What do you do after making a massive branding mistake? According to Ford, you compound the error by making a bigger mistake.
Last fall, Ford killed off the Taurus brand. Despite the fact that the car had saved Ford financially in the ‘80s and outsold the Camry and Accord for five years running, Ford failed to give the car any branding support. While the first Taurus design “scared” Ford’s then-CEO, the follow-up design in 1996 was as boring as a windshield wiper. It stopped advertising the car for two years, and gave the car the automotive kiss of death with bulk sales to rental car fleets. No one ever washes a rental car, nor does anyone buy one. (Earlier blog on Taurus.)
Instead of letting memories of a bad decision fade into history, Ford rips the stitches from the wound and – I am not making this up – renames the current Five Hundred as the Taurus. If that wasn’t bad enough, Ford is also renaming the Mercury Montego as the Mercury Sable. There is no truth to the rumour that Ford is also naming its Focus as the Pinto, although that might be expected.
It makes no sense to take the name of one failed brand and apply it to a failing one. The Five Hundred sedan, criticized for its bland styling, has failed to meet sales targets since its introduction in 2004. In 2006, sales fell 22 percent to 84,218 vehicles. In January, Ford sold fewer than half the number of Five Hundreds than a year earlier.
Everyone recognizes abandoning the Taurus brand was a mistake. "We never should have walked away from the equity we had built up in the Taurus and Sable nameplate," Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas unit, said.
Fields is absolutely correct, but the rationale for resurrecting the Taurus name from the grave is misplaced. "Taurus has been an icon for Ford's family sedan for more than two decades, and it's time to return this powerful name to where it belongs," said Fields. "Consumer awareness of the Taurus name is double the Five Hundred that it's replacing, and awareness of Sable is triple that of Montego.”
This “awareness” argument has two flaws. The first is that the “awareness” was for a completely different vehicle. Worse, the “awareness” is for a discredited brand. Remember, reviving a brand risks picking up its baggage as well as its strengths. Second, and much more important, “awareness” has little place as a brand criterion. Just because consumers are “aware” of an offering doesn’t mean they will buy it.
Ford would have been smarter to wait five to ten years, and then re-apply the Taurus brand to a blockbuster car. That would enable it to take advantage of the nostalgia factor as well as avoid tainting the new car with memories of a failed brand.
(You can also get these branding commentaries via text-based email. Send an email to me and be sure to mention text-based.)
Comments