WWW.FORDBOLDMOVES.COM : EPISODE 2

The second video installment in the Ford Motor Company's (tm) peak inside the "Glass House" is entitled "Committment to Design."

It begins with dealers and other plebeians pointing out the importance of "design" and the apparently universal lack of it in modern cars (conveyed photographically by shots of a parking lot full of Ford Tauruses, which ironically was in better times the progenitor of functional "aerodynamic" styling in the low-priced classes).

Then the insiders take over. Elena A. Ford, Hau Thai-Tang, J Mays, Mark Fields and Peter Horbury carry the executive load this week (Where's William Clay Ford, Jr. ('lil Billy)?)

Fields and SVT Boss Thai-Tang rip the best sound bites . . . Fields' contribution is his well reported quip about getting back Ford's "design mojo."

Boss Thai-Tang correctly observes that the natural tendency is to unoffensively slouch to the "lowest common denominator."

Peter Horbury, Ford's latest design guru under retro king J Mays, dominates the latter half of the video. He spins bits about "optimism" and "American design" without really explaining what these concepts mean. His words are backed up with Ford's recent auto-show trial balloons, such as the chopped-top Super Chief pick up (how do you see out of that thing?), a chrome-look knockoff of the legendary Shelby Daytona Coupe (Mr. Waltrip, your chrome car is ready . . . nope, it's not powered by Toyota) and a wholly-whimsical "tri-fuel" sports car.

Not much there to suggest Ford's "way forward" on "design."

"Design" is a double-edged sword.

Great designs like the 1932 V8, the 1949 Ford and the 1964 Mustang became popular milestones. Weirdness for the sake of "uniqueness" or "having fun" (such as the 1996 Taurus, the Pinto, GM's "dust-buster minivans and 4th generation F-bodies, and the 1958 Edsel) typically result in disaster.

Designers who get ahead of the public, such as the engineering-driven design of the Chrysler and DeSoto Airflow sedans in the 1930s, end up creating huge losses and often setbacks for otherwise practical innovations.

Designers who get behind, such as the Iacocca Chrysler folks who kept pushing endless variations of the tepid, boxy K-car (e.g. Dodge Dynasty, Chrysler Imperial, Chrysler New Yorker) , are just as costly.

Good design includes organic practicality, performance, functionality and timeless elegance.

Yet all the "style" in the world won't make up for failure to deliver value, quality and performance (see. e.g. the latest retro Thunderbird).

As Carroll Shelby once observed "if the car's good, the name won't matter and if it's bad, the name won't help." While styling elements aren't as easily dismissed as a name (after all, automobiles are in a sense mechanized, rolling sculptures and do make an aesthetic statement on behalf of their owners), wonderful design won't paper over cheap materials, bad quality, poor reliability, impractical features and below-expected performance.

American car buyers tend to want it all: Style, quality, practicality, comfort, athleticism/performance, economy, durability, novelty, bling-bling, luxury, convenience, simplicity, importance, uniqueness . . . .

Successful designs are based on first staking out functional territory in the marketplace, and then delivering a noteworthy, yet practically transparent affective experience. They are outstanding without standing out like a sore thumb. They function as well as inspire. They evoke purposefullness without being coldly utilitarian. They transcend the narrow span of time when they are marketed by meaningfully advancing the art of automobility.

Successful designs project a sense of friendliness and action without intruding on practicality.

Unfortunately, Episode 2 of " Ford Bold Moves" does not convey that Ford's current leadership understands this.