It’s been a while since we’ve run a Ford Death Watch. Which doesn’t mean Ford isn’t dying. It is. It’s just dying more slowly and less spectacularly than GM and Chrysler. In fact, Ford’s head-faked the press. They’ve convinced the pundocrats that The Blue Oval Boys don’t need federal bailout bucks to survive. Oh what the Hell, FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally just about told Congress, as you’re offering… we might as well accept. In truth, the Detroit’s last man standing is about to hit the pavement just as hard as its cross-town co-conspirators.
Tomorrow, the injury will be audible– and not just in the halls of Congress. Ford’s November sales stats will go splat. Ford analyst George Pipas will seek shelter in metal-moving relativism. Just as Ford proudly trumpets the fact that their cars are nearasdammit as reliable as Toyota’s, Pipas will claim that Ford’s sales drop is nearasdammit as bad (i.e. good) as Toyota’s. Which will be both true and irrelevant.
All things being negative, ToMoCo is still on track to bank $5b in profit this year. Meanwhile, Ford shed $2.6b in Q3, burning through $7.7b of its cash pile. So forget Toyota. General Motors is the more appropriate comparison. And there are only two significant differences between Ford’s plight and that of GM: scope and scale.
GM has eight U.S. brands, six of which need to die. Mazda excepted, Ford sells four brands in the U.S., two of which need to die. GM has around 6550 dealers, 5k of which need to die. Ford has around 4k dealers, 3k of which need to die. Meanwhile, Ford and GM are struggling under the weight of identical labor contracts, desperately trying to shed plants and jobs. In short, as goes GM, so goes Ford.
Commentators— and Ford— like to point out that The Blue Oval Boys are in less danger of running out of cash than GM. Truth be told, the danger’s the same; only the time line varies. Ford’s decision to stock-up on money before the current fiscal meltdown– mortgaging everything up to and including their logo– was either the smartest move the company ever made or the luckiest. Or both. But it doesn’t alter the end result. Unless Ford starts taking in more money than it spends, it’s going to go bankrupt.
As Ford CEO Alan Mullaly bellies-up to the Congressional bailout bar, he’ll parrot GM’s claim that numbers alone don’t tell the story. Right-sizing, on track, bridge loan, bright future, new products, fuel efficiency, world platform, economic downturn, yada yada yada. As the only American automaker with a plausible turnaround tale to tell (which isn’t saying much), Ford will get the money. After all, Congress wants to save SOMEONE in the American auto industry.
Whether or not the feds re-stoke Ford’s coffers and/or help it reduce its overheads, FoMoCo’s comeback is destined for failure, for one reason: branding. Ford doesn’t have any.
Quick: what’s Ford’s slogan? Drive Quality, Drive Green, Drive Safe, Drive Smart or Drive One? Yes. The latter is Ford’s ur-slogan, which says, well, nothing. Given the ailing American automaker’s product overlap, the company’s call to arms might as well be “pick one.” Edge, Flex, Taurus X or Escape?
Make no mistake: this is no small matter. If Ford is to survive, it must come-up with a compelling reason to buy a Ford instead of anything else.
Reliability? Toyota. Resale value? Honda. Price? Hyundai. Stress-free shopping? Saturn. Buy American? Only if you’re thinking continentally. In today’s mixed media world, a car company without tightly-focused branding is like a twenty dollar bill that’s been bleached white in the wash.
Ford’s anodyne anonymity doesn’t end there. Lincoln’s “Reach Higher” slogan– a not-so-subliminal slam at working class buyers– reflects the luxury brand’s lack of a coherent product or marketing plan. And if that’s not enough to convince you that Ford doesn’t “get it,” Lincoln’s farrago of MK monikers illustrates the point nicely. As do the vehicles themselves: a range of tarted-up Fords whose excellence is there for no one to see.
As for Mercury, other than ogling their comely spokesmodel, what’s the point?
Legislators are not likely to concern themselves with such things. If products are the subject, mpgs are the answer legislators want to hear. If pushed, Mulally will argue that Ford’s 2010 Euro-style products will save both planet and company. Politicians will score some points for the folks back home, cross their fingers and sign the check.
But if the pols really wanted to protect the taxpayer’s money (as if), they’d remember that nobody ever submitted a business plan that ends in bankruptcy. The pols would focus on the fact that Ford’s future depends on its products, and products depend on their branding. Someone would look Mr. Mulally in the eyes and ask a simple question: what, sir, is a Ford?
74 Comments on “Editorial: Ford Death Watch 48: Branding Isn’t Everything...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Speaking of comely spokesmodels, I haven’t seen Jill in a while…
Has she been downsized?
Ford hasn’t had a coherent branding strategy in decades, if ever. Their products have been all over the map for as long as I’ve been following the industry–over a quarter-century.
Let’s jump back to the 1980s. They introduced the breakthrough 1983 T-Bird and 1986 Taurus, only to follow them up with a hopelessly conservative Continental and derivative, overengineered T-Bird in 1989. Meanwhile, the Crown Vic, Town Car, Mustang, and Escort soldiered on, remnants from a previous era–or even the era before that one.
My understanding is that corporate politics are to blame. Fortunes shifted frequently in the old Ford-run Ford. Where family ownership might have conferred stability, it did the opposite.
Maybe Mulally is making a difference here? The proof will be in future products. Do they share a coherent identity, or not?
Ford has four US brands? I see Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. Mazda and Volvo are not US brands.
Michael is correct. Ford tends to have a product in every market segment. The problem is that not enough of them are competitive in their segments.
mtypex :
Well I was counting Volvo– as a brand sold in the U.S. But I’ll amend the text. Tx.
Volvo is sold in the US, though it would be easy to forget that.
I dunno, I’m discovering an inner Ford fan that I didn’t think existed a few years ago.
I like the exteriors quite a bit; especially the newer models have fairly interesting styling. You may or may not like it, but you can spot ID a lot of Ford cars without checking a badge from half a mile away. There aren’t that many cars that do that (at least for me). If they could get the interior on the Focus and Mustang into decent shape (which they appear to be doing) I would be out of reasons why they suck.
A lot of Lincoln cars are very striking in a successful retired guy who likes golf kind of way.
The Ford Fiesta is a sharp looking subcompact.
I think Fords brand identity is or should be sharp looking American styled quality vehicles. I don’t think it would be that hard to forge; somehow they managed to get my domestic hating ass to take them seriously.
“domestic hating ass”
Score one more for the “best and brightest”
mtypex: Mazda is not really a Ford brand, as they are only part owners (and just sold a bunch of their stock). Volvo, however, is, just like Saab is a GM brand. Just because all their products are made overseas doesn’t change that.
As for Ford overall, I see them as the winners of King of Detroit. If Chrysler and/or GM goes out of business, a lot of those sales will go Ford’s way. Plus, they seem to be improving their quality, and Mulally has the advantage of not being a lifer there-he really seems to have turned things around, at least a little bit. That is, he brings an outsider’s perspective of the real world-he hasn’t lived in the bubble of Detroit all his life.
“Edge, Flex, Taurus X or Escape?”
So how is this any different than Toyota, who has an even more confusing lineup, with the RAV4, Highlander, 4Runner and that ugly new station wagon thing, which I can’t remember the name of.
I’m more worried about Lincoln than Ford when it comes to branding.
Ford still has the “all-American, everycar” image. In the local paper, when a columnist or reviewer refers to a particular vehicle to make a point or identify a certain segment of the middle-class market, as often as not they will use a Ford model.
The bigger problem is Lincoln – it certainly isn’t a top-tier luxury car anymore, so exactly why should people buy one…?
On the other hand, GM spent over $3 billion on Cadillac, and I’m asking the same question.
Ford = American. It’s as simple as that, and it’s more true for Ford than any other domestic marque. A brand also doesn’t have to stand for something specific to be strong.
You are right about Mercury and Lincoln being totally aimless. Consider Volvo, though. They’ve got a very strong brand, but no one cares. Branding isn’t everything.
krohde :
Venza. And you’re right: same mistake. The only real ifference is that Toyota can afford to make stupid ass branding mistakes and lame-brained product overlap (FJ huh?). Ford can’t.
seoultrain :
Remind me again where Ford’s making the new Fiesta? I’d like to know what percentage of FoMoCo’s total production is based in the U.S. And it looks like we just might find out.
“Make no mistake: this is no small matter. If Ford is to survive, it must come-up with a compelling reason to buy a Ford instead of anything else.
Reliability? Toyota. Resale value? Honda. Price? Hyundai. Stress-free shopping? Saturn. Buy American? Only if you’re thinking continentally. In today’s mixed media world, a car company without tightly-focused branding is like a twenty dollar bill that’s been bleached white in the wash.”
How about “America’s safest cars”. After the IIHS results it is clear that that is what Ford is manufacturing and probably is what will get them through this very rough times.
Ford does have a great business plan, commonality, platform sharing, getting rid of excess capacity/personnel/brands, etc. Unfortunately their products suck. The only genuinely competetive car they have is the Fusion and they have one class leader, the F-150. Other than that there are a beavy of outright bombs, ie. everything built off of the D3 platform, Edge, all of Mercury, all of Lincoln. Also, the Focus sucks, and their SUV’s are dead in the water.
The company is still structured around the principle of making 100% profit on its bread and butter vehicles, ie Trucks and SUVs. They still can’t make a profit on a car and they have nothing now or in the pipeline that will ever generate the profits the Explorer and Expedition once generated, never mind the declining F series sales. The company has to get way smaller, way faster than it is right now to have any chance at survival.
jems86 :
Works for me. I wrote an editorial suggesting this very thing back in the Paleolithic Era.
Based by my travels, Ford seems to have a broad international market, unlike GM. So I think they have a better chance of weathering downturns and gaining market share.
Now only if they would look at some of the great cars they sell outside of the US and bring them here.
Lincoln’s gone down the toilet, as has Cadillac. Downsized cars with boring 3 letter monikers, trying to copy BMW. Well I want a large, comfortable, American car, thank you very much. I got one of the last types of these cars, 2008 Mercury Grand Marquis, a car people love to condemn. Well I love this car and wouldn’t trade it for any current Lincoln (except Town Car) and Cadillac.
RF : “Remind me again where Ford’s making the new Fiesta? I’d like to know what percentage of FoMoCo’s total production is based in the U.S. And it looks like we just might find out”
As a % of total vehicles sold under the Ford badge….a healthy % of production is US based given that Ford production is still weighted toward trucks. The F150, Explorer, and Escape are all produced in the US. On the car side—their volume leader—the Focus is produced at the Wayne factory. The Mustang is Flat Rock. The Taurus group in Chicago. The lone exception is the Fusion which is made in Mexico and the Edge + Flex in Oakville. I don’t really count the Crown VIc (Ontario) as it is being phased out.
Robert-
You’re forgetting one very crucial thing that truly illuminates why Ford will not wither and die; while GM and Chrysler are trying to survive by cutting products, canceling projects, and shutting down future-tech R&D, Ford is going full steam ahead, introducing compelling products and putting their nose to the grindstone to keep up with Toyota. So, even though Ford’s financial situation is not healthy, their products are best positioned to bridge the gap between the problems of today and the survival of tomorrow. (and that’s completely ignoring the top to bottom reshaping of Ford’s corporate culture that Mullaly has required since he took the helm)
Does Ford have room for improvement? Most definitely. But they’re making all of the right moves that they need to to remedy that gap. They’ve also gotten lucky, most especially with the MKS that you deride. (which has actually been quite a strong seller) Right now I’d imagine Mullaly is more concerned with Ford being around in 2010 when all of those union cost-savings go into effect rather than trying to sort out what to do with Lincoln and Mercury, which is fine. If they were making idiotic decisions and introducing crappy ill-timed products (a la Wagoner and GM) your criticism may be justified. However, I say, give Mullaly a chance, he’s certainly the only executive in Detroit that has actually shown any aptitude at running his company well.
Remind me again where Ford’s making the new Fiesta? I’d like to know what percentage of FoMoCo’s total production is based in the U.S. And it looks like we just might find out.
We’re not talking about reality, we’re talking about branding. For now, Ford as a brand = American. Whether or not they choose to sully that brand by having people find out they’re shipping jobs overseas is up to them.
Droid800 :
All of what you say is true. But none of what you say addresses the question raised here: branding. Except for this…
Right now I’d imagine Mullaly is more concerned with Ford being around in 2010 when all of those union cost-savings go into effect rather than trying to sort out what to do with Lincoln and Mercury, which is fine.
I respectfully disagree. It’s not fine. Not at all. The brand is all. Or nothing.
“Truth be told, the danger’s the same; only the timeline varies.”
Well said. I have always chuckled when various posts about how Ford will be the “last man standing” are made along with the latest prediction of the imminent any-moment-now doom for Chrysler. Ford could be the last man standing – like the poor soul who held on to the stern railing as the Titanic slipped beneath the icy waves. It just means they die a little later.
Of course taxpayer money will help, but I keep asking is Congress going to give money to a company that is for all intent and purposes controlled by a single family? Maybe the public won’t care after all the money given to banks with little or no debate and oversight.
Of course new products will help but we’ll have to see where the the new design language is heading. It’s being called “post Kinetic” right now. But one has to wonder what is Ford’s fixation with the “not invented here” philosophy? Kinetic design may be old hat in Europe but almost no one knows it in North America. So why go in a new design direction? Why not just let Ford Europe do the exteriors? If they screw this up they will be in for a world of hurt, possible a fatal blow.
As previously stated, branding is not everything. What Ford has is the most compelling line-up of vehicles, and apparently continued development, which is something completely lacking at GM and Chrysler. If we’re talking business plans, I’ll choose the one with continued product development and improvement (Ford) over the one that focuses entirely on eliminating waste baskets from engineer’s cubicles and coming up with a snappy slogan while spinning their decent into oblivion as everybody else’s fault and compltely out of their control (GM).
Is that the biggest pic you could get?
These bailout hearings remind me of that Family Guy parody of Stephen King meeting his publisher, where he says “this one is about , uh, a lamp monster!”
Publisher -”You’re not even trying anymore, are you…sigh, when can I have it?”
If GM goes down first Ford is toast 90 days later. Mark it on your calendar Robert. Its game over dude. GM and Ford are to intertwined through suppliers and shared technology sharing to survive.
Saab is toast
Opel is toast
Holden is toast
Merc is toast
Daewoo is toast
Jag’s toast
Land rover’s toast
Toyota and honda’s toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Suzuki is toast
Mazda is on the ropes
Hyundai is toast
Onstar is toast
Visteon is toast
XM/Serius(sic) is toast
Raytheon is toast
Delphi is toast
General Dynamics is toast(at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Dayco is toast
Magna is toast
Dana is toast
Mazda is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Ferrari takes a beating (they license Delphi tech)
Raytheon is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Hughes is toast at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Denso is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Futaba is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Tokirico is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
BASF is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Denso is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
AC Delco is toast
GMAC is toast
Chrysler is toast
Vetronics is toast
American axle is toast
Continental is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Seimens is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min)
Lear is toast
Johnson controls is toast (at least in the u.s. for 12 months min maybe)
Magna is toast
Plastec is toast
Alcoa takes a hit
SKF takes a hit
National seal takes a hit
Getrag takes a hit
Borg warner is toast ( maybe)
Ashai Glass takes a hit
Mitsubish takes a hit
Volvo is toast
Honda takes a hit
Toyota takes a big hit
Dell is gonna take a hit
The pharmas and the physicians are going to take a big hit
Insurance companies are going to take a hit
The Banks are going to take a hit
The PBGF is gonna take a huge hit
Medicare is going to take a hit
Mortgage companies are going to take a hit
Boeing takes a hit
AM General is toast
TACOM Takes a hit
The Semicounductors take a hit
Copper takes a hit
Steel takes a hit
Rubber takes a hit
Nascar is totally toast
NHRA is toast (in a big way)
SCCA is going to take a hit
Eaton is going to take a hit
American trucking takes a hit
Fanuc takes a hit
Cincinatti Mllicron takes a hit
Kitamura takes a hit
Makino takes a hit
Mori Seki takes a hit
Dow Chemi takes a huge hit
Arvin Meritor is toast
Karhman is going to take a hit
Webasto is going to take a huge hit
Hella is going to take a hit
Brembo is going to take a hit
Bher is toast
Allison transmission is toast
Kohinoor Setra bus company is toast
Detroit Diesel is Toast
Airbus takes a hit
Lockheed Martin is takes a big hit
Honeywell takes a hit
Mahle takes a big hit may be toast
Sonnax takes a hit
Everything chrysler touches is toast.
Illmor enginering is toast
I could go on all day Get ready we asked for it and its comming! CH11 is game over all or most of these will fold too Its chapter 7 dudes.
RF –
I would argue that branding is not really Ford’s problem in the way you characterize it. The bigger problem is that in the segments that are growing (excuse me… shrinking the least), Ford is not known as a competitor regardless of how competitive their products in the segment are.
The mid-size sedan class is a great example. Let’s say, theoretically of couse, that Consumer Reports and various other auto tests come out and say that the 2010 Fusion is the new benchmark in the mid-size class. Do you think it would draw that many more people to the vehicle? No. Why? No one knows that Ford makes it. Ford makes the F-150 and the Mustang. Or they do know Ford makes it, but they don’t really understand that it is competitive. Ford makes the F-150, but I’ve not heard that they’re great at family cars. Maybe family SUVs.
The original 2006 Fusion at the time was considered near the top of class, but it took until late-summer of 2006 to get to the sales levels Ford was really hoping for and only after some 0% financing end of year sales. More people certainly know about the Fusion now, and CR has helped boost its image by touting its reliability… but it’s still a Ford. Ford makes the best trucks, and it makes the iconic Mustang. Toyota and Honda make the mid-size cars that everyone drives. They have as long as the buying public can remember (about 20 years).
It’s the same reason why the Tundra, no matter how good, no matter how much Toyota publicized and discounted it, would not really crack Ford’s or GM’s market in the near-term. Now, if Toyota keeps it fresh and competitive for 10 years, it might by sheer reputation (not unlike how Toyota and Honda cracked the U.S. market to begin with).
Same with Ford, the 2010 Fusion seems like it will be very good. It will likely perform even better than the last gen in its segment. But, it will still not set the charts on fire. However, by 2012 when the next-gen Fusion debuts, Ford might have credibility in the space that they can expect to start taking some real marketshare instead of 0.1% here and there.
No single phrase is going to convey all that. No association like “safety” or “quality” or “fuel-efficiency” will help. I don’t particularly like Drive One, but really, that’s what Ford needs. They just need people to drive one. It’s not about convincing them they are the best at anything if they can’t get people to the dealership.
They just need people to try them out – especially with the product revolution we’re going to see there in the next 18 months. After that, reputation will allow them to focus what they are associated with in Europe: Ford, the best xxx in its class. That’s real branding.
RobertSD :
“Best in class” isn’t branding. Best what?
You don’t get five bites at that cherry. Just one.
When “Ford” appears in print or heard I think of the many thousands of folks telling of the spark plugs popping out of their V8 engine and paying many hundreds or thousands of dollars for repair.
A Web search reveals a HUGE number of folks confronted by spark plugs launched into the atmosphere.
Sorry, Ford. That went on for too long for me to ever consider your products.
GMC lost me with the worse-than-deplorable warranty coverage (non-coverage, actually) with the truck I bought just to assist the “home team.”
By default, next vehicle will be an “import,” however that is defined anymore.
Honda, Mazda, Toyota…. one of those will be the next conveyance I buy for a back-up abode if the mini-depression continues and I can no longer offord the shanty’s rent.
Toyota and Honda’s big edge is that they have both become “the car to drive.” People go and buy them just because they know that with a Toyota or Honda badge, they will get a reliable car that holds its value. Very few of their products set the blood pumping. Ford is working towards that. With quality improvements, safety improvements, and Consumer Reports recommendations Ford is working towards that space. If Ford can get that consumer mindspace, then add the exciting styling and features of the upcoming products and Ford will be just fine. Ford still has a loyal base, they can build from there.
dwford :
You’re waffling, in a way that’s frightening reminiscent of Ford’s shotgun non-marketing efforts.
As I said in the editorial, Toyota owns the reliability mindspace. While a Ford should be reliable, there is NO WAY they’re going to snatch that crown from the King of Corolla.
Exciting styling? Better. Much better. But Ford has shown zero talent for it. As in none. And as much as pistonheads adore Euro chic, I’m not convinced Ford’s imported designs will cut the proverbial mustard.
Safety. Yes. With Volvo out of the picture, why not? Fear is always a sure thing. And remember: the cars don’t have to be significantly safer than the competition. They just have to be perceived that way.
In any case, it’s called a unique selling point ’cause it’s unique. But also, implied, singular. As in one.
Ford currently sells
- Escape
- Edge
- Taurus X
- Explorer
- Expedition
- Flex
- Explorer Sport Trac
They could make do with the Edge and the Taurus X. Maybe one more if one is generous. It’s absurd to have all these models in the same showroom. I am not saying any of them suck, I am just saying they are left to whither on the vine. I have never, ever seen a commercial for the Taurus X for example.
They make do with a small, medium, large and a sporty car all of which put in a respectable showing.
Bubba,
They’re no more intertwined than Honda and Toyota. As long as Ford manages to maintain an image of a car maker in good shape, they’re golden, IMO. Expect their credit rating to rise in the coming months.
Alex
I work for GM engineering and My relatives work for Ford engineering and Chrysler Engineering. Trust me we have had plenty of discussions. I speak from a point of relativity most people do not have access to.
If you believe what you wrote you are Naive.
Jus saying
seoultrain :
For now, Ford as a brand = American
i’m with seoultrain. ‘merican is the brand positioning that’s currently open and i think people will buy based on that emotional appeal, if the advertising positions it right. this is of course absurd when you consider that ford is in fact quite global.
Alex I speak from a point of relativity
I have family who work for Ford Engineering and Chrysler Engineering and I work for GM engineering. We have had plenty of discussions and if you knew the truth of intertwining you would be battoning down your financial hatches.
You don’t have to believe me< I understand. People didn’t believe the mortgage meltdown but I saw it at least 6 months before it happened and slid my 401K into cash as I watched the uninformed watch 50 to 70% of their 401K’s disappear.
One of Ford’s (and Chevy’s) biggest obstacles is Hyundai/Kia. They’ve established themselves as the “value” proposition on the bottom of the brand/prestige ladder. And the import brands are squeezing from above.
This is what is really hurting Opel and Ford in Europe; everybody that can possibly afford it wants a brand with more prestige than an Opel or Ford; if they cant afford it, they can find better bargains with Dacia, Skoda, or the Koreans.
Ford’s handsome and excellent Mondeo is not selling well at all; Opel’s Insignia is going to follow in its tracks. They might be terrific, but folks at this price point want a propeller, three-pointed star, or the interlocking rings on their car.
As Americans head further down this road, Ford (and GM) will face the same “prestige squeeze”. Wouldn’t most younger aspirational drivers rather have an Audi A3 (or A1) than a (euro) Ford in the driveway?
For the short term, Ford’s best bet is to sell to peoples’ emotions. Every other marketable niche (quality, reliability, value) has been claimed.
The current Ford lineup has a lot going for it. Yes, there have been major problems in the past, but things have changed. Manufacturing and engineering, specifically, finally figured out that trading good design for profit margin doesn’t make for a very happy customer. This really is a different company.
Forget about carving a niche right now. Get people into the showroom, then let the cars speak for themselves. How? Make them remember the cars with a quirky ad (e.g. VW’s talking Beetle), a catchy song (e.g. that damn Mazda zoom zoom song), or a really good commercial (e.g. that Cadillac CTS ad with the hot doctor from Grey’s Anatomy that asks if your car turns you on. One of the best ads ever, in my book.)
Warning: typical guy comment below
Cars are like women. She could be the smartest, most fun, best cooking girl on the planet. If you aren’t emotionally into her, you won’t care. Make Ford cars attractive, appeal to our emotions. People will buy them.
Bubba Gump: “I have family who work for Ford Engineering and Chrysler Engineering and I work for GM engineering.”
Ah, an insider! So can you explain why D3 four cylinder engines aren’t as silky as Honda’s? And how and why Detroit has had repeated fiascoes with bad head gaskets? And whether my transmission shop’s owner is right when he says car makers knowingly make transmissions that’ll blow up at 60,000 miles?
Robert Farago :
Venza. And you’re right: same mistake. The only real ifference is that Toyota can afford to make stupid ass branding mistakes and lame-brained product overlap (FJ huh?).
I am not sure that I would consider the FJ Cruiser a lame-brained product overlap.
I believe Toyota was attempting to regain some of the “off road cred” that they killed with the bloating and leathering of the Land Cruiser, as well as the “siffy-fication” of the 4Runner and Tacoma.
The FJ-40 was a respected, go damn near anywhere vehicle. The Toyota truck was as well, before it got IFS, etc. Ditto the 4Runner.
I think the FJ Cruiser, with a plastic/rubber floor and water resistant seats, is an attempt to gain some of what Toyota has lost to the off-road crowd. Not the hard-core crowd, certainly, as the FJC has IFS. But, more the crowd that takes dirt roads to the beach, mountains, etc., and aren’t afraid of a little sand, mud, etc. in their vehicles.
Now, you would be justified to comment that their timing was terrible, and wonder if it means the end for the 4Runner, Land Cruiser or Sequoia (I suspect LC – I understand sales of that thing have plummeted). Still, I applaud the tacit admission that Toyota recognizes their “losing the way” with tarted up products that do not lend themselves to exposure to “the elements”.
And, yeah, the FJ Cruiser has some work ahead of it. A vehicle with such poor visibility is no good off road.
Bruce
Unqualified generalization #1:
“can you explain why D3 four cylinder engines aren’t as silky as Honda’s?”
No doubt Honda makes a great 4-banger. The D3 have some good offerings as well.
Unqualified generalization #2:
“And how and why Detroit has had repeated fiascoes with bad head gaskets?”
Be specific about a platform, and we can explain why it failed. Yes, our designs sometimes have problems. Part of our job is also to diagnose and fix them.
Unqualified generalization #3:
“And whether my transmission shop’s owner is right when he says car makers knowingly make transmissions that’ll blow up at 60,000 miles?”
He’s wrong. There’s no data to back that up. Just because the guy is a mechanic doesn’t mean his opinion should be taken as gold.
Failures happen, sometimes due to poor design or excessive cost-shaving. Nobody tries to build a bad car. Quit propagating the myth that Detroit is out to screw people over. It’s ignorant, dangerous, and just plain wrong.
50merc:
And whether my transmission shop’s owner is right when he says car makers knowingly make transmissions that’ll blow up at 60,000 miles?
60K is about when the warranty ends?!?
I’ve heard slushbox life is very much effected by how people drive. The “reverse to drive slam” and other abusive behavior is more common with the domestic driving demographic.
On the plus side, I’ve never heard of ANY manual tranny or clutch going before 100K, even with abuse.
50Merc–
Can you explain to me why every Asian automobile shakes while idling?
Especially in-gear, and with the A/C on.
I’ve never been in a 4-cylinder Asian automobile that idled as well as a domestic at stoplights. Personally, I get that sinking feeling like the car’s going to break-down. It’s amplified exponentially when you need to use the rear defroster.
Has she been downsized?
That would require a plastic surgeon. Frankly, I think they look real, and spectacular too.
I hate Lincoln’s three letter branding. I’m not sure if it was the MKZ or the MKS, but when the concept was first shown, the publicity materials called it a MkS as in Mark S. It rolled off the tongue much easier than Em Kay Ess, and evokes a legendary brand name, the Continental Mark II through Mark VIII (which I’ve always thought was a great looking car). Unfortunately, the Ford marketing crew think that names like Continental and Mark evoke images of luxoboats.
In any case, Lincoln needs a big sedan. My brother in law is 6′5″ and has driven Lincolns for a long time (my sister drives a MKX and loves it) but he couldn’t fit in a MKZ so he bought a Cadillac DTS which will get replaced by a MKS as soon as the lease on the Caddy is up.
BTW, they’re both public school teachers. Tell me how underpaid teachers are.
The brand is all.
Nah, you’re just into brands. The product makes the brand, not vice versa. Without substance behind it, the brand is just shiny wrapping paper. Toyota’s brand stands for something. It’s not the brand that’s reliable, it’s their cars.
Robert, I know you’re a disciple of Ries, per et fille, but have either of them ever actually made and sold a real product?
Her comments about it being a bad idea for Kodak to be getting into digital photography because the brand supposedly means film ignores the fact that for a good deal of it’s life, the company was more associated with cameras than film. What should they do, just disappear? I’m sure that at least one or two buggy whip companies turned themselves into auto accessory manufacturers. The early Kodak cameras were sealed units and the customer returned the entire camera for processing. The prints would be returned with a reloaded camera.
It’s ironic that she takes on Kodak because Eastman practically invented modern brands with a nonsense word that he thought would be more distinctive than Eastman.
Companies remake themselves all the time. If I say DuPont, most people think about stuff made from chemicals, like paint, carpet fibers, countertops and housewrap. Hardly anybody knows that for the first 110 years of its existence, DuPont was a gunpowder and explosives company.
Brand isn’t all. Product is almost all. I say almost because a good product can sometimes be Betamaxed. Hell, Apple had Sony’s fight with JVC (whose American corporate antecedent had it’s own titanic “format war” with Edison – JVC stands for Japan Victor Corp.) as an example and they still let Jobs’ ego prevent them from licensing out their operating system.
A business needs it all to thrive, good marketing, effective branding, etc. But the foundation is product.
Bubba Gump,
You included Dow but forgot DuPont. Old E.I. will take a huge hit. The auto industry is still its #1 market. At any one time, each of the car companies owes DuPont millions and millions, and the vendors in the supply chain maybe more.
If the domestics go under, Wilmington will be hit hard and not just because the Solstice/Sky plant will close or Chrysler’s Newark plant won’t reopen.
A Web search reveals a HUGE number of folks confronted by spark plugs launched into the atmosphere.
Let’s see. Using Google I searched for [Ford V8 spark plugs eject] and got 1180 results and {Ford V8 spark plugs ejecting] got 1320. In both cases only a minority were about spark plug thread failure on cylinder heads. A quick look at the first 100 results shows that way fewer than half were about self-ejecting spark plugs. Putting aside the fact that putting thread inserts in 8 cylinders shouldn’t cost anywhere near $1000 bucks, or the guy who was complaining that his 1999 pickup with 170K miles might have already gotten his money’s worth, I’ll concede that Ford may have a design problem on some of its V8 aluminum heads. Tool companies make specialty tools for that specific problem with Ford heads so obviously they’ve had a problem.
But let’s compare that to another search.
A Google search of [Toyota engine sludge] yields 25,800 results. Virtually all of them are about problems with Toyota engines, a problem that has already cost Toyota a billion dollars or so in recalls, repairs, and settlements on class action lawsuits.
Perhaps in your part of the universe 2,500 is HUGE compared to 25,000.
You might also want to try a search on [Honda "transmission problem"]. I got over 87,000 results on that one.
In my part of the universe, 87,000 and 25,000 are much bigger numbers than 2,500. More HUGE, one might say. Of course, your mileage and your perception may vary. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but like Senator Moynihan famously said, they’re not entitled to their own set of facts.
Robert, I guess it’s bad form to mention the word “perception” when it comes to how some people feel about the Detroit 3. Okay. How about delusional?
I’m not denying that Detroit has made some crap cars, but in a lot of cases the level of anger with Detroit and studied ignorance of consumer issues with non-US brands makes me think that to some people, Detroit’s motes are more troublesome than Toyota’s beams.
I think posts like the one above amply demonstrate how steep and high the hill is that Detroit must climb to overcome some consumers’ attitudes.
Either that or some of the transplant companies have picked up a few tips on astroturfing from David Axelrod.
Speaking of consumer issues, ATT U-Verse sucks. The least reliable broadband service I’ve ever had. Even though we’re less than 700 feet from the fiber drop and less than 1/2 mile from the ATT switch, a few times a day I get “can’t find the server” errors and sometimes, like just now, it won’t work for a while. Since our tv and phone service is on the same optical fiber, that means no phone or boob tube either. When I call ATT and tell them that I’ve been a LAN manager and can tell when it’s a network issue, they insist the modem shows no reported errors.
obbop :
December 1st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
When “Ford” appears in print or heard I think of the many thousands of folks telling of the spark plugs popping out of their V8 engine and paying many hundreds or thousands of dollars for repair.
When I think of Ford, I think of a line somebody said somewhere on the internets (I think it may have been a poster here):
“Fords are not known for not catching on fire.”
This goes from the Pinto all the way to the F-150 cruise control switch. However, their current line up seems to be almost up to Toyota’s level of quality and reliability, especially their cars. Things seem to have changed recently.
Now, they just have to keep that up for a decade or two. Toyota and Honda didn’t end up on top overnight.
Brand Principles 101:
Strong Brands have (1) strong business basics, (2) a great brand experience when the product/service is used and (3) clear and distinct positioning so there is no confusion about what the brand stands for.
Brands with strong identities and equity perform about twice as well as brands with weak equity. (Performance is based on the S&P 500 stock index)
There are several aspects of a consumer’s relationship with a brand… all the way from being aware of it to closely bonding with it.
The challenge for the domestics is that they’ve failed on all aspects of their brand. Their business basics are poor, products are poor, and there is no clear/realistic message about what their products are. There is so much negative equity with their brand as many people have said (”I’ll never buy a GM/Ford/Dodge again”).
windswords: Of course taxpayer money will help, but I keep asking is Congress going to give money to a company that is for all intent and purposes controlled by a single family? Maybe the public won’t care after all the money given to banks with little or no debate and oversight.
At this point, the Ford family has a much better reputation than any large financial institution. Plus, unlike the banks, Ford the company has drafted a reasonable and realistic turnaround plan.
Another important factor is that William Clay Ford, Jr., has good relations with both President-elect Obama and the UAW. If they don’t make any noise about the Ford family’s continued control of the company – and the UAW actually supports it – then I doubt that Congress will make much of a fuss over it.