KERKORIAN AND YORK: “CRAZY ABOUT . . . MERCURY” (with apologies to Alan Jackson)
[ARE YOU LOOKING FOR “Vituperative ranting against those wackos, Click and Clack” (tm), as referenced at www.cartalk.com? CLICK HERE.(A PRESCIENT ANALYSIS OF TOM AND RAY MAGLIOZZI’S "HORSEPOWER" PHOBIA)]
[See every post mentioning "Click and Clack" (tm) here. ]
[GET THE LATEST “TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER” HERE]
NOW, BACK TO TODAY'S POST KERKORIAN AND YORK: “CRAZY ABOUT . . . MERCURY” .
Kirk and Jerry are at it again.
This time, however, Kirk Kerkorian and Jerry York are targeting Ford Motor Company ®.
Having previously made lucrative plays for Chrysler and General Motors, it was probably only a matter of time before the Tricinda Boys raided Dearborn for a quick profit. However, Truth with Speedzzter has been so excited about the recent boost in the share prices of FoMoCo’s stock that it has withheld comment on the Kerkorian and York’s maraud.
But now Jerry York has started making noises about “parting out” FoMoCo. He thinks the “Way Forward” is by selling Volvo and Mercury.
Thus, in the words of Edmund Burke, “An event has happened, upon which it is difficult to speak, and impossible to be silent.” Or in modern parlance, such lunacy cannot be ignored.
While some have long expected FoMoCo to spin off Volvo next after dumping its notorious “English Patients,” such a move makes little LONG TERM strategic sense.
York and Kerkorian, of course, are likely salivating over a short-term “hit” of cash that a “sale” of Volvo would generate.
But selling Volvo simply ignores how important Ford’s Swedish division is to the overall operations of FoMoCo. Volvo has provided much of the basic architecture for FoMoCo’s large FWD/AWD sedans and crossovers. Even those of us who’d rather see FoMoCo invest more in RWD sedans cannot ignore that FoMoCo has achieved a worthwhile engineering synergy with Volvo.
And Volvo is central to FoMoCo’s rehabilitation of its safety image after the Explorer/Firestone debacle and other high profile auto safety gaffes (i.e. Bronco rollovers, exploding Pintos and Police Interceptors, cruise control and ignition switch fires . . . .) Volvo is perhaps the most serious automobile manufacturer about improving automotive safety. Volvo’s unique culture allows it to pursue avenues for improved safety that are plainly outside of the “bean counter”/protect-my-turf mentality that seemingly pervades the Glass House and FoMoCo’s U.S. operations. Moreover, Volvo’s sterling reputation for safety innovation and rock-solid durability provide a beneficial “halo” for FoMoCo’s brands. Selling Volvo would be interpreted by some as a retreat from improving safety and another move of desparation.
More critically, unlike Jaguar, Volvo makes money.
Thus, selling Volvo would be at best a “short term gain, long term loss.”
Cynics suspect that an old wheezer such as Kirk Kerkorian isn't too concerned about the long term . . . .
The idea of “selling Mercury” is crazy. It's “off-the-hook loco.” It’s mandatory-drug-test berserk. It’s call-the-men-in-the-white-coats demented.
Unlike Volvo, Mercury is a nameplate, not an autonomous organization. Thus, other than the name and perhaps some franchising rights, there's not really anything to sell.
Moreover, Mercury is inextricably linked with Ford. After over a decade of resisting the brand “ladder” marketing system developed by General Motors in the 1920s and 1930s, Henry Ford finally gave in to Edsel Ford’s desire for a stylish, intermediate “step” between the luxurious Lincoln and the mass-market Ford. Thus, Mercury was originally conceived of as a bigger, faster, more powerful Ford.
Over the years, FoMoCo has done its best to dilute the “bigger, faster, more powerful” image by turning Mercury into a badge-engineered clone of Ford (albeit with a skosh more padding, plating and stick-on trim). Thus, Mercury is often just a “Ford” sold through the Lincoln-Mercury dealer channel.
Occasionally, FoMoCo has permitted Mercury some unique models, such as the European Capris of the 1970s, the popular notchback Cougars of the 1980s and 1990s, the more radically-styled Sables of the late 1980s, the idiotic FWD Australian Capri two-seater of the early 1990s, the underpowered and underdeveloped 2003-2004 Marauder, and now – with the passing of the consumer version of the Ford badged Panther – the underpowered and increasingly stale Grand Marquis. But other than that, Mercury is wholly dependant upon rebadging Fords.
To be sure, FoMoCo’s mishandling of Mercury is probably even worse than GM’s mauling of Oldsmobile or Chrysler’s slow, painful starvation of Plymouth. And while trying to generate a bit of cash by selling the Mercury nameplate does, on-paper, make a little more sense than just interring it in the graveyard of great automotive brands, that’s not the answer.
Who would buy Mercury?
Undoubtedly, it would be some Asian upstart, such as the Chinese company which snapped up the storied MG brand. That, at best, would generate confusion in the marketplace. It would also be an insult to the millions of Americans and Canadians who have designed, built, sold, bought, modified, raced and loved Mercury cars over the past six decades.
The answer is not to sell Mercury, but to MEANINGFULLY differentiate it from Ford.
Mercury should become Ford’s experimental division. The Mercury brand could adopt an SVT “tuner” mentality and become a basis for a broader SVT operation within FoMoCo. Mercury could be positioned as more aggressive and innovative on adoption of new technologies, such as was Oldsmobile in its halcyon period of the 1930s through the 1960s. Given the consolidation of FoMoCo’s distribution channels, Mercury does not need to badge engineer Ford’s whole line, but instead could become more targeted on unique niches that could be seen as too small or quirky for the Ford brand.
The strengths of Mercury’s heritage should be built upon, not ignored, sold or forgotten.
For example, Cougar is an abused and misused nameplate that’s simply too good to abandon forever. Yet millions of dollars of advertising has linked this name to Mercury. The idea of a high-tech, Eco-boost (tm) hybrid electric DOHC V8 Marauder could revitalize the concept of a large North American GT “muscle car.” Those who remember the sassy, European mini-Mustang Capri of the 1970s undoubtedly wonder why Mercury cannot reprise something equally as exciting and fuel efficient today. Cyclone and Comet are also attractive model names which could be appended to value-added niche products. And the greatest basis of a “kool” custom car of all time is the 1949-1950 Mercury – yet Mercury has done little to tap into this heritage of “kool.”
Because no one expects Mercury to sell in the volumes of the Ford brand, Mercury could be used to pursue such high value and high image niches. It could be used to take risks.
But “selling Mercury” makes no sense at all.
Kirk Kerkorian and Jerry York are probably about as good for Ford as another billionaire octogenarian vandal – Sumner “MTV” Redstone – is for American culture as a whole. In other words, just some souless, green-eye-shade wearing pirates out for a quick buck. York’s “craziness” “about . . . Mercury” proves as much. But at least he’s not made any noises about bringing back the “Father of the Exploding Pinto and the Appalling Chrysler K Car” (Lee Iacocca) . . . yet.
UPDATE: BusinessWeek had this to say about the CRAZY talk of sending Mercury to the great car-crusher in the sky . . . .
[ARE YOU LOOKING FOR “Vituperative ranting against those wackos, Click and Clack” (tm), as referenced at www.cartalk.com? CLICK HERE.(A PRESCIENT ANALYSIS OF TOM AND RAY MAGLIOZZI’S "HORSEPOWER" PHOBIA)]
[See every post mentioning "Click and Clack" (tm) here. ]
[GET THE LATEST “TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER” HERE]
NOW, BACK TO TODAY'S POST KERKORIAN AND YORK: “CRAZY ABOUT . . . MERCURY” .
Kirk and Jerry are at it again.
This time, however, Kirk Kerkorian and Jerry York are targeting Ford Motor Company ®.
Having previously made lucrative plays for Chrysler and General Motors, it was probably only a matter of time before the Tricinda Boys raided Dearborn for a quick profit. However, Truth with Speedzzter has been so excited about the recent boost in the share prices of FoMoCo’s stock that it has withheld comment on the Kerkorian and York’s maraud.
But now Jerry York has started making noises about “parting out” FoMoCo. He thinks the “Way Forward” is by selling Volvo and Mercury.
Thus, in the words of Edmund Burke, “An event has happened, upon which it is difficult to speak, and impossible to be silent.” Or in modern parlance, such lunacy cannot be ignored.
While some have long expected FoMoCo to spin off Volvo next after dumping its notorious “English Patients,” such a move makes little LONG TERM strategic sense.
York and Kerkorian, of course, are likely salivating over a short-term “hit” of cash that a “sale” of Volvo would generate.
But selling Volvo simply ignores how important Ford’s Swedish division is to the overall operations of FoMoCo. Volvo has provided much of the basic architecture for FoMoCo’s large FWD/AWD sedans and crossovers. Even those of us who’d rather see FoMoCo invest more in RWD sedans cannot ignore that FoMoCo has achieved a worthwhile engineering synergy with Volvo.
And Volvo is central to FoMoCo’s rehabilitation of its safety image after the Explorer/Firestone debacle and other high profile auto safety gaffes (i.e. Bronco rollovers, exploding Pintos and Police Interceptors, cruise control and ignition switch fires . . . .) Volvo is perhaps the most serious automobile manufacturer about improving automotive safety. Volvo’s unique culture allows it to pursue avenues for improved safety that are plainly outside of the “bean counter”/protect-my-turf mentality that seemingly pervades the Glass House and FoMoCo’s U.S. operations. Moreover, Volvo’s sterling reputation for safety innovation and rock-solid durability provide a beneficial “halo” for FoMoCo’s brands. Selling Volvo would be interpreted by some as a retreat from improving safety and another move of desparation.
More critically, unlike Jaguar, Volvo makes money.
Thus, selling Volvo would be at best a “short term gain, long term loss.”
Cynics suspect that an old wheezer such as Kirk Kerkorian isn't too concerned about the long term . . . .
The idea of “selling Mercury” is crazy. It's “off-the-hook loco.” It’s mandatory-drug-test berserk. It’s call-the-men-in-the-white-coats demented.
Unlike Volvo, Mercury is a nameplate, not an autonomous organization. Thus, other than the name and perhaps some franchising rights, there's not really anything to sell.
Moreover, Mercury is inextricably linked with Ford. After over a decade of resisting the brand “ladder” marketing system developed by General Motors in the 1920s and 1930s, Henry Ford finally gave in to Edsel Ford’s desire for a stylish, intermediate “step” between the luxurious Lincoln and the mass-market Ford. Thus, Mercury was originally conceived of as a bigger, faster, more powerful Ford.
Over the years, FoMoCo has done its best to dilute the “bigger, faster, more powerful” image by turning Mercury into a badge-engineered clone of Ford (albeit with a skosh more padding, plating and stick-on trim). Thus, Mercury is often just a “Ford” sold through the Lincoln-Mercury dealer channel.
Occasionally, FoMoCo has permitted Mercury some unique models, such as the European Capris of the 1970s, the popular notchback Cougars of the 1980s and 1990s, the more radically-styled Sables of the late 1980s, the idiotic FWD Australian Capri two-seater of the early 1990s, the underpowered and underdeveloped 2003-2004 Marauder, and now – with the passing of the consumer version of the Ford badged Panther – the underpowered and increasingly stale Grand Marquis. But other than that, Mercury is wholly dependant upon rebadging Fords.
To be sure, FoMoCo’s mishandling of Mercury is probably even worse than GM’s mauling of Oldsmobile or Chrysler’s slow, painful starvation of Plymouth. And while trying to generate a bit of cash by selling the Mercury nameplate does, on-paper, make a little more sense than just interring it in the graveyard of great automotive brands, that’s not the answer.
Who would buy Mercury?
Undoubtedly, it would be some Asian upstart, such as the Chinese company which snapped up the storied MG brand. That, at best, would generate confusion in the marketplace. It would also be an insult to the millions of Americans and Canadians who have designed, built, sold, bought, modified, raced and loved Mercury cars over the past six decades.
The answer is not to sell Mercury, but to MEANINGFULLY differentiate it from Ford.
Mercury should become Ford’s experimental division. The Mercury brand could adopt an SVT “tuner” mentality and become a basis for a broader SVT operation within FoMoCo. Mercury could be positioned as more aggressive and innovative on adoption of new technologies, such as was Oldsmobile in its halcyon period of the 1930s through the 1960s. Given the consolidation of FoMoCo’s distribution channels, Mercury does not need to badge engineer Ford’s whole line, but instead could become more targeted on unique niches that could be seen as too small or quirky for the Ford brand.
The strengths of Mercury’s heritage should be built upon, not ignored, sold or forgotten.
For example, Cougar is an abused and misused nameplate that’s simply too good to abandon forever. Yet millions of dollars of advertising has linked this name to Mercury. The idea of a high-tech, Eco-boost (tm) hybrid electric DOHC V8 Marauder could revitalize the concept of a large North American GT “muscle car.” Those who remember the sassy, European mini-Mustang Capri of the 1970s undoubtedly wonder why Mercury cannot reprise something equally as exciting and fuel efficient today. Cyclone and Comet are also attractive model names which could be appended to value-added niche products. And the greatest basis of a “kool” custom car of all time is the 1949-1950 Mercury – yet Mercury has done little to tap into this heritage of “kool.”
Because no one expects Mercury to sell in the volumes of the Ford brand, Mercury could be used to pursue such high value and high image niches. It could be used to take risks.
But “selling Mercury” makes no sense at all.
Kirk Kerkorian and Jerry York are probably about as good for Ford as another billionaire octogenarian vandal – Sumner “MTV” Redstone – is for American culture as a whole. In other words, just some souless, green-eye-shade wearing pirates out for a quick buck. York’s “craziness” “about . . . Mercury” proves as much. But at least he’s not made any noises about bringing back the “Father of the Exploding Pinto and the Appalling Chrysler K Car” (Lee Iacocca) . . . yet.
UPDATE: BusinessWeek had this to say about the CRAZY talk of sending Mercury to the great car-crusher in the sky . . . .
Mercury spokesman Mark Schirmer says research shows some Mercury customers wouldn't consider the Ford brand. He says about 40% of buyers for the Mercury Milan and Mariner models are new to the Ford family, up to around 60% for the Mariner hybrid model. But they are also among Ford's oldest customers: According to a 2007 study by Strategic Vision, buyers of the Mercury Mariner SUV, with a median age of 53, were the youngest Mercury buyers, vs. a median age for the industry of 52. The average age of Mercury Grand Marquis buyers is 72. [THAT AGE WOULD BE A LOT LOWER IF L-M HADN'T "MUFFED" THE MARAUDER OR STUCK SO DOGMATICALLY WITH THE WHEEZING 2V SOHC 4.6!]
Dropping Mercury would also hurt Lincoln dealers, who are paired with Mercury. "They're having a tough enough time as it is, with two brands, without taking one away," Harbour says. Woodcliff Lake (N.J.)-based Autodata reports Mercury sales in 2007 were 168,422, down 6.9%. Lincoln sales were 131,487, up 9.1% from 2006.
Labels: Capri, Chrysler, Cougar, Cyclone, Eco-Boost, GM, Jerry York, Kirk Kerkorian, Maurader, Mercury, SVT, Tricinda
posted by Editor at 08:17
0 comments
