Lincoln needs a farewell address, not a new marketing plan

[RichardJensen]

You're all about proof. The future, by its very definition, cannot provide any.

 

The past, by definition cannot provide any "proof" regarding the present or future either.

 

You can build an inference off history, provided there is some similarity between past and present circumstances. Here, there is none, unless it be the decision to base all Lincoln products on Ford platforms, in which case you'll find a similar strategy was quite successful in 1998, the year that Lincoln was #1 in luxury car sales, and--according to you--a high point for the brand.

Edited April 11, 2013 by RichardJensen

[Hugh]

I got no real beef with the LMC ads. They are ads in competition with other ads by how many images can you flash hoping one will stick long enough in your mind.

[ZanatWork]

You remind me of a die-hard liberal that goes after me on social media. I'll reference a current event being handled badly/stupidly by our current administration and he'll immediately go back a decade or more for some Dubya reference.

1998 is obviously more removed from the present than more recent years. It would be criminal for Lincoln to NOT learn from recent events.

The past, by definition cannot provide any "proof" either.

 

You can build an inference off history, provided there is some similarity between past and present circumstances. Here, there is none, unless it be the decision to base all Lincoln products on Ford platforms, in which case you'll find a similar strategy was quite successful in 1998, the year that Lincoln was #1 in luxury car sales, and--according to you--a high point for the brand.

[RichardJensen]

1998 is obviously more removed from the present than more recent years. It would be criminal for Lincoln to NOT learn from recent events.

 

What, then, is the similarity between Ford's future plans (a lineup of Ford derived vehicles), and what they were doing six years ago that is not also similar to what they were doing 15 years ago?

[lfeg]

Well, they did launch a new ad campaign targeting the MKX and MKS, yet sales slipped in a growing market. That can't be the results they were looking for.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MEJF8kVYTU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XJ-qxNVfo

I have never seen those commercials - did they only run in limited markets? The only Lincoln ad that I see is the one where the Town Car hits a ball of flame and emerges as the MKZ. Saw it again yesterday.

[silvrsvt]

I have never seen those commercials - did they only run in limited markets? The only Lincoln ad that I see is the one where the Town Car hits a ball of flame and emerges as the MKZ. Saw it again yesterday.

 

I've seen the MKX commercial several times on HGTV or DIY...but I've never seen the MKS commercial myself!

[PREMiERdrum]

I've seen the MKX commercial several times on HGTV or DIY...but I've never seen the MKS commercial myself!

 

Same here.. the MKX ad plays heavily on History and NatGeo... but I've never seen that MKS spot.

[silvrsvt]

Same here.. the MKX ad plays heavily on History and NatGeo... but I've never seen that MKS spot.

 

 

Well considering how horrible it is..maybe thats a good thing

[ZanatWork]

Well, lessee, here...the Continental still existed, and was both visually and mechanically signifigantly different than the Taurus upon which it was based, the Mark VIII also had considerable upgrades over its recently-axed T-Bird cousin, the Navigator came into being, and the Town Car got some evolutionary fixes.

The Continental was very different from the Taurus/Sable.
The Navigator was creating a new market niche.
The Mark VIII carried the coupe flag for one more year.
The Town Car...well, was the Town Car.

Nowadays?

The MKZ is visually relatively unique from the Fusion (better? worse? tough to call), and only differs in powertrains because the Fusion lost its V6 Sport model.
The Navigator is a fossil in the market it created, desperately needing essentially everything to become competitive again.
The MKS suffers from the existence of its too-similar and arguably as-handsome Taurus.
The MKX is a good, if rebadged, crossover.

1998 was a braver year for Lincoln, and they beat Caddy in sales that year.

Oh, and six years back...

The Zephyr became the MKZ, it got the 3.5 V6, but was an obvious Fusion rebadge otherwise.
The Navigator got the "braces" update, and became a joke in the market it created.
The MKX debuted, giving Lincoln the obviously-rebadged Edge it wanted, despte the rebadge being a big talking point.
The LS, the one vehicle that really could even get invited to comparisons among leading luxury marques...died.
The Town Car...was still the Town Car.

 

This year had Lincoln get some new blood and the Zephyr/MKZ did decently...but the vehicles were often (and correctly) marginalized for being a krill-grille away from their Ford cousins.

What, then, is the similarity between Ford's future plans (a lineup of Ford derived vehicles), and what they were doing six years ago that is not also similar to what they were doing 15 years ago?

[RichardJensen]

Well, lessee, here

 

Thank you for establishing my point.

[ZanatWork]

Your point is still rounded off. The past has relevance in the ability to see succees/failure in previous attempts. The future cannot be relevant, at least on a spreadsheet, until it becomes the present.

Your point...lacks sharpness.

Thank you for establishing my point.

[RichardJensen]

The past has relevance in the ability to see succees/failure in previous attempts.

 

The past shows that it is possible to succeed using shared platforms and it is possible to fail. Therefore, attempting to draw conclusions regarding the future depends largely on which past you choose to focus on, and what aspect of the present you choose to magnify.

 

In this instance, I note that you are once again focusing on parts of the present that may be compared unfavorably to the past, despite the questionable relevance of those aspects of the present to the future.

 

This is the key problem with attempting to "prove" things based on the past. You can no more "prove" future events using the past than you can "prove" future events using the future.

 

The key point with "proof" is whether it can be independently verified. Inferences cannot, and therefore do not constitute proof of anything.

Edited April 11, 2013 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

And when I say "questionable relevance" of the present vehicles you are focusing on, I mean just that: The relevance is -open to question-. Therefore, insisting that it is not, or that people who disagree with you can be 'proven wrong' is fallacious.

[BORG]

Same here.. the MKX ad plays heavily on History and NatGeo... but I've never seen that MKS spot.

I've seen the MKX ad frequently on local and primetime TV, it actually played a part in my decision to lease another MKX because it confirmed for me that Lincoln still cares about cars other than the MKZ. And besides, I think it's a very successful ad for the car, makes it look a little more sexy. I have never seen the MKS ad, I assumed it played in appropriate markets.

 

Speaking of ads, Lincoln has launched two new MKZ ads, which are essentially re-edited versions of the ads we've seen, with some new voice overs. Lincoln hasn't posted them to YouTube yet.

Edited April 11, 2013 by BORG

[NickF1011]

The Continental was very different from the Taurus/Sable.

 

The MKZ is visually relatively unique from the Fusion (better? worse? tough to call), and only differs in powertrains because the Fusion lost its V6 Sport model.

It's being dishonest to say the Continental was "very different" from the car it was based on and then claim that the MKZ is not. (And the Fusion never had the 3.7 V6, even in the Sport model, so it would still have been a unique powertrain for Lincoln in the segment.)

 

And zero mention of MKC (oh noes! it's it the futurez!) because it seems to punch a hole in the argument that Lincolns aren't as distinctive from their platform mates as they used to be.

[BORG]

The MKC is as distinctive from its platform mate as every other Lincoln besides the current MKX and Navigator.

[RichardJensen]

It's being dishonest to say the Continental was "very different" from the car it was based on and then claim that the MKZ is not.

 

Also, it didn't sell worth a hoot. And neither did the Mark VIII (which was canceled that year).

 

The lesson from that: Differentiation doesn't always guarantee higher sales.

[Extreme4x4]

But, spending $6 Billion on unique platforms, is the epitome of success..................... because auto reviewers like it.

 

Never mind fiscal prudence. Never mind ROI. Never mind enhancing stockholder value. Lets make fickle enthusiasts swoon over vehicles that the vast majority would never, or, could never buy.

 

Toyota Camry's sell. Lexus ES's sell. Honda Accords sell. Their sales have nothing to do with how exciting they are, what end propels the vehicle, or how fast they are 0-60.

[RichardJensen]

Never mind fiscal prudence. Never mind ROI. Never mind enhancing stockholder value.

 

See, that's an interesting point.

 

Despite deriving much more revenue from their luxury division, GM still trails Ford in operating margin. To me, that suggests that GM is not investing wisely.

[LSFan00]

What folks I hope realize is that the one thing that could help drive more luxury vehicle investment right now (Lincoln), is what Ford is pushing; standards harmonization. If Ford did want to build a completely separate "ATS" platform for LMC (note; I hate comparing to Caddy), then if it could also sell the model/brand in Europe it would help.

 

Harmonize safety standards first, emissions standards next, I would say. Then, you might even get more of the diesels/wagons so many/few (yes, like myself) seek. I still think that, due to demographics/aging/birth rates, European sales are doomed over the next 10-15 years though.

[RichardJensen]

Yeah, but the ATS platform is not completely separate, It's going to be used on the Camaro and maybe a couple other Chevys and/or Holdens.

 

BTW: Agree on EU demographics and its impact on vehicle sales over there. Throw in the EU governments' understandable willingness to prop up their domestic car companies and there you go.....

Edited April 11, 2013 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

I still think that, due to demographics/aging/birth rates, European sales are doomed over the next 10-15 years though.

 

 

Well the US is going to be in same boat (not as badly though) that the EU is too

[RichardJensen]

Well the US is going to be in same boat (not as badly though) that the EU is too

 

The difference is, in the US it's about money, in EU it's borderline existential.

 

The US isn't growing fast enough to pay for future obligations, in the EU it's far more serious: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

[silvrsvt]

The difference is, in the US it's about money, in EU it's borderline existential.

 

The US isn't growing fast enough to pay for future obligations, in the EU it's far more serious: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

 

 

The interesting thing is where is population growth going say 100 years from now? I guess we might have a overall population thats smaller then what we have now, even with increased life expectancy

[RichardJensen]

Let's ask Thomas Malthus!

 

Oh, wait. He's dead.