jz78817

there isn't enough of a "gap" between Ford and Lincoln to justify wedging Mercury back in between them. That's why Mercury was dumped in the first place, and it's also why Mulally wanted to discontinue Lincoln too.

the problem is that those "riskier" versions cost just as much to bring to market as any new model car or truck (hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.) One or two "flops" and you're sunk.

GLOCKer

I think there is a place for that in the market if they did it as a high performance hybrid!!!

Cruzinaround

Ford is worth about 11 Billion in brand revenue. Gaining on the previous year by 18%. and having more than double the brand value of GM.

They can afford to open a Mercury division back up to throw innovative concepts at it with the revenue increases provided from each previous year to fuel/fund it. And perhaps with a few genuine hits from that division even contribute in a major increase in annual revenue.

Let's repeat that.... they are more valuable than GM. They are as valuable as Audi as far as brand recognition. Therefore with a venture into foreign markets with the Mustang .... bridging the innovation GAP with a division dedicated to Innovation at every level of the auto Industry.... would be a very wise tactical decision. On par with Porshe and Volkswagon and BMW who have entire internal divisions dedicated to nothing but how to keep forward thinking innovations coming and introducing them into their consumer offerings.

It would be a good move to bring back a Mercury division focused on Introducing these concepts. If the millenials who are driving innovation keep the trends going for different, new and intelligent..... then they will have no problem keeping a Mercury Division up and running.

Just Saying

---

jz78817

after what it cost to shut Mercury down, shareholders would be calling for Mark Fields's head on a pike if they revived it.

Derf00

You are a marketing guy. I'm a sales guy. Sales and Marketing are not synonymous. Value can disappear overnight with one misstep.

What you see as potential revenue is based on what people say they want/need. My figures are more in them putting their money where their mouth is. Lets be honest, put a questionnaire in front of a few thousand people and study the results all you want. People have a tendency to answer in a way they think is socially acceptable or what they 'think' they'll accept (Psychology) so of course they'll say 'I'll buy XYZ if it does or offers ABC'...on paper. But, offer it to them and expect them to actually do it by spending their money on it, in many cases you'll find a divergent story because now you're asking them to consider how they are perceived by making that purchase.

Human perception when they are told to act on what they say they are going to do is very different from just putting it on paper (Social Psychology).

Ford brand (or family of brands) is not known as an innovator or status symbol (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc). To resurrect an already dead nameplate and start marketing cars based on what people say the think they want/need is business suicide. Look at Cadillac. They have tried and tried for the last two decades to get recognized as a either or both. Only within the last 5 years would I actually consider them either a status symbol or innovator.

Toyota scion brand, supposed to be a "sporty" young "hip" brand for Toy. TC sales dismal, XB sales have gone bye-bye, (Toyota) FR-S sales trail Subaru's BR-Z yet they are the same car. The reason? Toyota cars are seen as plain-vanilla either rental cars or point A to B cars. Subaru is well regarded in terms of it's Legacy and WRX series as sport'ier'. There's nothing sporty or hip about Toyota. They are an awesome car manufacturer (reliable), don't get me wrong but they would be at the bottom of my list (or not on it all) for Sporty or Cool, or even performance for that matter. Marketing told them to Zig so they did, sales show Zag.

Dodge Dart, same thing. Marketing said that people would buy it because it would be sporty and inexpensive for the new entry level market (read young people without a lot of money) and build brand loyalty. Yet, sales have been mediocre at best. Marketing did its job and said what people would (might) buy it but at the end of the day, people's wallets remain shut.

What Ford should do if it were ever to introduce a new 'brand' or resurrect one of them is to build some Ford's or Lincolns that are successful or make Ford Recognized for being innovative or whatever their goal is, THEN spin-those models off into a new brand.

Selling into a market they've established based on sales they've generated that is reflective of what the market is actually buying. Not might buy.

That's what Dodge finally did to bring back it's Truck division. Dodge Ram truck sales were suffering because of the negative light surrounding Dodge, so Chrysler did what it needed to make their truck sales survive and actually regain some market, They created RAM Truck division/brand from their existing Dodge Ram vehicle. Now their truck division is more successful than it has ever been. Why? Because the perceived negative light from Dodge isn't glaring in consumer face anymore.

Just Sayin.. ;p

Cruzinaround

Actually I'm an Innovations guy...

Marketing is the reason why a sales guy would have a job.

Proper Market research is composed of more than what the public "thinks" they want. You also need to throw in a lot of proof of concept in order to show them what they need.

When done properly... its not about being known for name recognition...its about making a mark for something that is a positive impact in the world we live in.

BoOm.
---

JIM5.0

I'm with everyone else. Mercury is not good to resurrect
Lincoln is okay (at least for now). Possibly, a S550 Lincoln could work too.

My point is FoMoCo did not eliminate Merc just on a whim. Marketing might be the reason why FoMoCo decided to kill it.
Sales could have been okay for Merc (I don't have the data so I'm only guessing), but those sales could have been low and not worth the subsidy during the depression last decade.
But I strongly think that marketing, forecasting research, cost of advertising and operating cost being too much for the calculated ROI is why Merc is dead and not necessarily just from sales alone.

FoMoCo looked long and hard not just at sales, but also at their marketing data, perception data (whatever means they have to quantify public perception of a name brand), and I am certain FoMoCo also consulted long and hard with their marketing department and possibly outside marketing consultants as well. Merc is dead for a good reason.
Why FoMoCo does not bring back Merc would be attributed to what everyone else already said, and if they did all the marketing research again, the result most likely would indicate that it would be best to keep it dead.

In the end, you're right: without marketing, there is no sales. Likewise, Marketing also dictates if something is even worth selling to begin with. If marketing discovers the ROI is not worth it, the product or brand will be shut down.

MELLOWYELLOW06

Looks nice and could definitely work.

But front has a hint of Oldsmobile

danzcool

I was thinking the front would be perfect pontiac (I know, wrong company). I think they could pull it off with the ecoboost V6 and all-wheel drive (like the taurus sho, but in a sexy coupe version)

Derf00

No Sales = no customers (no money) = no company. No way to slice that differently.

As an innovator you know that just because something can be improved upon, it doesn't mean it will actually be more widely accepted than it's predecessor (or at all), no matter how you market it (or research the market). Sales won't exist for the product.

Ignoring human psychology is why so many marketers and innovators (and unsuccessful sales people) fail with their ideas or efforts.

When you say It's about making a mark for something that has a positive impact in the world we live in, that's very altruistic, however, put that in front of any business person and after all of the fake smiles and "yes, that's very forward thinking" lies the real question "how much money can we make off of this" and "is it enough of a monetary value to be worth it?"

This reminds me of the movie Hancock and Jason Batemans character Ray, trying to pitch his idea of the "All-heart" logo for corporations who consider themselves extraordinarily charitable... Use the logo in your advertising to show that (Brand recognition). But in order to join the club you have to give away your most profitable product to the general public so they can see how charitable you are. It's innovative, altruistic, would leave a positive mark (and people said they wanted to be charitable)....but in the end, Heck no!

Innovation is free but developing it needs money. Ford as a brand is not recognized as an innovator (Tesla motors is) so it's going to a losing effort for Ford to start pushing that envelope overnight.

The only ones that may ignore that question about profit are Non-profit orgs. I have yet to see an auto manufacturer run as a non-profit.