Somthing rotten in Denmark

[LM4EVR]

I’ve read some of the comments regarding Mercury’s discontinuation. Some are reasoned and most are emotional (pro and con), I think the emotional ones are called “flames” in the chat room world. Things like Mercury should have died, or Buick should die, that sort of thing. But step back for a moment at look at the big picture. Now I will be honest here, having owned four new Mercurys, my first new car being a 1984 Capri and being a very happy, loyal customer. I get all my service work done at my selling dealer, a L-M (no Ford) dealer with whom I have also been very happy with. So, yes, this decision hits me personally. Now with my cards on the table……

 

Fifty years ago there were six US auto and light truck manufacturers (not counting Checker and IH) and 17 makes. These six companies had over 90 per cent of the US car market. Chevrolet and Ford combined controlled 25 per cent of the market each. The nation’s population was around 180 million. Fast forward to 2010. Population 300 million. Yet the number of manufacturers has been halved. Their combined market share of 45 per cent has also been halved. GM, Ford and Chrysler (the corporations, not the makes) combined control less than GM by itself did 50 years ago. The number of makes is now down to 9. Something is wrong here. This is more than just Mercury being discontinued. This is about a major US industry permanently downsizing and giving up 50 per cent of its domestic market to foreign companies. This is significantly different then when Chrysler Corp. passed Ford Motor in the early 30s or when Ford Motor regained second place in the early 50s. This is more significant than Rambler displacing Plymouth for third most popular make in the early 1960s. This is an entire US industry that appears to be dieing off.

 

In early 20^th century, as the automobile became ubiquitous the saddle and buggy industry retreated. Cars and trucks replaced horses as the main form of personal and business transportation. Today we still have saddle and buggy makers but it isn’t a major industry because horses are no longer a major mode of transport. This is a logical progression. In a 21^st century vain we have the cell phone and the land line phone. The cell phone will probably replace the land line as the primary personal phone in this country (baring an unforeseen catastrophe). Will the land line go away? Certainly not, it is a valuable and useful part of our infrastructure but its’ prominence is being reduced. Both of these examples are in stark contrast to the automobile industry. Motorized transport is not going away. It may evolve. We will probably end up with a new type of fuel at some point. But the automobile itself is not going away. That is what makes this all so unsettling. The largest manufacturing sector in the US is now controlled by foreign interests.

 

Gentlemen, regardless of what your opinion of Mercury is, and mine happens to be all good, this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. If the people at Ford truly thought they could regain their preeminence in the US auto industry they would have kept Ford and L-M as two distinct sales outlets and would have retained Mercury as an ongoing concern. There is something rotten, just not in Demark this time.

 

 

[AGR]

I understand the emotion, but the handwriting has been on the wall for the medium price makes since about 1958. That year, a recession hit, and the Ford Galaxie and Chevy Impala were introduced, the first "premium" models from those brands. The new Edsel brand and DeSoto shut down almost immediately. Dodge survived by moving downmarket into Plymouth territory, eventually supplanting it altogether. Pontiac became a sporty brand, which kept it going for another 50 years.

With changing market tastes, different sizes of vehicles(compact, midsize, etc), badge engineering, and features that used to be luxuries now basic or standard, the Alfred Sloan model of a ladder of different priced brands became obsolete decades ago.

Chrysler survives because there's no true luxury brand slotted in above it. And GM is too stubborn(yet) to admit that there is not enough room for two premium brands.

 

Edit: I would add that the demise of the medium price brands and the rise of the foreign competitors are not related.

Edited June 4, 2010 by AGR

[Edstock]

If the people at Ford truly thought they could regain their preeminence in the US auto industry they would have kept Ford and L-M as two distinct sales outlets and would have retained Mercury as an ongoing concern. There is something rotten, just not in Demark this time.

That's your opinion. No facts to back it up. You have a bummer attitude; that's your choice.

 

A positive attitude might posit: As the people at Ford truly think they will regain their preeminence in the US auto industry they will keep Ford and Lincoln as two distinct sales outlets and will have removed Mercury as it is no longer an ongoing concern.

 

It is in the nature of capitalism, that, over time, the producers in any industry get amalgamated or forced from the marketplace. That's just the way the Monopoly game works.

 

Now, through arrogance and short-term greed, the domestic manufacturers self-destructed — except for Ford. Now, what does it take to re-build the Ford Motor Company?

 

Go back to basics, which is Ford and Lincoln (since 1922). Laser-focus on those products' design, manufacture and marketing. Then, one day, maybe Mercury can be re-born as it started, a different Ford model.

[F250]

I see your point LM4EVR.

When things got tough 5 years ago Mark Fields grand plan was just close 7 assembly plants, 6 parts plants and fire 30% of the company work force. How original, what a "bold move" just cut and run. Those were the days before Alan Mulally of course. But the message was clear: "We will never again need the production capacity because we can't see a way to recover lost market share."

In 1925 Ford had 35 assembly plants in America, today there are 9 and one of those will close this year.

[LM4EVR]

"That's your opinion. No facts to back it up. You have a bummer attitude; that's your choice." Yes, two facts: Ford and Lincoln dealers are combined and not two seperate sales outlets, and 2) Mercury was dropped. Those are facts. I do not have a bummer attitude. The US automarket is now dominated by foreign companies. Just another fact.

 

Going back to basics would mean going back to Ford w/o Lincoln.

Edited June 4, 2010 by LM4EVR

[Edstock]

Going back to basics would mean going back to Ford w/o Lincoln.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, since 1922, the Ford Motor Company has sold Fords and Lincolns.

 

Considering that Ford has a price range that precludes its expansion into the luxury level, a luxury division like Lincoln is required. So going back to basics would mean going back to Ford and Lincoln w/o Mercury, just like 88 years ago. Capice?

[630land]

I was a big fan of all the mid price brands when I was a kid, and was until seeing how bad the car business was losing $$$ just to maintain 'good old days' image. But after years of rebadged boring cars that were pointless, it is time for practice to end. They are just cars, after all.

[syrtran]

What's gone from the American market since 1960:

Nash/Rambler

Studebaker

DeSoto

Edsel

Oldsmobile

Pontiac

Plymouth

Mercury, soon

 

What's new in the American market since 1960:

Datsun/Nissan

Infiniti

Honda

Acura

Lexus

Subaru

Suzuki

BMW

Saab (introduced to America in 1960)

Hyundai

Kia

 

Major increase in dealers since 1960:

Toyota

Land Rover

 

That's 8 makes gone, 11 new, and 2 major increases in distribution. Also, remember that most mid-level and lower makes are now full-range while most makes back in 1960 only had around 5 or 6 models. For example:

 

Ford 1960:

Galaxie/Custom/Starliner/Skyliner

Fairlane

Falcon

Thunderbird

F-series (they all used the same body)

E-series (Falcon Van FTW!)

 

Ford 2010:

Explorer

Taurus

Flex

Fusion

Edge

Mustang

Transit Connect (2011)

Escape

Focus

Fiesta (2011)

F100

Super Duty

Econoline

Expedition

 

Something had to give. Unfortunately, it was Plymouth, Olds, Pontiac, and Mercury.

 

 

P.S. Somehow, I've got the suspicion I've forgotten a make or two up there.

[Kev-Mo]

I’ve read some of the comments regarding Mercury’s discontinuation. Some are reasoned and most are emotional (pro and con), I think the emotional ones are called “flames” in the chat room world. Things like Mercury should have died, or Buick should die, that sort of thing. But step back for a moment at look at the big picture. Now I will be honest here, having owned four new Mercurys, my first new car being a 1984 Capri and being a very happy, loyal customer. I get all my service work done at my selling dealer, a L-M (no Ford) dealer with whom I have also been very happy with. So, yes, this decision hits me personally. Now with my cards on the table……

 

Fifty years ago there were six US auto and light truck manufacturers (not counting Checker and IH) and 17 makes. These six companies had over 90 per cent of the US car market. Chevrolet and Ford combined controlled 25 per cent of the market each. The nation’s population was around 180 million. Fast forward to 2010. Population 300 million. Yet the number of manufacturers has been halved. Their combined market share of 45 per cent has also been halved. GM, Ford and Chrysler (the corporations, not the makes) combined control less than GM by itself did 50 years ago. The number of makes is now down to 9. Something is wrong here. This is more than just Mercury being discontinued. This is about a major US industry permanently downsizing and giving up 50 per cent of its domestic market to foreign companies. This is significantly different then when Chrysler Corp. passed Ford Motor in the early 30s or when Ford Motor regained second place in the early 50s. This is more significant than Rambler displacing Plymouth for third most popular make in the early 1960s. This is an entire US industry that appears to be dieing off.

 

In early 20^th century, as the automobile became ubiquitous the saddle and buggy industry retreated. Cars and trucks replaced horses as the main form of personal and business transportation. Today we still have saddle and buggy makers but it isn’t a major industry because horses are no longer a major mode of transport. This is a logical progression. In a 21^st century vain we have the cell phone and the land line phone. The cell phone will probably replace the land line as the primary personal phone in this country (baring an unforeseen catastrophe). Will the land line go away? Certainly not, it is a valuable and useful part of our infrastructure but its’ prominence is being reduced. Both of these examples are in stark contrast to the automobile industry. Motorized transport is not going away. It may evolve. We will probably end up with a new type of fuel at some point. But the automobile itself is not going away. That is what makes this all so unsettling. The largest manufacturing sector in the US is now controlled by foreign interests.

 

Gentlemen, regardless of what your opinion of Mercury is, and mine happens to be all good, this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. If the people at Ford truly thought they could regain their preeminence in the US auto industry they would have kept Ford and L-M as two distinct sales outlets and would have retained Mercury as an ongoing concern. There is something rotten, just not in Demark this time.

 

Nice post!

And right away, you were attacked by those saying that this is how it works, capitalism, free market...blah blah blah... But those attackers (you know who you are) were not listening to what you said. The post is not really about whether or not the Mercury decision was good or bad - It is about this being a SYMPTOM of a bigger problem. I agree with you 100%.

 

I often think - We are told that the US is now a "consumption" based economy. So, in order to have economic growth, we need to spend. In order to spend, we need to earn. In order to earn, we need to produce, But we have sold out much of our production to foreigners (as you noted) or outsourced it entirely. So, wages are now decreasing. So, we can't sustain a consumption based economy simply because we don't produce! You are absolutely correct - we have a much bigger problem!

[Kev-Mo]

You're entitled to your opinion. However, since 1922, the Ford Motor Company has sold Fords and Lincolns.

 

Considering that Ford has a price range that precludes its expansion into the luxury level, a luxury division like Lincoln is required. So going back to basics would mean going back to Ford and Lincoln w/o Mercury, just like 88 years ago. Capice?

 

 

As I see it, LM4EVR is not debating the decision to discontinue Mercury. He simply stated he has a positive image of the brand, and wrapped that around the point that he wants to stress:

"But the automobile itself is not going away. That is what makes this all so unsettling. The largest manufacturing sector in the US is now controlled by foreign interests."

 

LM4EVR is absolutely correct - the loss of several US brands is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Kev-Mo

[Edstock]

As I see it, LM4EVR is not debating the decision to discontinue Mercury. He simply stated he has a positive image of the brand, and wrapped that around the point that he wants to stress:

"But the automobile itself is not going away. That is what makes this all so unsettling. The largest manufacturing sector in the US is now controlled by foreign interests."

 

LM4EVR is absolutely correct - the loss of several US brands is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Mine is that I found his statement:

 

"If the people at Ford truly thought they could regain their preeminence in the US auto industry they would have kept Ford and L-M as two distinct sales outlets and would have retained Mercury as an ongoing concern. "

 

to be a steaming pile of negative attitude. He presumes that the only way that Ford can regain their preeminence in the US auto industry is with Mercury paired with Lincoln. When I pointed out the deficiency in this opinion, he replied "The US automarket is now dominated by foreign companies." with the implication that Ford can do nothing about this, because with Mercury's demise, Ford is obviously not "truly thinking".

 

Times change, attitudes change and markets change. He's entitled to his negative attitude, but thankfully, Mulally, Fields and Farley don't think that way.

[NickF1011]

I see your point LM4EVR.

When things got tough 5 years ago Mark Fields grand plan was just close 7 assembly plants, 6 parts plants and fire 30% of the company work force. How original, what a "bold move" just cut and run. Those were the days before Alan Mulally of course. But the message was clear: "We will never again need the production capacity because we can't see a way to recover lost market share."

In 1925 Ford had 35 assembly plants in America, today there are 9 and one of those will close this year.

 

And how many of those plants have re-opened since Ford has gotten back on more stable ground? Ahhhh, right. None. And none will likely be needed in the foreseeable future. Ford had too much capacity. Capacity that was planned around its previous 30%+ market share that it will never see again. It needed to be cut. It was a painful move that had to be made. Mulally would have done the same.

[AlRozzi]

I agree with LM4EVR.

 

I see two reasons Mercury had to be discontinued;

 

One is bad (or planned) domestic economic policy which led to the erosion of domestic manufacturing and manufacturers.

 

Poor corporate policy led to Mercury's neglect. If Nasser hadn't decided he wanted to kill LM in the late '90s and replace it with PAG, then new product would have kept the division alive. What a stupid mistake paying $2.6 B for Land Rover.

 

Aston and Jag were a mistake from the 80s. I would like to know a complete tally of all the money Ford dumped into Jag, but I believe it may be around $10 B.

 

Today Ford desires to separate Lincoln from Ford division with unique drivetrains and possibly platforms. What if the Jag money of the previous two decades had been used to do that with Lincoln Mercury from '90-'10? The division could have shared together but stayed separate from Ford.

 

Poor decsions led to bad outcomes, hence Mercury's demise. I would like to meet up with some of those past execs today - especially Nasser.

Edited June 4, 2010 by AlRozzi

[akirby]

I agree with LM4EVR.

 

I see two reasons Mercury had to be discontinued;

 

One is bad (or planned) domestic economic policy which led to the erosion of domestic manufacturing and manufacturers.

 

Poor corporate policy led to Mercury's neglect. If Nasser hadn't decided he wanted to kill LM in the late '90s and replace it with PAG, then new product would have kept the division alive. What a stupid mistake paying $2.6 B for Land Rover.

 

Aston and Jag were a mistake from the 80s. I would like to know a complete tally of all the money Ford dumped into Jag, but I believe it may be around $10 B.

 

Today Ford desires to separate Lincoln from Ford division with unique drivetrains and possibly platforms. What if the Jag money of the previous two decades had been used to do that with Lincoln Mercury from '90-'10? The division could have shared together but stayed separate from Ford.

 

Poor decsions led to bad outcomes, hence Mercury's demise. I would like to meet up with some of those past execs today - especially Nasser.

 

If you were starting a new full line car company from scratch today to cover the gamut from entry level to top end luxury , would you create 2 brands or 3?

[silvrsvt]

I see two reasons Mercury had to be discontinued;

 

One is bad (or planned) domestic economic policy which led to the erosion of domestic manufacturing and manufacturers.

 

Thats BS...Detroit had quality problems back in the 1960's. They had no one to blame but themselves for what happened to them from then till now, which lead two of them declaring BK and one being taken over (Again) by a Foreign car manufacture that basically blackmailed the other company that went into BK for $2 billion.

 

Poor corporate policy led to Mercury's neglect. If Nasser hadn't decided he wanted to kill LM in the late '90s and replace it with PAG, then new product would have kept the division alive. What a stupid mistake paying $2.6 B for Land Rover.

 

Today Ford desires to separate Lincoln from Ford division with unique drivetrains and possibly platforms. What if the Jag money of the previous two decades had been used to do that with Lincoln Mercury from '90-'10? The division could have shared together but stayed separate from Ford.

 

Poor decsions led to bad outcomes, hence Mercury's demise. I would like to meet up with some of those past execs today - especially Nasser.

 

 

Mercury has been nothing then a badge job since the 1970's...and just did a slow death since then.

 

 

[bzcat]

What's gone from the American market since 1960:

Nash/Rambler

Studebaker

DeSoto

Edsel

Oldsmobile

Pontiac

Plymouth

Mercury, soon

]

Plus an entire continent worth of crappy minor European makes: Fiat/Lancia/Alfa/Peugeot/Citroen/MG etc

And some new ones that came and gone since the 60s: AMC, AMC Renault, Eagle, Opel, Isuzu, Saturn, Geo, Daewoo, Daihatsu, Sterling (Rover), Merkur etc.

 

 

What's new in the American market since 1960:

Datsun/Nissan

Infiniti

Honda

Acura

Lexus

Subaru

Suzuki

BMW

Saab (introduced to America in 1960)

Hyundai

Kia

Audi

Mini

Mitsubishi

Scion

Smart

 

Major increase in dealers since 1960:

Toyota

Land Rover

Not sure about this... but I think Volvo was here before 1960? Certainly expanded significantly since that time

 

 

P.S. Somehow, I've got the suspicion I've forgotten a make or two up there.

 

Yeah... :shades:

Edited June 4, 2010 by bzcat

[AlRozzi]

Thats BS...Detroit had quality problems back in the 1960's. They had no one to blame but themselves for what happened to them from then till now, which lead two of them declaring BK and one being taken over (Again) by a Foreign car manufacture that basically blackmailed the other company that went into BK for $2 billion.

 

 

 

 

Mercury has been nothing then a badge job since the 1970's...and just did a slow death since then.

 

I would file the bad quality 75% under the poor corporate policy side and 25% under the economic policy side of my assertion. The 25% goes to strong unions domestically and open trade barriers internationally in the economic policy side of things. However, US manufacturing continues to erode as the shift to China/India, etc.

 

As for Mercury's "slow death," again bad corporate decisions back then too, but could have been fixed with all the Euro money.

[2b2]

If you were starting a new full line car company from scratch today to cover the gamut from entry level to top end luxury , would you create 2 brands or 3?

THREE

the "bit nicer" brand would be a "heck of a lot nicer" - a LOT like my idealized Mercury (or maybe Volvo ...if they didn't have a stick up their a__ )

but

the top brand would NOT be much like Lincoln is or was - just an remarkable roadcar/land-jet (could be called 'Continental') and a smaller world-class sportsedan & coupe - all in the $50,000 to $99,999 range

Edited June 4, 2010 by 2b2

[akirby]

THREE

the "bit nicer" brand would be a "heck of a lot nicer" - a LOT like my idealized Mercury (or maybe Volvo ...if they didn't have a stick up their a__ )

but

the top brand would NOT be much like Lincoln is or was - just an remarkable roadcar/land-jet (could be called 'Continental') and a smaller world-class sportsedan & coupe - all in the $50,000 to $99,999 range

 

So you need an entirely different brand for 2 vehicles? Why can't the "heck of a lot nicer" brand include the 2 top end vehicles? Still doesn't make sense to have 3.

[timmm55]

THREE

the "bit nicer" brand would be a "heck of a lot nicer" - a LOT like my idealized Mercury (or maybe Volvo ...if they didn't have a stick up their a__ )

but

the top brand would NOT be much like Lincoln is or was - just an remarkable roadcar/land-jet (could be called 'Continental') and a smaller world-class sportsedan & coupe - all in the $50,000 to $99,999 range

 

 

Interesting idea...maybe Lincoln goes a bit broader..........AND they reintroduce Continental for the top tier.

They wouldn't need a new showroom or even another sign.

[jpd80]

Poor decsions led to bad outcomes, hence Mercury's demise. I would like to meet up with some of those past execs today - especially Nasser.

Nasser has been gone for nearly 10 years, get over it.

 

And if you want to catch up with Nasser, he's now head of BHP Billiton the worlds largest mining company.

Edited June 4, 2010 by jpd80

[AlRozzi]

Nasser has been gone for nearly 10 years, get over it.

 

And if you want to catch up with Nasser, he's now head of BHP Billiton the worlds largest mining company.

But we live with the legacy of his mistakes for generations.

 

Maybe he can buy a bunch of small, specialty mining companies and group them together and pour all corporate resources into that division while letting the primary division go bankrupt?

[silvrsvt]

So you need an entirely different brand for 2 vehicles? Why can't the "heck of a lot nicer" brand include the 2 top end vehicles? Still doesn't make sense to have 3.

 

Exactly, change or just being different for difference sake isn't going to bring in buyers...plus Lincoln buyers aren't that pompous anyway...and if they are they'll buy an import.

[LM4EVR]

Thank you Kev-Mo and AlRozzi, you guys actualy read my post and understood what I was getting at!

 

Mercury became irrelevant because Ford let it become irrelevant. Adjusting your product content to reflect changing markets conditions is one thing. Shrinking the number sales outlets and factories because of a nationwide depression is one thing. The economy, however, was quite good from the late 80s to the early 00s. Yet Ford lost both gross sales and market share. As did GM and Chrysler. Dropping Mercury is not a good sign.

 

"Mercury deserved to die because too many blue haired people drove them. " Geeze! Come on guys, think a little. PS: I don't have blue hair (yet!)

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2010 by LM4EVR

[F250]

And how many of those plants have re-opened since Ford has gotten back on more stable ground? Ahhhh, right. None. And none will likely be needed in the foreseeable future. Ford had too much capacity. Capacity that was planned around its previous 30%+ market share that it will never see again. It needed to be cut. It was a painful move that had to be made. Mulally would have done the same.

 

Stable ground!? WTF? Ford isn't maintaining strong volume they are just cutting capacity to match their reduced sales...and they will have to cut further if sales continue to spiral down. Not to mention the companys debt.

 

Example: In both 2004 and 2005 Ford sold OVER 900,000 profitable F-Series trucks. By 2009 F-series was down to less than 415,000. I use that example because it is simply Fords best selling vehicle. This company wasn't built on low volume.