Last Friday, JWT invited me to the Big Apple to discuss their Bold Moves internet documentary series. The ad agency wanted to interview "one of Ford’s fiercest critics" about their client’s decision to “pull back the curtain” on their turnaround efforts. Although JWT was only paying my expenses, I was inspired to make the journey by Mark Fields’ parting words in the opening episode: “the American people love the truth.” This is perfectly true and completely beside the point. The question is, does Ford love the truth?
I knew the answer to that question even before I boarded the Acela Express. Back in June, the automaker commissioned me to write about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the Bold Moves campaign. My no-holds-barred rant wasn’t a hit. I rewrote a few bits at their behest, but dug in my heels on the article’s main thrust: Ford’s campaign sucked because their products aren’t bold. Nor should they be. “The average Ford buyer hankers after a bold vehicle about as much as they crave purple hair extensions.” The piece never appeared.
As I walked through JWT’s white offices– lifted directly from the set of Woody Allen’s Sleeper– I surmised that my hosts had asked me down as part of a carefully coordinated effort to show how “real” they were, because, of course, “real” is all the rage these days. Yes but… the interview came with damage control as standard. JWT was free to use whatever digitized bits best suited its corporate purposes or, again, ditch the whole deal.
As soon as our chat commenced, I discovered that “transparency” was the name of JWT’s game. My bright eyed and tie-less adtagonist wanted to know if I– or anyone else– gave Ford props for letting JWT’s camera crew record, edit and post a “warts and all” look behind the scenes of the automaker’s recent struggles. The ad guy didn’t seem to care when I said nobody other than industry wonks and advertising execs was interested Ford’s bold new blog. He remained unperturbed when I declared that JWT's films had about as much edge as a beach ball, Ford employees were more concerned about losing their jobs than faux cinema verite and that The Blue Oval is doomed. Like I said: editing.
Later, as I watched the sun set over Connecticut, I concluded that Ford and JWT just don’t get it. Using the internet as an alternative channel for corporate PR– no matter how “hard hitting”– isn’t a bold move. It’s the same old you-know-what in a different wrapper. In our Brave New e-World, interactvity is all. The only two-way section of the Bold Moves site– “Ford responds”– is a limp joke. An anonymous Ford rep– no name, title or email– answers a selected question. Surfers post their reactions. Then… nothing. It's a total disconnect between consumer passion and Ford reaction, a sop to electronic intercourse that highlights the automaker's ignorance, arrogance and intransigence.
But it wasn’t until today that I realized how badly JWT and their Dearborn paymasters are fooling themselves. In Car and Driver’s letters section, Bud Green from Garland, Texas took C&D to task for describing a 4.9-liter Mustang when no such vehicle existed. “Hey, Bud,” the Ed responded. “you might want to review the trunkload of stories we’ve written about the “5.0” Mustang over its long run. The engine had a displacement of 4942cc.” The editor’s time shifted, mean-spirited, self-congratulatory response perfectly illustrates the old media’s gestalt, and the ethos of the automakers that help subsidize their efforts.
Car mags and carmakers simply don’t (or won’t) realize that the paradigm has shifted. The days when the high priests of automotive manufacturing and their journalistic acolytes could make products and pronouncements without concerning themselves with the opinions of people outside the industry (save an occasional interest in which vehicles or magazines consumers buy) are gone. The new model is an wired organization sans frontieres: a commercial enterprise with an instant, endless feedback loop between company and consumer that ultimately obliterates the difference between the two. Carmakers willing to make this leap– to surrender intellectual power to their customers– will thrive.
The Bold Moves website demonstrates Ford's unwillingness to embrace the new template. It's nothing more than traditional top down corporate culture transposed into a new medium. If the guardians of "Crazy Henry's" legacy really wanted to be bold, they'd create a multiplicity of websites covering every aspect of their business: design, marketing, engineering, distribution, sales, etc. They'd configure these sub-sites to allow a frank, open and meaningful conversation with the outside world, including suppliers, dealers, mechanics, owners and potential consumers. Anything less is an enormous waste of time, money and credibility.
I was fairly impressed with Audi’s R8 mini-site, which can be viewed here. Ford’s blog posts are nowhere near as interesting. How many ways can you polish a turd? Their cars are uninspiring, save the Ford GT, so they are swimming upstream the entire time. Make quality goods and fancy, multi-faceted websites aren’t necessary.
As usual great article Robert.
The days of “push” media manipulation/hucksterism is waning. I dont think the amoral Marketing types know what to do about it. Like Deer in the headlights.
Its nice to see a corporation document their turnaround strategy for all (who care) to see, but the frequent injections of PR spin and the lack of Bold Moves across the product line means that website has little to offer.
There’s been chatter about some cool concepts ready for next year’s NAIAS, and if the Bold Moves website goes into more detail about the research, design, marketing, engineering and financing of these cars…which is a big if…there will a lot to like about this internet campaign.
I for one would love to see a beancounting committee justify their actions on camera.
Not that I expect to see Bold Moves document a product development process, but hey, it could happen.
I for one would love to see a beancounting committee justify their actions on camera.
It would be like watching Oscar Mayer make Hotdogs I suspect.
Just asking, but outside of those that will buy a Ford product regardless, or buy what they think is a domestic vehicle,outside of those that have invested in Ford, work for them or their suppliers…does anybody really care??
Do the domestics think that consumers these days cross-shop between the traditional domestic nameplate and the import nameplate?
I just cant see the conversation of ..”Gee Marge, I’m really torn between the Toyota Avalon and that Ford500..what do YOU think I should get?” happening.
These new Bold Moves, Way Forward, and whatever GM bake sale is on at the time is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot to the legions of those that will NEVER even give the domestic cars a sideways glance.
I was reading the latest Fortune magazine on Saturday and low and behold, they have a piece on Ford’s financial health. It mirrored everything that this site has been saying for a few months now. The author concluded that Ford was in a tailspin and it is quite uncertain if it can pull out.
Some of the numbers the article was quoting was staggering:
Worldwide vehicle production: 6.6 MM (GM 8.3 MM)
Fixed costs: $57 Billion (GM $55 Billion – no typo)
Variable cost per vehicle: $15,000 (GM $12,000)
Product replacement rate (2007 to 2010): 60% (GM 75%)
R&D spending: $8 Billion (GM $6.7 Billion)
Total employees worldwide: 300,000 (GM 335,000)
No wonder they are in trouble. Ford also expects to lose another $1 billion in the fourth quarter and not return to profitability until 2009.
This is a direct message to Mark Fields:
The very FACT that you had to coin yet (yes, “YET”) another buzzword is a true indication your “Bold Moves” strategy will fail!
Why don’t you take a very quiet, subdued, page from the book of Hyundai…or even Toyota for that matter…and put a muzzle on it already.
TQM, JIT, Synergies, Robust, Global, “Quality is Job 1” “Have you Driven a Ford Lately?”…what in God’s name else can one come up with? Oh, my…my…of course…”BOLD MOVES”. Of COURSE we had to NAME it!!!
Neither Hyundai nor Toyota made a name for themselves by becoming an American-style braggart. Truth is, car guy’s don’t like your types. At all. I know I don’t. Most car guys/gals hate to see Marketeer types up on stage performing the latest tap dance and strutting his/her showmanship. They care just about as much for your type as a pimp used car salesman.
Our money goes to the best engineered product we can afford. Plain and simple. We don’t give a rat’s ass about some guy in a suit sporting a slick mullet and a gold watch telling us what a wonderful Bold Movement is taking place.
Most of us work …and most of us obtain our fill of the corporate BS 8 hrs each workday. The very LAST thing we want is to see you sporting your phony showmanship, comprende?
Show us the products, or kindly leave the stage.
If you are not producing, you are a distraction…plain and simple.
Have a nice day.
ktm, I read that very same article today over coffee. And yes…it’s staggering, absolutely a complete clusterf*ck if there ever was one.
Well, not all manufacturers are ignoring or not learning from the Internet. The best example of one that did is Subaru, who decided to allow its WRX STi into the States, after gamers spread the word about the car, via having “driven” it on-line. However, it really comes down to disposable income. The TM such as Car and Driver are still driving – pun intended – the choices of people who buy cars, and not just in terms of those of us who read the magazines. Those little “Car and Driver said” items heard on radio or television ads still have impacts with people who might not be as interested in debating the truth or style of what Csaba Csere has to say (or who likely don’t know who he is). This article on JWT reminds me of hearing that great tune by Elvis Costello today “Radio Radio.” But just because the media seem to be controlled by “such a pack of fools” sometimes it is not unwise to resist the urge to “bite the hand that feeds me.” Being subtle isn’t necessarily the same as being a coward.
I’d like to see an automaker roll out one really good car, then stand back and keep quiet.
After jsut coming back from Germany, I realized that we are now in a European fragmented type auto market. No one company dominates the landscape and individual models are all that is important. the day when GM’s or Ford’s can simply call the press together and get millions of dollars of free pr for whatever they announce, is over. Nobodycares, just show me the new cars is operational. I have said in several blogs, you can’t redesign (even very good design) every 8 years when the competition is doing it in 5. After the third model change they are a full generation ahead of you and not looking back. Until, the playing field can be leveled in this respect, the domestics will never stop the downslide.
Wow, I have to admit to being absolutely astounded that Ford still has $8 billion left to ear-mark towards R&D. Of course, this is Ford world-wide, not Ford North America. I wonder how much dough-rey-me is being spent here, when they are laying off (firing) all manner of employees left, right and center?
I also have to wonder if their $8 billion includes ‘fudge factor’ figures such as how much their SUPPLIERS are also spending on R&D?
You know, Enron and Delphi type ‘cipherin’ (as Jethro Bodine would say).
Yeah, I am amazed at the figure, but still cynical and very skeptical.
As I say all the time, well, it’s RESULTS that count.
As an old TV ad used to say “where’s the beef?” Show me the beef, Ford – the car worth even considering to buy – the car 2 generations AHEAD of Toyota or Honda for quality, reduced fuel consumption, looks and pizzaz. Then you MIGHT get my attention – but without a warrantee as plainly written as AMC’s once-famous “Buyer Protection Plan” in the 1970’s, for 10 years or 100,000 miles covering everything, I still won’t be able to make the leap of trust and buy.
Great article. I was impressed that Ford (or JWT) would even invite critics. Hey, at least it’s a first step.
Also, I do agree with your point — that there needs to be seamless communication. However, I can’t help but remember a Henry Ford quote. I believe it was:
“If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.”
I believe Mr. Iacocca expresses similar sentiments. Mind you, there’s a can of worms if ever there was one.
Terry Said:
Do the domestics think that consumers these days cross-shop between the traditional domestic nameplate and the import nameplate?
I think people do. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons the domestic car industry is in such crisis: They’ve been competing with each other for so long that they’ve convinced themselves that either imports are a “fad” that will soon go away, or alternatively that people who are going to buy imports are going to buy imports regardless, so there’s no point in marketing to them. The first of these is a sad fantasy that will never happen, and the second just sounds like a pre-justification for poor sales.
But I was in this exact situation 7 years ago. My old SUV needed to be replaced, and I wanted to get something new, something with AC (which I’d never owned a vehicle with), and something more utilitarian, so I settled on a small truck. I ultimately chose a Ford Ranger because it offered me what I needed, at a better price than I could have gotten on a Toyota or Nissan.
So, in fact, I think this is exactly the way most people (which is to say, most non-gearheads or non-autophiles) shop: They decide that they have a certain amount of money, say $20 or $25k, and then they go out and see what they can get for that money. If the domestics can offer what consumers perceive as more value for their $20k, then the consumer will buy that car.
Consumers also often rely on past experience, i.e. if their old Taurus was reliable, they’ll be more favorably disposed towards Ford but if their old Hyundai was a POS they’ll stay away from that brand.
I think the fact that domestics are still in business at all is not so much due to the “chauvinism market” (i.e. the people who will “buy American” no matter what) but rather due to the fact that they can often undercut the prices of imported or import-badged cars, or else sell cars at the same price that have more “features” and lead the buyer to believe he or she is getting more car for their money.
Bottom line, if anything, the domestics need to compete more aggressively against the import brands. Ceding the small/economical car territory to their competitors is what got them into this dire situation in the first place.
Interesting stuff. P.R. is P.R. and always will be.
My problem is with those who tirelessly complain that Ford doesn’t currently have any “bold products”
1. How many “bold products” do the imports offer?
2. Exactly what can Ford do about their current lineup right now?
“Few” and “little” seems about right. Ford may indeed be “doomed”, but everything that would make it so has already been done.
You don’t get any free points by pointing out how “dumb” they are/were–as if you could have done any better.
(Indeed, they may even know that; but should they just refuse to show up for work tomorrow?)
Everybody seems to want to demonstrate how “smart” they are in retrospect–and by the fortieth comment it really becomes instructive.
Exactly what is going on? A chronicle of a fall? Glee? Or an opportunity for self-aggrandizement by being on the “right” side of (apparent) history?
“Bold Moves” is a waste of money for sure; simply because the response to Ford from the press (TTAC included) would very likely not have been any different without it (Find sexy narrative. Run.).
It is not “Bold Moves” (the campaign) that will sink or save Ford, but rather what they really do behind the scenes as far as making and selling cars that people want.
That is unlikely to show any fruit anytime less than five years (one good product-development cycle) or more from now–and likely more, simply because perceptions take so long to change.
In the meantime, not only do they have to find the cash to survive, but they have to keep public perceptions from tanking; or else even fewer people will be willing to consider any “better” cars that they may produce in the future (people are already brand-ignorant as it is).
That is what they have at least some measure of control over in the short term.
If PR can beat back the incessant negativity that comes with the mainstream press (which ultimately shapes public opinion), then they may be able to stem the tide of “fleeing” customers until “then”.
Of course, if “then” will never come, then it doesn’t matter, but of course only TTAC readers claim to know the future.
Everybody else (all 300,000 of them–mind you) has to work.
As with everything American it's all spin spin spin, and the need to convince everyone that things are rosy and ok for the future is astounding. Bold Moves and its accompanying web media etc ticked all the boxes for the FUMoCo, you can imagine the board of directors in their ivory towers slaping themselves on the back for that one It was a good article for once from the deathwatch series. its been very poor/tired of late.
A couple suggestions from another armchair analyst:
1. Bring the Euro-Focus to the states, higher price and all. The market will thank you. You might cannibalize SOME Mazda3 sales, but most people perceive them far enough apart. Now that you’ve got even more entrants to the small segments, generating lots of interest, you could offer them a good competitor at a very wide price range, depending on equipment. Head-to-head with the Fit, or head-to-head with the GTI/WRX/Evo.
2. Bring the S-Max “minivan” over to the states (as the Ford “version” of the Mazda5). Work on making the concept of inexpensive, utilitarian people-movers look cool. Most people just want utility and decent cost of ownership above anything else. If people will buy the Scion xB in droves, surely you can make this work. Unique styling and customization are key.
3. Refresh the Freestyle as the next larger version of the S-Max. Promote the crap out of it for the same reasons. Replace the explorer and its unnecessary variants (Aviator, Mountaineer) with versions of this. Make people believe it IS the new SUV…and “cooler than a wagon”
I've just deleted several flame-throwing posts aimed at TTAC and me personally. A couple of points: 1. I will not tolerate trolling or flaming our writers, commentators and/or the site itself. Genuine criticism? Rational argument? Sure. Thinly-veiled contempt and petty sniping, no way. 2. If you find this policy (or me personally) hypocritical, that's your perogative. But I will not let this site's comments section devolve into petty name-calling. If you've got a beef with me or TTAC email me: robertfarago@thetruthaboutcars.com.
Terry Parkhurst:
The best example of one that did is Subaru, who decided to allow its WRX STi into the States, after gamers spread the word about the car, via having “driven” it on-line.
This is exactly the better way to do what Ford is hardly attempting. The CAR drove people to the site/game, not the other way around.
Ford wishes to give the impression that they are Bold, Transparent and Responsive. They will not be. Some may take the bait, but nowhere near the numbers they need to survive.
Jan Andersson:
I’d like to see an automaker roll out one really good car, then stand back and keep quiet.
This is the way good business is done: Have product to back up your hype. In fact, at this stage for Ford, have product and make hay off the hype it generates outside your own spin-factory. If you don’t, you look pretty damn silly to anyone with an IQ over 40.
Rastus,
“TQM, JIT, Synergies, Robust, Global, “Quality is Job 1″ “Have you Driven a Ford Lately?”…what in God’s name else can one come up with? Oh, my…my…of course…”BOLD MOVES”. Of COURSE we had to NAME it!!!”
Exactly!!! The fact they come up with yet another NAME for the latest campaign and immediately and transparently show it to be a bunch of crap is insulting. Although maybe it can be explained by stupidity. They twice demonstrated this directly to Farago and expected not to be called on it afterall.
Umm, I feel like a doofus asking this question, but I really wasn’t able to figure it out. Who or what is JWT?
I’m thinking it’s Ford’s PR company maybe?
JWT is an agency, formerly known as J Walter Thompson.
The big problem with “Bold Moves”, as several have touched upon, is that you can’t just create an image for yourself out of thin air. When I was in advertising (for a brief, hellish year), we called this stuff “image,” while most traditional ads were product-focused. By almost NEVER choosing to do product-focused ads, and only image ads, you are either saying “our products aren’t that great…but the attitude and style is everything!” OR “Our products are elite/expensive and you just need to be associated with us!”
But the wacky part is that for every Bold Moves ad I see, there are a half-dozen other co-op ads by the local Ford dealers (we have FIVE Ford ‘superstores’ in our metro) that are nothing but the usual cheeseball “06 Taurus for $10,990” ads. Talk about mixed messages…
So who does you average Joe listen to? The local goof touting how cheap his cars are, or the meaningless corporate campaign that often makes little to no sense? (Is that guy behind you in the drycleaning line married? If he is, are you a homewrecker? That’s BOLD)
As with everything American it’s all spin spin spin
Business school education is very similar to a “polical science” education where the “perception is reality” mantra is pounded into thier heads. I have had to endure many business meetings with Marketing/PR types and have always come away with a pain in my stomach.
Once in awhile after hearing the bogus “perception is reality” crap flow from their mouths I point out that reality exists regardless of how one perceives it. They look at me as if… Well… I did not recieve a proper business school education. (Im an Engineer)
These people will say/do anything to make a sale with total disregard for truth or repeat sales. Ten years ago they had a captive audiance via TV, magazines, newspapers, now they have to deal with the new media of the Internet where deceit and spin cannot survive long term. Their marketing campaigns, like a politician, become just intellectually insulting. I dont think they are stupid however I think they have been indoctrinated (They are “memorizers”. The people in college that use highlighter pens to excess.) and lack the ability to think for themselves and introspect. They lack the ability to perceive reality in other words.
“Bold Moves” comes perilously close to ‘CEO advertising’, which is odd for a consumer products company. CEO ads are television ad campaigns for companies like Boeing or TRW, in other words, nobody will buy anything from those companies based on those kinds of ads, but they do give the CEO a warm fuzzy feeling when he is watching the Super Bowl and can say to his other CEO buddies at the club, “Hey, that’s my company!”.
The only bold move done by Ford recently is faced with an enthusiastic response to a retro-Mustang they actually built it. Most would view that as a no-brainer, but for F is qualifies as astonishing.
Maybe instead of investing millions in a new ad campaign, they should have spent millions fed’izing the Euro Focus.
If memory serves, back when JWT was Jay Walter Thompson, they did the advertising for the original Beetle. Headlines such as “Think Small,” were part of that, as I recall. It is likely a reason – maybe the reason – they are now handling Ford.
“If memory serves, back when JWT was Jay Walter Thompson, they did the advertising for the original Beetle. Headlines such as “Think Small,” were part of that, as I recall. It is likely a reason – maybe the reason – they are now handling Ford.”
– Terry Parkhurst
Mmm… “Think Small Because Ford is Getting Smaller?”
The problem I have with most of these comments is that you guys do not offer anything other than criticism. Think about what Fields and Co. are trying to do – change a totally moribund corporate culture! Think of the egos and insular atmosphere that must have built up over the decades (eons?) – it’s not going to change overnight, or over”year”, for that matter.
They have to get everyone thinking the same thing – “change or die”, “bold moves”, etc, and then set out to put make those slogans a reality.
I’m not advocating a Ford “love-in”, but a little more balance might be useful. There HAS to be SOMETHING positive that they’re doing with those Bold Moves ads, even if it’s that some of the episodes show the company in a less-then-positive light. That shows SOME recognition of the dire straights.
I disagree with the assessment that Ford should not pursue “Bold Moves”, based on the rationale that the “average Ford buyer” doesn’t WANT bold design. That’s BUNK—Ford needs to grow well BEYOND the “average Ford buyer”, and the only way to do so is with compelling, beautiful, BOLD designs. Bold means a helluva lot more than “purple hair extensions”.
Ford is trying to resurrect a brand in the minds of the American consumer. They have to do something to get the worm to turn, and since it takes years to get products to market, the marketing message starts now, and the rest follows. Kinda like Mazda did with “zoom-zoom”…coincidence?
All marketing starts with product. Period. As for constructive criticism, my editorial offers an alternative to Ford's BM website. If you scan backwards (click on "editorials" on the top menu bar), you'll see that TTAC has consistently advocated solutions to Ford's woes, mostly centered on selling or closing brands and focusing on producing a MUCH smaller range of class-leading vehicles like the F150.
How can marketing “start” with products that take 2-3 years to develop? What do they do in the meantime, sit on their hands? They have to begin with a message NOW, and then deliver on that promise. It’s not optimal, but it is a reality.
Agreed that TTAC offers solutions, it’s the reader comments that are one-sided.
But, since you mentioned it, didn’t GM prove that closing a brand is a multi-billion dollar undertaking, plus the loss of whatever market is represented by that brand? Can Ford really take that on right now? Wouldn’t those resources be better spent pulling these “bold” products forward?
And what of pulling in some of their more appealling overseas products? Shoudn’t Ford take yet another page from the GM playbook – if it works, and it’s a quick solution, why not? At minimum, bring them in as Mercury-branded product. Like Merkur, only less funky. Seems like they have some good stuff Down Under that might fit. And the Ka – very cool mini that did well in Europe. What of those products?
peckwell,
Well said. That is my point. None of the solutions offered can make a world of difference right now. They all take time even as Ford takes a daily beating in the press.
So what is Ford to do in the meantime?
Sell what brands they can. Hunker down. Get to work. And tell the truth. Not “Bold Moves” but “We’re working on it,” or something like that.
“Bold Moves”? Sounds like something you get after ingesting Ex-Lax…
I really, really wish the big two and a half would concentrate on giving me a car that’s worth a darn for my money. Advertising only goes so far.
I offered 3 solutions above (Euro Focus, S-max, more focus on Freestyle). And these ALL involve current product mix, either here or overseas. Several others have also mentioned bringing Ford’s overseas products here, which I can’t stress enough. Maybe they look at GM’s doing that and would perceive it as following suit…the egos in suits never surprise me.
I got JWT’d
Fords in a dire position of little new product coming, i’m sure they’re trying desperately to get new models out asap to fill gaps but its probably too little too late. There is only so much you can do but as i’ve said before i don’t understand why the euro models have not been here years ago as they are all head and shoulders above the american models. just hope they can weather the storm, its gonna be real tough.
It will be interesting to see what is discussed in the upcoming deathwatches and how new info appears when the round of job cuts hits early next year and how this affects the playing field for ford.
And how does Mr. Field still seem to be hanging around. He was successful at Mazda but surely his tenure with PAG was not to standard, he continuously updates his turn around plans since transferring to NA but doesnt seem to be held accountable. Is this another yes man ford needs to remove?
Dear Ford,
Where is my Falcon Turbo / Focus ST / Fiesta / S-Max?
I am not Carmen Sandiago, so sell your best efforts HERE.
That would be a “Bold Move.”
Spot on, analysis, Robert. We have moved from the “Age of Dictation” to the “Age of Participation”. And brands that don’t accept this are going over the cliff’s edge. Ford’s lame (and very embarrassing Bold Moves) is a futile attempt to keep dictating, and JWT have no idea what they are doing with it, beyond charging an even more clueless Ford mgt.
Look at Apple. You don’t hear a damn thing from them until their product hits the streets. Not a word. Then, Steve announces that they’ve done something, and within minutes, the thing that nobody new they were working on is on the streets, ready to be sold. Wouldn’t that be something for Ford to try. Imagine if tommorow morning they announced that they were bringing over the Euro focus… and tommorow afternoon it was actually for sale to consumers. No talk, just action.
Peckwell says :How can marketing “start” with products that take 2-3 years to develop?
umm…they should take whatever they started developing 3 years ago, which according to your theory would be ready right about now…. and “start” marketing it today. First product, then marketing. Brilliant.
@Terry.
JWT did the Beetle campaigns? They wish.
That was DDB under the inimitable and supremely gifted Bill Bernbach. Before my time, but the campaigns remain hallmarks of ingenuity.
Bold Moves is painful to watch, it’s that obviously stale. First time I watched, I thought they were actors.
===
But to go a tad easier on Ford. In spite of never having owned a Ford (unless one counts retroactively, to a Jaguar E-Type 4.2) it would be a damned shame to see the company go forever.
In spite of having rented Ford cars, and regretted not getting something else; in spite of having seen Ford erode Volvo; in spite of seeing silly concept cars at car shows, and sillier real cars on roads … I want Ford to continue as a company.
But then they, and GM and that puzzling German/American company, have to eat crow and accept that their gamble on consumers remaining idiots will never pay off. And they – straight up – have to build sensible cars, that are right for the market they are addressing, and the present and coming needs of that market.
So skip the high-margin megatrolleys. Skip the opposition to alternative drive-trains. Let the Hydrogen pie-in-the-sky go — won’t happen and won’t save you, for another ten years.
Ford exec’s should go bash their heads against a cast iron girder for a couple of days over the fact that they killed the Think EV. Wouldn’t they have liked to have something that emerged from that direction today?
And they should be deeply, deeply ashamed over their trucks and SUVs. Short sighted thinking. If Honda, Toyota, BMW and others weren’t around, showing them what could be done – then you might almost excuse them. But all they had to do was open the two holes adjacent to the bridge of their noses, take a gander and go figure. They didn’t, and now the figures aren’t adding up.
Where the heck am I going with this? To the sad truth that Ford is cooked, and will have to baste for a while before anything can be salvaged. I’ll cheer the remains.
And as to the bad Volvos comment above. I know the owner of a major UK assembly plant that readies new Volvos for distributors. He tells me that his people are appalled at the cost-cutting and savings that are evident in the Volvo platforms. That’s the one place where Ford is making any serious money, and the company is clearly intent on getting as much out of those cars as possible – but customers are catching on. My acquaintance was incensed, and told me quite a few stories about how Volvos are being squeezed for profit. Killed the brand for me, he did.
It seems that the last Bold Move Ford made was the original Taurus. One of the cool things about the original Taurus was the unexpected useful content. I remember that ours had a small secondary sun visor to flip down at the windshield when the main visor had been moved to block the side window. I used that feature frequently and have never seen it in a car since. Somewhere along the line Ford went on a cost-saving de-contenting binge on the Taurus and turned it from America’s Best Selling Car into America’s Dreaded Rental.
Perhaps the Ford GT was a Bold Move, but who cares? It was a vanity project which took resources that should have been invested into the volume products.
Where the **** is a decent Focus update? Where the **** is a decent Ranger update? How can Ford just abandon the minivan market? Where is the Volvo minivan? Volvo was long the safe family car of choice which people willingly paid a premium for. Doing a Volvo grade minivan should have been Plan A 15 years ago, but no, we get a V-8 sport utility for the fickle fashion mavens. Duh!
Thanks for the correction as to the agency of record for VW, back when it sold the original Beetle, Steinl. Doyle Dane and Bernbach sold a certain segment of Americans on the beauty of a small, easy-to-work on, automobile, at a time when most Americans wanted what the late George Romney once called “gas-guzzling dinosaurs.” It sounds like a challenge for JWT to take up today, doesn’t it?
There’s a short news item in the November 9 issue of Old Cars Weekly that mentions the fact that the Ford family will be awarded the 2007 Robert E. Peterson Lifetime Achievement Award during the 9th Annual Hotrod and Restoration Trade Show, to be held March 1-3, 2007, at the Indianapolis Convention Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. The award will be accepted, on behalf of the Ford family, by Edsel B. Ford II, great-grandson of Henry Ford I.
Dick Messer, director of the Peterson Automotive Museum was quoted as saying, “His grandfather, Edsel B. Ford (son of the first Henry), oversaw the 1932 Ford coupes and roadster, now nicknamed the “deuce.” Those vehicles are the roots upon which the hot rod market has been built.”
This underscores what editor Farago has said about the importance of product. However, it’s a bit grim when your landmark product was produced over 60 years ago.
I myself met Edsel Ford II when Ford had a press preview of the 1982 Mustang equipped with the five-liter V8, at the old Longacres race track (appropriately, a horse racing track) in the fall of ’81. While it was based on the Fox platform, then in service since model year ’79, that Mustang was fun to drive through a set of cones, the Ford public relations types had set up in a parking lot.
Edsel II seemed like a decent sort and was an auto enthusiast. Maybe he is the one that should have been given the reigns to power. The importance of product isn’t lost on him.
If you’re standing on Manhattan Island, the sun sets over New Jersey, not Connecticut.
You may know cars, but you don’t have a clue about geography.
Regarding
1. How many “bold products” do the imports offer?
2. Exactly what can Ford do about their current lineup right now?
“Few” and “little” seems about right. Ford may indeed be “doomed”, but everything that would make it so has already been done.
You don’t get any free points by pointing out how “dumb” they are/were–as if you could have done any better.
1) Honda Civic is bold. And it’s the top selling compact model. Thus, “few” isn’t true.
2) The big 2.5 need consistency. If I were CEO at Ford, I won’t drop the name “Taurus”. I would just use the “Fusion” as the new Taurus. In addition, I would adopt a no-nonsense pricing policy. That new gen Taurus goes for $19k firm. Not $24k msrp and then dropped to $19k on fire sale.
I just read the Fortune article, here’s the link:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393169/index.htm?postversion=2006110209
Some of the quotes are just golden, such as the finance department having the company by the nads, and that future products have to cost less than current products. Ax the MBAs? That would be a true Bold Move.
How about a truly BOLD MOVE and make FORD a single car series, maybe a version of the new Mondeo sold in Europe?
That’s it. It’s a FORD. Just like prior to 1955. Oh sure, you have different trim levels and maybe two engines (perhaps an ultra-clean diesel and perhaps the gas-hybrid system from the current SUV). But it’s a FORD.
Obviously, also FORD truck (separate) but offer diesel V6 hybrids, since everyone knows the probability of fuel prices skyrocketing again is high (like 97% of the US public?!). Is there any real reason for pickup trucks to be so massive? Look at a 1960’s Jeep full-sized pickup – it is about the size of a Dodge mid-sized now. DOWNSIZE.
Then do A – as in ONE – Mercury car. How about a hybrid crossover? Certainly no larger than the old Villager minivan.
Then do A – as in ONE – Thunderbird (as a brand). Obviously, a 2+2 touring sport car, maybe a 2 seat short wheelbase variant sharing 90% of the basic car. Rear wheel drive. Perhaps a retractible hardtop available on each, or tin top cars. Make them V6 hybrids.
Then do A – as in ONE – Mustang (as in a brand). V6 hybrid. Obviously, rear wheel drive. Sharing chassis components with Thunderbird, of course.
Make all of them the most fuel-efficient cars in the segments in which they compete.
Let Mazda handle the small cars, Volvo the luxury cars, lose Jaguar and Land Rover and Aston Martin.
Let some quality go back to Volvo instead of dumbing (and cheapening) them down and ruining them. Nope, volume won’t be as high, prices will be higher – but in the LONG RUN it will pay off (if in doubt, take a look at Lexus).
Something‘s got to go.
And I was watching the sunset from the train, in Connecticut.
Hey Faraga, you have a special talent for the obvious. Just imagine a trans-national cororation that tries to spin PR in the gise of inovative openess. Wouldn’t that be the definition of what a corporation is, and what they all try to portray on the outside.
What you said in your critique can be as easily said about Toyota when one considers that they have been hiding safety issues for the past eight years and have a criminal investigation going on as a result.
Product? sure Toyota delivers better in N.A. but have you seen the product lines in the rest of the world even in very strong UNION Europe.
Glenn A: Nope, volume won’t be as high, prices will be higher – but in the LONG RUN it will pay off (if in doubt, take a look at Lexus).
Try explaining to fellow execs and stockholders how your long-term plan will take a long time (about 5 – 10 years) for any tangible results to materialize. Count the number of days before you are told, in no uncertain terms, that although your time at the company was valuable, it’s time for the company to move on. Without you.
The Big 3 eschew long-term thinking for short-term plans that they think are guaranteed to net them big profits right now. Which explains why companies like Honda and Toyota continuously out-pace them by following long-term goals that insure the company’s longevity and overall well-being.
Until the MBAs and legacy-builders are pushed out of their comfy chairs in Dearborn, Auburn Hills and the RenCen, not much in the way of progress will be done. In fact, the execs and MBAs will just look forward to the day that their companies go bankrupt as the day that they can finally jet off with their golden care baskets.
I can’t believe that a company that posted a loss of nearly 6 billion dollars actually spent money to be insulted. Couldn’t they just call up Farago instead?
Nonetheless, I really want to see the video if only to see the kind of spin they’ll put on it. The last episode had some laid off employees practically thanking Ford for firing them. They are now free to pursue their life long ambitions – although admittedly they did get a sweet severance package.