Ford better not pull a Schlitz

[Roadrunner]

Here's why--

 

Let me take you back to 1955-ish. Schlitz saw Budweiser sinking because of a labor strike. Schlitz went gung-ho to become the #1 brewer in America and, well, that one failed big time.

 

Ford is in a decently strong position. They better keep it steady and not try to go for #1 yet.

 

How could Ford screw up? By going to overcapacity or running rampant, like Schlitz did. Ford can triumph over GM in theory, but going for the big guns seems folly.

 

Does Mullally feel like a lucky punk or will he keep the Blue Oval on the right pace by building things better and more desirable?

[jpd80]

Your speculation is completely opposite to what Ford is doing - downsizing to profitability.

[Mark B. Morrow]

What if anything can you point to that would cause you to fear that Mulally would abandon the plan of the past two years?

[Marginal Economist]

Mulally has got this figured out. I have more confidence in this guy than any one else who could take his place. Mulally gets it.

[7Mary3]

Loosing billions every quarter, loosing market share every year, massive debt. You call that a 'decently strong position'? I think you been drinkin' too much Schlitz!

[fordmantpw]

Loosing billions every quarter, loosing market share every year, massive debt. You call that a 'decently strong position'? I think you been drinkin' too much Schlitz!

 

Compared to Chrysler and GM...yes it is. And, if you haven't been paying attention, Ford has INCREASED market share slightly in the last two months.

[grbeck]

Compared to Chrysler and GM...yes it is. And, if you haven't been paying attention, Ford has INCREASED market share slightly in the last two months.

 

From a product standpoint, Ford needs to be worried about Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai, not GM, and certainly not Chrysler.

 

Ford needs to be worried about GM and/or Chrysler going bankrupt.

[Catalepsy]

Ford doesn't need to "worry" about any other maker. It needs to produce industry leading products and hire a good marketing, and the rest will take care of itself.

 

 

From a product standpoint, Ford needs to be worried about Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai, not GM, and certainly not Chrysler.

 

Ford needs to be worried about GM and/or Chrysler going bankrupt.

[Unknown25]

Loosing billions every quarter, loosing market share every year, massive debt. You call that a 'decently strong position'? I think you been drinkin' too much Schlitz!

 

Toyota's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 14.6% (Truck: 12.3% Car: 16.8%)

2007: 13.8% (Truck: 12.4% Car: 15.2%)

 

Ford's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 13.7% (Truck: 20.3% Car: 7.2%)

2007: 12.4% (Truck: 17.6% Car: 7.1%)

 

Chevrolet's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 12.7% (Truck: 15.7% Car: 9.7%)

2007: 12.7% (Truck: 15.4% Car:10.0%)

 

Who's losing marketshare?

Nissan

Dodge

Jeep

Chrysler

GMC

Hyundai

Pontiac

Cadillac

Saturn

Mercury

Buick

SCION

Volvo

Suzuki

Land Rover

HUMMER

Porsche

Jaguar

Aston Martin

Izuzu

Maserati

Bentley

SAAB

 

 

Source: http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA59147125.PDF [subcription to Automotive News]

[NickF1011]

Toyota's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 14.6% (Truck: 12.3% Car: 16.8%)

2007: 13.8% (Truck: 12.4% Car: 15.2%)

 

Ford's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 13.7% (Truck: 20.3% Car: 7.2%)

2007: 12.4% (Truck: 17.6% Car: 7.1%)

 

Chevrolet's Marketshare (as of Dec. 1st 2008)

2008: 12.7% (Truck: 15.7% Car: 9.7%)

2007: 12.7% (Truck: 15.4% Car:10.0%)

 

Who's losing marketshare?

Nissan

Dodge

Jeep

Chrysler

GMC

Hyundai

Pontiac

Cadillac

Saturn

Mercury

Buick

SCION

Volvo

Suzuki

Land Rover

HUMMER

Porsche

Jaguar

Aston Martin

Izuzu

Maserati

Bentley

SAAB

 

 

Source: http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA59147125.PDF [subcription to Automotive News]

 

PWNAGE!!!

 

Ford isn't losing "billions every quarter" either. In fact, they MADE money in Q1 08.

[goingincirclez]

Here's why--

 

Let me take you back to 1955-ish. Schlitz saw Budweiser sinking because of a labor strike. Schlitz went gung-ho to become the #1 brewer in America and, well, that one failed big time.

 

Ford is in a decently strong position. They better keep it steady and not try to go for #1 yet.

 

How could Ford screw up? By going to overcapacity or running rampant, like Schlitz did. Ford can triumph over GM in theory, but going for the big guns seems folly.

 

Does Mullally feel like a lucky punk or will he keep the Blue Oval on the right pace by building things better and more desirable?

 

 

Ford already did this in the late 90's. They were just behind GM, which was still wallowing with old platforms, what to do with this new brand called "Saturn", and the other typical detroit myopia of the time.

 

Ford on the other hand, had 5 of the 10 best-selling vehicles of the time, an incredibly popular brand called "Explorer", and was generally enjoying the strongest position of the Big 3. Lincoln outsold Cadillac for the first time in modern memory and Ford was *this close* to overtaking GM...

 

Then Jack Nasser never saw a deal he didn't like, they axed half the car line in favor of the pursuit of "growth" and profits in trucks, they quit paying attention to quality which begat debacles like the Focus and Escape launches, let the remaining cars languish and linger, and got caught flat-tired in the Firestone/Explorer fiasco.

 

In short, they Schlitzed themselves 10 years ago - and are STILL trying to wipe it up.

 

But they're finally making some headway in that respect...

[Critic]

Ford on the other hand, had 5 of the 10 best-selling vehicles of the time, an incredibly popular brand called "Explorer", and was generally enjoying the strongest position of the Big 3.

 

 

Then Jack Nasser never saw a deal he didn't like, they axed half the car line in favor of the pursuit of "growth" and profits in trucks, they quit paying attention to quality which begat debacles like the Focus and Escape launches, let the remaining cars languish and linger, and got caught flat-tired in the Firestone/Explorer fiasco.

First, Chrysler/Jeep had a great product that had entered the market called the Cherokee. That set the market upon it's current direction towards SUV. Ford came out 2 years later with their Explorer. Not as refined or really as handsome, but more mass marketed and it took off in the market place. Ford was not the first to define that market.

 

Second, what has not actually been determined yet to this date, was that Firestone had, had an extended strike. The verdict was that the rubber had separated from the steel belts within the tires. What has not been played up, is that the wire used in those tires sat and started developing surface corrosion (IE RUST). Once production of the tires resumed, it was a hurry up and get these out the door. No work was performed to decontaminate that wire.

 

I can not back this up with solid proof, but it makes some sense to me and I've heard some of this directly from the tire-workers. Ford tried to mitigate damage to their best-selling vehicle, and from there on seems to have been the slide. The Explorer case is still in the Federal Courts.

[jpd80]

Ford already did this in the late 90's. They were just behind GM, which was still wallowing with old platforms, what to do with this new brand called "Saturn", and the other typical detroit myopia of the time.

 

Ford on the other hand, had 5 of the 10 best-selling vehicles of the time, an incredibly popular brand called "Explorer", and was generally enjoying the strongest position of the Big 3. Lincoln outsold Cadillac for the first time in modern memory and Ford was *this close* to overtaking GM...

 

Then Jack Nasser never saw a deal he didn't like, they axed half the car line in favor of the pursuit of "growth" and profits in trucks, they quit paying attention to quality which begat debacles like the Focus and Escape launches, let the remaining cars languish and linger, and got caught flat-tired in the Firestone/Explorer fiasco.

 

In short, they Schlitzed themselves 10 years ago - and are STILL trying to wipe it up.

 

But they're finally making some headway in that respect...

When Nasser took over as CEO of Ford he knew that there was a huge overreliance on F Truck and Explorer. and he reasoned that

Ford had about five years before the competition or an oil crisis would catch Ford out. He ran into a wall of fiefdoms that refued every

approach for change, undermined his authority and set him up for failure on the Explorer and first Focus.

People knew things and kept vital facts from him.

 

His aim in creating PAG was to get a separate income stream similar in size to FoE and was done with full approval of the board.

What annoys me is the fact that Nasser left Ford over 7 years ago and he is still blamed for Ford's troubles today.

 

Bill Ford made no attempt to sell PAG in the early 2000s and kept the things going as loss makers for five years.

The best thing Bill Ford did was realise people were lying to him about the company and bring in Mulally.

Edited December 24, 2008 by jpd80

[Roadrunner]

What if anything can you point to that would cause you to fear that Mulally would abandon the plan of the past two years?

 

I worry because this appears to be a prime opportunity to boost the Ford brand up, when in fact it is not. I agree with you that Mullally is on the right track, but I'm hoping he keeps things going in this direction instead of the alluring top dog spot.

[Roadrunner]

First, Chrysler/Jeep had a great product that had entered the market called the Cherokee. That set the market upon it's current direction towards SUV. Ford came out 2 years later with their Explorer. Not as refined or really as handsome, but more mass marketed and it took off in the market place. Ford was not the first to define that market.

 

The Cherokee was around as far back as 1984 and the Wagoneer was not that far back before it.

 

Ford epitomized the SUV trend, though, because of two things: 1) the Explorer became the highest profile SUV -- when you thought 'SUV' you thought 'Explorer' and knew you had a rugged, great four door and 2) Ford was first to jump into mass-marketing the "huge SUV": the Excursion. Greenies pooped their pants with that one and pointed fingers until the Hummer came about. Thank you Hummer.

 

Ford was the top dog in SUV sales when it really mattered.

 

Remember that before the Explorer there was the Bronco II, and the S-10 Blazer. Both became outdoorsy vehicles but neither of those were at the forefront of when the SUV craze became huge.

 

Jeep's Cherokee and Grand Cherokee were at best #2 when the big SUV craze was in style.

 

I even remember the Durango having a niche right before the big oil bubble burst.

[Critic]

The Cherokee was around as far back as 1984 and the Wagoneer was not that far back before it.

 

Ford epitomized the SUV trend, though, because of two things: 1) the Explorer became the highest profile SUV -- when you thought 'SUV' you thought 'Explorer' and knew you had a rugged, great four door and 2) Ford was first to jump into mass-marketing the "huge SUV": the Excursion. Greenies pooped their pants with that one and pointed fingers until the Hummer came about. Thank you Hummer.

 

Ford was the top dog in SUV sales when it really mattered.

 

Remember that before the Explorer there was the Bronco II, and the S-10 Blazer. Both became outdoorsy vehicles but neither of those were at the forefront of when the SUV craze became huge.

 

Jeep's Cherokee and Grand Cherokee were at best #2 when the big SUV craze was in style.

 

I even remember the Durango having a niche right before the big oil bubble burst.

Yea. your pretty good on this.. I was referring to the body style of Cherokee that ended up being sold to China, the next change was called the Grand Cherokee.

 

I like to read your posts. Learn something off them all the time and travel back down memory lane too boot.