Speaking to The Detroit News (DTN) at the LA Auto Show, Jim Farley criticized his new employer's history of pouring money into vehicle launches and then leaving the new models to languish in the market without… advertising support. You thought I was going to say "mechanical updates" didn't you? No such luck. While Ford's Toyota-poached multi-million dollar marketing maven (exact salary undisclosed) places a high value on hype advertising, he's doubly sure that "This is a time for us to be really realistic." In the spirit of this new realism, Farley said he wants to ignore/trample upon Ford's Volvo strategy and take Lincoln upmarket, "re-engage" Ford dealers (as opposed to long overdue euthanasia), meddle with product development ("That's where I can help Derrick and his team") and generally scare the **** out of Ford veterans ("What if we paid people if something went wrong with their car? It's an idea"). The DTN ends their "welcome to the club" feature by describing an encounter between Farley and an ex-Ford marketeer. "'There was no process. It was just chaos,' the former member of The Blue Oval Boyz told Farley. 'Now, I wish I'd stayed.'" Be careful what you wish for.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Volvo and Lincoln have entirely different design directions and longer-term strategies. Lincoln would never sell well in Europe just as Volvo will never sell well in the Middle East. However, for those markets, the other could be golden. Farley seemed to note this somewhat clearly.
Mulally scores major points with this hire. Mulally is well worth his salary (and, somewhat interestingly, right now I estimate that his base salary of $2 million is about worth his weight in gold).
RobertSD :
Farley seemed to note this somewhat clearly.
Truer words have never been spoken. Unfortunately.
RF- can’t read from your comments what you think of the guy. I think we all can agree he has a mess to clean up.
On first glance, I do like Farleys’ candor and ability to articulate ideas (however “out there” they may be). Net, the guy seems to have some depth to him—-now if they can only get rid of the empty suit mullet-man…then I would say Mually is worth his weight in gold.
RF “…You thought I was going to say “mechanical updates” or some such thing, didn’t you?”
You really had me going on that one. Imagine the excellence of a Lincoln LS if they’d taken some of the development money from the Exploder and moved it into the Lincoln column, or had they put money into the Taurus to make it a Camry-killer… Instead both platforms were abandoned to make way for Mazda6 clones, admittedly all they could afford after squandering money on Jaguar.
Hey, Mr. Farley, why not bring over some of the ‘zoom-zoom’ guys from Mazda to help you design some great cars and further evolve their already excellent fwd and rwd chassis?
Fields is not as bad as everyone thinks, actually. Fields was a champion of turning the Fusion’s design from the 500 style to the 427 concept style. Fields pushed for more significant changes on the Focus than some wanted (I think I read somewhere that brining the C1 was his goal – but it got shot down). Fields also sent the F-150 back to the drawing board in 2006 because he didn’t feel it would compete with the GM and Toyota products arriving later that year. His greatest weakness is that he never had the power to actually change the culture or make the final call in investments – and was thus a player in the game like everyone else unlike in FoE or Mazda where his mandate was to make real changes. Fields has also been a champion of increased quality – the effects of which we’re seeing quite clearly now.
Mulally seems to have given Fields quite a bit of operational latitude, and while Mulally is the champion for many new products we will see in the next 2-3 years, Fields is on the ground making them happen with the different design and engineering folks.
People with very close operational knowledge of Ford can correct me if I’m wrong, but Fields seems to be an asset when managed well – not a liability.
Robert SD- I really do hope somebody with insider knowledge can help us out on the Fields thing….because his public persona is pretty shallow.
Well… I think that has to do with the mullet… in an age where appearances speak louder than words, his hair has all the in-your-face personality of Paris Hilton with the looks of a well used prostitute.
RF – Not sure why you are picking on Farley so quickly. There is no question that Ford Marketing has been in disarray. The Bold Moves campaign did very little to sell new cars and trucks. And Farley is right about launching a product and then not giving it ongoing ad support. Both Ford and GM have struggled with this for years as they introduced too many brands and nameplates for their market share, and then could not properly support them with advertising. Not to mention the fact that Ford loves to bring out a new name with every new model, while Toyota and Honda have been building brand equity in Corolla/Camry and Civic/Accord for over 30 years!
Farley had been doing good things at Toyota. I am willing to wait and see what he can accomplish at Ford.
Perhaps someone will get the bright idea to name the upcoming Lincoln version of the FiveHundred/Taurus platform a Lincoln Continental instead of MK_whatever.
Lincoln and Volvo are not likely to be competing for many of the same customers, just as Volvo, Ford and Mazda are generally not competing for the same customers with their S40/Focus/Mazda3 platform-mates.
If Mr. Farley gets the Ford Fairlane name back on that CUV/wagon thing they currently call FLEX, he’ll be worth that bankroll.
“Farley said he wants to ignore/trample upon Ford’s Volvo strategy and take Lincoln upmarket”
I must have read a different article than you did. This one says “he floated the idea of transforming Lincoln into a global luxury brand — something Ford has ruled out in the past…Farley acknowledged that Lincoln is unlikely to resonate with European consumers, but said it could play well in the Middle East and the emerging markets of Russia and China.”
Considering selling Lincolns in Russia and China hardly equates to taking it “upmarket”, and I’m not sure it exactly tramples on Volvo either. With the sale of Jaguar, it is entirely appropriate for Ford to look at the Lincoln brand in a global context. GM has done the same thing with Cadillac (despite owning Saab), including fielding a totally unique model (BLS) in foreign markets. Who would’ve thunk it just five years ago?!
Secondly, what is wrong with Marketing providing input to Product Development? As the article says, “At Toyota, Farley was famous for promoting what he called consumer-driven product development. That means building vehicles people want, rather than designing vehicles engineers think they need.” (What a concept!) “…at Ford, Farley intends to apply the same thinking to product development. Working closely with Ford’s global product development chief, Derrick Kuzak, Farley wants to give Ford’s cars and trucks more emotional appeal. “Our platforms are great,” he said. “Now, we have really interesting choices to make in top-hat silhouettes. That’s where I can help Derrick and his team.”
Ford does have some very good platforms at this point. If Farley can help get more exciting sheetmetal on them, then I say more power to him!
roadrunner : “he floated the idea of transforming Lincoln into a global luxury brand — something Ford has ruled out in the past… That seems pretty clear to me. Farley’s boss has publicly reaffirmed his commitment to an upmarket Volvo. If Farley’s desire to make Lincoln a “global luxury brand” was realized, they’d have two. Simple math. The idea of Ford having two global luxury brands– separated by geographical territories– is nuts. And citing Caddy’s utter failure in Europe does your argument no favors. Anyone who’s spent any time in Europe knows Lincoln shares Caddy’s current prima facie inability to take on the world’s best luxury cars. It’s not impossible, just wildly improbable. As to your second point, there’s nothing wrong with a marketing maven influencing or even determining product development. It’s just that this guy has been at Ford for less than two weeks before deciding he’s the man with a plan. My take is that Farley is talking the talk before walking the walk. Why would he declare to a journalist that he’s the guy to give Ford products more “emotional appeal?” Furthermore, re: “At Toyota, Farley was famous for promoting what he called consumer-driven product development. That means building vehicles people want, rather than designing vehicles engineers think they need.” I talk to top Toyota types, and I’ve heard no such thing. This statement strikes me as the worst kind of journalistic leap. If nothing else, the idea of someone being “famous” within Toyota doesn’t make any sense. Again and again, American observers forget that Toyota’s corporate culture is one of consensus– rather than flashes of Bob Lutzian “genius.” Sure, Marketing gets a word in. As do the engineers. And the beancounters. And everyone else. What I would LIKE to hear from Farley (in case he’s listening) is some kind of declaration of branding. What does Lincoln stand for? Ford? Mercury? You can’t market squat until you know what you got– and what you want it to be.
Sanjeev—could not agree with you more. Bring the Fairlane name back for the Flex—-a cool name for a potential segment busting vehicle.
RF: “My take is that Farley is talking the talk before walking the walk”
Robert…you cannot have it both ways. You often argue the D3 are too slow to the punch and you have editorialized this notion many times over the past 12 months. You have used Mulally as an example of someone who is too slow to put a stake in the ground. Why therefore are you nailing Farley for doing something you advocate for Mulally ?
I for one am excited that Farley is energized from the start and eager for him to bring ideas (ok…some of them may be a bit of a stretch)to the table—-rather have him with this mindset than sitting back and collecting a paycheck.
That said, I strongly agree with your reco to Mr Farley regarding nailing brand positioning—get the branding / positioning principles right BEFORE you start tinkering with the marketing 4 P’s (product, price, promotion etc.)
umterp85 :
Robert…you cannot have it both ways. You often argue the D3 are too slow to the punch and you have editorialized this notion many times over the past 12 months. You have used Mulally as an example of someone who is too slow to put a stake in the ground. Why therefore are you nailing Farley for doing something you advocate for Mulally ?
C’mon. There’s quick and there’s stupid quick. To start publicly reinventing Ford after TWO WEEKS– especially unleashing stupid ass statements like “let’s pay customers a ‘bonus’ for our screw-ups” is the definition of “loose cannon.”
Besides, Mulally is the boss. Defining and promoting the “vision thing” is his job, not that of a freshly-minted lieutenant.
In other words, Ford’s execs all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet– written by Big Al.
Robert—perhaps your correct. Maybe the Goldilocks and Three Bears principle will apply here for Ford.
Mulally—-too slow to action. Farley—-too fast to action. Hmmmm wonder who will get it just right ? Hint: Not Fields.
roadrunner, sajeev & all-
Your points about Detroit marketeers MO of flushing brand equity are right on the mark. It seems to me that Chrysler has done the best job of leveraging their brand archives – any theories or good published PoVs on why GM & FMC fumble their heritage advantage so badly…I mean really, a FWD Impala SS?
They fumble because they see nothing as authentic, and everything as maleable.
Great discussion here. Any possibility that Toyota’s culture is very constraining, and now that Farley is at Ford he’s like one of those highly constrained kids who go wild their first year in college?
Definitely a loose cannon comment on paying people if they have problems. All people really want is for the problems to be fixed correctly with minimal inconvenience and cost to them.
Michael nailed it: “authentic” is whatever they spin it to be, which is good for Toyota and others with an antiseptic history.
Too bad a chromed-up truck with a Lincoln star and a retarded name will never sell as disturbingly well as the original Continental Mark Series. Or a Volvo-chassis with a bullish name. Or a bastardized world-car chassis with a complete lack of focus.
The pattern is set, and Ford seems unwilling to recognize that their globalized/rationalized product portfolio isn’t passionate enough to bring customers back to the brand. Sure the reliability is up, but will that turn the tide?
I’ll second RF’s statement: I’d absolutely love to hear Farley give a Brand Declaration for FoMoCo. And make said Declaration an off the cuff statement about Mercury.
Sanjeev…I do not think reliability will be enough to turn the Ford tide. I do think it will be enough to stabilize the business and keep current customers.
I also share your impatience with Ford’s inability to articulate a coherent brand strategy for either Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury. Hopefully Farley can get us there.
Regarding Lincoln—it is obvious that the current thinking on the brand (and all of Ford for that matter) has a competitive context pointed at the Japanese and not the Europeans. If this is the strategy—which we can debate the merits of—Lincoln is not benchmarking against many vehicles that shout “passion”…Lexus isn’t exactly BMW’esque.
Regarding Lincoln—it is obvious that the current thinking on the brand (and all of Ford for that matter) has a competitive context pointed at the Japanese and not the Europeans
And that’s the problem: Lincoln can’t win by “out-boring” the Lexus and pretending to make a 3-series fighter. They need American branding and a bit of oneupmanship in luxury items to make a statement.
Farley can’t kill the Mazda/Volvo underpinnings of the MKZ/S, but at least show some cojones in their advertisements! 260+hp and optional all-wheel drive has to be worth something!
Oh, and you really gotta stop calling me Sanjeev. :)
Damm—one of my best friends from grad school is named Sanjeev—-my mistake as I type his name all of the time—visual brain cramp on my part–won’t happen again my friend.
BTW–don’t disagree with you comments. To win—you have to stand for something differentiated. Merely “out-boring Lexus” as you put it won’t win for Lincoln—it will only allow them to tread water for awhile….need to stand for more than quiet, safe, and reliable luxury—Lexus ain’t giving this sapce up anytime soon.
As to the distinct American branding notion—they really blew it when they went to the MK stuff—but they can’t really go back at this point…can they ?
Yup, that Sanjeev name is way too popular.
As to the distinct American branding notion—they really blew it when they went to the MK stuff—but they can’t really go back at this point…can they ?
I see poor branding the same way I do a globalized chassis and badge-engineering: the sooner you make a car with
1) a catchy name
2) a chassis with proportions that clearly speak its origin
3) enough unique parts to justify a premium price
…the sooner you can start carving a profitable niche in this overcrowded and competitive market.
Its only a matter of time before a Detroit makes something American enough to stand out from the crowd and demand a second look. The first one who does it has the competitive advantage.