GM CEO's thoughts on Lincoln....

[SVT_MAN]

Respect and Credibility doesn't make for profits either. Outside of the CTS, what does Caddy really have thats ground breaking?

 

Respect and credibility certainly don't equal profits, but it at least puts you in the ball court. In my eyes, Lincoln isn't even in the game or on consumers' minds. I don't have any proof of this, but I bet that if you compare brand consideration between Cadillac and Lincoln right now, even with the bailout dragging down GM's brand consideration, I would venture to guess that Cadillac is considered at a higher rate than Lincoln.

 

Ford isn't out of the woods yet with Lincoln. Like I said before, Ford was largely saved because they could pull ideas for other cars based upon their European lineup. Ford doesn't really have a luxury lineup anywhere else .. so where can Lincoln turn?

 

Ford better start firing some big guns and start using technology they had previously used in Jaguar if they want to be seriously considered. Their cars need to make a styling statement. No more playing around.

 

Further, one might be dismayed to discover that, among those inclined to purchase BMWs or Mercedes and those under 40, very little preference for Cadillac over Lincoln.

 

LOL. Well, I guess Richard shot down what I thought before I even had a chance to send it out. Nevermind then ... although I didn't see a link to a study from Richard either. So, do we really know? I do tend to trust Richard's statements more than my own though.

Edited June 8, 2011 by SVT_MAN

[silvrsvt]

Ford isn't out of the woods yet with Lincoln. Like I said before, Ford was largely saved because they could pull ideas for other cars based upon their European lineup. Ford doesn't really have a luxury lineup anywhere else .. so where can Lincoln turn?

 

How did it pull ideas for its North American cars from Europe? Look at Ford's car lineup 11 years ago....it sucked because of bad product decisions made in the late 1990s because of the success of the Explorer. The Focus came over as an after thought and succeeded inspite of its self at first, then after recall and quality issues it shot itself in the foot and didn't recover from its problems till much hated styling on the 2008 Model. The Fusion utilized a platform from a Mazda, who Ford had a controlling interest in at the time. The Taurus/500 was an afterthought, with Ford truly betting its money on the Freestyle (expecting an Explorer like hit) which winded up being a major disappointment. The Taurus wasn't finally fix till the 2010 Model and the Freestyle wasn't a hit till it was redesigned into the 2012 Explorer LOL :P

 

The Fiesta didn't save the company...it helped fill a big hole in its line up. The 2012 Focus is part of "One Ford" along with the upcoming Fusion...the reason they are using FOE based platforms is because it makes sense not to duplicate them and the cadence for replacing the Focus and Fusion/Modeno lined up finally.

 

Ford better start firing some big guns and start using technology they had previously used in Jaguar if they want to be seriously considered. Their cars need to make a styling statement. No more playing around.

 

 

So Ford is supposed to use tech from 2008 in its Lincolns now? :lol:

[suv_guy_19]

Like I said before, Ford was largely saved because they could pull ideas for other cars based upon their European lineup.

 

You may have said that, and you may have even said it before, but it wasn't true either time. The Focus is probably less European now than it was in 2002. The Fiesta is a European car, but it hasn't saved Ford, at least not yet.

[akirby]

You may have said that, and you may have even said it before, but it wasn't true either time. The Focus is probably less European now than it was in 2002. The Fiesta is a European car, but it hasn't saved Ford, at least not yet.

 

Exactly. What did Europe contribute to the Explorer, Flex, Taurus, Escape, Edge, Fusion or F150?

[TomServo92]

Exactly. What did Europe contribute to the Explorer, Flex, Taurus, Escape, Edge, Fusion or F150?

 

You forgot Mustang.

[akirby]

You forgot Mustang.

 

Yes I did. Thanks.

[RichardJensen]

Respect and credibility certainly don't equal profits, but it at least puts you in the ball court.

Not really. Respect and credibility might get you pricing power, but if your costs are messed up, you're still out of luck (cf 70s-80s Jaguar).

LOL. Well, I guess Richard shot down what I thought before I even had a chance to send it out. Nevermind then ... although I didn't see a link to a study from Richard either. So, do we really know? I do tend to trust Richard's statements more than my own though.

http://adage.com/article/news/cadillac-shifts-marketing-focus-cites-startling-research-findings/110760/

She said extensive consumer research earlier this year revealed some startling findings: Many younger consumers knew Cadillac's Escalade sport utility vehicle but were unfamiliar with other models. Many didn't see the brand as having a vehicle for them.

 

This was in 2006.

 

I doubt that things have improved since then, given the turmoil at Cadillac (they fired Modernista, and I believe they've put the Cadillac contract up for bid again, and I think they've had two marketing directors since Vanzura left in 2008), and at GM in general.

[RichardJensen]

P.S.

 

GM fired Modernista in '09 and hired Bartle Bogle Hegarty in 2010, and then fired BBH and went to Fallon a few months later.

 

Liz Vanzura (mentioned in the article above) left GM in 2008, and I don't know that she was directly replaced. BBH was hired by Brian Nesbitt who was fired by GM in mid 2010, and BBH was out the door with him. Fallon was hired by Don Butler who was acting as Cadillac's marketing director at the time (they've since promoted one Jim Vurpillat who was--among other things--brand manager for the Pontiac Aztek).

 

So yeah, I'm gonna say that those 2006 conclusions are, if anything, more valid now than they were then.

Edited June 8, 2011 by RichardJensen

[SVT_MAN]

Not really. Respect and credibility might get you pricing power, but if your costs are messed up, you're still out of luck (cf 70s-80s Jaguar).

 

Well, that's kind of a "duh" statement with regard to costs ... obviously you can't make profits if your costs are exceeding your revenues ... but that's sort of business 101, isn't it? Even so, I'm not sure how it applies to my point.

 

The question was: what makes consumers feel like you're worth checking out? Do people really buy cars from companies because they're profitable? I kind of doubt it.

 

I wasn't really getting into the profitability of Cadillac - maybe Lincoln is more profitable, but I kind of doubt it - more the idea that, in my opinion, Cadillac acts as a halo brand for GM. It seems to me that Lincoln's brand has very little cachet at this point. When I think of Lincoln, I think of stodgy old float boats like my brother's 1995 Lincoln Continental. Or perhaps his 1998 Mark VIII - but even that's an old man's car. (Can you guess what his newest vehicle is? 2005 Jaguar XJ8L Vanden Plas ... I think my twin thinks he's 65 or something.)

Edited June 8, 2011 by SVT_MAN

[SVT_MAN]

How did it pull ideas for its North American cars from Europe? Look at Ford's car lineup 11 years ago....it sucked because of bad product decisions made in the late 1990s because of the success of the Explorer. The Focus came over as an after thought and succeeded inspite of its self at first, then after recall and quality issues it shot itself in the foot and didn't recover from its problems till much hated styling on the 2008 Model. The Fusion utilized a platform from a Mazda, who Ford had a controlling interest in at the time. The Taurus/500 was an afterthought, with Ford truly betting its money on the Freestyle (expecting an Explorer like hit) which winded up being a major disappointment. The Taurus wasn't finally fix till the 2010 Model and the Freestyle wasn't a hit till it was redesigned into the 2012 Explorer LOL :P

 

The Fiesta didn't save the company...it helped fill a big hole in its line up. The 2012 Focus is part of "One Ford" along with the upcoming Fusion.. the reason they are using FOE based platforms is because it makes sense not to duplicate them and the cadence for replacing the Focus and Fusion/Modeno lined up finally.

 

 

See your bolded statement. In one breathe you asked how North America used European ideas, then at the end of your statement, you say that North American is using FOE based platforms? Is using an FOE based platform not using European ideas? Which is it?

 

I understand platforms do not necessarily indicate design (i.e. CD3, SN-97, etc.), but I can't think of too many cars Ford brought over that didn't retain their European style.

 

I don't see how you can possibly say Ford's new lineup isn't largely inspired by European designs. From the Fiesta to the Focus to the Taurus to the Fusion, some more than others, they all have Euro design elements, even if they aren't based on the FOE platforms. Their Euroness is only going to increase with time. The new Fusion replacement will probably look more Mondeo than it does now.

 

I'm not saying One Ford requires all European designs - because theoretically they're designed for the world - but that's effectively what has happened. Cars with very minor changes for all markets to increase volume of models and reduce overall costs on every front (R&D, build costs, etc). Where were they first? Europe.

 

Eleven years ago, sure, you had experiments like the Focus and Contour (Mondeo) .. but those were cheapened Euro really. Like you said, the Focus succeeded in spite of itself.

 

So Ford is supposed to use tech from 2008 in its Lincolns now? :lol:

 

That's kind of making an assumption about what I would do with Fords. I wasn't insinuating that at all.

 

I said the reason that it's hard to differentiate a Ford from a Lincoln is because Fords are so fancy now that it's hard to just make body changes and some minor interior tweaks and call it a Lincoln. People aren't stupid. They know it's a gussied up Ford.

 

The solution isn't putting old tech into Fords. Not at all. I'm not saying to decontent Fords. Consumers want the tech and features.

 

Duh statement of the day: the solution is to make the Lincoln differentiated. How do you do that? Unique cars, unique features, unique sheetmetal ... differentiate them. I don't think Ford has the stones to do it. Or maybe just not the $$$. Either way, they've sucked at it so far.

 

 

I know that the Fusion is a good midsize car, but after driving it, I've discovered that I don't like midsize cars. They feel...cheap...or too light, or something.

 

If you drive SUVs, I'm sure it'll be light feeling driving a car like the Fusion. Any car would seem light though, would it not?

 

Your statement is sort of like being a NASCAR driver driving a 3400 lbs stock car, and hopping into a go kart and wondering why it handles so well. I'm not sure why people associate lack of weight with cheapness though. If that's true, Ford's in trouble because they're on a crusade against weight these days.

Edited June 8, 2011 by SVT_MAN

[RichardJensen]

Well, that's kind of a "duh" statement with regard to costs

No, not really.

 

You get what you ask for. If you don't put a priority on profitability, you won't get it.

[RichardJensen]

I don't see how you can possibly say Ford's new lineup isn't largely inspired by European designs

Don't be sloppy with your words.

 

You said that Ford pulled 'ideas' for its NA vehicles from Europe.

 

That's a statement that can't possibly be correct because it can't possibly be disproved. It's, as Paul Dirac quipped, "Not even wrong."

[TStag]

Re-affirmed today on Lincoln's facebook page: ALL new Lincolns will have 100% unique sheet metal. No one has said the latest new products like the updated MKZ and MKX are representative of what Lincoln's future will be. They are holdover products. Nothing more.

 

How much longer to wait? Well, the all-new MKZ and small CUV should be out sometime next year.

 

That's interesting, but as pointed out by a number of people on this forum that is a double edged sword.

 

On the one hand it means Lincoln as the potential to challenge with products that can be seen as more than a rebadged Ford. But the downside is that Lincoln will need to shift a lot more metal to justify the extra investment into sheet metal that Ford is making.

 

Lincoln only sells in a few markets at present. Ford need to ensure it can sell in more. As Lexus have found extra sales in Europe are tricky for a non Euro car maker and as Caddillac are finding sales in China aren't that easy to come by when facing down the big German 3.

 

Licoln surely have an uphill battle but if Ford are commited to dumping money into the project then it may work. Might take 10 years or so to really get anywhere by which time Ford may sell it to the Indian's.....

 

Personally I think Ford should focus on Ford and develop Mustang (which will sell in Europe). Then drop Lincoln.

[twintornados]

....Lincoln surely have an uphill battle but if Ford are committed to dumping money into the project then it may work. Might take 10 years or so to really get anywhere by which time Ford may sell it to the Indian's.....

 

Personally I think Ford should focus on Ford and develop Mustang (which will sell in Europe). Then drop Lincoln.

Still sour grapes because Ford sent Jaguar / Land Rover to "The Jewel in the Crown"? Jeez TStag.....get over it already.....

[silvrsvt]

See your bolded statement. In one breathe you asked how North America used European ideas, then at the end of your statement, you say that North American is using FOE based platforms? Is using an FOE based platform not using European ideas? Which is it?

 

 

See Below....not to mention that European designs had NO foot print in NA till this past summer with the Fiesta....Ford has seemed to turned a corner before that. The only reason FOE designs are being used is because it makes sense to and both NA and Euro products need a refresh or redesign...

 

Don't be sloppy with your words.

 

You said that Ford pulled 'ideas' for its NA vehicles from Europe.

 

That's a statement that can't possibly be correct because it can't possibly be disproved. It's, as Paul Dirac quipped, "Not even wrong."

 

 

 

[Harley Lover]

The only reason FOE designs are being used is because it makes sense to and both NA and Euro products need a refresh or redesign...

 

I think another factor in play is the underlying thrust of One Ford - since B/C/CD chassis cars will become more global in nature, and since Ford EU had those products in the pipeline, it made the most sense for EU to lead development of those products. However, based on what has been said by Ford in describing their revised engineering approach, it's definite that the U.S. would have input into all of these programs.

 

In fact, the most recent descriptions of Engineering make it sound like products will become even more global over time, based on the sharing of work across the globe. But - I'm certain that certain region-specific products (Mustang/F150) will remain under the control of the region in which they are sold. Goodness, F150 could practically be its own car company!

[rmc523]

Goodness, F150 could practically be its own car company!

 

Maybe Ford should make the F-series its' own brand......

[SVT_MAN]

.

Edited June 9, 2011 by SVT_MAN

[SVT_MAN]

No, not really.

 

You get what you ask for. If you don't put a priority on profitability, you won't get it.

 

Again .. so what? That has nothing to do with what I said (I originally did not touch on the profitability of Cadillac - only after prodded), and I also AGREE with what you said. I think anybody would? What else do you want? If I agree, what's the issue?

 

You keep saying the same thing back to me, and I keep saying the same thing back to you. It's not proving anything.

 

Isn't the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ...

 

Just going to walk away from this one. It's a waste of time.

 

Tomorrow, Lincoln will still suck in spite of what any of us say. We can speculate all we want. Only Ford can turn around Lincoln, not us. Maybe they will some day, but right now, they are a joke as far as I am concerned. That's my opinion.

 

 

See Below....not to mention that European designs had NO foot print in NA till this past summer with the Fiesta

 

Ford turned the corner, in my opinion, because of two things:

 

1) Quality

2) Luck

 

Ford's quality increased right as they were on the brink of disaster. But luck played a factor, too. I don't think anybody would have taken notice had GM and Chrysler not sought bankruptcy. Ford narrowly escaped because of mortgaging the farm just in the knick of time. Again, luck.

 

That said, I don't believe Ford can survive, long-term, just based on quality and luck. I think One Ford is what will save Ford long term, because its about leveraging global resources to ensure long term profitability by spreading costs across all development regions.

 

So if you're saying that European designs didn't save Ford in the near-term from the brink of disaster? Sure, I'll buy that. But if you're saying that European designs won't save Ford long-term? I disagree ...

Edited June 9, 2011 by SVT_MAN

[PREMiERdrum]

Isn't the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ...

 

So we're back to talking about Cadillac, right?

[SVT_MAN]

So we're back to talking about Cadillac, right?

 

I'm actually not even sure at this point :P.

 

I never claimed to be sane

[RichardJensen]

Again .. so what?

 

Ford narrowly escaped because of mortgaging the farm just in the knick of time. Again, luck.

I'm going to tie these two things together.

 

Why?

 

Because they illustrate a facet to this business that you routinely give short shrift.

 

I originally did not touch on the profitability of Cadillac

 

If you don't *start* with the profitability of Cadillac, you are going to make serious mistakes in your analysis. Mistakes like this:

 

Ford narrowly escaped because of mortgaging the farm just in the knick of time. Again, luck.

 

This is a fundamentally flawed premise.

 

It is flawed because it asserts that there was no meaningful difference in management between Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

 

If Ford's management team had greater foresight than GM's, the decision to borrow is not luck, it's managerial competence.

 

If Ford's management team had better data, the decision to borrow is not luck, it's sound processes. All three companies were in a similar external environment. It is not due to *luck* that only one of them made better decisions.

 

 

 

To insist that Ford 'lucked out' is to ignore the clear difference between Ford and GM.

 

'luck' implies a basic equivalence, that success and failure are a matter of chance.

 

 

 

This bears directly on your dismissal of the question of profitability at Cadillac.

 

Your "well duh" attitude toward profitability ignores the systems and processes required to deliver profit on a consistent basis. There's no 'well duh' about it. You need good data. You need good models. You need talented analysts that are able to correct those models. You need decision makers that recognize that thousands of people depend on the decisions they make.

 

There's no 'well duh' about it, and it most certainly does not 'go without saying.' It's undoubtedly the toughest part of any business.

 

Ford survived because they didn't take profitability for granted. GM failed because they did.

Edited June 9, 2011 by RichardJensen

[Extreme4x4]

BRAVO Richard !!!!

 

I am so sick of hearing the "luck" word, when referring to Fords taking of the mortgage, and all other decisions they made. Frankly, it sounds like something out of GMI. Good management doesn't just stumble on "luck," they make it. Luck does not make a CEO say that we need to borrow as much as we can, as there will certainly be a downturn in the economy during our reorganization. Luck does not make a company change the basics of processes that are needed to support a reorganization. Luck does not give you a CEO who can see through self preserving managerial BS, to find the truth and change how said managers think............... or they can leave. Luck does not destroy fiefdoms that have been preserved through decades.

 

When you throw the "luck" word out there, you are diminishing all the work and progress that Ford has made. Basically, you are saying that anyone could have done the same thing, as all they need, is luck.

[twintornados]

Maybe Ford should make the F-series its' own brand......

Yeah....because that strategy works so well for Chrysler / Fiat......the move from "Dodge" to "RAM" was a brushstroke masterpiece

[rmc523]

Yeah....because that strategy works so well for Chrysler / Fiat......the move from "Dodge" to "RAM" was a brushstroke masterpiece

 

exactly!