Alan Mulally: Apparently, this is what he was hired for

[Jazzhead]

The Five Hundred should have been the Taurus from the start -

 

- It's Ford's bread and butter family sedan

 

- It's built in Chicago

 

- It apes the Audi, just like the 1986 original

 

So why not right things, just in time for the new powertrain the car should have had from the git-go? The new name gives Ford marketers the perfect opportunity to reintroduce the car in the marketplace - including all the positive changes. As for "orphaning" a couple of years' worth of Five Hundred owners, that's better than orphaning twenty years' worth of Taurus owners. I've owned two Tauri over the years, and they were great cars for me. Good to see the Bull is back!

Edited February 10, 2007 by Jazzhead

[ford-boy]

I guess that orphans my Freestyle as well. Ahhh.... Maybe Ford will offer a Freestyle to Taurus name change kit. I'll just tell people that it's a Taurus X.

[LSFan00]

Since Ford's product management teams have been so grossly incompetent for over 10 years, I have no problem with Mulally ignoring their advice and telling subordinates what to name vehicles, and which ones to import.

[Hemiman]

Would you trust a 747 pilot who said, "bad weather? C'mon. Do you know what this thing can do?"

 

 

Richard,

 

You may want to do some research on pilots who have used the "Seat of the Pants" method to bring their aircraft and crew/passengers home safely, when all conventional (extensively researched) methods said to bale out or ditch the aircraft.

 

Start with WWII and the B-17, 24, and 29 pilots who got home rather than bailing out over enemy territory or ditching at sea. Move on to civilian aviation and see where jet liners have been brought in with no hydraulics, controlled only with engine power, or with half the fuselage top ripped away. Yes, if I were on a 747 in bad weather, and all conventional ("researched") methods had failed, I'd like a pilot who could fly by the seat of his pants.

 

PS. Fords "research" has failed them for almost ten yrs now.

[J-150]

Here's my take on the name change. Hardy anybody knew what a FiveHundred or Freestyle was anyway and the people that did won't care what it's called. But, people know the Taurus name.

 

 

 

this means what?

 

That the freakin' research had already been done before Mulally arrived! Holy Christ man! He just had the backbone to go with what the research had told all the spineless beancounters at Ford before he arrived!

 

 

So because Ford finally has someone that can make a decision the man gets slammed?

[sranger]

In the end I do not think this name change will help or hurt. ( Still think Taurus X is stupid ) There are as many positives and there are negatives...

 

Carol Shelby said it best: "If you build the best car, it does not matter what you call it"...

 

This is what Ford should focus on....Period....

[Mark B. Morrow]

I disagree with your premise Richard. First, I doubt that Five Hundred was well researched in the first place. It certainly was not supported with the kind of marketing necessary to launch a new model. Like Freestyle, Freestar, and Fusion it simply began with the letter F and so fit into the former regime's convention. The name had no identification with the public. I was not a big fan of reusing Taurus at first. I will admit that it has already garnered more attention in one week than 500/Freestyle did in 2 years.

 

I am sure Mulalley didn't come to work one day and tell everyone "we are renaming the 500 the Taurus". The news stories over the last three months were obviously trial baloons to gauge public reaction.

 

Ford's history as well as GM's, Chrysler's and many others is filled with seat of the pants decision making by CEOs and Presidents far removed from the design floor.

 

Robert McNamera ordered that the Concept for the '61 T-Bird be moved to Lincoln. It bacame the Continental.

 

Lee Iacocca ruled by decree for years at Ford and then at Chrysler in most cases with great success. Mustang, Torino, the remaking of the T-Bird all come to mind.

 

Henry Ford II was convinced by the product development and research guys to name the Edsel after his father despite his objections. They were so certain that the car would be a success, it had its own division and the largest ad campaign of its time.

 

Henry II's suggestions were sometimes ignored as well. He wanted the original Mustang to be larger with a bigger back seat.

 

Ford's problem over the last few years has been stagnation and gridlock. I am sure Taurus had its supporters at Ford who were ignored when 500 was conceived. In the grand scheme of things, the renaming of 500/Freestyle/Montego won't save the company. It won't kill it either. More likely than not sales will see an increase.

 

Action in desperate times is better than inaction. He is asking the right questions about why things happen the "Ford Way". He isn't accepting the old answer that "that is the way we do things". Ford needs to change I think he is off to a good start. If he really wants to convince me, A real MKR (with a better name), a competitive B-car, an SHO or SVT Taurus and an Interceptor would do the trick

[NLPRacing]

this means what?

 

That the freakin' research had already been done before Mullally arrived! Holy Christ man! He just had the backbone to go with what the research had told all the spineless beancounters at Ford before he arrived!

So because Ford finally has someone that can make a decision the man gets slammed?

 

Did I slam him? I was trying to be complimentary to Mr. Mullaly as I thought the name change was a good thing.

[MTU 5.0]

The Blog article sounds like some 'pissy fashionsita' writing a gossip column or fashion show rant.

 

Sometimes people just need to complain or add fuel to the fire. The decision to rename the 500 the Taurus makes sense. Will it now automatically sell 200k units annually? No, but it is a small step in the right direction. The Taurus name is so much stronger than the 500, it just makes sense.

Edited February 10, 2007 by MTU 5.0

[RichardJensen]

PS. Fords "research" has failed them for almost ten yrs now.

Then it's Mulally's job to rebuild their research teams, not to make snap decisions.

 

Don't you get it?

 

If Mulally doesn't fix the busted PD organization, what happens when he's gone?

 

The corporation ends up needing to find miracle worker after miracle worker just to keep things on a somewhat even keel (see corresponding rant on Bob Lutz).

 

If Mulally does what every Ford exec since Henry the first has done with Ford, where's the benefit in having him around?

 

Mulally should, first and foremost, do things differently than his predecessors. Forcing top-down changes that should come from the bottom up does not fix a structure that will continue to rely on upper management for all initiative.

[Sporko]

If Ford stayed the course and stood firm with the type of decision making that changed the Windstar to Freestar and then added the Freestyle, the company was on the way out anyway. How much market research was used in determining that Freestar would never be confused with Freestyle? Any lay person can see the problem there but apparently not the managers at Ford. Injecting some personal (rather than committee) preference is exactly what the company needs.

 

The Five Hundred is the natural heir to the Taurus name, where the Taurus is viewed by the public as a mainstream family sedan. Let's not forget, the whole rental car stigma is much more a product of car chat board types than it is of the average person on the street. The Taurus name has much more equity than many chat board denizens give it credit for.

[RichardJensen]

Richard,

Your baseless criticism of Mr. Mulally is stupid and irresponsible. You don't know anything more about him and his decision making than we do. Unless you have facts then I suggest you stop guessing. As a dealer I am happy with what he has done so far. 500 was a disaster for me in 2006 (sales down 60% from 05). I blame piss poor marketing for the lost sales. Bringing back the Taurus name is something that should have been done long ago and I applaud the move. Hopefully Taurus is rolled out with great fanfare and then the advertising contiunues. But to reiterate, please stop the Alan bashing. He has done nothing to deserve it and you come off looking like the typical uninformed Ford basher.

1) I know that there was a lot of dealer interest in reviving the Taurus name. While that may be something of a gauge of customer interest, it's not the same thing. Consistent advertising of the Five Hundred may have worked just as well.

 

2) As far as me looking like the 'typical uninformed Ford basher', well, typically I'm referred to as a Ford cheerleader when I'm insulted. Not as a Ford basher.

 

This is a decision that needed to be well researched before it was done. Why? Because if you don't do research, you're relying on the gut instincts of one guy. Do some research, and you can either validate his 'gut instinct' or call it into question.

 

However, with Mulally publicly and frequently questioning the decision to drop the Taurus name, it would be very difficult for employees at Ford to present research that concluded that there was no long-term advantage involved in bringing back the Taurus name.

 

To his credit, Mulally did say, "we're looking into it", which is more than what was said about the "F" scheme; still it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this was a pet project.

[RichardJensen]

Since Ford's product management teams have been so grossly incompetent for over 10 years, I have no problem with Mulally ignoring their advice and telling subordinates what to name vehicles, and which ones to import.

Conduct such as you are advocating does not remove incompetence, it rewards it.

[Sporko]

Then it's Mulally's job to rebuild their research teams, not to make snap decisions.

 

Even if those snap decisions are the correct ones? It's obvious that Ford's "research teams" are currently paralyzed. Some leadership by example might be just what they need to see to snap out of it.

[Hemiman]

Then it's Mulally's job to rebuild their research teams, not to make snap decisions.

 

Don't you get it?

 

If Mulally doesn't fix the busted PD organization, what happens when he's gone?

 

The corporation ends up needing to find miracle worker after miracle worker just to keep things on a somewhat even keel (see corresponding rant on Bob Lutz).

 

If Mulally does what every Ford exec since Henry the first has done with Ford, where's the benefit in having him around?

 

Mulally should, first and foremost, do things differently than his predecessors. Forcing top-down changes that should come from the bottom up does not fix a structure that will continue to rely on upper management for all initiative.

 

 

Frankly, I don't think Ford has the talent throughout its management to be "self directed" The brain-drain that occured during the push toward diversity at all costs have killed Ford's management at all levels. It'll take years to gain back what was purged.

[focus05]

Then it's Mulally's job to rebuild their research teams, not to make snap decisions.

 

Don't you get it?

 

If Mulally doesn't fix the busted PD organization, what happens when he's gone?

 

The corporation ends up needing to find miracle worker after miracle worker just to keep things on a somewhat even keel (see corresponding rant on Bob Lutz).

 

If Mulally does what every Ford exec since Henry the first has done with Ford, where's the benefit in having him around?

 

Mulally should, first and foremost, do things differently than his predecessors. Forcing top-down changes that should come from the bottom up does not fix a structure that will continue to rely on upper management for all initiative.

 

I think the point that others are trying to make is that there is no evidence that Mulally didn't require good research, in fact a whole new method of assessing what really exists in the marketplace. There are two kinds of market research for product development - good research and the Ford's research that gave us the Five Hundred or cancelled promising products in the past. There is also no evidence that after Mulally made his comments in like October that overall sentiment wasn't changing from the bottom. Further, with his new "open" culture, I'm sure Codina or Fields was free to tell Mulally he was wrong. I would argue that no one was even OPEN to the idea until Mulally came along. It would be unthinkable in Ford's former culture to point out that we have a valuable brand sitting on the shelf that can be used on this car.

 

Based on Mulally's past of understanding customer and business requirements, running a large multi-billion dollar company with many product lines and customer segments, and creating positive atmospheres of feedback and task owership, I cannot imagine that he strong-armed anything into existence. My guess is that he asked the question that needed to be asked and the gears below him went to work. My guess is that in answering that question, the people below him (doesn't have to be three or four levels down, could be just one or two, really - naming is not as basic as how your audio controls feel or your transmissions shifts) realized that they had a name, now free of a car, that had real value in it.

 

I look at it this way. It appears that initially, although Taurus may have been considered, Five Hundred was chosen because that's just the way it is. All new cars get their F names. No market research. No consideration to brand (at least none that reflected knowledge of brand management as far as I can tell). This time it looks like a decision was made with some research behind it, with some attention to brand management. And that's a huge positive for Ford. This is what they've needed for the last 5 years at least.

 

Could it have been that Mulally made a decision after everyone came back torn on the issue or skittish about changing names? Yes. But as much as you're trying to argue to the contrary, I believe that Mulally has a better grip on the realities of branding than most in the company because he doesn't see through blue-colored glasses. Even if he was the decision-maker on this one, I don't think he would have made it on a whim, but he would have made it if the realities of the strength of the brand were staring him in the face. And sometimes, CEOs, COOs, VPs, etc. need to be able to make such decisions, even if it's not normally on their "level."

 

It does look suspicious on the surface, but I would encourage you to look at who Mulally is - including his past at Boeing - and what he's doing with Ford today and ask the simple question: is he the same type of manager Ford has suffered through for the last 20 years? The easy answer is no. And thank God for that. More importantly, I'm almost positive that the lesson learned from this "Taurus" exercise will not be lost on future Ford teams. I somehow doubt that Mulally will ever want to revisit this type of issue and instead train the people below him to make these types of realizations and decisions.

Edited February 10, 2007 by focus05

[RichardJensen]

wouldn't we want to go in and erase some things straight away that we thought were ridiculous?

No.

 

I'd want to know WHY those decisions were made.

 

------

 

And for the record, market research by the "E" car team suggested "Corsair". It was Ernie Breech who unilaterally changed it to Edsel and along with Richard Krafve cooked the results when pitching Hank the Deuce.

 

So, "Edsel" too becomes an instance where failure to listen to research, and 'seat of the pants' decision making fails again.

 

Hank the Deuce had a 'seat of the pants' dislike for the minivan idea as well.

 

Oh, and Toyota and Honda are not generally run by 'seat of the pants' autocrats, and not surprisingly, almost all the triumphs of 'seat of the pants' decision making came before the Japanese through their methodical approaches, absolutely demolished the domestic passenger car industry.

[peterstern]

If I was CEO, I would have done the same thing... that is... put a complete end to the dumbest marketing idea presently being done in the auto industry... the F naming scheme. Mulally probably wants people to stop laughing at Ford. One way to do that is to stop doing stupid things. Five Hundred? And tell me would would normally write "Five Hundred" and not "500"?

 

Changing the "Five-Hundred" to "Taurus" is a no-brainer move in my opinion.

 

If it was me in charge, not only would I have done this, but I would find every marketing person who thought the F-name idea was good and either lay them off or reassign them to anything EXCEPT marketing and not allow them to even enter the same building or share the same space with any REAL marketing person.

 

Market data and analysis? Oh please. It's one thing to have and look at data... knowing what to do with it is a completely different thing.

 

Even if the F-name marketing guys had all the info in the world - including inside info on their competitors - they wouldn't know what to do with it.

 

Why do I think that?

 

It was one statement that was made to explain the logic when the F-name idea was made public... it was something to the effect of "all the best Ford car names have started with F... like Focus, Fairlaine, Falcon, F-150, etc." (don't remember where I read it, but I remember it very well).

 

Of course, Ford Marketing seemed to have overlooked the best F names of all... like Mustang, Thunderbird and Crown Victoria. What? Mustang doesn't start with F? Well I'll be damned!

 

This just goes to show that Ford's marketing DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THEIR OWN DAMN PRODUCT HISTORY.

 

Ford's marketing needs more than major surgury... it needs a total housecleaning and then needs to be rebuilt.

 

But first, some of the dumbest things needed to be stopped to stop being a laughingstock.

 

And that's what Mulally did. He was right to do it.

 

The Five Hundred was not rushed to market.

 

I am not opposed to the decision to rename the Five Hundred as such (it may be justifiable, it may not, it may work, it may not)--rather, I am opposed to Mulally creating an atmosphere where people may have been pressured to conform market data and analysis to his (Mulally's) preference.

[ford-boy]

Galaxie was very successful. By 1966-1968 it sold as much as Impala. I think Torino was better than Fairlane. I don't recall how well Granada did, but I do remember seeing many of them.

[MKII]

See post above. IT'S NOT HIS CALL.

 

What business does he have interfering in decisions 3, 4 removes from his office? Decisions that should be based on research, and not 'well I think it's cool' remarks from the current top dog in the design studio.

 

Is Ford Motor to be turned into an engine to implement the whims of its new Boeing sourced CEO?

 

It is idiotic in the extreme to trust this amount of decision making authority in one person's hands, and it is, further, idiotic to glorify exercises of caprice and whimsy when they happen to correspond with our own wishes.

 

I don't give a rip whether the marketing data supports the decision to rename the vehicle Taurus or not, if the decision was made before the research, the research is suspect, the decision is questionable, and the process is absolutely irresponsible at a company of Ford's size.

 

Richard you come across as someone who is scared by common sense.

[silvrsvt]

Then it's Mulally's job to rebuild their research teams, not to make snap decisions.

 

Don't you get it?

 

If Mulally doesn't fix the busted PD organization, what happens when he's gone?

 

The corporation ends up needing to find miracle worker after miracle worker just to keep things on a somewhat even keel (see corresponding rant on Bob Lutz).

 

If Mulally does what every Ford exec since Henry the first has done with Ford, where's the benefit in having him around?

 

Mulally should, first and foremost, do things differently than his predecessors. Forcing top-down changes that should come from the bottom up does not fix a structure that will continue to rely on upper management for all initiative.

 

 

I think your looking into the decision to rename the 500 to the Taurus too much. What it gives the 500 a much more recognizable name and will hopefully lead to more sales due to this. It was something simple stupid to do (though killing the Taurus off in the first place was dumb, but thats in the past) and for a struggling platform to get some desperately needed attention.

 

It might smack of a personal pet project, but just look at the reaction it got...lots of press (mostly Good) for Ford, which it needs.

 

As for Mulally fixing other parts of Ford, we'll see how that plays out over next couple years...if it doesn't Ford is done and over with anyways...but I think a renaming of a nearly invisible nameplate with a famous one isn't enough to put Mulally on the sake just yet.

[RichardJensen]

Richard you come across as someone who is scared by common sense.

Common sense suggests that the seven or eight mandarins at the top of the corporate ladder do not know it all, and therefore much decision making should be delegated to subordinates, with the "C" level and executive VPs exercising OVERSIGHT as opposed to micromanagement.

[hbalek]

Today I attended the Baltimore Auto Show and they had the "new" 2008 Taurus already on display! I was surprised to see it here so soon after Chicago. It was prominently displayed on top of a platform. They did not have Sables or Taurus X's though. Frankly, I'm already comfortable with the idea of the new Taurus. I also overheard a lot of positive buzz surrounding the display. I heard a few people comment: "Hey I just read the other day they were bringing the Taurus back and look, here it is!" Some 40ish looking guys were looking at it and were happy and excited to see it back. It was kinda weird because just TWO weeks ago I was at the D.C. Auto Show and they had the 2008 FiveHundred on display but not on a raised platform but just blended in with other cars but the doors were locked and NO ONE was giving it a second glance! This crazy name game just might work!!!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

RJ, Look, I'm with you on your premise that CEOs need not go off half cocked and make snap decisions that can have huge corporate implications. Things like that have sank mighty ships in the past.

 

That being said, I found two things very disappointing about your rant (and yes, RJ, it was a rant. Just like mine when I first heard about the name change) on the front page. The first thing was giving little or no acknowledgment to Mullaly's success in the past. He didn't get where he was by making stupid decisions and then cramming them down underling's throats. The second one was the almost personal tone that I felt in your words. While you were careful in most of your wording to avoid making it overtly personal, it seemed, overall, every bit a personal attack on Mullaly over what you believe to be a stupid decision.

 

I really expect more from you when you put finger to key on these pages, especially when you use your moderating abilities to be a sort of moral or at least procedural compass on this site. Tone down the rhetoric and get back to the basics. Make a case for the change being a bad decision, question how that decision may have come about, but leave the attacks out of it.

 

I still, personally fear the baggage that the Taurus nameplate has on it, most importantly with residual values and leasing arrangements. The classic taurus has phenomenally low resale values and depreciated extremely quickly, making it an unattractive car to lease. If there's a perception hangover for initial retained value calculations by the bodies that project these things, then leasing on the "new" taurus may be somewhat unattractive as well. What I didn't anticipate with the renaming was all the people that still have a positive impression of the Taurus of the past. I've gotten into conversations with several people lately (I'm the resident car guy) about the d3s and every one of the people asking about it have several things in common:

 

1) A positive or neutral experience with a Taurus/Sable in the past

2) Little to no knowledge of what a 500 or montego was (None of them knew what the freestyle was, two asked if it was the minivan they replaced the windstar with)

3) All thought that the taurus was a Camry / Accord competitor (a few thought that it competed with the Impala). When informed that it was as large as the Avalon internally for a price that was more in line with comparable camrys, that got a lot of attention. (granted, we're talking not a huge difference here overall).

4) Most were confused when they wanted to know if it came in a 4 cylinder version and I said no. This again speaks to the impression that the Taurus is a Camry / accord competitors. Though, they liked the economy numbers that the current 6 speed 3.0L makes.

 

Do you know what this tells me? The says that a lot of people now know about the car that didn't before. That's a net positive for the present and speaks VOLUMES to Ford's flawed marketing program for this platform. This also tells me that Ford's going to have to be aggressive about getting the fuel conscious buyers into Fusion I-4s. In fact, in the above conversations, when people asked about what Ford had that competed with the Camry and Accord, and I mentioned the Fusion, I got a very mixed bag of reactions. Some hadn't heard about it. Some were now interested in that instead. Some said they knew about the vehicle and thought that it was actually kind of below the camry / accord in the marketplace (I couldn't ever get them to nail down if it was the size, or just their impression).

 

So, I've now gone from completely pessimistic about this name change to cautiously optimistic. I think that this will increase D3 sales. I also think that this might increase Fusion sales as well, largely due to sell downs where someone was looking for a competitor to the I-4 camry in the Taurus and had to be introduced to the value priced Fusion (What? I can get a car that big for the price of a Loaded Corolla? Wow!).

[Roadrunner]

-

Edited February 11, 2007 by Roadrunner