Series, 2021-2024, BMW X4, 2021-2023, and BMW X3, 2021-2024. In a blog post, BMW said the defect involves “unexpected wear on an internal component” which may “cause the starter to stop working properlysometimes surfacing first as a no-start conditionbut the higher-stakes concern is heat.” It continued, “NHTSAs report says that ‘in an extreme case, the issue could cause a thermal event or fire when starting the engine, or while the engine is running.” Just months ago, BMW issued a similar recall. In October, the company recalled 145,000 vehicles over a starter defect that could overheat and spark a fire. Prior to that, it recalled 200,000 vehicles for the same reason. Still, BMW is not the only car company to appear plagued by recalls as of late. At the end of last year, Ford recalled over 270,000 electric and hybrid vehicles over a parking function issue. Porsche recalled over 173,000 vehicles over a problem with the rearview camera image. Earlier in 2025, the NHTSA also issued similar recalls of Hyundai Motor America, Ford Motor, Toyota Motor, and Chrysler vehicles. The recall notice indicates that BMW is not aware of any accident or injuries, for both the BMW vehicles, as well as the Toyota Supra vehicles, due to the issue. It also noted that dealers will replace the engine starter at no cost to owners. Notification letters are expected to be mailed to vehicle owners on March 24, 2026.
Category:
E-Commerce
I dont care if you own a car, SUV, minivan, pickup truck, private jet, or one of each. This essay isnt a judgment on consumerism. Its about how the forces shaping our automotive obsession ripple into land use policy, infrastructure funding, government subsidies, and every facet of urbanism. Once upon a time, did Americans flock to dealerships out of pure needor were they herded by subversive forces? Was it free will or predestination? The automobile’s rise was a master class in what the military would call a psychological operation, a psy-op. In a flash, the “household automobile” became the “personal automobile,” thanks to advertising genius that turned utility into aspiration. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}} The godfather of modern PR At the heart of this shift was Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the godfather of modern public relations. Bernays didn’t sell cars; he sold dreams, using emotional triggers to link vehicles with individualism, prestige, and progress. His tactics transformed cars from practical tools into must-have symbols of self-expression. Drawing from Uncle Freud, Bernays targeted subconscious desires. Early- and mid-20th-century ads were dry, like user manuals highlighting features. Bernays led the marketing pivot to allure. Chevrolet’s 1950s “See the USA in Your Chevrolet” campaign painted cars as portals to adventure and family memories. Manufacturers introduced annual model updates, rendering last year’s ride obsolete, a strategy Bernays tested for GM after Henry Ford dismissed it as sleazy. It worked brilliantly, birthing “planned obsolescence” and embedding perpetual consumption into our culture. Edward Bernays ca. 1981 [Photo: Bettmann/Getty Images] Ford’s Model T was pitched as the universal car, bridging class divides. GM segmented its market with Chevrolets for practical families and Buicks for status seekers. Its funny that people today want to dismiss the consumerism psy-op as conspiracy theory, even though Bernays documented and openly bragged about his methods in TV and radio interviews over his 103-year life. Cars: A timeline Here’s a snapshot of some of the auto industry’s milestones: 1900-1910: From 8,000 registered cars in 1900 to over 400,000 by 1910, fueled by early hype. 1908-1916: Henry Ford’s assembly line dropped the Model T’s price from $825 to $360, marketed as “the car for everyman” to symbolize modernity. 1920s: Automakers spent the equivalent of $2 billion in todays dollars on ads that shifted from facts to feelings. 1920s-1950s: GM’s yearly changes cut car lifespans from five years to two to three, creating upgrade culture. 1950s: More than $300 million spent on ads emphasizing freedom and status; car ownership ranked second only to homes as a status symbol. 1960s-1970s: 80% of cars bought on credit, with ads focused on lifestyle, then pivoted to “green” virtue-signaling amid environmental concerns. 21st Century: Auto ads remain a top-10 spender for a population of buyers that is predominantly completely on personal cars to get around. Emotional forces The best advertisers understand that humans are feeling creatures who sometimes think, as opposed to thinking creatures who sometimes feel. Cereal, shoes, carsit all preys on the same impulses. The auto industrys success defied logic because even as saturation hit, demand surged. They were and are enjoying the outcomes of a culture that believes everyone 16 and up needs their own personal car. Im a car owner, and Ill be the first to tell you motor vehicles are incredible inventions. The more I learn about human behavior and our decision-making process, the more examples I see in my own life where my behavior was nudged by outside forces tugging my emotional strings. If youre interested in changing how the built environment is planned, designed, and maintained, understanding the power and tools of persuasion will help you immensely. So much of culture is downstream from propaganda. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
When U.S. Border Patrol agents entered a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota, in early January, detaining two employees, it marked a new chapter in the relationship between corporate America and the federal government. Across the Twin Cities, federal immigration enforcement operations have turned businesses into sites of confrontation with agents in store parking lots rounding up day laborers, armed raids on restaurants, and work authorization inspections conducted in tactical gear. Some retailers report revenue drops of 50% to 80% as customers stay home out of fear. Along Lake Street and in East St. Paul, areas within the Twin Cities, an estimated 80% of businesses have closed their doors at some point since the operations began. Then came the killing of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the latter of which came a day after widespread protests and a one-day business blackout involving over 700 establishments. The response of corporate America to those killings was instructive both for what was said and left unsaid. After the Pretti killing, more than 60 CEOs from Minnesotas largest companies Target, 3M, UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Bancorp, General Mills, Best Buy and others signed a public letter organized by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter called for peace, focused cooperation among local, state and federal officials, and a swift and durable solution so that families, workers and businesses could return to normal. What it didnt do was name Pretti, mention federal immigration enforcement or criticize any specific policy or official. It read less like moral leadership and more like corporate risk management. As a researcher who studies corporate political engagement, I think the Minnesota CEO letter is a window into a broader shift. For years, companies could take progressive stances with limited risk activists would punish them if they remained silent on an issue, but conservatives rarely retaliated when they spoke up. That asymmetry has collapsed. Minneapolis shows what corporate activism looks like when the risks cut both ways: hedged language, no names named, and calls for calm. A shifting pattern In 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, corporate America was remarkably quiet compared with its vocal stances on LGBTQ+ rights or the war in Ukraine. The explanation: Companies tend to hedge on issues that are contested and polarizing. In my research with colleagues on companies taking stances on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, Ive found that businesses frame their stances narrowly when issues are unsettled focusing on workplace concerns and internal constituencies like employees rather than broader advocacy. Only after issues are legally or socially settled do some companies shift to clearer activism, adopting the language of social movements: injustice, moral obligation, calls to action. By that logic, the Minnesota CEOs caution makes sense. The Trump administrations federal immigration enforcement policy is deeply contested. Theres no clear legal or social settlement in sight. But something else has changed since 2022 something that goes beyond any particular issue. For years, corporate activism operated under a favorable asymmetry that allowed them to stake out public positions on controversial topics without much negative consequence. That is, activists and employees pressured companies to speak out on progressive causes, and silence carried real costs. Meanwhile, conservatives largely subscribed to free-market economist Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. They generally didnt demand corporate stances on their issues, and they didnt organize sustained punishment for progressive corporate speech. That asymmetry has collapsed During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, corporations rushed to declare their commitments to racial justice, diversity, and social responsibility. Many of those same companies have since quietly dismantled diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, walked back public commitments, and gone silent on issues they once called moral imperatives. It appears that their allegedly deeply held values were contingent on a favorable political environment. When the risks shifted, the values evaporated. The turning point may have been Disneys opposition to Floridas Dont Say Gay law in 2022. The company faced criticism from employees and activists for not doing enough and then fierce retaliation from Floridas government, which stripped Disney of self-governing privileges it had held for 55 years. In other high-profile examples, Delta lost tax breaks in Georgia after ending discounts for National Rifle Association members following the Parkland shooting. And Bud Light lost billions in market value after a single social media promotion that featured Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. Conservatives learned to play the game that progressive activists invented. And unlike consumer boycotts, government retaliation carries a different kind of weight. Minneapolis reveals the new calculus What makes Minneapolis distinctive is that the federal government isnt a distant policy actor debating legislation in Washington. Its a physical presence in companies daily operations. When federal agents can show up at your store, detain yor employees, raid your parking lot, and audit your hiring records, the calculation about whether to criticize federal policy looks very different than when the worst-case scenario is an angry tweet from a politician. Research finds that politicians are less willing to engage with CEOs who take controversial stances even in private meetings regardless of local economic conditions or the politicians own views on business. The chilling effect is real. As one observer noted, Minnesota companies communicated through industry associations specifically to avoid direct exposure to possible retaliation. De-escalation, then, has become the corporate buzzword of choice because, as one news report in The Wall Street Journal noted, it sounds humane while remaining politically noncommittal. It points to a process goal reduce conflict, restore order rather than a contested diagnosis of responsibility. This is the triple bind facing businesses in Minneapolis: pressure from the federal government on one side, pressure from activists and employees on the other, and the economic devastation from enforcement itself comparable in some areas to the COVID-19 pandemic crushing them in the middle. Its a situation that rewards silence and punishes principle, and most companies are making the predictable choice. And yet the situation within companies is also full of internal tensions, whether theyre companies headquartered in Minnesota or not. At tech company Palantir, which holds contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, employees took to internal Slack channels after Prettis death to express that they felt not proud to work for a company tied to what they described as the bad guys. Similar sentiments could be seen elsewhere, where rank-and-file employees expressed far more vocal outrage than their bosses. What comes next The Minnesota CEO letter is what corporate political engagement looks like when the risks run in every direction: no injustice framing, no attribution of blame, no names named just calls for stability and cooperation. As a local Minneapolis writer put it in an op-ed: Stand up, or sit down because the Minnesotans who are standing up? We dont recognize you. Its not cowardice, exactly. Its what the research predicts when an issue is contested and the costs of speaking cut both ways. But it does mean Americans shouldnt expect corporations to lead when government power is directly at stake. The conditions that enabled corporate activism on LGBTQ+ rights an asymmetry where speaking out was relatively low-risk dont exist here. Until the political landscape shifts, the hedged statement and the cautious coalition letter are the new normal. Corporate activism, it turns out, might always have been more about positioning than principle. Alessandro Piazza is an assistant professor of strategic management at Rice University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||