I recently attended the Los Angeles Auto Show. Other than 30-inch custom wheels, the sheer desolation at the Mercury stand was the most amazing sight of the day. A forty- something couple ambled about the premises studiously avoiding the half-dozen or so Mercury “product specialists” looking for something to do before lunch. The revamped Mariner and Mariner Hybrid spun on their turntables, revealing their inescapable Fordness to an ocean of deserted carpeting. I couldn't help but conclude that the brand is doomed.
I remember the Oldsmobile stand in the years leading up to its ignominious demise. Even in its lame duck form it had a couple dozen visitors milling around. And unlike Mercury, there was very little chatter within the industry suggesting that Oldsmobile’s extinction was imminent. Olds was an Indy 500 and IRL championship-winning engine supplier. According to those “in the know,” GM was about to reinvent the brand to capitalize on its racing rep. Oldsmobile was going to become the premium American import alternative– the orbit [once and again] occupied by Saturn.
In contrast, today’s Mercury has no motorsports involvement and sells a range of fractionally ritzier but still blander-than-John-Kerry- eating-vanilla-ice-cream Fords with waterfall grilles. Even employing a drop-dead gorgeous spokesperson like Jill Wagner, the fact remains that Mercury’s product line remains an armada of badge engineered mediocrity.
So how should Ford CEO Alan Mulally and his posse fix this situation— other than pulling the plug and let the dealer lawsuits fall where they may? Step one: axe the Milan. As the Brits say, the Milan falls between two stools. Any customers willing to pay a premium to drive a frillier Ford Fusion will make the jump to the automotive artist formerly known as Zephyr. Although you couldn’t ask for a better platform from which to badge engineer (just ask Mazda), that way oblivion lies.
Mercury should also kill the Mariner (Escape), Montego (Five Hundred) and Monterey (don’t ask). To quote the Brits again, the first thing you do when you’re in a hole is to stop digging. Badge engineering is killing– has killed Mercury. To reinvent itself, Mercury must take one giant step away from Ford and decide what it wants to represent.
Step two, Mercury should replace the Milan with a federalized, waterfall grilled version of the head-turning Euro-spec Ford Mondeo. Yes, this same scheme did a face-plant in the form of the late, unlamented Mystique. But a Mercury version of the new “kinetic” Mondeo would go a long way towards restoring some semblance of street cred for the amorphous brand– especially if Dearborn includes the five-door and wagon versions. (Multiple bonus points for a high-po “Cyclone” version.)
Step three: import the Euro-spec Focus. The Euro Focus is a full generation ahead of the current vine-rotted model barely sold in the U.S. The domestic version should be rechristened a nuevo Mercury Comet. By adding this “premium compact” to their NorAm portfolio, Mercury could present a viable domestic alternative to the BMW MINIs and Audi A3s mopping-up the high-end of the small car market.
Step four: bring over the Ford S-Max. Other than the fact that the S-Max is an award-winning minivan (a genre Ford recently abandoned), this “MPV’s” chief advantage is that it looks like nothing else in Ford’s domestic lineup. When you’re trying to re-build a brand without a visual identity, you have a unique opportunity to deploy completely new models without worrying about the effects of new design language. Moribund Mercury needs a completely unique vehicle. The S-Max is it.
If all of this sounds a bit familiar to armchair Iacoccas, that’s because GM’s is now using its “import fighter” Saturn brand to sell, uh, imports. Although Saturn’s weak-selling Aura suggests that re-badging Euro-derived vehicles doesn’t guarantee success, Mercury could pull it off, under one condition: no other Ford brand is allowed to share the European swag. Repeat after me: badge engineering blows. Besides, importing cars ain’t cheap. The allegedly upmarket Mercury brand can charge the premium required to maintain profitability. [How Saturn expect to make a profit on a European-built Astra is something of a mystery.]
Alan Mulally has decided that Ford’s future depends on international parts and platform sharing. If The Blue Oval’s Thirty Million Dollar Man can get his guys to use these platforms to create highly individual models suitable to each brand’s specific DNA, the global strategy could work. Meanwhile, Big Al needs a way to reenergize Mercury right now, cheap. This is it. If the Divine Mr. M maintains the status quo– letting Mercury stand for nothing more than a babe and a badge– by the time the new models arrive, there’ll be no one left who's interested in them.
Ford is a strong brand in Europe. Most European auto journalists consider the new gen Focus to be a best handling car in its class. Interior is really nice looking with hq materials. S-Max is an award winning car in Europe. New kinectic Mondeo looks like sex and I bet it will be a success in Europe. I agree that Ford should bring those cars to U.S.
The biggest question is…
If Mercury would disappear tomorrow, would ANYBODY miss it?
Really?
Just give those dealers Ford franchises (if they don’t already) and be done with it.
As far as importing “Euro Fords”… They tried it already, remember “MERKUR”? No, I don’t either.
Let’s face it “badge engineering” as you put it is providing product to the market that appeals to a specific market segment while at the same time providing product that the dealership can sell. Remember the Edsel was a failure precisely because the identified market for that product no longer existed by the time Ford brought it to market. The Edsel was created to meet the demand for a product between the Ford and the Mercury in the post war economy of the US when disposable incomes were rising and the industry was retooling from the war effort. When the Edsel hit the market in 1957 there was a post war recession and the demand for the product that existed in the early fifties evaporated.
Differentiating product is how to meet the demands of different market segments. The auto manufacturers do this is by providing differing visual elements in a product that will appeal to the different market segments. The Mercury customer doesn’t want a Ford but basically likes the size, performance and other physical attributes of the Ford. The Mercury provides that segment with a product that it wants. You can see the same thing in appliances, clothing, furniture and even lawn tractors. Many of these items share the same mechanicals and or material but vary by color, design and features. Combine all of this with providing a product at a specific price point and you have the basics of the world consumer product economy.
I agree with most of the comments in this forum regarding the engineering attributes of different automobile designs and long remember the days when each brand had its own unique engineering and design. Those days are gone and the products that survive are those that can be manufactured using common components and design. We that appreciate automobile design and engineering only have to look at the failure of Dusenberg, Packard, Pierce Arrow and dozens of others to realize that we are not able to provide enough demand to economically support the manufacture of that kind of product on a large enough scale to be viable.
Personally I think the automotive industry is trying very hard to find a solution to its continued existence in this country and is bringing to market some very good product.
In fact the product is so good that its now not unusual to see cars 15 and 20 years old still operating with mileage in excess of 150,000. When I was learning to drive in 1963 it was rare to see a car on the road from 1953 and even rarer to see one from 1943. Today I see many cars from the 1980’s and 1990’s and they are in pretty good shape.
Granted their continued success requires them to compete with the manufactures from the rest of the world and in many ways they are meeting that challenge. The question remains if they are meeting the challenge fast enough to survive. Hopefully they will not go the way of the television industry, where all of our product now comes from a company outside our borders.
I enjoy reading this forum, but do have to take a break now and then because the critics sometime fail to offer any constructive advice. I think an element of the auto industry that really needs attention is the manner in which cars are sold. Have you visited a dealership lately? The car buying experience has become the part I try to avoid and for that reason I probably keep my car longer than 5 years when I would like to trade and take advantage of some of the new products offered.
The Euro-Fords sure beat the hell out of their American counterparts (ok, I’ve never so much as sat in an American Ford but I visited the website…once…).
Anyway, the new S-Max and Galaxy (sister model) really impressed me. I got the chance to look at one closely recently and the interior and finish look quite good indeed.
Btw, the picture in the review is of Ye Olde Mondeo, here’s a link to some info and pictures about the new one:
New Mondeo
Also, do us and Mercury a favour and throw in a picture of the lovely “Miss Mercury” please. She’s already an integral part of the review anyway.
Dump Mercury, leave Lincoln and dual Mazda dealerships with Lincoln dealers that ‘demand’ some middle-priced cars (as long as there is an open sales point available).
Meteor and Monarch were Canada-only marques from post-WWII through about 1960 and nobody misses (or even remembers) them.
As for Euro Fords, bring ’em in as Fords, assembled in the US to Euro specs. As FORDS. No brand confusion then.
Yep. New Focus, New Mondeo, S-Max, Galaxy.
Tom, did you steal my Ford playbook? This reads like the script to my brain on FoMoCo. Whether broadening the model range would drive costs through the roof is probably the deciding factor.
I would also like to add that the new Transit and passenger-friendly Transit Tourneo need to come this way to replace the Econoline and provide a more spacious alternative to minivans. This is something that Sprinter could have done (and may still do), but Ford can beat them to it. One platform, everything from a panel van to a passenger vehicle to a medium-duty pickup. Ford is out the minivan business here, so why not start fresh with the S-Max for small families, the Transit for big ones?
JJ
I haven’t seen the “new” Galaxie, but I piloted an ’05 tdi model last summer all over the southern half of England (1,000+ miles). Apart from a few minor ergonomic/seating issues, it was terrific. 35+ mpg (imperial) on the motorways.
This approach for Mercury has been mentioned before and I can’t see why it hasn’t already been done. GM is doing it for the Saturn brand and is having some success and good press. Currently Mercury is worthless and has nothing to offer and needs it badly.
ash78: I would also like to add that the new Transit and passenger-friendly Transit Tourneo need to come this way According to Winding Road, the Transit is on its way.
Very timely, Frank, thanks. I don’t know about the smaller Transit Connect version, though, the styling is a little…err..odd? I much prefer the cleaner face of the regular model. But that’s probably OT for Mercury discussions, just general Ford ramblings.
JJ
I haven’t seen the “new” Galaxie, but I piloted an ‘05 tdi model last summer all over the southern half of England (1,000+ miles). Apart from a few minor ergonomic/seating issues, it was terrific. 35+ mpg (imperial) on the motorways.
The old Galaxy wasn’t bad, but essentially a Vee Dubb Sharan (made in Spain along with it’s other sibling, the Seat Alhambra). Ford’s contribution was mostly the petrol engines, while VW took care of most of the design and, obviously, the diesels.
The new one is a clean sheet (Ford only) design (designed together with the S-Max) so they aren’t really comparable. It’s a good car though, I’m pretty sure it would be an asset for the American market as well.
About the Transit; you don’t want that as a people carrier. trust me, you don’t. It’s a good commercial van and it always has been. As a car it’s rubbish. Same reason you don’t want a Mercedes “V-class” either, it’s the same story. It’s real name is Mercedes Vito – No really.
PS Good work on the pictures.
The reason no one is at the Mercury display at car shows is became the people who buy Mercurys don’t go to car shows. Mercury has a nice, loyal market of low-to-mid level American business executives. They’re nice enough guys that aren’t particularly bright and never quite made it to the top before they retired.
I’ll never forget talking to one of these guys back in the early eighties. At the time, I had one of the recently introduced LeBaron convertibles. He was asking me about it because he was in the market to trade in his brown Grand Marquis and was considering getting the LeBaron.
A month or two later, I saw him again and asked him if he had bought a new car. He said he had, but he just traded his brown Grand Marquis in on a new one just like it.
Ford needs to rationalize its brand structure. Mercury is clearly the one brand nobody needs (or wants).
Mercury is somewhat different from Olds in that there are no (?) stand-alone sales outlets. They’re all Lincoln-Mercury stores. As such, Ford wouldn’t put anybody out of business by shuttering the brand or significantly restricting the lineup. To this end, drop everything but the Grand Marquis, which becomes just a “Mercury” and sell that along side the expanding Lincoln line up.
Bringing the Euro Fords here as either Mercurys or Fords would tend to step into Mazda’s territory. Ultimately the direction that Ford’s domestic lineup needs to go to be competitive with Honda/Toyota is where Mazda is, creating another conflict. Its like trying to match Ford against Toyota and Mazda against Nissan all within the same market segments.
Volvo is a legitimate mid range product viewed as a step up from Fords or Mazdas.
Lincoln needs to be revitalized to be a step above Volvo in a Lexus pure luxury vein.
Jaguar/Land Rover can fill the top end of the range with products matched against M-B, BMW and Audi (especially with Aston Martin being sold).
In marketing and psychology, there’s a notion called “extremeness aversion” that states most people will choose the middle ground when given three alternatives of varying cost/size/features. By that token, Mercury should be the best-selling marque in the Ford family–nicer than a Ford, but cheaper than a Lincoln. In turn, companies often try to eke the best profits from that middle option because people will naturally gravitate towards it. IMO, that is the only reason to have a “middle brand” and Ford seems to be failing to capitalize on it.
I believe the only way to apply this theory to the car biz is to be sure that middle ground has the greatest number of options (be like Toyota, along with Scion and Lexus), rather than trying to “spin off” two upmarket brands from a single lower-end marque. Think of a bell curve, with Mercury commanding the middle cluster (say, +/- 1 standard deviation, or the middle 68% of all FoMoCo prices or luxury), with Ford the cheapest/most basic 16% and Lincoln the most expensive/luxurious 16%. That’s a little extreme if only to illustrate the point. Instead, you have the greatest product breadth at the lowest-end marque, bookended by Lincoln, thus squeezing Mercury out of the mix in people’s minds.
Your suggestions require some creativity, something obviously lacking in the shepherds of Mercury and Ford. I’m sure if they’ve read your suggestions they’re thinking of lots and lots of reasons why none of them would work. I fear there is little hope left for this brand.
I say Ford has at least 1 too many brands. Noone below the age of 40 even understands what a mercury is supposed to be. For our life-times they have been nothing but copies of Ford products.
Lincoln may carry some cache’ with the baby boomers, but for the most part, young people only associate the brand with the Navigator they saw in a hip hop video (Holy crap, I feel old just typing that sentance).
I think bringing the euro-fords to the US is a great idea. I’m not sure Mercury is the right brand to bring them in under, though.
If Mercury deep-sixes their current lineup and brings in the Eruo-Focus, Mondeo, et. al., then what does Ford (the brand, not the MoCo) have to aspire to? If the minds at Mercury can’t coalesce to generate an original concept of their own rather than copying and importing, then I say nix the entire brand. But keep the spokes model for the Ford ads. And the Lincoln ads. And Mazda, too…
The reason Ford receives less criticism than GM concerning brand strategy is that people have never learned to expect anything special from Mercury because Mercury has rarely in its entire history had well-differentiated products. It never had the following of a Buick or Olds.
Many people have been suggesting that Ford sell its European cars here. The problem is that as products engineered for the European market they’d have to sell at VW prices, and Americans aren’t ready to pay VW prices for a Ford or Mercury.
I’d personally love to have a manual transmission S-Max, but I don’t know if I’d pay what they charge Europeans for it.
Finally, it’s a widespread fallacy that Mercurys generally cost more than Fords. When both are loaded up, Mercurys usually cost the same or even a little less than their Ford counterparts. You can run comparisons here:
http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php
For what it’s worth, Mercury models are very rarely researched on my site. A brand cannot be more dead.
Maybe they could axe Mercury and bring the Euro models over with a derivative version of that name, say “Cury” (Cury: it’s radioactive!)
Or has that been done before? ;)
I think the problem with brands like Mercury, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Buick and so on is, that traditionally, American car manufacturers have had lots of brands, each for a certain demographic and with a limited lineup.
But today those demographics disappear. People aren’t Mercury guys or Ford guys anymore.
People in the 50s and 60s wanted to be as average as possible, live in an average suburb and drive an average car. Today people are more selective. Even if they are average, they don’t buy average anymore. Depending on personal taste they either get an “above average” (=luxury) car and maybe save a little on the home or they get an “below average” (=economy) car and maybe spend the extra money on a nice vacation.
Today it’s all right if a brand offers the whole line up, as long as their image fits into a category that’s as far away from being average as possible. BMW for example offers everything from the 1-series to the 7-series and from the X5 to the Z4. But each of those vehicles is perceived to be the benchmark for sporty luxury in their class. On the other side of the spectrum you have brands like Hyundai that also offer a car in every segment but all of them perceived to be cheap quality.
So you see that the basic positioning of Mercury as the thing between Ford and Lincoln (=average) is its major problem.
The next problem of course is that American brands started to expand their line-up, driven by the competition. As I pointed out, this isn’t necessarily a problem, but since there are simply too many brands within each of the former Big 3 (we actually have to exclude Chrysler since they got rid of Plymouth) and on top of that the positioning of the brands are all wrong, the brands themselves have no choice but to compete with each other. But not enough, all the badge engineering makes things even worse.
Badge engineering sounds great at first. If our brands have to compete with each other then we can at least save money by competing with identical cars and thereby only having to develop them once. All for one and one for all is the idea behind it. So it’s only logical that with expanding line-ups we also get more and more badge engineering. This of course makes it impossible to have three makes under one roof because of two simple scenarios:
1) Either the badge engineering is done well and there realy is a difference between the different brands in terms of design and/or options and/or interior. In this case people will either go for the top of the line brand (Lincoln) or the cheapest brand (Ford) but definately not for the average brand (Mercury) as described at the beginning.
2) Or the badge engineering is done bad. In this case the different brands are quite similar and everyone will go for the cheap model.
In both cases Mercury is toast. So Mercury’s only options are to either become very different from the rest or to die. However dying seems to be the better option…
I am a huge Ford fan but Mercury should just die. Take the money you save from that bloated marketing exercise and reinvest it in Ford and Lincoln brands.
The amount of money it takes to keep this division afloat is likely staggering. The marketing and advertising costs alone are in the hundreds of millions per year.
The Mercury premise is a good one though… a slightly nicer Ford. I would keep the idea but just build another trim level on existing Ford product (ie. SE, SEL, LX).
Transplanting Euro products to a domestic nameplate is a risky game. While I personally loved my Contours and my last gen Mondeo (nee Jag X-Type) most of the buying public did not. If the statement about the Aura is true, then we see another instance of a Euro-spec product not cutting it on a domestic showroom floor.
Let’s put it another way. If you had the choice of buying a Euro-spec Focus or a VW Golf/Jetta and all things were equal, which would you buy? Which do you think Euro-snob shoppers would buy? What do you think price-sensitive domestic shoppers would do?
Nope, the day for Ford to have a mid-level-entry-lux brand is over. Get Ford and Lincoln healthy and then you’ve got some magic waiting to happen.
On another note about Euro cars in North America.
I believe I would be safe in saying that the vast majority of the market share lost by domestic brands has been to Asian brands over the past 20 or so years.
It is also safe to say that the really good share erosion started when those brands started making cars and trucks specifically designed for the North American market.
It is also safe to say that with some examples that prove the rule aside Asian brands have not attempted to take something that sells well in Japan or Korea and make it work well in North America.
Thus, the keys to success are not in bringing over cars built for success in Europe but cars that are built for success in North America.
It may not appeal to the pistonhead in us but mass market survival is about catering to the masses, not the “elite”.
I love the phrase:
“inescapable Fordness”
–chuck
While I applaud TomAnderson’s proposal to at least do *something* with Mercury, I think this is a near sighted solution. It has been tried twice before, with the Merkurs and Mondeo, and failed. Americans have spoken: we won’t pay $30-40K for European Fords cross-dressing as Mercurys.
The bigger question for Ford is: how can a company that is losing $Billions annually afford to have separate teams engineering different platforms of similar vehicles. The Mondeo, S60 and Mazda6 are great cars, but why have separate platforms? Why are the Escape, Edge, Freestyle and Explorer all so similar in execution, but ride on separate platforms? Especially when the CX-7, CX-9, XC90, LR2 and LR3 are all out there in the dealerships next door?
The answer for Ford overall is to consolidate these engineering teams, which would cut cost and give their separate brands access to world class platforms. Then, Mercury would be positioned to develop its own brand persona – not American Ford with Chrome, not Euro-Ford, and not rebadged Volvo.
Jill Wagner would be a good place to start.
I certainly prefer the Fords produced in Europe. However, I disagree with this notion that Ford should start shipping European products to Americans if they want to starting making money.
They’ve tried that in the past, and failed with it. The Merkur XR4ti (anybody remember that one?) was a sporty 3-door variant of the Ford Sierra, a car that was ubiquitous in Europe but an utter failure here. Ditto the Merkur Scorpio, which was a failed US version of the successful-in-Europe Ford Scorpio. The Ford Contour was an American variant of the Mondeo, and it was also a resounding flop.
The problem with Euro-market cars in the mid-sized middle-market sedan class and other similar segments is that they are too small for American tastes. One reason that the Camry and Accord lead the pack in their class in the US is because they are larger than rival cars such as the Mazda 6 that are smaller and intended for a wider global audience. Americans who buy niche products such as BMW’s don’t mind the size differential, nor do those who buy cars for image or sporting pretension (the VW Jetta and the old European-style Ford Capri comes to mind). But for those preferring a mass-market everyday sensible-shoes runner, the Yanks believe themselves as having bigger feet.
If the advertising means much, Mercury seems to be marketing itself toward women. On the surface, that sounds like a bright idea — women allegedly buy about half of the cars, and influence the purchase of about 80% of them. The only problem is that women don’t tend to have significantly different preferences than do men to the extent that these would justify an entirely seperate brand to appeal to them. Marketing specifically female products is a bad move in the car game, because whereas women will happily buy a “guy’s car” if they like it, a guy will flee from a “chick car” showroom more quickly than a Kenyan runner. When you create a brand that is going to immediately repulse half of the potential buying public, then it’s probably time for a serious rethink.
Mercury has been the stepsister brand at FoMoCo from the very day it arrived on the scene. FoMoCo has never given Mercury the attention and products required to succeed. The special Mercury only cars thing has been tried many times before with the Merkur, Villager (shared with Nissan, but not Ford), Tracer (shared with Mazda) and so on.
Many of the Euro Fords should be brought to the US, but sold at Ford dealers. There simply is no reason to keep the Mercury dealer network alive. If shutting down cold is to hard, then bleed them to death by keeping the Mercury Grand Marquis alive until the last dealers give up. Put all of the taxicab and cop car business under the Mercury label as well and let the dealers try to survive selling and servicing them. The Checker company got a few decades more out of that strategy.
Ford doesn’t have the money or will to market all of it’s brands let along provide each with the needed product to compete. The winning brand strategy has pretty much been settled on by the marketplace. One mass market brand and one upscale brand per maker is by far the simplest and most successful model. Toyota/Lexus. Chevrolet/Cadillac, VW/Audi, Ford/Lincoln, Mini/BMW, etc. Sure there are some counter examples, but the answer for Ford is clear …. dump the never really loved Mercury brand and get on with fixing the Ford and Lincoln US brands. Sell the rest of PAG to anyone with cash.
BTW, Volvo has a similar market strategy problem to Mercury. It is neither a top end or nor a mass market brand. If FoMoCo really wants to bring more Euro Fords into the US then put them into the Volvo dealer network. Put some lipstick on the Ford S-Max and finally give Volvo the minivan it should have had for the past 20 years!
I dont know what all the fuss about “badge engineering” is. I see Nissans that look just like decontented Infinities. Ditto with Toyota and Lexus. VW and Audi. Perhaps there is not as much differentation, i dunno.
But I think that if more people wanted Fords in the first place, Mercury would be in better shape. Should Mercury have specifec non-shared brands? sure – more for us to complain or rave about. I can see Mercury as the high tech division maybe. The euro spec focus could lead the assault.
Notice that the GTi has a smaller engine that the standard rabbit. Sure, turbo, other goodies, but this is an interesting development.
Mercury could tech up other ford products maybe. Have you seen the Interceptor concept? Perfect platform for all three divisions to have a little fun.
Mercury’s advertising:
A 20-something risque lad-mag model disguising herself as a 30-something soccer mom to sell cars? Are they really targeting women with that, or is it a simultaneous thing? (Wife: “That’s just like ME!” Husband: “Mercury will make my wife look like that”)
It’s like the old adage about selling magazines to women vs men: Put scantily-clad women on the cover. Of both.
Hoo, boy.
Kill the Mariner and the Milan…the only models to percolate Mercury sales in the last couple years? Was this written after a Super Big Gulp of “medicated” eggnog?
Why not solve the, y’know, problems instead?
I’m all for using Mercury to introduce some Euro Fords to the market, but anyone arguing that this approach guarantees success has NOT paid attention to previous efforts in that direction. While I think the S-Max would be a great addition and the Euro Focus could be gently modified into a usable MErcury product, why kill the Milan and Mariner?
The Milan is due for freshning soon, so that would be a great time to switch it to the Mondeo architecture…but it could keep its name. As for killing the Milan…I can’t go there, I see the things everywhere I go. I’d suggest instead giving it the new V6, 2 more cogs in its transmission, rear disc brakes, and save your ire for the product planner that omitted the above items. In terms of styling, I’d rate it easily as attractive as the St. Bernard-esque CRV.
They’re all Lincoln-Mercury stores. As such, Ford wouldn’t put anybody out of business by shuttering the brand or significantly restricting the lineup. To this end, drop everything but the Grand Marquis, which becomes just a “Mercury” and sell that along side the expanding Lincoln line up.
I agree with Lichtronamo, but I’d take it a step further. Dump both Lincoln and Mercury divisions (since they are joined at the hip) and sell them next to Volvos at all their dealerships. Retain Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealers in rural areas, however.
Sell Volvos in the showroom, have a corner dedicated to the Navigator, Town Car, Grand Marquis, and 1-2 Merkur-ized Ford imports wearing Mercury’s aluminum trimmings.
Probably the dumbest thing Mercury’s done is not spun off the new Mustang into a Cougar. They need that halo vehicle so bad it Hertz.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to save Mercury. Hasn’t one of the consistent criticisms here has been too many brands??? Better for Ford to face the consequences of letter Mercury die, than to waste precious resources trying to save a brand with no reason to exist. To me, letting Mercury die would be a sign that Ford was getting serious about its survival.
Brings European Fords into the US market really doesn’t depend on Mercury’s survival. And yes, Ford has tried this. HOWEVER, if you recall, Ford tinkered with the Merkur before it was brought over here and the tinkering made the car worse, not better. Let alone as much as possible, I think many of Ford’s European offerings would do well here.
My buddy’s first new car right out of college was a 1990 Celica GT-S. (Couldn’t talk him into the All-Trac.) Awsome car though underpowered. Rock solid, awesome handling, reeked of quality.
But when he found out that 89% of Celica owners were women, he almost rolled the thing into the lake!
The cost of making the Euro Ford compliant with US regulations would simply not be an economic venture considering the sales volumes. Ford already has a luxury brand – Lincoln – they don’t need a second. Mercury has replaced its brand identity with bland identity – get rid of it.
Probably the biggest failure of the Merkur lineup was the L-M sales tactics. You can’t sell a Merkur/Mondeo like you do a rebadged Ford, its a different clientele.
Can L-M actually sell a Euro-Ford without screwing it up?
Sajeev Mehta:
Probably the dumbest thing Mercury’s done is not spun off the new Mustang into a Cougar. They need that halo vehicle so bad it Hertz.
YES!
THATS what im talking about!!!
Mustang = cougar would be a great idea. They’ve already spun the Cougar name into two disparate cars in the past 20 years, why not a third?
Maybe that waterfall grille is giving them…(wait for it)…cataracts!
try the veal.
“… Cougar …”
Mmm… yeah… I haven’t thought about the Cougar – or even noticed one on the roads – for a while. What happened to it? The Cougar was one attractive car.
I surfed to Edmunds and checked the 2000 and looked at the user reviews… I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a car rated as low as a 7.2 on Edmunds before.
There’s the good and bad for Mercury. They could use a halo car like the Cougar. I’m both surprised and unsurprised that they let it die. Surprised because the looks had to be good for the brand and unsurprised because I’d bet bad word-of-mouth meant that they wouldn’t be able to sell enough to make the project worthwhile after 2002.
As far back I can recall, all Mercurys were badge engineered rides for somebody who thought they were too good to be seen in a Ford, but didn’t have the cash for a Lincoln. This identiy crisis is nothing new, and I preditct it’ll lumber along aimlessly continually supported by Ford until Ford keels over and dies.
Honestly, you’d have to go back to the Eisenhower administration to find a Mercury (other than the final Cougar) that could actually stand on its own two feet as a product that wasn’t badge engineered.
As Kris Kristofferson wrote, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
I thought Janis Joplin wrote that.
Mercury Sales:
1998 – 438,000
2005 – 195,949
A drop of over 55%.
Does anyone seriously think bringing over European Fords will lead to over 400,000 in sales?
I’m a loyal Mercury customer. What is killing Mercury is Ford let their products rot and die, and the final nail is this horribly mistaken marketing towards women and younger people.
Mercury has always been a middle America brand for respectible, stable, married men. Those customers have not quit buying cars – they are now buying Toyota’s, Honda’s, etc.
This quote from a prior post is 100% correct (other than the brightness factor – I think it is more accurate to say they are guys who will not sell out their marriage, family, etc., just to get ahead in the corporate world)
The reason no one is at the Mercury display at car shows is became the people who buy Mercurys don’t go to car shows. Mercury has a nice, loyal market of low-to-mid level American business executives. They’re nice enough guys that aren’t particularly bright and never quite made it to the top before they retired.
I’ll never forget talking to one of these guys back in the early eighties. At the time, I had one of the recently introduced LeBaron convertibles. He was asking me about it because he was in the market to trade in his brown Grand Marquis and was considering getting the LeBaron.
A month or two later, I saw him again and asked him if he had bought a new car. He said he had, but he just traded his brown Grand Marquis in on a new one just like it.
One other comment – I bet that guys Grand Marquis was running long after the LeBaron was remade into beer cans.
I don’t think importing current Euro-Fords would fail like it did with Merkur and the first Mondeo. Today’s european Fords are much better and considered much more competitive than in the 80s and early 90s. While the early Escorts were cinycally engineered to a price and couldn’t dream of competing with the Golf, the first and especially the second generation Focus are seen as strong contenders in the ultra-competitive european compact market. The same is true for the new Mondeo (3rd generation).
Don’t forget that the last batch of Euro imports (Cougar and Focus) were pretty well received at the time, even though the Cougar sort of fell flat later on, and the Focus is suffering from lack of updates.
I don’t recall the specifics, but I believe both came to the US from the UK design office, which is why they were substantially different from the rest of the company’s products at the time.
You keep the Merc. I’ll take the cute girl in the TV ads. Ford should just axe everything domestic and sell Euro-Fords in the US. The Fords I saw in England were certainly more up-to-date than the old fogey sleds they sell here.
From it’s inception in 1939, Mercury was always meant to be a gussied-up Ford. Nothing more, nothing less. Back before WWII, you went from a Ford, to a Mercury, to a Lincoln Zepher (bet you thought they picked that name out of a hat), to the Lincoln.
Once Ford started turning out more than one car per nameplate (say, 1960 with the advent of the Falcon and Comet), the lines started blurring, and quite frankly Mercury was toast anytime after that. Ditto for Pontiac, Oldsmobile and DeSoto if they didn’t come up with a different reason to exist.
Two of the four didn’t. The other two are on borrowed time.
One problem with importing European Fords is that doing this might not be cost effective due to unfavorable labor costs and low value of dollar. Maybe if they price the European Fords somewhere similarly to the competing Volkswagens, they might make money but the question is whether enough will be sold to make the North American launch worthwhile. But then again, Mercury is _supposed_ to be a semi-upscale brand, with prices similar to VW but not quite in the luxury car range. I think it’s a great idea personally. Ford needs bold moves, and what can be bolder than bringing three new shiny models to the American market?
When I went car shopping, I considered a Focus. I didn’t buy one simply because it was “just” a Ford, and I figured it would be cheap. That’s all. I didn’t even bother to test drive a Focus because I couldn’t wrap my head around Ford being cheap cars. I liked the look, I like the size of the hatch, I liked everything about the Focus except that it was a Ford. On the other hand, I’m relativly savvy, and I hear nothing but praise for the European Focus.
Had Mercury sold a European Focus, I might be driving it now over a VW.
If Mercury really is floundering, why not take a chance. I hear about all these excellent EuroFord products, and then in the next breath how Americans won’t buy an expensive Ford (they’re right!). Why not use Mercury to try something out? Sure, they’re “just” Fords, but they’re also Mercurys (-curies?). They can command that higher premium. They can give us European styling, performance, and even the cost increase that goes along with it, while not giving the Ford brand a potential black eye. Take it further, Mercury can be the FoMoCo testbed for passenger diesels, as well.
Plus, that makes perfect sense to be mated to a Lincoln dealership. The higher, European edition Fords or the flagship luxury of the Lincoln under one roof.
On the other hand, maybe that’s how they’re supposed to be selling Volvo, but they’re not as far as I can tell.
Also, keep Jill Wagner. I didn’t know her name, but I do know that I can recognize a Milan ‘coz she tries to sell ’em to me on the TV. Heh.
The key questions about a strategy I agree with:
1. Will Ford actually be committed to this approach, and can the Merc dealers warp themselves into a Volvo/BMW mindset?
2. Why wouldn’t a domestic company bet a division that the American auto market will start to look a lot more like the Euro market thanks to higher gas prices?
3. If it turns off current Mercury buyers (all 12 of them) and sales start off slow does Ford have the money to keep doing it?
4. I do think you can get a premium price for their high spec Euro offerings, certainly Mercury hasn’t seen those kinds of buyers in their showrooms in decades, but I have the feeling it will be like their Mercur and Cougar offerings, drop them at the first hint of trouble.
5. Please, please, no Mustangy Cougar. A band aid solution to patient with serious heart, lung, and spleen problems. Which is probably why Ford will do a Mustangy Cougar. Sigh.
Hey North American Cars manufacturers: Stop taking us for stupid buyers! give us better cars or else we will buy elsewhere. Mercury is just another excuse to buy elsewhere!
Thinking about it… Mercury should die. Just tag it and bag it.
Ford needs to concentrate on Ford and Lincoln and… that’s it.
In California Mercury has less than 1% market share, so no wonder their stand at the LA Auto Show was as empty as the Mojave desert.
Before making new product road maps for Mercury, let’s answer the following simple existential questions:
1. Can FoMoCo make a profit with such a small brand? (I think not)
2. Should their attention be focused on the survival of their other upscale brands (such as Lincoln, Volvo)? (I think yes)
3. Do you need a seperate Mercury brand to achieve product differentiation? Do upscale model versions within the Ford brand already give enough differentiation? (I think yes)
4. Does FoMoCo have the money and talented staff to revive a Mercury brand that has become irrelevant? (it seems they don’t)
Sajeev: Probably the dumbest thing Mercury’s done is not spun off the new Mustang into a Cougar. They need that halo vehicle so bad it Hertz.
How about a nice rebadged Focus? Mercury could call it… Bobcat.
Great road map for Mercury – good article.
The only people who buy into the belief that Mercuries are a step up from Fords are dying off…either literally or figuratively. My father moved from 3 different Crown Vics into a Mercury Grand Marquis – and would be the first to admit he has a hard time telling them apart. And given that the Merc is a 2003 model, and the last Crown Vic was a 1993, this is not good. So I guess he might fit into both of the above categories.
I guess you could say the Mercury Mystique is gone. (I’ve been dying to use that for a while now…)
The Bobcat! The Cougar! You guys are killing me…
Okay, what do you all think of this strategy?
1. Let the Ford brand be trucks, minivans, SUVs, CUVs and perhaps the icon models of Mustang and Ford GT. No other cars.
2. Reinvent Mercury as the cars-only brand with all new models, Euro models, whatever.
3. Keep Lincoln for the Towncar and make it a true luxury car on par with Lexus, etc, not just a fancy LTD.
Just an idea…
Badge engineering is what has destroyed Mercury. Suggesting more of the same as a solution sounds dubious. If Ford is not ready to develop unique designs for Mercury, they should just let it die.
Bobcats Marauders and Cougers
oh my
While attempting to keep Mercury showrooms full of new product, they are starving Ford products of innovation. LED tail-lamps and HID headlamps are typical stuff on the competition and should be available on the Fusion, but can’t be because they are the very things that are supposed to entice a buyer out of a Fusion and into a Milan. The problem is, the Fusion is the bread-n-butter volume brand for Ford, not Mercury. And while the Fusion is an attractive car, it’s not considered as technologically advanced as the competition because it is too generic and low-rent in many ways. Mercury should probably go away, because any car and any feature in FOMOCO’s international portfolio that would be good as a Mercury would be a better Ford and have a better dealer network coverage and more marketing support.
There is no reason that the 2nd gen Focus, Mondeo and the S-Max couldn’t be assembled in Mexico to circumvent the UAW and sold in the United States. No reason at all.
Continuing the Mercury brand is analogous to stocking shelves just ‘cuz you have space. Except you have way more stock boys than you need and they have a powerful union pulling the strings.
Can’t wait until Ch.11 spawns a reborn FoMoCo capable of making truly bold moves. Too bad this will all play out at the expense of SE Michigan.
I was shopping for a minivan early in 2005 to accomodate our third baby. I didn’t want to pay the huge costs of the Honda or Toyota – $25k is a lot of money (and that was the bottom of the rung, the prices only go up and up from there). Was interested in a slightly used lease return, possibly from Dodge or Ford. Knew the Ford was slightly “trucky” but was also aware they had worked out their transmission problems in the later generations of the previous Windstar…so I was not too leery of the reliability. I actually liked the styling of the Freestar, even if the fender creases were a bit much.
Anyway, I found a base model Monterey listed in our local town paper (Mill Creek, a suburb of Seattle) for over $11k off MSRP. Perfect! The Mercury had many of the trappings of the up-market Ford Freestar SEL (speed-sensitive volume adjustment for the radio – a very nice feature I must say, in-tire pressure monitoring, radar in the bumpers, all-lighted switches which most of the competition does not have, dual climate, etc. etc.) but at significant discount due to the fact that NOBODY thinks of Mercury when they are thinking minivans. Nobody. So they were desperate to get rid of this vehicle.
So I walked out (after walking out for a week over the $900 they were trying to pull back from their advertised price) with a really nice, safe van that may not have the latest or “greatest” features (I really don’t need or want a navigation system or in-car DVD for my kids) but does have a warranty. I would never have purchased the van at the $29k MSRP (who were they kidding with that one) but at $18k it was a great deal and I am very happy with it. No problems either – very reliable. Even get 18MPG in town and 25 MPG on the highway, above the stated EPA values.
Back a bit more on topic, the incremental costs of changing grills and steering wheels etc. are probably not too high, and the Mercury brand did contribute almost 200K additional units to the Ford sales total (better in the late 90’s as was pointed out). Still, are the 200k additional units paying for themselves? Only the MBA’s with the spreadsheets know for sure.
I would love to see some Euro products (I wanted a XR4Ti quite a lot as a teen and my parents bought a Scorpio – which was very advanced and luxurious in the late 80s) but I don’t know of putting them in the Mercury camp is a good idea – the brand is not currently strong enough. If they tried this approach, they would have to devote BIG dollards to the advertising budget to make people even aware of Mercury. This could be an advantage though…fresh slate and all that.
I’ve rambled on now long enough, thanks!
The basic reason why I wrote this, folks, was kind of a last ditch effort to save Mercury; whether the Mercury brand is worth saving or not is irrelevant, as far as the article is concerned.
Arnie, the thinking behind rebadging Euro Fords as Mercurys is the fact that they are just that: Euro Fords, as in products 99.5% of American car buyers didn’t know about. I mean, have you all heard the stories about Yankee moviegoers being wowed by the new Mondeo after its cameo in Casino Royale? You couldn’t buy that kind of buzz!
Secondly, Bradford Wernle, a reporter for Automotive News recently wrote a column for the December 25 issue with many of these same ideas (after I had already submitted this piece to Robert, of course).
I personally think that there is still a chance for Mercury to be relevant in the marketplace and thrive. Granted, it will probably never claw back those 200k+ sales, but if Mercury could have some exciting, dynamic and, most importantly, not shared with Ford NA and Lincoln products, then it could most certainly stabilize its market share. Hell, even if this didn’t work, it would at least allow FoMoCo to finally walk the “Bold Moves” talk.
Well, here’s the basis for my strategy suggestion.
Having 3 distinct lines would eliminate badge-engineering altogether.
Since Ford’s reputation for trucks has been strong, Ford would provide truck based vehicles and keep the two performance car models. Mercury Mustang, Mercury GT, I don’t think so…
Since Mercury cars have long been considered an upgrade to Ford cars, make
Mercury the cars-only brand, okay throw in the minivan as well. And not just renaming the current Ford car models Mercury, but as I said, reinvent (develop new models) and make Mercury to be a better car brand.
And lastly, if keeping Lincoln is even worth it, make it a true luxury brand, no more fancy F-150s, and spruced up taxi cab cars.
Blue Adidas: “There is no reason that the 2nd gen Focus, Mondeo and the S-Max couldn’t be assembled in Mexico to circumvent the UAW and sold in the United States. No reason at all”
Actually, Blue, there is one reason: the fact that every UAW worker in the US and CAW worker in Canada would walk off the job until Ford recognized the union in that plant as they do in the Mexican plant that currently builds the Fusion.
Realistically, Ford could look at moving production to the US, but will have to face the fact that several plants would need to be retooled, as well as vehicles re-engineered for American safety and environmental standards and tastes.
The key is the elimination of redundant platforms.
Wasn’t the Capri of the ’70s a Euro Ford? I owned a ’73 I liked a lot, and they sold very well. This can be done properly.
IIRC, the XR4ti had some serious quality issues, and the Merkur “cockroach” was doomed at the dock.
IMHO, anything that steers away from badge engineering already-existing US product is a step in the right direction.
“…the incremental costs of changing grills and steering wheels etc. are probably not too high, and the Mercury brand did contribute almost 200K additional units to the Ford sales total”
However, giving a low volume brand all of the good stuff that mainstream buyers want is a problem when the high-volume brand is starved of these features. R&D that could be applied to a floundering hi-volume brand (Ford) should not be spent on floundering low volume brands (Lincoln/Mercury.) The Fusion has to be dumbed-down in order to find a slot for the higher-featured Milan, a car that’s sales are so negligible that it’s not even mentioned in the same breath as the competitors. The Fusion, meanwhile, is close to trumping its competition, but it won’t as long as R&D resources are diverted to the Milan.
And then keep in mind all of the advertising, marketing and collateral costs that go into the Milan that could go into the Fusion. That’s more than just a steering wheel and extra grille; it’s a ton of money. Taking one competitive vehicle and fractioning the available features and marketing so that two brands can be supplied with vehicles is not the way to fill showrooms. It hasn’t worked since, well, ever.
A truckload of wisdom here for sure, but I am not sure if the stripes at Ford will listen or even care.
RE: badge engineering and platform sharing
All the manufacturers do this, and for some very compelling reasons. Yet it just so happens that some manage to do it and differentiate the brands enough to make it work. When the upscale version is given due attention and enhancement such that it is worth the extra change, and doesn’t just look like a dolled up older sister – it works. Toyota and Honda seem to get it right most of the time with Lexus and Acura.
RE: Importing EuroFords to NA
The broader question is this. If they can seemingly get it right over there with market-leading vehicles then what is going on over here? Have they so utterly misread the NA consumer and marketplace, thinking that we will continue to buy their underperforming, blandly styled and shoddily constructed vehicles? Why isn’t it the case that Europe is pining for NA Fords and Merks and Lincs? This is the real tragedy in my view.
Then again, what the heck do I know?
Ford year-end sales press release:
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=25114&make_%20id=trust
Mercury is down 7.7% from last year, selling 180k vehicles, with the hugely profitable Grand Marquis in the lead with 55k. By comparison, Honda Odyssey alone sold 177k.
Supposedly Mercury is what prevents L-M dealers from going under. Without a clear plan, the average age of Grand Marquis buyers will shortly exceed US life expectancy, and then the game is over.
GM also (more or less) gets it right in Europe. I also wish I could figure this out.
I attribute part of it to the increasing rate of consumption here (of all types of goods). Further, the relative cost of a vehicle in the US (price parity) is lower than it is in most of Europe. Consequently, you are more likely to see older cars still used there as daily drivers, while much of the US has been reconditioned to believe in a new car every 5 years. I simply feel that the manufacturers have followed suit, so nothing seems to be built or styled to last long. Why bother squeezing out slightly higher “mean times before failure” of certain components (at a higher cost) when it doesn’t need to last more than 5 years?
“Actually, Blue, there is one reason: the fact that every UAW worker in the US and CAW worker in Canada would walk off the job until Ford recognized the union in that plant as they do in the Mexican plant that currently builds the Fusion. ”
Yep, that’s been the reason. And I think it’s sad that the UAW has any say in determining what constitutes a competitive product assortment. Things need to change and the UAW’s days are numbered. As long as they continue to suppress competition and allow their own industry to fail, they will become more irrelevant. As they become more of an irrelevant obstruction that threatens one of the industrial foundations of this country, the potential for their ridiculous contract to be voided through litigation and government involvement becomes more of a reality.
It seems to me that saving Mercury with imports is a dubious task.
The Euro is currently sitting at $1.32. So, it is doubtful that Ford can build “Mercurys” in Europe and bring them here to sell at any kind of profit.
What does ramping up a factory take? A year? Two years? Three?
Let’s say it takes two. Mercury sales for 2006 were about 181K units. What will they be in 2008? 150K units?
Should Ford put a huge investement into Mexico or Detroit or anywhere else to rescue a brand that may be selling fewer than 150K units/year by the time Ford has the rescue operation ready?
Although this flies in the face of everything that we have heard from top management, here is a BOLD prediction on Mercury:
Did you notice the new Lincoln Concept set to debut at NAIAS? Get ready for more elegant styling, strong powerplants, and upbeat attitude from Lincoln. I know, they had nice concepts before and never translated them into production, but Lincoln has a plan now. Peter Horbury is set to remake the Lincoln design language into stunning, yet subdued luxury eye catchers very similar to the MKR.
Once they have a design theme that works across the lineup (think about the current strategy for Volvo designs by Peter Horbury) that lineup will expand rapidly (continue to think Volvo expansion plan – S40, C30, XC60).
Once an expanded and more successful Lincoln brand is up and running, all the dealerships that NEEDED both Lincoln and Mercury products in order to sell at a profitable volume won’t have room for any forgotten Mercury products.
Then Ford kills the brand.
I’m guessing no later than 2012.
All Lincoln-Mercury Dealerships are revised to Lincoln Dealerships and everyone is satisfied.
Also, I agree with Ash78 and his “extremeness aversion” theory.
Once my earlier prediction comes to fruition, Ford should create a new sub-Ford brand (similar to Scion – maybe “Merc”). It’s amazing thatanother Automaker hasn’t attempted to copythe Scion blueprint yet…must be just a lack of cash.
How about a nice rebadged Focus? Mercury could call it… Bobcat.
You are on to something, but only if the 3-dr variant comes with Villager-woodgrain on the sides. Those were the days. I mean, damn! :-)
I guess you could say the Mercury Mystique is gone.
I nominate that as an alternate title to this editorial.
It’s a little extreme, and ultimately probably wouldn’t be that profitable, but hell, it’s an idea. Just make room in the lineup for Mercury. Ford is more or less fine where it is, although they need to keep moving forward, and keep making strong products (the kind they release every few years, and then coast on). Lincoln, based on its heritage, deserves to move further upmarket. Perhaps position it as the Mercedes to Jaguar’s BMW. That then leaves a wide enough gap that Mercury can slot in without forcing the Ford products to dumb themselves down. Ideally, Mercury could even go ahead and make incredebly stylish cars (the Milan as a four-door coupe?), something modern and polarizing. Not just Fords with different grilles.
The Euro is currently sitting at $1.32. So, it is doubtful that Ford can build “Mercurys” in Europe and bring them here to sell at any kind of profit.
Between exchange rates and high European wages, you’re correct. But, I would presume that if Mercury ever was to employ such a strategy, it would involve European-designed cars assembled in lower cost locations such as Mexico, modified with US-market drivetrains and the customary doughy suspensions.
The broader question is this. If they can seemingly get it right over there with market-leading vehicles then what is going on over here? Have they so utterly misread the NA consumer and marketplace, thinking that we will continue to buy their underperforming, blandly styled and shoddily constructed vehicles? Why isn’t it the case that Europe is pining for NA Fords and Merks and Lincs?
It’s a fair question. I’d say that it’s because Europe has a more competitive car market, with far more automakers competing for the consumer’s money. Without dominant market share or the call to patriotism, GM and Ford have had no choice but to produce products that Europeans wanted, otherwise they would have already failed.
In the US, they have been “protected” by tariffs, quotas and the significant market share that they inherited from the past, which kept them coddled and unprepared to compete. Now you’re seeing the end result of 40 years of bad products, badge engineering and their ability to stay afloat without having to work hard. If you want to measure their “legacy costs”, those are the places where you will find them.
Importing the Euro Fords will be a nightmare. I’d like to see the Chicago (?) factory that makes the Montego, 500, Freestyle, etc. crank out the Mondeo and Euro Focus for Mercury instead.
When I ambled into my first hot rod and custom car show at the age of 12, flathead engines were still to be found in a lot of hot rods. (This was before the term “street rod” really came into prominence.) And those really hot, hot rods, would have Mercury flatheads, usually with triple carburetion. There were some minor, yet significant, differences, between a Mercury flathead V8 and a Ford, back in the day. Looking back from another century, it seems to me that Mercury then represented to Ford, what Scion does now to Toyota. So it is sad to read about the lack of interest in the Mercury display at the Los Angeles auto show. However, it is still midweek; and maybe by the weekend, Mercury will get some more input – certainly someone at Mercury will read Tom Anderson’s insightful piece – from consumers that might help them adjust their offerings (eliminating some, changing others). As the famous Sir Winston Churchill once said, “The Americans will always do the right thing – after they have tried everything else.”
“A babe and a badge” best summary I’ve ever seen, Tom.
Gottleib, the Edsel was a failure solely because it was immediately recognized as a badge engineered Ford when the extreme hype leading up to the unveiling had led folks to expect a lot more; there was never a market for it.
Mercury was rarely perceived as being upscale from Ford, instead it was simply seen as a differently styled Ford for different tastes. No pretenses and no unfulfilled expectations. Same concept could work again today but it would need something more than a different grill stuck on the front. For example, Ford could send the terminally dull Fivehundred to Italy for a makeover then strap on a blower and they might have car that some of us might actually want to buy. Imagine 300 hp and AWD with looks like an Audi A8 for under $30K.
Problem 1: The euro is up almost 50%; it’s essentially impossible to import from Europe without a big loss. Ask VW and Audi how bad they’re hurting. MB and BMW reverse import some US built moderls to ease the pain partially.
Problem 2: Anything Ford does to improve Mercury will come at the expense of Ford, which doesn’t make sense. Ford should build updated Focus, etc. They already have a euro division (Volvo), and Japanese/sporty division (Mazda). Mercury is utterly redundant; Ford can’t support or afford it anymore. Any investment in a second US brand has to go to saving Lincoln.
Who remembers when Farrah Fawcett was THE Mercury babe?
Check out this commercial
http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/2975/
I used to look at Farrah when I was a kid, and I’d get a funny feeling. You know, a funny feeling.
How about a nice rebadged Focus? Mercury could call it… Bobcat.
How about a rebadged Ka… Mercury could call it KaKa.
Hmmm, anybody else see a pattern here? Anything “Wagner” is destuctive to the Auto Industry.
(Jill can destroy me anytime she wants though)
Ford has a long and dubious history with it’s captive imports (that is what you call a Ford Europe car when brought to the US). Set the time machine back to the early 1960s and you will find a few Ford Cortinas. Not exactly a big seller, and buyers were left a bit high and dry when Ford gave up. Go on into the 1970s and you find the Mercury Capri which was a Ford Germany product. This was actually a very competitive car at the time and sold pretty well. The V-6 version with a manual transmission was a very entertaining drive. This was probably the most successful Ford captive import ever, and perhaps provides the template for the current proposal to make Mercury the Euro Ford importer. In the late 70s we had the Ford Fiesta, which was Ford Germany’s bargain priced VW Rabitt clone. Ford dealers were clueless about how to sell or service it. It was a more reliable car than the early Rabitt but the Rabitt outsold the Fiesta in the US by a mile.
Other efforts included the Merkur, Australian Capri and the nearly forgotten Pantera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pantera) . All pretty much duds marketwise. There were also some easily forgotten Japanese imports like the Festiva and the Ford Courier (a Mazda small pickup). I don’t think a modern day interpretation of the captive import line would work, if for no other reason than that the Lincoln-Mercury dealer network would be clueless about what to do with these cars and the buying public has no reason to associate Mercury with cool Euro-design vehicles. Maybe they could hire Dr. Z for the advertising :(.
As to using pretty spokesmodels to sell cars, it probably applies to men and women. Recently I was in the bookstore and noticed something in common between the magazine rack labeled “Men’s Interests” and the one labeled “Women’s Interests”. The vast majority of both sections featuring photographs of gorgeous women on the covers. I didn’t see a single “Women’s Interests” magazine featuring a photo of a man.
Its a little ironic that with all the (well-deserved) Mercury bashing going on, sales of this brand (and Lincoln) increased last month while PAG slipped again.
Not great news, but not bad for a brand with badge engineered offerings that cannot possibly drain the bank like Jaguar…
And with that, I say Jag’s gotta go before Mercury. :-)
Terry: As a nearly lifelong reader of your work, Mr. Parkhurst, it would be an understatement to say that I am humbled by your opinion of my article.
Furthermore, you bring up a great point in the fact that, in the glory days of hot rodding, Mercury was really the hippest game in town. The sad irony is that, just over a half century after James Dean streaked across movie screens in the iconic ’50 Merc (unquestionably the Scion tC of its day), today’s pop culture princes and princesses wouldn’t be caught dead in a Mercury, with the possible exception of being driven to and from rehab incognito.
Sajeev: You’re right on the money, man. Jag has never made any money for Dearborn; heck, the story goes that the main reason they bought Jag was so that GM couldn’t, leaving the General to settle for Saab (another historic European marque that has borne its American caretaker little, if any, fruit). The only thing is, what major OEM would want Jaguar?
“And with that, I say Jag’s gotta go before Mercury. ”
I’d say that’s a big mistake. Ford has done wonders for Jag (and Aston and Volvo and Range Rover for that matter) taking it from a reliability joke that left oil puddles on the driveway, to a brand that offers vehicles that can be driven reliably every day.
To bother getting rid of Jag or any of the niche PAG brands is simply like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… fuss that won’t amount to much. Addressing the Mercury problem is the more substantial fix for Ford.
This editorial clearly hit a nerve with lots of folks. I have not visited a L/M dealership in 4 years. They dumped the only product I cared about, the LS. I just returned from a year in England and prefer the cars found there, Ford included. They are different than our domestics; but then again, so is the driving environment. The S-MAX and Euro Focus are desirable cars in my opinion, a view probably not universally shared by most American buyers. The S-MAX would be hampered by both high German production costs and unfavorable Dollar/Euro exchange rates.
I was raised in a family that bought quite a few Mercurys over the years, so I have a soft spot for the brand. However, I agree with Farago: Mercury is dead.
I’m not optimistic that even Lincoln can survive. The MKwhatever concept car doesn’t seem to be a very promising stylistic direction.
We know that Mercury isn’t going to get a Cougar spun off the Mustang, because Cougar doesn’t start with “M”. Hmmm, but Mustang does … maybe …. never mind.
As for Jaguar, perhaps Renault would be interested, or maybe the Chinese. Ford has improved the quality of Jaguars some, but the brand remains a shambles. The move to amp up the volume with that horrid X-type was a real Cimarron moment. The XJ has soldiered on for so long that it really isn’t exciting anymore. In 1967 that shape was the sexiest sedan on the planet, but that was 40 years ago.
I’d say that’s a big mistake. Ford has done wonders for Jag (and Aston and Volvo and Range Rover for that matter) taking it from a reliability joke that left oil puddles on the driveway, to a brand that offers vehicles that can be driven reliably every day.
These improved quality brands must be a different Volvo, Land Rover and Jaguar to the ones I see on the roads here in the UK.
Volvo’s quality remained high because they continued to make their own cars under Ford. But when they didn’t (Renault partnered 440/460 and the S/V40s) the quality sucked. Interestingly all the people I know with new S40s/V50s want out of them – more Mondeo-ness. The S60, S80 and V70 are original Volvo, but the dealers suck – as the owner of a 100K V70 I’ve been nearly ripped off a few times by them. We are off to buy a Skoda instead.
Jaguar isn’t selling because people can see the tarted up Mondeo-ness under the S-Type, and shy off to buy Mercs and BMWs instead. Better car (engines especially) and better resale prices too. The bigger ones also depreciate very rapidly and the new “Beautiful” sports types just look awful.
Land Rovers are just plain unreliable, terrible electrical problems, engineering failures and so on. See
Ironically Ford models themselves are getting a better reputation in Europe although this has never been a barrier to sales. In the 70s and early 80s Fords were renowned as poor starters but they still sold more than anyone else.
Well, I messed that up ;-)
What really needs to be done is Ford needs to stop making high end models for their line. Nobody’s going to buy a Mountaneer if they can save a few grand getting the same features on an Eddie Bauer Explorer.
The only thing is, what major OEM would want Jaguar?
Tom: that’s the multi-billion dollar question. Comparing their sales to their competition, Jag is much in the position of Chrysler. I’m guessing nobody’s interested unless its a fire sale.
I’d say that’s a big mistake. Ford has done wonders for Jag (and Aston and Volvo and Range Rover for that matter) taking it from a reliability joke that left oil puddles on the driveway, to a brand that offers vehicles that can be driven reliably every day.
Blue Adidas: You’re ignoring the fact that Jag (and PAG to a lesser extent) is a cash drain that hasn’t done jack for the company. How much has Ford thrown away with Jag (10 billion?) and what they get out of it (nothing?).
I agree their products have improved but when I see a Jag and examine its merits, I still understand why people rush to MB and BMW dealers instead. It’s not good enough.
Jaguar’s ROI is pathetic, it would have been dumped years ago if this was most any other industry.
Now imagine what 10 billion dollars would do for the Mercury brand. I’m sure that’s enough to bring most of the Euro-Ford line and entrench it into the minds of Americans.
That’s enough scratch to make it work, unlike the Capri, Pantera, Merkur, Mystique and Cougar Euro transplants of yesteryear.
“Now imagine what 10 billion dollars would do for the Mercury brand.” -Sajeev
Agreed. But does Ford have 10 billion to spend on Mercury anymore? If the company is in such a tailspin, I would think the money would be needed on more pressing matters.
I’d also agree with posters who suggest that the Ford (and perhaps on occasion Volvo) brands might be the more logical recipients of the Euro-Fords. Ford desperately needs to consolidate its product range.
“You’re ignoring the fact that Jag (and PAG to a lesser extent) is a cash drain that hasn’t done jack for the company. How much has Ford thrown away with Jag (10 billion?) and what they get out of it (nothing?).
I agree their products have improved but when I see a Jag and examine its merits, I still understand why people rush to MB and BMW dealers instead. It’s not good enough.
Jaguar’s ROI is pathetic, it would have been dumped years ago if this was most any other industry. “——————————->
I completely agree with you. But while 10 billion is a lot of dough, over the course of 20 years, it’s really just a drop in the bucket compared to Mercury. Ford’s problem is the result of more than just Mercury’s poor brand positioning and irrelevance; it’s a core problem resulting from a poor methodology at Ford. Jaguar’s problems were magnified and turnaround has been delayed because Ford attempted to apply this failed methodology to the British brand by introducing an inadequately contrived mass vehicle, the Xtype. Sales shot up initially, but the shit really hit the fan shortly after because the mainstream-ness of the Xtype was conspicuous and it simply couldn’t play in the 3Series and A4 league.
To base a luxury car on the DNA of a mainstream car is not the correct order in which to launch a vehicle. We’ve seen similar examples with the Malibu/SAAB 9-3… The correct way to protect the integrity of a brand, while spreading the R&D costs of the platform across the brands is to launch your good stuff first and your mainstream stuff later. Not the other way around like Ford keeps doing. The Fusion and the botched Zephyr launch is another example of this fundamental mistake. The Mustang, based on a modified version of a luxury car platform, is an example of the right way. Range Rover, Volvo and AM are also well developed brands. Maybe Ford DID learn from their mistakes w/Jag?
GM seems to understand this a little better these days. This is a core problem that won’t be fixed by axing any brand unless the methodology is corrected. Once Ford learns to successfully distinguish their brands properly, not only will their domestic brands succeed, their import brands will benefit.
Sajeev,
I completely agree with you. But while 10 billion sounds like a lot, over the course of 20 years, it’s really just a drop in the bucket compared to Mercury. Mercury is a problem resulting from more than just the poor brand positioning and irrelevance; it’s a core problem resulting from a poor methodology at Ford. Jaguar’s problems were magnified and turnaround has been delayed because Ford attempted to apply this failed methodology to the British brand by introducing an inadequately contrived mass vehicle, the Xtype. Sales shot up initially, but the shit really hit the fan shortly after because the mainstream-ness of the Xtype was conspicuous and it simply couldn’t play in the 3Series and A4 league.
To base a luxury car on the DNA of a mainstream car is not the correct order in which to launch a vehicle. We’ve seen similar examples with the Malibu/SAAB 9-3… The correct way to protect the integrity of a brand, while spreading the R&D costs of the platform across the brands is to launch your good stuff first and your mainstream stuff later. Not the other way around like Ford keeps doing. The Fusion and the botched Zephyr launch is another example of this fundamental mistake. The Mustang, based on a modified version of a luxury car platform, is an example of the right way. Range Rover, Volvo and AM are also well developed brands. Maybe Ford DID learn from their mistakes w/Jag?
GM seems to understand this a little better these days. This is a core problem that won’t be fixed by axing any brand unless the methodology is corrected. Once Ford learns to successfully distinguish their brands properly, not only will their domestic brands succeed, their import brands will benefit.
wow – pantera – now thats a car! merc should bring something like that, but make it affordable and FUN! THAT would be cool
Agreed. But does Ford have 10 billion to spend on Mercury anymore? If the company is in such a tailspin, I would think the money would be needed on more pressing matters.
Yes, that ship has sailed. But it was worth mentioning.
Question is, does Ford spend more money on a huge loser (Jag) or sell it off; plowing back its budget/profits for a proven brand that has a much better chance of profitability?
Sajeev:
It’s not about axing Jag or Mercury. Neither option will matter if Ford doesn’t change their flawed methodology. The Xtype was a disaster the same way the Milan is. However 10 bil spent on a niche brand over the course of 20 years is a drop in the bucket compared to neglected core brands like Lincoln and Mercury.
The rule of thumb with protecting the integrity of a brand is to launch your good stuff first. The botched Zephyr lauch is another example of this. The Fusion should have been launched AFTER the Zephyr. The correct launch plan would have been the Zephyr / Milan then Fusion
At least there is a clear brand distinction with Jag. The same thing can’t be said about Mercury.
I guess you could say the Mercury Mystique is gone.
Yes, but that’s only because Ford lost its Focus.
Mon-DEO…MonDE-E-E-O. Taillights dumb, but me want one at home.
Come on, Mr. Mullally man, tell me I’m bananas
(taillights dumb, but me want one at home)
The Xtype was a disaster the same way the Milan is.
I’m wondering if I’m among a minority posting here from Earth, sometimes. So many posts seem to be from other worlds/realities….
Milan a disaster? Mercury would disagree…it outran projections last year, and is on pace to have a better year in MY 2007! It and the Mariner have gotten newer and younger blood into the showrooms, the kind of customers that were previously disinterested in Mountaineers, Montereys, and 30-year-old Panther cars.
While I’m all for the Mondeo underpinning the next Milan (hardly far-fetched, the timeline would be essentially perfect), I can’t understand the ill-advised ire and utterly ignorant rantings against one of Mercury’s few recent successes!
Will the rest of the Earth contingent raise your hands? I’m feeling lonely….
One thing that has not been discussed much is the fact that Ford is stuck with Ford and Lincoln/Mercury distribution channels. It is difficult to do much without making enemies of this sort of network. Unfortunately, it is easy to see it wane into uselessness. I am not sure what the answer is to the question of Fords distribution channels, but there is hope because GM has recently (and fairly successfully) changed over to their new 4 channel system.
There are a lot of good ideas and I would love to see some movement within Ford to do something interesting with Mercury. I hope someone has the courage to challenge the network structure to create flexibility.
With loud rumors of a Mercury-Euro Ford tie up, I think the new Ford CEO has seen what so many of us consider obvious:
If Mercury wants the kind of “hip young adult customers” that gravitate to imports, pulling in some cross-Atlantic DNA for Mercury makes loads of sense.
I’m a huge fan of Mercury, having owned (among others) a ’67 Cougar and a ’70 Marauder. The marque’s direction…well, it hasn’t had one to speak of for some time. The “hip young adult” target is a good one, but Ford needs to back up the direction with the products.
The S-MAX, the Mondeo becoming the next Milan, and maybe a version of the C1 hardtop cabrio would make more sense for the desired market than the Mountaineer or the Grand Marquis…though the GM has its own rabidly loyal (if AARP carded) customers.
Ford’s plan for Mercury is a good one, if they’ll just follow through. Recent rumblings are hopeful.
Zanary:
Okay, even though it was not the primary point I was trying to make, maybe calling the Milan a “disaster” is an overstatement. I do that when I drink too much coffee. Really, I think it’s a fantastic car and it’s too soon to tell if it will pull Merc out of the muck. I suspect that it isn’t the car that it needs to be. And as a secondary brand to Ford, Mercury doesn’t have the distribution or the marketing necessary to turn Ford around. If the Milan is selling like mad, then great. However I’ve only seen a handful of them on the road. Maybe there’s a parallel universe where they’re all over the place… I’m just not seeing it.
here’s some irony for you. the guy who was responsible for the European Ford Sierra project was none other than Bob Lutz, known around here as Maximum Bob.
and who was in charge of the imported-to-the-US Sierra — the Merkur? Bill Ford.
back then, Bill was considered an up-and-coming executive talent and possible heir to the throne, but considering how the Merkur project was such a mess it surprised me how Bill subsequently rose up the Ford hierarchy.
there is no such thing as auto-industry karma but with that kind of historical background, the idea of importing Euro-Fords sounds like a dud.
I saw a milan the other day, it is really nice, i like it. That whole line is cool lookin, the fusion, milan, zepher (its called a zepher, right?)
The Zephyr is now just a MKZ, it saves money to reduce the name to just three letters, and you know how Ford needs to save money right now.
Actually I read somewhere that Ford was following the other companies by naming its models with numbers and letters instead of names. It seems the Brand Police don’t like names because it takes away from Brand Identification. For instance they prefer the model designation of MKZ so people will recognize it as a Lincoln first. GM did the same by dropping the DeVille and renaming it DTS. Personally I hate Brand identification and the BRand police, reminds me too much of Thought Control ala 1984.
The Milan is outperforming expectations…but the expectations themselves are fairly conservative. However, it’s a rare bright spot for Mercury…and proof that they can sell something besides a Carter-era tank when they want to.
I keep forgetting about the Cougar potential…but I don’t know that I’d want the Mustang to spawn both Mercury and Lincoln variants, as the “badge engineering” accusations would be thick on the floor.
blue adidas wrote:
“To bother getting rid of Jag or any of the niche PAG brands is simply like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… fuss that won’t amount to much. Addressing the Mercury problem is the more substantial fix for Ford.”
Right. But when the Titanic is listing so badly, it surely is best to save life and limb by getting into the lifeboat, and leave the frilly jewels to go down with the ship, if by attempting to save the frilly jewels, you drown.
Jaguar. Jettison it. (Maybe some cash-rich Arab Shiek or the Chinese will buy it. More fool them). The very definition of “MONEY PIT” – Jaguar.
Mercury. Murder it.
Aston Martin. Assasinate it. (OK, sell it off).
Land Rover. Lose it. (See Jaguar).
Volvo. Feed it, don’t starve it. Let the better Lincoln dealers dual Volvo franchises in open areas (i.e. no Volvo dealers in sight) as long as there is enough potential market for Volvo in the area.
Mazda. Force any of the better Lincoln dealers to dual Mazda franchises in any open areas.
It’s not a matter of deciding between Mercury and Jaguar. We know (because Ford reports it) that Jaguar is a bottomless money pit, and if the C-XF is an indicator of their future direction (and it is), there’s no hope of a turnaround. Jaguar must be sold or shuttered.
Mercury on the other hand, even in its current miserable condition, is still probably worth more alive then dead. The one benefit of badge engineering is that those stinking badges don’t cost much. Yes there are some additional marketing and grill waterfalling costs, but they are probably insubstantial compared to the alternative of losing 200K units/year and hobbling the LM dealer network.
Past experience with loser shutdowns like Olds and Plymouth confirms that sales are lost when divisions are closed. Ending Mercury means that the factories churning out donor vehicles like Fusion and Escape lose marginal sales, and marginal sales are where profits live.
Importing from Europe adds marginal sales and profits there, but probably not a lot given exchange rates and Ford’s track record with captives. Maybe I’m making undue assumptions about the sales capabilities of the gentleman in the plaid sportcoats, but somehow I don’t see the backward ballcap crowd jamming out of Scion and VW stores to check out Euro-Focii sitting cheek to jowl with Town Cars.
Ford can’t afford to shut down the LM network and probably shouldn’t, since they need to find a way to get back into the luxury car business if they’re ever going to be profitable. And the dealers need volume, with the M in LM currently supplying 60%.
While the argument has been made that long term badge engineering kills brands, Ford currently has the luxury of not having to worry about the long term. Cash is king and more sales equal more cash. Short term then, Mercury survives as is.
Long term, the only answer is to move from engineering badges to engineering platforms. The MKZ needs to be as different from the Fusion as the ES is from the Camry and the TL is from the Accord. Those differences may not satisfy the raving enthusasts that populate the blogosphere, but the sales figures confirm they satisfy the market. Ford and its LM dealers need a range of vehicles comparable to Lexus or Acura, whether some are badged M or all are badged L.
In the meantime, the only attractive and distinctive models we’re likely to associate with Mercury will come from the Ford Agency, not Ford Motor Company.
Glenn A…
But then what? We’d be left with Ford/Lincoln/Mazda. The absence of Mercury won’t make Ford vehicles any more appealing against Toyota or Honda. Lincoln is essentially a sinking ship because of Fords failed branding methodology. Until Ford can distinguish each brand and give each one it’s own identity, killing brands won’t matter if Ford continues to botch what’s left. By closing factories, Ford will still have to pay UAW workers regardless of whether or not they are working. Oddly enough, it’s the UAW that’s preventing Ford from providing modern and appealing vehicles in the US as they do in Europe.
I’m getting in late to this thread, so forgive me if this has been said before.
Mercury had a mystique? I think there was a relentlessly boring model called that, so maybe the title of this article is tongue in cheek, but Mercury’s only real mystique was why you had to pay more than you did for a Ford. Wait a minute, that’s just a mystery.
For the life of me, I can’t think of any current American make or model that has a mystique. A following or fans, maybe, (like Vettes or ‘Stangs) but not a mystique.
Given Ford’s current brand strategy, the only way Ford should keep the Mercury brand is if they push Lincoln waaaaaay upscale and keep Mercury as the entry-luxury brand. Lincoln would compete dollar-wise with the more expensive 5-series, 7-series, A6 and A8, and the Mercedes whatevers (who the hell can keep up with their freakin’ models?). The Continental concept of several years ago would be a great start if it sold in the neighbourhood of $70-$80k.
The problem is that current Lincolns are competing with 3 series and Mercurys are competing with what? Optioned up Accords and Camrys? There isn’t enough spread to justify a three model range.
An alternative would be a complete rebranding of Mercury as an economy car brand. I can’t see that working, however, as Ford is already established as an “everyman” brand.
If they can’t see there way to either of these. or kill the brand outright, then Tom’s proposal to make Mercury the Euro brand is a damn good one.
I agree Mercury has should look at the euro option. The Modeo (as seen in ther recent Bond movie) is a hot car that could be rebadged.
Tom—correction though—-I do not think you can make any assertion against the success of the Saturn Aura—it has only been on sale for a few months. It has gotten very favorable reviews…I’ve driven the XR and it is very good car that in some ways beats the Accord and Camry. Given time—-and a much better Saturn product line surrounding it—it will be a success.
Mercury on the other hand, even in its current miserable condition, is still probably worth more alive then dead. The one benefit of badge engineering is that those stinking badges don’t cost much.
Unbalanced: that sums up my arguement. The overhead for the Mercury Brand is rather small, the real problem is one (of the many) systemic problems attacking the company…Jaguar in this case.
Mercury made the original Cougar to be a budget minded Jaguar with Mustang parts under the skin, I have the old C/D comparo test between the Coog and the Jag and the similarities were striking. And with that, I’m gonna throw another nutzo-crazy idea out:
Bring back the 1967 Cougar (in spirit) and kill the Jag.
Hmmm. Some really want Mercury dead…which, unless one drove driverless or a relative or something, I can’t understand.
There is a market segment for Mercury, and Ford even has it right on the rare occasions it comes up: just above Ford, in the upper mainstream/entry-lux spot that Lincoln can’t leave until Mercury matures. Mercury has to be the domestic brand that dares strike at the $30K range so overrun with “hip” imports. The MKZ notwithstanding, Lincoln needs to have the majority of its line at or above the $50K mark to make the money Ford needs from the division. Mercury has to become a force between $28K and $40K, or Lincoln has no real shot at moving up into TRUE luxury territory.
Euro and maybe Aussie Ford products could show the way, especially if Alan Mullaly gets the Blue Oval to better utilize its global capacities. Imagine a “Grand Marquis”, based on a new (Aussie?) rwd platform with irs and the new “BOSS” motor underhood. It could sell in the high 30s, reclaim street cred from the 300C, and maybe make a “Marauder” worthy to succeed my old ’70 X100.
Mercury could be the coolest possible domestic niche brand. Only a half-dozen models, no trucks, maybe one crossover…and everything else dedicated to making a domestic brand cool on college campuses again.
The overhead for the Mercury Brand is rather small, the real problem is one (of the many) systemic problems attacking the company…Jaguar in this case.
There is a market segment suitable for Jaguar, but its way too competitive to be fooled a $40k reskinned Mondeo. I agree that there are systemic problems at Ford. But Jaguar is not the cause of these problems, it’s the result. What’s ailing Jag is the same virus that’s plaguing Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. Staid design, watered-down R&D and conspicuous platform sharing. I’d love to know what the state of Jaguar would be today if the X-type and S-type were launched properly and on par with the competition. But the same question could be asked of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles. Until this systemic problem is fixed, killing brands won’t do any good.
As someone who actually had to deal with this issue, I would suggest that lack of ideas to improve the Mercury brand has not been the problem. Lack of resources to execute is the real issue, combined with such realities as dealer franchise law and European cars often not being engineered (right or wrong) to pass US crash standards.
jrogers:
For thirty-plus years? C’mon now. This isn’t a new problem. It might be lack of resources today. But it was the lack of will prior to their current financial situation.
Mercury will never die as long as Lincoln exists. Likewise, they won’t get much unique product either-it will all be slightly blinged up Fords. See, as long as Mercury exists as being merely slightly fancier Fords, the engineering costs are nil-and without Mercury’s volume, Lincoln dealers would be in deep trouble. That is, they can’t afford to give it unique product, and they can’t afford to kill it. So, status quo ahoy!