How can a two-stage recall protect customer trust?

A second visit need not mean a second disappointment

When an interim measure makes a second visit necessary, the company has two opportunities to demonstrate care—but also two opportunities to disappoint. The management task is to reduce customer effort and maintain responsibility throughout the process. A second appointment is not inherently beneficial, and safety must never be subordinated to relationship-building.

The case: a potentially two-stage Volkswagen repair

On 26 September 2026, dpa reported that Volkswagen’s steering-fastener recall could require an interim replacement where the specified screw was unavailable. Citing an internal workshop bulletin, the report explained that those vehicles would need a further appointment when the correct part became available; the recall would remain open meanwhile (dpa-AFX, 2026).

This was a reported contingency, not confirmation that every affected customer would need two visits. The bulletin has not been independently inspected for this commentary. This article examines the management question raised by the report; it is not a statement about the current repair status of individual vehicles.

What will customers remember?

Two appointments can mean more travel, time away from work and uncertainty. Those costs should be acknowledged. Yet the number of visits alone does not determine how customers will judge the response.

My proposition is that each necessary interaction creates an opportunity to demonstrate something customers cannot learn from advertising: how a company behaves when its product lets them down. Clear explanations, practical help and promises kept could turn an unwelcome workshop visit into evidence that the company takes the relationship seriously.

The relevant comparison is not whether two visits are preferable to one effective repair. It is whether an unavoidable two-stage process is handled as two isolated transactions or as one continuous responsibility towards the customer.

1. First visit: take ownership

   Explain the interim measure and what remains outstanding. Listen to concerns, acknowledge the inconvenience and agree on practical support and the next update. Give the customer a named contact.

2. Between visits: keep the promise

   Provide updates proactively—even when timing remains uncertain. Keep the case open and coordinate the follow-up, so the customer does not have to chase the repair or repeat the story.

3. Final visit: demonstrate closure

   Make the return appointment convenient, explain the completed work and ask whether concerns remain. The second encounter can show that the commitments made at the first were real.

These are proposed management practices, not claims about Volkswagen’s actual process. Never manufacture an extra visit, delay an effective repair or use a safety appointment to pressure customers into a purchase.

Recovery is an opportunity, not a guarantee

Research with Alexander Mafael and Stefan J. Hock shows that remedy design matters for post-recall satisfaction, with effects depending on brand equity and failure severity. It does not test whether two visits outperform one. Nor is its distinction between full and partial remedies equivalent to temporary versus permanent repair (Mafael et al., 2022).

My work with Shishi Liu proposes integrating recall management into the customer journey. That provides a useful lens here: manage the entire experience, including the period between appointments, rather than treating each workshop task separately (Raithel & Liu, 2026).

There is also an important limit. A meta-analysis of the service recovery paradox found support for satisfaction exceeding the no-failure benchmark, but no statistically significant overall effect on repurchase intentions, word of mouth or corporate image. These service-recovery findings do not establish that a safety recall makes customers more loyal (de Matos et al., 2007).

Evaluate the whole recovery, not just the repair bill

Cost discipline matters. But a narrow focus on cost per appointment can overlook customer effort, repeat contacts and unresolved concerns. The operational question is where additional care would genuinely help customers and support completion.

Companies and dealers

Assign responsibility across both visits. Give service teams time and authority to resolve practical problems. Track final-remedy completion alongside customer effort and trust—not merely workshop throughput.

Law firms

Examine whether customer communications and records distinguish interim action from final closure. Reassurance should not overstate what has been resolved, and commitments should remain consistent with technical instructions.

Insurers

Ask whether open cases remain traceable through to final completion. Customer follow-up can be examined as part of recall execution, alongside technical evidence—not used alone to infer insurability or set premiums.

The opportunity still has to be earned

The reviewed report does not establish how many owners will require an interim replacement, how long they will wait, or how the experience will affect trust. Nor does it establish that Volkswagen’s process follows the practices proposed here.

To assess the relationship effect, I would track trust and perceived effort after notification, after each visit and after final closure, alongside actual completion and later retention. Simple before-and-after improvements would not, by themselves, prove causation.

The opportunity is not the recall itself. It is the chance to show customers—through necessary actions—that the company will stand behind them until the problem is resolved.

References

Research scope: The public chapter abstract was consulted for the customer-journey perspective; no claims are made about evidence beyond that abstract.