TTAC Open Letter to Jim Farley

[silvrsvt]

Now that is speculative at best, I'm asking what is the 'style' of '61? What is the message or influence? I am aware retro is just that, once, repetitive and has a short shelf life.

 

Thats the problem...the 61 Lincoln should be the influnance that Lincoln should be going for with its new products, not a reproduction of the same model in the same vein as say a 2010 Challenger vs a 1969 Challenger, where they look nearly identical (speaking of Challengers...I haven't seen one in months...hmmm)

 

Reproducing "presenance" that the 61 Lincoln has is very hard to re-create....

[30 OTT 6]

I was surprised the 2005 did as well as it did. It was in every aspect IMO a great sucess and yes the styling was destined to be dated but perhaps that was planned that way. I don't know. If say for example the 2002 Continental Concept was used with a E35 or a Coyote, My issue is the boxy look although different and unique would be quickly dated and it's the 'Flying Brick' I'd rather avoid. I feel the attraction to the past is 'retro' is cool at present. Which in itself is short-lived and unsustainable.

 

Chrysler built that flying brick and did very well with it. Its still funny to think that the Five-Hundred was Ford's answer to the Chrysler 300. A lot of kool-aid was spilt on BOF defending the Five-Hundred's existence.

[RichardJensen]

Another problem with going back to the '61:

 

The '61 was a radical break from the vehicles that preceded it. It was a daring gamble, a fantastic risk.

 

 

If you want to copy the '61, you don't copy the '61, if you know what I mean.

[NickF1011]

Its still funny to think that the Five-Hundred was Ford's answer to the Chrysler 300.

 

 

If I recall correctly, they debuted right around a year from each other. I don't think Ford even had the 300 on its radar when designing the Five Hundred.

[Hugh]

Chrysler built that flying brick and did very well with it. Its still funny to think that the Five-Hundred was Ford's answer to the Chrysler 300. A lot of kool-aid was spilt on BOF defending the Five-Hundred's existence.

I think the public perceived the Five Hundred as the answer to the 300, not Ford. That being said, we know how the story went with lets ditch RWD full-size (cause it wasn't selling) and split Taurus into two (Five Hundred and Fusion) because of the perceived 'sour' response to the Taurus. We all know how that went. What hasn't changed is Ford is using the tools they have. Some folks miss the Five Hundred but I really like the Taurus as it is with flaws but no car is perfect. Edited December 7, 2012 by Hugh

[bzcat]

Jack is right about one thing... You will get better real world brand-building value if you spent $1 billion on a RWD Lincoln vs. $1 billion on superficial marketing, which is Ford's plan. You may fail but you fail the "right way".

Edited December 6, 2012 by bzcat

[NickF1011]

Jack is right about one thing... You will get better real world brand-building value if you spent $1 billion on a RWD Lincoln vs. $1 billion on superficial marketing, which is Ford's plan. You may fail but you fail the "right way".

 

Superficial marketing has a longer lasting effect than a superficial attempt to appeal to customers that aren't going to buy your products anyway.

[RichardJensen]

Jack is right about one thing... You will get better real world brand-building value if you spent $1 billion on a RWD Lincoln vs. $1 billion on superficial marketing, which is Ford's plan. You may fail but you fail the "right way".

Ford already did that. It was called the LS. It failed to generate enough revenue to fund ongoing development, let alone development of new product.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you say, "well, Ford didn't advertise it" or "the dealerships sucked" or "the sales reps didn't know how to sell it", then *bam* welcome to the 'gotcha' moment.

Edited December 7, 2012 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

Ford already did that. It was called the LS. It failed to generate enough revenue to pay back its own development.

FTFY. Business case problems aside, it would have the same major problem today that it did back then--if it attracted new buyers to Lincoln, what else would they have to keep those new buyers? If you're going to woo Mercedes and BMW buyers, you can't do it with a lineup that's more like Audi, Acura, and Lexus; there's nothing else in the lineup to keep them coming back.

[RichardJensen]

Also, to elaborate on why marketing is a better expenditure than a halo car:

 

- Spending $1B on a halo car will get you a vehicle that will be discussed among a very narrow set of media channels, with an end product that will require far greater customer action to engage (you're not clicking "Like" on facebook, you're trundling on down to the dealership to gawk).

 

- Spending $1B, judiciously, on marketing can improve customer experiences at the dealership level, can enhance customer awareness of the entire brand, not just a select model, and can be used to shape customer expectations regarding the brand.

 

Additionally, $1B on marketing is an incremental investment in an existing framework; it, along with significant 'better than peer' improvement in individual vehicle 'value proposition' have the effect of raising the bar across the brand.

 

Those higher transaction prices and increased sales should exceed the cost of the marketing campaign and the individual vehicle investments, thus creating a virtuous cycle that benefits all products.

 

Conversely, investing heavily in a single platform might--might--result in that platform funding its ongoing development, but it is rare that such platforms spin off so much profit that those profits can be siphoned off and directed onto other vehicles. Thus you--in almost all circumstances--have done little to benefit the rest of the range. You have created a halo car, but that halo car does not remove deficiencies elsewhere, nor does it blind customers to their existence.

 

A far better path is the unglamorous, unpopular (at least among those who are neither stakeholders nor customers), process of incremental improvement in all products, and significant investment in rebuilding the brand identity.

Edited December 7, 2012 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

See the goal is sustainable investment.

 

Baruth seems to think that Ford should be Lincoln's sugar daddy, spending money on the brand without regard to whether, when, or how that investment pays off.

 

For a company that employs 200,000 people, with responsibilities for their livelihoods, that is an incredibly reckless way to behave.

[Hugh]

I thought the LS cost was spread to the others (Jaguar) who used the platform? It seemed the LS was watered down not to compete directly with the S-Type.

[RichardJensen]

I thought the LS cost was spread to the others (Jaguar) who used the platform? It seemed the LS was watered down not to compete directly with the S-Type.

 

S-Type volume didn't do much to spread out costs, especially since they couldn't possibly allow it to be manufactured on the same line as a Lincoln.

[rkisler]

A few comments:

 

1. This article is from a know-it-all who doesn't in fact know it all and is virtually unreadable.

 

2. Lincoln's road back will be tough, tough, tough. With the launch of the new MKZ, Farley had little choice but to launch the new Lincoln advertising and overall strategy. But unfortunately, there's only one arrow in the quivver right now (MKZ), so the message is quite diluted and can be viewed more as just a marketing message without a lot of substance.

 

3. All the blab about "we've never done this with Lincoln before" is pure bull^&$%, It was done in the 2002 time frame. There was a full separate Lincoln organization (with Mercury) with dedicated engineers and a fully dedicated design staff under Gerry McGovern. And guess what iconic Lincoln Gerry chose to aim for -- the 61 Continental. You can see it through the show cars that were developed during this time period. But they all bit the dust for a variety of reasons and Lincoln was disbanded. The current attempt is virtually no different to the last attempt, except years have gone sliding by. And in the meantime, some Lincoln products have been shoved into the marketplace with minimum differentiation just to hold a spot in the lineup.

 

4. I've never seen it reported, but there was an attempt to develop a flagship Lincoln which would have been a modern interpretation of the 61 Continental convertible. But it would have been limited volume and very high price. Current safety standards likely would have required a unique limited volume platform (in aluminum) if you wanted to do suicide doors with a convertible. This project bit the dust before Lincoln was reconsolidated with Ford.

 

5. Ford has to sort out why it is that Lincoln, despite the level of differentiation, always gets the reputation as a "fancy Ford" but when other manufacturers develop luxury products from pedestrian origins, there is no mention by the press.

 

6. Lincoln is going to have to work its way up the food chain with uniquely differentiated products and some unique technology. And there simply cannot be any lettup or hiccups in the execution. If Ford wrings hands or pauses along the way ("we can't afford it"), then we'll be having the same discussion 10 years from now.

 

7. There is no way Lincoln is a BMW or Mercedes competitor. The best Lincoln can do for now is to try to emulate some Lexus models, Acura, and some Infinity models. Maybe Audi at the way, way outside. But Audi has done an excellent job and now has boosted itself much closer to BMW/Mercedes in performance and imagery so that's not really in the cards at this stage. And I know Richard will be mad at me, but I don't think Lincoln can compete with Cadillac at this point.

[Hugh]

Thank you Austin for the insight as always. I recall vaguely that time however, after looking at the history 3 years later, Ford was in a lot of trouble. That I think was around the time I joined BON. Somehow the different 'Fiefdoms' and 'stovepiping' between the heads of the organizations might have had something to do with it. It looked like from the outside, Lincoln/Mercury looked like a wanna-be Buick. The hi-end was going to be PAG. I remember reading C&D when it announced the '3-series fighter' from Lincoln. Then we had the 'Blackwood' and the LS was canceled. I am wishful in seeing Lincoln go toe-to-toe with the BMW/M-B/AUDI/Jaguar however, I can see it facing the competition you have stated.

[RichardJensen]

Ford has to sort out why it is that Lincoln, despite the level of differentiation, always gets the reputation as a "fancy Ford"

 

I don't think Lincoln can compete with Cadillac at this point.

A couple comments on your comments:

 

- Probably because Lincolns are made by the Ford Motor Company, an organization whose trademark happens to be the same as that of its largest volume brand...

 

- I don't think the Lincoln MKZ can compete with the CTS or the ATS in comparison tests, but the ES350 can't compete with those models either in that arena, and frankly, I don't see it as relevant. On the other hand, I think Lincoln can deliver more profit per unit on a more sustainable business plan than Cadillac, and that's what's most important.

Edited December 7, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Hugh]

So if the MKZ makes more profit per unit for the company, does that make them the 'Camry' of this segment? So is BON and TTAC right and wrong?

I'm strongly tongue-in-cheek here.

[Biker16]

Where do you get that Lincoln is trying to compete with BMW? Because you want them too? WTF!

ruight now they are competing against buick and they are losing, badly.

 

the idea of luxury on the cheap is a recipe for failure.

[akirby]

ruight now they are competing against buick and they are losing, badly.

 

Based on what? Sales volume? What about profits?

 

the idea of luxury on the cheap is a recipe for failure.

 

Then it's a good thing they're not doing it "on the cheap". If they were just doing rebadges using the same doors and same drivetrains and interiors then yes, that would be a recipe for failure. They're not. Just because they don't have dedicated RWD platforms doesn't make them cheap.

 

The ES and RX use the same exact formula and they are wildly successful.

[silvrsvt]

ruight now they are competing against buick and they are losing, badly.

 

That crap because your Ti level Ford products are just as nice or nicer as Buicks are...if anything Buick is losing out to Chevy because they don't have cheaper models to sell more cars. Not to mention Fords will make more profit then Chevy and Buick brand since its just a single tophat vs two...just shows you the stupidity of GM with overlapping brands.

 

Lincoln's biggest issue is that since Ford products are so good, it sets the bar even farther for them meet to seperate themselves from Ford...which I think is part of the reason why people think Lincoln is just a dressed up Ford and it makes no sense to limit Ford products just because of Lincoln...unlike Chevy/Buick/Caddy are doing to one another.

[Dave1]

I don't think Ford/Lincoln wants to compete with BMW