Cougarpower Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Peter Horbury, Ford's U.S. design director, offered this explanation as to what Mercury represents: "It's a Ford, plus more. It's created for people who appreciate a contemporary lifestyle, minimalist interiors and contemporary furniture sitting on the 58th floor of an apartment block in Chicago." Explaining that differences between a Ford and Mercury are cosmetic, Horbury again used the analogy of an apartment building to justify the brand's slight price premium over a Ford. "A 50-year-old couple moves into one apartment and a 22-year-old couple moves in next door. Within a week they'd be different - colors, decoration, materials, furnishing. So there are enough possibilities in using those things to make those differences work." After a week in a Mercury Sable, I understand. continue at the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 (edited) continue at the link He's wrong, which is why Mercury sales is in the tank. This marketing to women and "metrosexuals" is a disaster. That's what happens when you have an Englishman try to market to American males. The real marketing should be what it was 40 years ago - "The Man's Car" for the conservative middle-aged professional and white collar men - like Jack Lord in "Hawaii 5-0". Mercury was able to live off of that image for 20 years. Edited July 14, 2008 by taxman100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I agree with Taxman's comments in spirit but I am not sure that this niche is fillable anymore. If anything, that conservative middle-class driver will leap to a Lexus today, already having shunned the Buick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WC-MAN Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Yes, but is there any information that says marketing to women works? When minivans became the defacto mommy wagon, totally marketed to women, women moved to SUV's which were at the time advertised to a male audience like trucks. Scion has done a great job of demonstrating that youth do not like to be told what they like. Looking at these two groups, I would assume metrosexuals (I still do not understand the "sex" in that name) also do not like to be told what to buy. Personally, I'm a post-grad educated professional living in a rural/suburban area. I have liked Mercury's ever since they adopted the waterfall grille because of their styling. I didn't matter what was cool, or who the commercials targeted, or anything else. Given the choice today, I would choose the Sable over the Taurus, Milan over the Fusion, Mariner over the Escape and so on. I've yet to see a difference since the 80's between Mercury and Ford other than styling, and Ford usally has a base model not available from Merc. I think they should quit trying to target niche groups, and simply advertise in a manner similar to Ford. Emphasize the sportiness of the Milan, family friendliness of Sable, ect. and let buyers choose. Only those who want the bottom model will have to choose Ford, everybody else has two choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96towncarcartier Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 There ARE DIFFERENCES between Ford and Mercury models...anyone who's driven a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis knows this. For one thing, Mercury models are usually heavier, with softer rides as is the case with the CV/GM examples. Marketing to women DOES WORK. Sears started marketing it's "Softer Side" and saw a significant increase in sales right after. Other manufacturers who have marketed to women have noted that IT WORKS. Yes, but is there any information that says marketing to women works? When minivans became the defacto mommy wagon, totally marketed to women, women moved to SUV's which were at the time advertised to a male audience like trucks. Scion has done a great job of demonstrating that youth do not like to be told what they like. Looking at these two groups, I would assume metrosexuals (I still do not understand the "sex" in that name) also do not like to be told what to buy. Personally, I'm a post-grad educated professional living in a rural/suburban area. I have liked Mercury's ever since they adopted the waterfall grille because of their styling. I didn't matter what was cool, or who the commercials targeted, or anything else. Given the choice today, I would choose the Sable over the Taurus, Milan over the Fusion, Mariner over the Escape and so on. I've yet to see a difference since the 80's between Mercury and Ford other than styling, and Ford usally has a base model not available from Merc. I think they should quit trying to target niche groups, and simply advertise in a manner similar to Ford. Emphasize the sportiness of the Milan, family friendliness of Sable, ect. and let buyers choose. Only those who want the bottom model will have to choose Ford, everybody else has two choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Marketing to women DOES WORK. Sears started marketing it's "Softer Side" and saw a significant increase in sales right after. Was that before or after they declared bankruptcy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StangBang Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Everyone seems to forget the impact the compact Comet had on Mercury in 1960. It was originally designed to be an Edsel. When the Edsel brand was killed it was simply badged as a Comet the first year and branded a Mercury all subsequent years. It just goes to show it's not the first time Mercury has looked to smaller economical cars with an upscale image at an affordable price. Even the very first 1939 Mercury gave an air of Lincoln-ness closer to a Ford price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WC-MAN Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I doubt there is 50 lbs. difference in my GMQ and a Crown Vic. For that matter, i doubt you can find over 100 lbs. difference in ANY mercury and the equivilant Ford. And how do they ride softer on the same suspension? I've ridden in a GMQ and Crown Vic, today's and in the 80's, a Topaz and Tempo, Escort and Tracer, Milan and Fusion, and two generations of Taurus and Sable. Absolutely NONE of these Mercuries handled and worse, rode any softer, or weighed significantly more than there Ford counterparts. Last I checked, Sears hasn't sold cars in 60 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96towncarcartier Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Goes to show what YOU know... Sears has NEVER filed bankruptcy. the only thing the company did was to merge with Kmart...and Sears is the owner of both chains. There ARE DIFFERENCES between Ford and Mercury models...anyone who's driven a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis knows this. For one thing, Mercury models are usually heavier, with softer rides as is the case with the CV/GM examples. Marketing to women DOES WORK. Sears started marketing it's "Softer Side" and saw a significant increase in sales right after. Other manufacturers who have marketed to women have noted that IT WORKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96towncarcartier Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Oh REALLY?? No difference eh?? Crown Victoria curb weight: 3780lbs. Grand Marquis curb weight: 4135lbs for the LS; 4117 for the GS. Hmmm...sounds like a weight difference to ME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Goes to show what YOU know... Sears has NEVER filed bankruptcy. the only thing the company did was to merge with Kmart...and Sears is the owner of both chains. Kmart bought Sears in an 11B dollar stock deal. Kmart Holdings then named the merged company Sears Holdings. Kmart's board survived, Sears' didn't. msnbc article from 2004 As to their increase in sales after the "softer side" campaign, it was Sears' first mass advertising campaign in a decade. They had rested on their laurels since the late '70s, while the mall-based specialty retailers ate their lunch (Old Navy, Gap, Marshall's). (No, I'm not in retail, I just grew up in the Sears vs Kmart era) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Kmart bought Sears in an 11B dollar stock deal. Kmart Holdings then named the merged company Sears Holdings. Kmart's board survived, Sears' didn't. msnbc article from 2004 As to their increase in sales after the "softer side" campaign, it was Sears' first mass advertising campaign in a decade. They had rested on their laurels since the late '70s, while the mall-based specialty retailers ate their lunch (Old Navy, Gap, Marshall's). (No, I'm not in retail, I just grew up in the Sears vs Kmart era) Which still boggles my mind since Kmart is too incompetent to keep their stores open in Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 He's wrong, which is why Mercury sales is in the tank. This marketing to women and "metrosexuals" is a disaster. That's what happens when you have an Englishman try to market to American males. The real marketing should be what it was 40 years ago - "The Man's Car" for the conservative middle-aged professional and white collar men - like Jack Lord in "Hawaii 5-0". Mercury was able to live off of that image for 20 years. Exactly! Why can't they understand this? What is wrong with Ford when they should go back and start squaring up the exteriors on the Panthers to make them look like a Park Lane and the LTD/Marquis of the late 1960's and 1970's? Don't they realize that people are not quite as thin as it was back then so why not create a large car with more interior room! What boneheads! NO WONDER WHY I DON'T WORK FOR FORD ANYMORE. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE DOING FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang84isu Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Oh REALLY?? No difference eh?? Crown Victoria curb weight: 3780lbs. Grand Marquis curb weight: 4135lbs for the LS; 4117 for the GS. Hmmm...sounds like a weight difference to ME! That 3780 figure is wrong; it's from a pre-1998 model. There is no reason a Grand Marquis would have 400 lb extra on the Crown Vic. A 2003 Crown Vic comes in a 3984 lbs; obviously, with all the extra noise insulation Ford has been adding, the curb weights have gone up over the years...but the Grand Marquis weighs no different than the CV. 1992 Crown Vic LX 4dr. Sedan: 3748 lbs. (from Edmunds) 2007 Crown Vic LX 4dr Sedan: 4134 lbs. http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Crown+Victo...available-trims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 That 3780 figure is wrong; it's from a pre-1998 model. There is no reason a Grand Marquis would have 400 lb extra on the Crown Vic. A 2003 Crown Vic comes in a 3984 lbs; obviously, with all the extra noise insulation Ford has been adding, the curb weights have gone up over the years...but the Grand Marquis weighs no different than the CV. 1992 Crown Vic LX 4dr. Sedan: 3748 lbs. (from Edmunds) 2007 Crown Vic LX 4dr Sedan: 4134 lbs. http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Crown+Victo...available-trims The redesign of the frame and rear suspension for 2003 model year added about 300 lbs. to the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Steve McGarrett's Mercury Park Lane I found this nice little story by Googling "Mercury Park Lane" Edited August 13, 2008 by Bored of Pisteon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougarpower Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 (edited) Was that before or after they declared bankruptcy? Kmart declared bankruptcy back in 2002, in 2003 Eddie Lampert bought Kmart bonds under bankruptcy and got the company out of Chapter 11 and since he was the mayor stock owner of both companies, he decided to buy Sears and merge it with Kmart to form Sears Holding Corporation Edited August 14, 2008 by Cougarpower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 What is a Mercury car some might ask? Grand Marquis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Which still boggles my mind since Kmart is too incompetent to keep their stores open in Texas. Unfortunate. Near my house is a Walmart and a KMart next door to one another. The Walmart is usually busy which is why I go to the KMart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas1022 Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Goes to show what YOU know... Sears has NEVER filed bankruptcy. the only thing the company did was to merge with Kmart...and Sears is the owner of both chains. Wrong, Kmart went through bankruptcy successfully. And when it emerged from bankruptcy protection it bought Sears stores. If you see a Sears store, it is really a Kmart with a different monicker. Sears credit wasn't part of the original deal, but I think it is now a bank affilliated with Kmart for credit and marketing purposes. Great mix, imo. Bottom line is the old Sears, Roebuck and Company are long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Why are you people even discussing Sears and K Mart on this thread? :rolleyes: :gang: :slap: :slug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.