Four vehicles. That’s all you’ll find on Mercury's web site. If you’re as “lucky” as I am, Mercury will respond to your browsing by asking if you want to spend five minutes on a questionnaire. Say what? Asking for five minutes of your customer's time before you even show them your products? That isn’t the smartest thing to do to a spam-weary public. Then again, once you click on the word "No" and return to the actual products, you begin to realize that the entire Mercury product line represents the brand’s not-so-smart existence.
In fact, calling Mercury a “brand” is like calling a sampling of the touch-tone hold music version of Greensleeves a classical music concert. The erstwhile automaker represents nothing to nobody in a fantastically non-descript way. Every vehicle Ford sells as a Mercury is either a drab clone or a dying breed.
Milans are mildly redesigned Fusions that sit on dealer lots for nearly four months. Mariners are half-blinged Escapes sporting fake wood, fake leather and a very large and cheap fake plastic grille. Mountaineers are Explorers who’ve lost contact with base camp (which has given-up and moved further down the slope). The Mercury Sable is so boring and pointless that most full-sized car shoppers don't even know it exists. And the last of the great Panther-platformed sedans, the Grand Marquis (which outsells the Sable), appeals to customers who make Buick buyers feel like spring chickens.
In short, aside from Jill Wagoner’s comely curves, there is nothing compelling about anything Mercury says or does. Of course, Mercury’s non-existence is nothing new. The division hasn't had a competitive product or a compelling raison d’etre for at least 15 years. By the 80’s, Mercury’s model line up was as it is today: a dumping ground for slightly tarted-up Fords.
To wit, when Ford finally took the imports head on with the Taurus (and won), Mercury simply sent in the clones. As time and corporate idiocy went on, the 'non-Ford' Scorpios, XR4Tis, and Cougars flopped with increasingly predictable regularity. (Not to mention the Capri – an Aussie-built shitbox convertible.) Thanks to the “Ford first” culture, scant marketing dollars and limited engineering sources translated into a unique line of one generation wonders that were never improved the next go round. Nothing of any unique value endured in the Mercury division.
For Ford’s not-so-new-anymore CEO, Mercury’s mediocrity is déjà vu all over again. Alan Mulally was keenly aware of the importance of the “branding issue” when he took the reins at Boeing. Mulally knew the aviation Goliath had too many fiefdoms, which translated into too many products, which competed with each other, for no good reason. Big Al worked tirelessly to eliminate pointless redundancy of processes and products. And corrected Boeing’s nosedive.
Mr. Mulally is obviously far less beholden to Ford’s old guard than the gentleman that came before him. He’s been there, done that, killed the extraneous bits. And here’s the truth: when Mulally finally gets around to taking a good hard look at Mercury, Mercury will be toast.
For now, Mercury is merely milquetoast. The company adds zero uniqueness to Ford's product line. Mercury has zero technology, zero differentiation, zero prestige, zero class-leading products and zero long-term priority for the Ford Motor Company. Hundreds of Mercury dealerships, thousands of Ford employees and millions of advertising dollars are wasted trying to counter a counter clockwise death spiral. Every penny that goes into turning a struggling Ford product into an even less competitive Mercury is a penny wasted.
At a time when Ford is struggling to generate a profit anywhere within its North American product portfolio, what value can be had with Mercury? None.
There is but one, obvious solution: kill the brand. While politicians and lobbyists (one and the same) within the Ford fiefdoms will fight for Mercury’s survival– offering Saturn-like visions of imported import fighters– it’s only a matter of time before the death man’s blade swings its inevitable arc.
Ford is clearly– and rightly– bent on re-focusing its energies on becoming a smaller, faster, better carmaker. Once the corporate cancers known as Jaguar and Land Rover are removed from the body corporate, Mercury is next. I predict that within the next six months Ford will announce the closing of the Mercury division. The consolidation of Lincoln and Mercury dealers is such that the move will not be “another Oldsmobile,” requiring billions in dealer pay-offs.
Most likely Mulally’s minions will announce Mercury’s termination in conjunction with a 'realignment' of the Lincoln division (towards it original luxury roots). Lincoln will once again start building unique vehicles. It will become the anti-Mercury, if you will.
If Ford files for bankruptcy before the man at the top can get Dearborn’s ducks in a row, the end result will be the same for Mercury. It is, and has been, a dead brand walking. It’s time to say goodbye.
133 Comments on “Ford Death Watch 40: Mercury R.I.P....”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
The only thing Mercury has going for it is that it is the only place for the average consumer to go to get a new Panther. Ford and Lincoln Panthers can now only be had through fleet sales.
Those who really want such a vehicle are advised to find a lightly used 2007 model for thousands less.
Great article, Steven. But what does Mercury have in terms of infrastructure? Jill Wagner?
From what I’ve seen, everyone involved with Mercury is jointed at the hip with Lincoln. Its fine to kill this dead brand, but I don’t see the cost reduction…
…unless they kill Lincoln too.
Maybe they could save money from the inevitable dealer lawsuits by simply doing what Chrysler did with the Neon. Sell various Ford branded products like Taurus at Ford dealerships and sell Mercury same branded identical products like Taurus at Mercury dealerships. Don’t spend any money on any differences in trim interior or exterior.
Very good question Sajeev. Let me explain.
Ford’s cost savings (and revenue generation) will primarily come from the ability to focus on building one competitive model instead of two.
Exterior and interior designing, parts development and testing, purchasing costs, assembly costs and complexity, marketing strategy, transportation logistics, warranty related issues… virtually every step of the development, production and distribution process is reduced when you simply offer one model.
That money can then be put towards R&D, better quality control, advertising, and even the development of derivations of that specific model over it’s life. For example, Ford could potentially offer an AWD 5-speed Fusion with a turbo V6 and call it the Fusion All-Trac if they decided there was a market for it. The funds and resources would potentially be there, since Mercury would not effect all the other issues already mentioned.
Sajeev Mehta:
From what I’ve seen, everyone involved with Mercury is jointed at the hip with Lincoln. Its fine to kill this dead brand, but I don’t see the cost reduction…
You’d be amazed what it costs not to sell cars. I mean, they’ve got to be paying Jill something…
Sherman… Lincoln-Mercury franchises are in a very bad state at the moment. The overwhelming majority of the dealers would easily welcome a cash infusion into Lincoln given the opportunity for profits and lack of competition from neighboring Ford dealers who usually have stronger market reach.
My wife recently commented that she likes the looks of the Lincoln MKX.
I told her that it really is just a polished up Ford Edge – and she said that’s exactly why she likes it.
That, in a nutshell, might be Mercury/Lincoln’s entire strategy – sell to people that want a polished up Ford.
-ted
Shermin Lin they already have too many dealers, why create more Ford dealers under a different name. Especially since they would have exactly the same product competing for the same customer, like they are doing now but Identical products doesn’t help the situation.
I totally agreee with this editorial, very good points. But I think it was Sajeev’s editorial a while back about bringing euro-Ford rebadged as Mercury’s might really work. Especially since the brand is doing nothing right now. They could charge a premium, mildly restyle them as Mercury’s and sell the brand as the sporty euro-inspired version to Ford products. It’s worth testing the waters since what they are doing right now is a complete waste of time.
Had they actually done the global platform sharing and flexible production lines they said they were going to do like 10 years ago they could build them here and ship the excess to europe making a profit on the weak dollar.
I guess I don’t see the point in getting rid of Mercury, either. I mean, Mercury has always been “not Ford”. Historically, when Mercury has its own unique vehicles, they generally failed. Everyone here gets all uppity about badge engineering but if a different trim level with stylistically different options and a different name sells more cars, why not continue to do it? I don’t know that Mercury poaches sales from other manufactures or if it just sells cars to who-would-be-Ford customer’s anyway, but it still a check in the sales box.
A co-worker of mine recently bought a Milan over the Fusion because he liked the more “sophisticated” look of the Milan. He also considered getting an Impala. Ultimately he chose the Milan. Would he have gone with the Impala over the Fusion if the Milan wasn’t there? Probably.
AM clearly has had a plan since day one to chop FoMoCo down to the essential Ford and Lincoln brands. Volvo may earn a reprieve because 1) they make money and 2) its a true mid level brand between Ford and Lincoln. Once AM fully implements the “One Ford” concept and there is little difference between Fords in NA and other markets, it will be apparent why there was no room for Mercury.
The end is written in that no new Mercury products are known or predicted. The existing models will run their course and that will be that. They may make the announcement in six months, but the brand may struggle on through 2009 and even 2010 depending on timing of updates to the Escape, Fusion, Taurus and Explorer.
There won’t be lawsuits (ala Oldsmobile) because there are no stand alone Mercury dealers (the last one closed sometime in 2007). Ford will appease the Lincoln dealers with new, better product like the MKS and MKT (Ford Flex variant). There is money to be saved in those not very different exteriors and adverstising that could be better used to make better Fords and Lincolns.
Mercury has been gone in Canada since 2000, with the exception of the GM which is sold at Ford dealerships.
I’m sure Ford NA is studying the Canadian model to see what effects it’s had.
If you simply say no more Mercury, then all of those independent companies called dealerships will sue Ford. Its simply cheaper in my opinion to simply call a spade a spade. Since Mercurys are really rebadged Fords anyway, just stop with the rebadging chicanery. Like it or not there is no cheap way of dropping dealers.
I almost forgot about the Aussie-Capri. Yes, “shitbox” pretty much sums it up.
Mercury needs to die, and now. They are eating up precious resources, and to no good end. Has anyone actually SEEN an ad for the ‘08 Sable?
Mercury has had some great product over the years (the iconic ‘49, Turnpike Cruiser, original Marauder, the original Cougar), but they haven’t had a unique or compelling car for 20+ years.
It was officially over when they brought out the Panther-platform Marauder, only to find out that an Accord V-6 could easily smoke it. A great concept killed by lousy execution. Why didn’t that car get a 5.4L V-8???
One good thing is that we’d see more of Jill as she hawks Mustangs and Taurii.
If I’m the wonderful city Milan, I would find the most foul toxic waste dump in northern Italy and name it “Mercury”.
If Mr Mulally does axe Mercury and reposition Lincoln as a “Luxury Ford”, then one has to ask, “Won’t Volvo cannibalise Lincoln’s sales in the North American market”?
I agree that Mercury is pretty much redundant. Any niche markets or car types are pretty much covered by the Ford, Lincoln and Volvo marques (with Mazda acting as the engineering department).
In fact, if Mr Mulally’s plan is this, then it will be in line with his admiration for Toyota, which is, the “Ford” brand as a global everyday car, Lincoln as a luxury marque for NA and Volvo as a luxury marque for the rest of the world with Mazda providing the know-how to keep the cars well engineered and reliable. Much like Toyota, which uses its “Toyota” brand as its everyday car make and Lexus as its luxury marque. Then, let organic growth do its work in making those brands more valuable.
The only fly in the ointment is that, although Mr Mulally’s plans is logical, it has one crucial flaw, sales are still dropping. Once Ford get their brands in order, it won’t stem the market share losses. They need new and exciting cars to fix that problem. And what’s his plan in that respect……?
N.B: I do disagree that Jaguar was a cancer. Jaguar built absolutely stunning cars with superb build quality. Ford had a golden opportunity to position Jaguar against BMW, Audi and Mercedes-Benz….and WIN! If Ford mismanaged it, well, that’s wasn’t Jaguar’s failing.
Is cutting Mercury really going to help? Cutting Plymouth sure didn’t help Chrysler.
Sherman:
They’re not dropping dealers – those existing dealers will just sell Lincolns.
However, if nothing else, drop the Milan, Sable, Mariner and Mountaineer and just sell the GM as a “Mercury” like in Canada.
Volvo is the new Mercury.
There isn’t room for both in a logically structured Ford of the future.
Volvo is the new Mercury.
There isn’t room for both in a logically structured Ford of the future.
Agreed. Volvo’s next to go. As its currently profitable, the cash infusion will help Ford keep the lights on a lot longer than Jag and Landie’s fire sale income.
Steven Lang: I predict that within the next six months Ford will announce the closing of the Mercury division. The consolidation of Lincoln and Mercury dealers is such that the move will not be “another Oldsmobile,” requiring billions in dealer pay-offs.
Yes and no.
I agree with the main thrust of the article – that Mercury is a superfluous brand that is ultimately fated to join Kasier, Frazer, Packard, Studebaker, Rambler, AMC, Eagle, Imperial, Plymouth and Oldsmobile in that big garage in the sky.
But – Lincoln Mercury dealers cannot survive on just Lincoln alone. And nothing scheduled to be introduced within the next year is going to change that. The Lincoln MKS and Flex derivative are not going to provide the volume necessary to make up for the loss of Mercury and declines in sales of older Lincolns (Navigator, Town Car).
Ford needs to do more to get Lincoln back on its feet before it can phase out Mercury. If it makes this announcement within the next six months, it will be faced with lawsuits from dealers whose franchises are no longer viable, not to mention a large number of dealers defecting to other brands to stay in business.
I wouldn’t expect an announcement before 2010 at the earliest.
I agree with mrdweeb. Having a car named after a toxic metal like mercury is lethal. Oldsmobile had the same problem. Who wants to buy a new car named Oldsmobile? The sooner such are put out of their misery the better.
Steven Lang: good points. I agree, killing Mercury could make better Fords, but wonder if the extra money would be spent buying out Lincoln-Mercury dealership contracts. (or fighting their lawsuits)
Mercury doesn’t poach Ford buyers, they help move metal (can’t afford a MKZ, buy a Milan!) in Lincoln dealers. I wonder how many LM dealers can survive on Lincolns alone. I expect the land value of their lots will be worth more than their profit margins.
Robert Farago: give Jill a little black dress and make her sell MK-whatevers. Lincoln advertising is terrible.
RF: Agreed. Volvo’s next to go. As its currently profitable, the cash infusion will help Ford keep the lights on a lot longer than Jag and Landie’s fire sale income.
Bingo. Volvo is a salable asset, Mercury is a liability that’ll explode if you cross it.
I imagine a dealer revolt if it disappears. L-M dealers can’t afford to lose their entry-level/fleet models. Many are on the verge of closing up shop anyway, this will set them off, and I doubt Ford wants to mess with them right now. Unless they go for Chapter 11.
KatiePuckrik: (Poor taste alert) What about renaming “Mercury” to “Wilkes-Booth” and positioning it behind “Lincoln”?
Unfortunately I was drinking a soda when I read this comment. My drink nearly diverted from its proper straw-to-stomach course and burst over the nasal spillway onto my keyboard. Katie, please be careful when you write such things. Your poor taste disclaimer wasn’t enough.
Mecury’s been gone for quite some time here in Canada. You can still get a Grand Marquis here (it’s not eating advertising dollars anyway), in fact many Canadian Ford dealers sell Lincolns too.
It’d be interesting to analyze Canadian sales figures and determine if the marque’s demise coincided with an increase in Ford and Lincoln sales. Somehow, I doubt it.
Still, I agree with the editorial… I’m sure AM would like to redirect Merc’s r&d and marketing dollars to strengthen core Ford & Lincoln products.
Actually, the Mercury experience says a lot about the FoMoCo corporate structure. At its peak in the mid 20s, the Model T had over 70% total market share…from one model! When the Depression killed sales of the large custom-built Lincolns, introducing the mass-produced, medium priced Zephyr saved Lincoln’s bacon (too bad history isn’t repeating itself, hehe.) That success was what led to the creation of Mercury in 1939 as a super Ford (a la Pontiac’s super Chevy) as a way of keeping customers intent on moving up from “entry level” within the Ford Rotunda. After the death of Henry Ford I in 1947 the new professional management team made the decision to mimic GM’s brand hierarchy, adding a top luxury Continental (1956) and mid-luxury Edsel (1958.) After the early failure of both of these, Mercury was constantly “adjusted” between the Ford and Lincoln markets. In 1970, Lincoln, which had been using its own body, engine, engineering, became Ford based just like Mercury.
And that pretty much ended Mercury’s raison d’etre. I’m amazed it’s lasted this long.
Volvo is the new Mercury.
That is precisely word-for-word what I was going to say. Still, I would hope that Ford not kill the styling. Across the board the Mercury cars and SUVs are much better looking than their Ford counterparts.
Mulally has said Volvo stays. Obviously, that’s subject to revision, like any other decision. But Volvo and Ford are pretty heavily intertwined platform wise, as is Mazda.
Net, Mercury moves 168K vehicles per year—not a small amount—especially from a dealer perspective. Note: Grand Marquis (51K), Milan (37K), and Mariner (35K) make up the bulk of sales.
I think Ford has at least 2 options.
Option 1: Combine Ford-Lincoln dealers and dump Mercury. Don’t see this as a real option as it presents the dealer lawsuit issue as well as branding issues for Lincoln—do Lincoln buyers really want to be next to Fords (yes I know that this is already the case in some rural areas)
Option 2: See how the new Lincoln line-up does over the next two years to justify a Lexus only approach and then dump Mercury in 2010. The MkS and Lincoln version of the Flex will be truly incremental sales to the Lincoln brand. The MkZ will be refreshed by ‘09 and better differentiated from its Ford sibling–the MkX and Navigator will soldier on for 2 years with only minor changes as they were new for ‘07.
Will all of this new Lincoln stuff be enough to make up for 169K Mercury’s that you would dump with the brand death? From a top-line perspective—probably not. From transaction profit perspective—perhaps.
If I was Mulally, I’d say that too. Don’t want to tell the investment community that Volvo’s gonna go for a song.
Pretty much everything said here about Mercury and Ford can also be said about the GM line.
My Dad alternated Buicks and Mercurys back in the 50s, depending on which struck his fancy and the deal available. He gave up on Buicks when they discontinued the Straight-8 and Dynaflow transmission.
From my perspective I find it rather amazing that things have gotten so bad for Mercury. I say that because in 1996 and again in 2000 I worked in the service department of a large Lincoln-Mercury dealership in Ypsilanti, MI, and that place sold cars like there was no tomorrow! Granted this was SE Michigan so I know a lot of cars were sold to Ford employees, but I also know that a lot of well-to-do people from Ann Arbor also bought them. Many of those people said they liked the upscale image that the cars projected. (I asked)
And on a different note, a poster asked “Who wants to buy a new car with the name Oldsmobile?” Well, when I bought my new Olds back in ‘04, I was excited about having a new car that wore the storied Olds name. I don’t know, to me it just sounds kind of classy to say, “I drive an Oldsmobile”. It could be because I remember as a kid in the late 80’s when I was taken to school in my parent’s Olds, the other kids gave me that look that said, your family is classy and cool. Oh, and I had friends then whose parents owned Mercurys, Grand Marquis in fact, and the other kids gave them respect for them too.
My how the times have changed…
supremebrougham: My how the times have changed…
Agreed! When I was a kid back in the mid-1980’s, Cougars were a very nice ride (with either the 2.3L Turbo or 5.0L V8), Sables were the most radical looking designs on the road, and the Grand Marquis said ‘Old Money.’ Overall, it was a pretty respectable lineup.
It’s unfortunate that our domestic auto industry have left some of the most storied nameplates to rust.
Today, I still think there can be a viable Mercury, but only with unique and compelling designs. It does not need to be a full lineup, nor does it need to mimic Ford or Lincoln. For the sake of argument, lets say 3 models, all sold on the Lincoln dealer show floor. Now imagine a new Cougar that is as plush as a Lincoln and as muscular as a Mustang, a Sable that takes the design chances that the D3 team were too afraid to make with the Taurus/500, and a Comet (Caliente?) that uses the Euro-Focus platform and gives new meaning to the term ‘Premium Small Car.’
But alas, neither the will nor the capital exists to make such a comeback a reality…
Steve-O:
What, no love for the Lynx?
I hate to confess it but I like the Milan. It’s the only American car I’d even think about buying. I really dislike the look of Fusion’s headlights and taillights, but I think Milan does it OK.
I agree with killing off the redundant Mercury brand, but replace the Fusion with the Milan.
William C Montgomery:
More than you know! If you must ask, I had a 1986 Lynx as my college car (beater) and it did a wonderful job costing me almost NO money to keep running.
Plus, I always got a kick out of seeing the puzzled look when I would tell people, “I Drive A Lynx.” (Especially as a pickup-line in a bar…) ;)
Mazda – Ford – Volvo – Lincoln
Cars:
(1) Mazda2 / Ford Fiesta
(2) Mazda3 / Ford Focus & Kuga / Volvo C30 & S40 (C2)
(3) Mazda6 / Ford Fusion & Mondeo / S60 & XC60 / MKZ (EUCD)
(4) Ford Taurus / Volvo S80 & XC70 / MKS
Share platforms, engines, and under-the-hood tech across the categories. Who needs Mercury?
I nominate Steve-O for a high ranking job within Ford. I’d gladly pay a dealer markup for an S197 based Cougar with hideaway headlights….especially an XR-7 version with the GT500’s blown 5.4. Drool!
Getting dealers to accept whatever Ford plans for Mercury will be the big hurdle. Ford can’t afford to just buy them out.
If Mullaly concludes the Mercury brand must stay, Mazeda could be the solution. It could supply distinctive “Mercury” vehicles. Mazda already has the Mazda8 minivan and a small pickup that aren’t currently sold in the US. A new entry-level luxury sedan (like the old 929 or Millenia) could go up against Acuras and Avalons. A Miata-based coupe might appeal to women who spurn macho Mustangs. Further variations on the Mazda6 platform could be produced at Flat Rock, if the dollar/yen ratio is a problem.
Even without new Mazda-sourced Mercs, Mazda could help even if the Mercury brand goes. There must be many dealers, especially those in smaller cities, that would like to switch to a Mazda franchise. That would leave a smaller number of stores to be dealt with.
As far as I can tell, Mercury disappeared several years ago up here in Canada. The local Mercury dealer silently transformed into a Ford dealer, and that was that. I was quite surprised when I saw a Mercury Mariner from the States driving around, and realized that they were still making new vehicles.
I always figured Mercury would get the axe about 3 days after Plymouth got it.
Back when Ford had $ they could have differentiated the brand and made something of it (Which would also have entailed making something of Lincoln) Now they probably don’t have the option. It’s just a waste of money making Plymouths -er, I mean Mercurys, when they are nearly identical to Fords.
My guess is Merc will be around for as long as Ford stays out of CH-11. Ford can’t afford the lawsuits. Cheaper to design a new grill and slap it on every 20th car that comes down the line.
Could Ford move all fleet sales over onto the Mercury brand so as to up the resale value of Fords, yet not concede that whole market to the Koreans or whoever has been filling it?
If that isn’t viable, then Mercury should go.
My guess is Merc will be around for as long as Ford stays out of CH-11. Ford can’t afford the lawsuits. Cheaper to design a new grill and slap it on every 20th car that comes down the line.
Kinda throws a monkey wrench in this (excellent) discussion, but its quite believable.
The cost of Mercury is much higher than you might think. Despite their similarity to their Ford bretheren, the subtle tweaks require lots of development work, testing, and proveout as well as special low volume tooling in some cases, and all the marketing dollars they pour into it. If Mercury gets the axe, I would have to ask, why now and not 15 years ago? What has Mercury added to Ford during that time? Dealerships are not going to sue over the loss of their 1.5 Mercury sales a month, I promise.
The very fact that Mercury still exists makes me lack confidence in Mullaly. What do you mean, ‘when he gets to it’? Killing Mercury is the easiest thing he could have done, what are they waiting for?
guyincognito:
I suspect Mullaly is not ready to kiss the volume goodbye at this point, low as it may be. If killing Mercury is indeed the plan, then the prudent thing to do is wait until the Lincoln MKS, MKT and MKR are online before you take the Mercury volume out of the L-M stores…
How many average sales does a Mercury dealer make a month? How many Lincoln/Mercury dealers are there nationally?
Wanna know something VERY funny? The Grand Marquis outsells the Sable every damn month. And, even if you take out the fleet sales…it STILL outsells the Sable.
And, for the year, Mercury shifted MORE Montegos…a car that is not made anymore…than the new Sable.
Ford really screwed up the Taurus/Sable cars.
“Four vehicles. That’s all you’ll find on Mercury’s web site.”
Milan, Mariner, Mountaineer, Sable, Grand Marquis.
Isn’t that five?
Just askin.’
supremebrougham :
January 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
From my perspective I find it rather amazing that things have gotten so bad for Mercury. I say that because in 1996 and again in 2000 I worked in the service department of a large Lincoln-Mercury dealership in Ypsilanti, MI, and that place sold cars like there was no tomorrow!
Ah, but now SESI Lincoln-Mercury also sells Mazdas at that location, and their other location in Scio Township is Lincoln-Mercury Volvo. Maybe they know more than they let on…