I hope so...for Detroit's sake. But the answer to that question depends on if Ford can get the product right...from design/styling, content, technology, and price. Marketing is important, but they need to build cars/trucks people want. Detroit has lost all innovation from a product perspective. They seem to be bringing in operations and marketing credibility but where's the emphasis on product? Ford's product is all over the place which certainly isn't helping the brands global positioning.

The power of innovation and being nimble and visionary to an unprecendented robust global market ad mature market at home I believe will not be lost on Ford. They recognized it as a large outdated oceanliner trying to turn in a bath tub in the 70s with the LTD and other outdated platforms. Unfortunately, it appears that the senior leadership regardless of the industry consistently loses sight of the opposition from within called complacency and externally as they do not measure and learn from others while continuing to rest on past achievements. Maintaining and growing a strong single brand and message are imperative as is not over promising and under delivering. There are hundreds of millions of customers in the emerging asian markets and the question still remains does Ford have what it takes to go head to head with local car manufacturers and others who recognize this opportunity and are nimble enough to capture brand loyalty early and fight to keep it.

Personally, having tracked growth of Ford over the years, it is possible, and not just possible but quite easy for once market leaders like Ford to get back their reputation and profits.
It is all a matter of putting right shoe in the right leg.
Many still endevour Ford as the 'BRAND'. Ford needs to capitalise on the mindset of such customers, which it has failed to do continously over the years.

Why do people think that Toyota cars are better than that of Fords, when they know nothing about cars' technicals.
It is because we tell them, the adds on the TV tell them, and more so, the dealers them.

Ford has continously failed the most important people in its business.. its dealers.

As a marketing person would them, for any tech company, dealers are the customers and gods.

Ford needs to get its marketing policies right, thats it

Sir,

While recognizing the importance of the five characteristics you have outlined, I am not sure whether such generalizations are valid in the real world.

1. The name of IBM has been mentioned more than once. It is worth noting that although being a pioneer, a first-mover and with deep pockets, IBM could still not leverage on these strengths and lost out to more agile players in the PC market. In a strange irony, IBM finally divested the division to a Chinese company. In other words, a brand alone cannot guarantee success.

2. Japanese companies have always believed in corporate branding. In the late 80's and early 90's, the entry to major airports across the world were flooded with neon signs of Japanese companies. Not any more. Companies like Sony are learning to their dismay that corporate branding has its limitations and are turning to individual branding (VAIO for laptops.) Similarly, even Toyota seems to have realized the power of individual branding and the success of the Lexus and the Prius are standing testimony to this.

3. Corporate social responsibility is a concept for which most companies appear to provide only lip service. Coca-cola has had problems in India due to the alleged level of pesticide residues in its bottled beverages. One of the arguments against this allegation is that water as available in nature in this country is itself contaminated. Can we call this CSR? Similarly, the failure of Nestle in African markets thanks to the myopic use of visuals on its packaging that conveyed exactly the opposite of what it wanted to calls into question the ability of the so-called global brands to understand the expectations of customers.

Danny Miller has beautifully illustrated such collossal failure through The Icarus Paradox. The very foundations that are responsible for the emergence of great organizations often acts as a noose around their necks in as much as it brings in complacency and also a sense of infalliability.

My submission is simple: Listen to the Customer. Or perish.

Warm Regards

Sir,

While recognizing the importance of the five characteristics you have outlined, I am not sure whether such generalizations are valid in the real world.

1. The name of IBM has been mentioned more than once. It is worth noting that although being a pioneer, a first-mover and with deep pockets, IBM could still not leverage on these strengths and lost out to more agile players in the PC market. In a strange irony, IBM finally divested the division to a Chinese company. In other words, a brand alone cannot guarantee success.

2. Japanese companies have always believed in corporate branding. In the late 80's and early 90's, the entry to major airports across the world were flooded with neon signs of Japanese companies. Not any more. Companies like Sony are learning to their dismay that corporate branding has its limitations and are turning to individual branding (VAIO for laptops.) Similarly, even Toyota seems to have realized the power of individual branding and the success of the Lexus and the Prius are standing testimony to this.

3. Corporate social responsibility is a concept for which most companies appear to provide only lip service. Coca-cola has had problems in India due to the alleged level of pesticide residues in its bottled beverages. One of the arguments against this allegation is that water as available in nature in this country is itself contaminated. Can we call this CSR? Similarly, the failure of Nestle in African markets thanks to the myopic use of visuals on its packaging that conveyed exactly the opposite of what it wanted to calls into question the ability of the so-called global brands to understand the expectations of customers.

Danny Miller has beautifully illustrated such collossal failure through The Icarus Paradox. The very foundations that are responsible for the emergence of great organizations often acts as a noose around their necks in as much as it brings in complacency and also a sense of infalliability.

My submission is simple: Listen to the Customer. Or perish.

Warm Regards

All successful global brands are based on excellent customer experience, which seems to me to be the cornerstone of successful branding strategies. At the end of the day, Ford is faced with an industrial challenge more than with a branding challenge IMHO.

Furthermore, your article is very valid in the context of marketing and branding before the Information Age, and please pardon me for saying so: today communication is no longer a top-down, one-to-many process but rather a dynamic and interactive many-to-many flow. As a result the efforts to establish a brand at a global level must take into account interactions with customers who now have a voice. Hence, a marketeer needs to take local cultures into account and also be modest about her ability to actually have a clearly predetermined impact on the way a product is positioned as that will be influenced by the free expression of customers. Need I remind the Coke + Mentos phenomenon of May-June 2006? Brand management today requires us to take into account the ever more chaotic nature of markets. Here too deterministic approaches will fail.

Oh! Nestle and clean water sure do not fit into "social responsibility" when you consider the aspect of Nestle draining out the ground water level by pumping out millions of gallons of freely available ground water (the only source of potable water to natives) in Africa, and then asking the natives to buy their bottled water for a price.

It can be quoted as one of the greedy faces of capitalism but sure not as "social responsibility".

Not expected this in HBR :-)

Of course Ford will come back. They have worldwide history and recognition in a market where demand can only increase. The only question is whether it will be accomplished primarily with cost cuts and economical products or differentiation and marketing.

I m undergraduate student of business from Pakistan.with refrence to my limited knowledge about FORD and US I can say that FORD has to give attention to all areas from marketing and finance to products, prices, and specialy people.I think they need more inovative and envoirmentle friendly products and good marketing/branding team that will position their product differentiated better than others...

One of the biggest obstacles Ford has to overcome are the individual egos of each department and division. I say this as someone who used to work for Ford (and has engineering and MBA degrees.) The company has to work together as a whole, recognizing that it doesn't matter if they work for design, engineering, production or marketing, if they are Union or Non-Union, they are all there for only one purpose - to make good quality cars that consumers will want to buy. People have to let go of their fiefdoms and come together as a team. It sounds simple, but the reality is far more difficult. When, or if, they can do this, they certainly have the human resources to be a great car company again. The question is if they have the will.

Ford had many assets with it. History, rand, products , dealers and loyal customers. It used to have them. It might have them at present, if there's appealing attraction with it. I do not see much passion around Ford lately, not on the global scale but also on local scene as in Korea, one of the fastest moving markets. they look dull and slow without focus on its attributes. They should bring a fresh definition of Ford in every aspect, which I am sure there's a possibility. When the leaders of Ford do understand what customers do need.

Ford can recover, if it focuses on its customers and its products, not its 10 day sales performance. This means a longer management view is needed. I believe that Alan Mulally has planned with a longer view in mind, since he raised funds to operate last year by mortgaging assets formerly untapped.

For current customers, Ford can rely on the pyramid-effect of enthusiasts and opinion-leaders they already have who have already purchased and likely still own the strong products Ford is known for, like the F-150, Mustang, and increasingly the Fusion. Ford needs to tap these people to help spread the word about how good current Ford vehicles are. These disciples will accomplish quite a lot for Ford with almost no marketing spend if they are just asked properly. Ford has focused on acquisition for so long to move the metal, they forgot about loyalists, who can help them build a fence areond current Ford owners, limiting defections.

For new customers, they need to start hitting the product mark more accurately and timely. The Edge is a great example of creating a good product, but it is 3-4 years later than it should have been, and has no "green" credentials like Hybrid status to make it really catch fire. Other products are good too, but misnamed (Taurus - more baggage than brand equity) or under the wrong brand (Mercury). Some of these can be fixed with some rationalization. Ford should also move very aggressively to bring in European products, like the current European Focus, the C-Max, and other terrific cars. Ford should take a page from Toyota and sell in the US the BEST car it can find in its system, regardless of country of origination.

Finally, for needs to stop advertising its "Sales" and start advertising its "Products".

Ford will never come completely back, but it can arrest its decline.

Ford has the current model lineup and recognition that it can accomplish global branding very very easily.

Contrast this to GM, which, for example sells similarly 're-engineered' models under the Saturn, Opel and Vauxhall brands throughout the world. The GM-SAAB relationship which had models borrowed from Subaru (SAAB 9-2x) and Chevrolet (SAAB 9-7x) is more of mish-mash of branding, rebranding, and corporate dicatorship of market tastes.

As for the other brands that currently make up the Ford marque, particularly Land Rover, Jaguar and Volvo; These brands are in themselves already globally recognized with similar model lineups and designations throughout all of their markets. They don't try to cater to individual global-market niches, because they don't have to.

You bet Ford CAN recover. Whether they will or not depends on upper management's vision. Keep in mind Ford has manufacturing and engineering capabilities around the world. They may be getting a bit long in the tooth as Ford pissed away their wealth generating too many unwanted models, but they have the infrastructure that it took Toyota all these recent decades to put in place. The Ford organization is in place to do the right thing. Let's see if they do it. I find it extremely encouraging that Consumer Reports recently put Ford's quality above Toyota's.

T. Tijoe makes the excellent point that Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover are themselves global brands. As a Volvo consumer (since 1977, with two minor exceptions, I've always bought Volvos) I lament Ford's acquisition of Volvo. From this consumer's view, the Volvo brand identity has been diluted as Volvos become more "Fordlike." I'm not sure I will buy another Volvo if Ford continues to drive product development of the line, but if the Swedes still ran the company without interference from Dearborn, things might be different. I'm not sure how that observation helps Ford, except that if Ford made products that appealed to me I would consider them. Perhaps if Ford had a single global brand identity (which would require consideration of global preferences) their products might have more appeal to a consumer like me who prefers Swedish design and engineering.

Yes -- Ford can come back. They need to hire fresh, new talent and let them rock n' roll on how to please the customer whether local or global. And I wish they would start by getting rid of that awful, silly, outdated oval blue Ford logo that cheapens every car it goes on!

I beg of you Ford ... wake up!

A great article, except for one thing: this is more relevent to GM than it is to Ford! It is GM that has a proliferation of brands around the world (Vauxhall, Opel, Holden, Saab) as well as in the US, & for years has endeavoured to provide local variants. Ford has only Mercury in the US to dilute it's brand. Jaguars, Land Rovers and Volvo may be distractions when the basic brand is in such trouble, but Toyota has succesfully developed a new market with it's own Lexus, and no-one could deny that it has suceeded without cannibalising it's original market.

Is For's problem truly one of brand or product? Or are they related?

Ford's problem is that of all the main US car companies: they have failed to adapt to the changing market, which is increasingly driven by market demand rather than pushed by the established dealership network. Toyota (and others) have had to rely on the appeal of their product in order to penetrate world markets, while the dealer network has insulated Ford & others until recently. Now belatedly Ford and others realise they don't have the inherent market appeal required and are struggling. The world market demands sophisticated, high quality and fasionable world class product, not tired revamps of last years model.

It will be a real challenge for Ford is to rid itself of the low quality/built to a price/poor design image. There is no place for the old Ford image in a maturing market of affluent & demanding consumers.

Thanks for putting this intrestig study.. I am sure there are tons of brands which have taken the other route(localizing their product per regional markets) and 've been pretty successfull.

-Ford has all the capabilities to bounch back
a.Systems and Processes
b.Vision and Will
c.Products and Acceptance
d.Brand and Value
e.Speed and Reach
f.Trust and Money
US is best economy with high preferences for cars;they are seeing the slow coupled with their assest ageing both Non life and life.....that is a blow.

Do u recommend localisation is obsolete?Than think P&G and its brand...P&G doesnot stand in top 100 Brands.

I believe beyond brand there lies one firm stance by the Japanese/Japanese car makers that is in terms of quality, cost of ownership and deliverance against marked parameters.
Ford seems to have gone more towards fuel guzzling, mean looking machines than engaging in parameters listed above.
Had ford invested in the above parameters, sub branding, multiple locations would not have really mattered. It would have actually done well, for the example Jaguar, Ford Mondeo or similar level model sharing same engine,parts & parameters. Jaguar would have done a great job in Europe, while Ford brand tag would have pushed in US and middle east. Multiple names still have huge benefits, but what's there in just name.
So,i believe there are more than the brand issues here. Ford needs to cork their leaky, inefficient machines.

I believe beyond brand there lies one firm stance by the Japanese/Japanese car makers that is in terms of quality, cost of ownership and deliverance against marked parameters.
Ford seems to have gone more towards fuel guzzling, mean looking machines than engaging in parameters listed above.
Had ford invested in the above parameters, sub branding, multiple locations would not have really mattered. It would have actually done well, for the example Jaguar, Ford Mondeo or similar level model sharing same engine,parts & parameters. Jaguar would have done a great job in Europe, while Ford brand tag would have pushed in US and middle east. Multiple names still have huge benefits, but what's there in just name.
So,i believe there are more than the brand issues here. Ford needs to cork their leaky, inefficient machines.

FORD always had and has the its own rules and views regarding the market as well as the customer. It always ignored whats going to be the market scenario and did what perhaps what the hierarchial levels wish to do. The question in front of FORD is not whether it can recover or not but whether it wish to recover?T More than branding , the positioning of japanese companies are at QUALITY that even if an individual is confused among brands, he will simply chose a product from japanese company. The examples for the focus strategy is well quoted for NOKIA and INTEL.

Unfortunately, I don't think FORD will be able to adapt to this reality. Their senior management is too insular in thinking and driven by short term KPIs. Perhaps when they find themselves ranking behind Kia and Hyundai will they wake up and consider changing their focus to building better quality vehicles for the world market. Need proof? FORD realizes most of their profits from SUVs and pickup trucks that wouldn't fit most of the world's city streets.

It's only in the last decade that law firms have gotten hip to the global brand and you've seen the beneficial result -- consolidation, mergers, proliferation, international recognition and financial success that lawyers never dreamed of mid-century.

This focus on branding and consistent messaging also works for the small to medium sized firms and even sole practitioners.

I continue to scratch my head at the way most ADR professionals (arbitrators and mediators) avoid the law firm model, which has worked well for lawyers for more than one hundred years.

All of the ADR professionals I talk to worry about competition ("my husband, in the AmLaw 100, doesn't worry about the competition from his 250-300 partners," say I) and the "fact" that people hire individual mediators or arbitrators and not ADR Provider Organizations ("why are JAMS and the AAA the Hertz of the ADR industry then," I ask).

Personal services are just like products when it comes to branding. Ask any GC or CEO who's paying his attorney between $750-$1,000 per hour. He's doing so ONLY because that lawyer is in an AmLaw 100 law firm. I guarantee you that if s/he leaves that firm and hangs out his/her own shingle tomorrow, no one is going to pay that rate.

Come to think of it, my beloved spouse aside, why is anyone paying that rate NOW?

This much is certain: Ford will never overtake Toyota by copying what Toyota did yesterday.

Toyota did not become the leader by copying Ford; Toyota invented and applied innovative new approaches of its own.

Therefore, Ford needs to take an honest look at its exisiting business capabilities, take a hard look at the market, and ask itself the magic question: 'what can we do better than anyone else?'

There is alot of talk about the Us market and what can happen there, sure they have a robust vehicle market but what Ford failed to do is look at emerging markets, Toyota did this sucessfully and developed brand loyalty over long periods in these markets, Africa is an ideal example of this.
they produced branded vehicles with the same reliability, look, and value year after year eg: Corolla
Ford had an opppurtunity in the 80's to build on but they lost the plot. Ford are to blame, lack of vision, innovation have lead to their downfall.
Ford will not be able to enter these markets profitably, as the Indian and Chinese entry level manufacturers have hammered this market Tata,Mahindra etc. What did Toyota do, all they did was elevate their cars to another level in price because they built their loyalty already, upped the spec of the car, added a few more gadgets and raised the price.
Evolution guys, Toyota has done it successfully.
Ford can get on their wheels, the whole world is shouting BioFuels, where else should they make inroads but the US, they have the market, use it, produce those big trucks but with biofuels, has anyone heard about Fords biofuel projects, not me,they should be asking Who Moved My Cheese...........

First of all, Ford lost its image, which is a big thing for any company to sell their products. When we say Ford vehicles, what immediately comes to people mind is, "Oh! the company that makes gas guzzlers!!!". When a compnay has such a BAD image and reputation, can anybody expect to regain its position and reputation back overnight? I don't think so. It might be a while for FORD to get back on track and rebuild its image and reputation.

One other thing Ford lacks is the Strategy, their strategy is not clear to their senior managmenet, employees, and dealers. If you see any recent news about Ford, which were officially released by Ford, they clearly indicate they don't have any strategy what so ever. They are simply looking for some small operational gains here and there, but not looking at the big picture. Even today, after these several years of failuers, can Ford tell what their strategy is for future? No, there is such thing in their managements mind at all!

No mather about the kind of fuel the future engines will drink, let us say onething: If the Ford is bigger than Toyota's it must be heavier too. This is the root of Ford's problem. Even if their Chemical Engineers could find a new material weighting 50% less The New Ford will weight about the same of the New Toyota's and it is obvious the Ford user will get no advantage at all. Since the fuel cost will be continously raising, sooner or later the manufacturers will have to design lightier cars. If the New Ford could weight 10% less than the New Toyota's them it will consume less fuel and travel faster than the other and this is precisely what the future drivers will be willing for their cars. Better Design, Economy and Speed. I surely agree on paying a little more for a car like this and what about you?

Ford can comeback only by
1)winning customer confidence
2)Spend more on innovation & branding like Toyota ( innovation @ toyota is used as case studies in top B schools)
3)ultimately understand the changing consumer needs depending on the location eg:toyota launched best seller innova in india & camry in US

Branding is a committment that one makes to one's customers and to oneself. It differentiates one from competitors in the market place and convveys what a company stands for and values. The brand has to stand behind its product each and every time with no exceptions, and throughout this repetitive process a company builds brand loyalty.

It seems to me that Ford has the capability to recover its brand. The question is, does Ford have the willingness to do so, and do it in a way that favors a revolution in thinking about their brand rather than just making changes to its brand? Lastly, listen to what one's customers (internal and external) have to say about one's brand. Supply chain, process improvement, etc. can always be analyzed continuously to maximize efficiency and minimize loss, but delivering the brand promise has to occur each and every time. Globalization means there are far greater numbers of customers to compete for and win over. This opportunity must not be squandered.

My humble remarks!

Dear Sir,

While I agree these 5 principles allowed some companies for success they also contradict each other. Adapting the same positioning world wide and naming products after the company's name for example. In consumer goods, the likes of Procter & Gamble and Unilever do just the opposite: they gained momentum thanks to positioning their different offering with separate very successful global brands (e.g. Lipton, Tide, Ariel, Pampers...). Conclusion: the statement "There are five characteristics that all top global brands have in common" may be overstated. Not that I do not like this theory through - thanks for sharing!

Kind regards,
Jim H.

One brand makes sense except when the brand no longer stands for the things people are looking for in an automobile. Ford lost at least two generations of potential buyers because of an incredible disregard for quality. It also didn't help there image when they constantly covered up safety issues. Now it is simply too late to stand up and claim that Ford is competitive again.

Ford needs to begin to build a new brand. One without all the negative baggage they now have. This new brand must ooze quality and sensuality. How many people still "long" for a Ford? A Taurus...when was the last time your heart skipped a beat when the rental car agent said she was upgrading you to a Taurus?

Ford needs to take its European product line over the pond, give it a new brand name and let's see what happens.

Ford has the ability to re-build its brand image. Over the years Ford has been selling cars on the emphasis on price. People will not buy a Ford without a promotion of some type. Foregin car manufactures avoid these types of promotions and instead focus on their performance, design, style, safety (or some feature in which they believe they have an edge over competitors). Consumers believe foregin cars are worth the extra money because the marketing implies that these cars are better. Ford made an error in making its customers believe they were not worth buying without a discount.In order for Ford to regain their brand image they need to offer the public a vehicle in which they would be proud to drive. A change in the marketing strategy, which has already begun to take place, and brand repositioning will help Ford regain its status.

the world consumers are quickly getting polarised into 2 extremes, and so is the car consumer....one group is the environmentaly conscious vs the power driven. very soon ford needs to choose one side. the other polar extremes are quality(toyota,honda) and innovation(GM trying to take that position).
In this duality ford needs to focus on one side and not diffuse its brand.....the market is competitive then ever before and it is a war out there, in the short run, Ford needs to search out motivated brand loyalists who believe in Ford and ensure they stick around in these bad times!

I believe Ford tried the strategy you are suggesting - and failed miserably. The 1993 Ford Mondeo was touted the "world car" and was basically the same all around the world, but it didn't sell so that the management went back to adapting cars to local tastes.

In fact Ford is not the only company that pursued this strategy. The very company you are citing as an example, namely Toyota also substantially adopts its models to local tastes. Just look at pictures of the Corolla in the US, the Corolla in Japan and the Auris (the Corolla name was droped with the new model introduction) in Europe to understand.

Ford, generally to me, is just another name of an alien which I know that exists, never came to know how it really looks like. With this thought I then get back from the lame joke to the reality, keep Ford as the name of excellence in my mind which can not be flown out of my brain easily.

Like me, there are thousands others who merely know that yes, the brand exists but still it’s working as a subordinate to a mystery in their minds. Tried to know why, and came up with an idea, the idea that Ford lacks in its mind, the Global Branding.

I think yes, it is possible for Ford, [I call it a Mighty Motor U.S based company generating about $170billion revenue currently producing 6553 million vehicles, a company that first introduced large scale management of industrial workforce], to recover its Brand Status worldwide. The reason backing up the statement is that Ford has the command over Quality. They know what they are doing. The only thing that lacks is that how to portray it to the people of the world and which countries to focus (if they are really keeping their eyes on Global Brand Status).

Now that they realize what they can do in correspondence to what Toyota is doing, it is more likely that they stand up and try leading the way. They say that one’s target should be broad and farther than one can think of capturing, but if Ford focuses on Globalized Branding of General motors and then Toyota as an icon, it is expected it can yield fruitful results.

Nobody knows what Ford’s forthcoming steps are for their Global Brand Equity, but one thing is for real that it can get the maximum of output if gets out of the nutshell and get Globalized, because there is a vast market still looking for better quality and satisfaction in the world out here.

With the current status Ford has, I can not think of Ford being ignored. A company that has more than a century’s expertise can not just wither away from everybody’s mind even if it doesn’t do anything about the issue for the next 20 years.
Ford is mighty, it will start getting to areas where it is not yet been needed once it comes to know about what need they can fulfill themselves.

The support for global branding from such a renowned marketing expert as John Quelch is fantastic. One key ingredient for successful global branding, however, is missing: A clear role definition between global and local marketing, with the former empowered to drive global marketing implementation. The perennial struggle between global and local is alive and kicking and needs clear top management guidance to keep it productive.

Martin Halbeis
(Local and global marketing experience)

I am not a Ford loyalist, in fact, I am more of a Toyota fanboy. Since the early '80 Toyota pickups were able to handle the rough and tough rigors of life that we threw at them on the farm, I have purchased Toyota products in various forms since. That said, I know I pay a brand name premium for those products, not only when I initially purchase them, but when I have them maintained as well.

What is lacking in today's vehicle marketplace is the car for the people. This is a basic mode of transportation that is safe, economical, roomy, and inexpensive to maintain. While most manufacturers today what to distinguish themselves from each other, what originally made Ford the big dog was the Model T.

Granted, it was made with a new manufacturing process that increased interchangeability of parts and the efficiency of production called the assembly line. This lowered the cost to the price that the common man could afford. The problem today is that vehicles are produced in such a way that the common man can not afford to purchase or maintain them. The brands suffer because they lack simplicity.

Hmmm. Promising start with Ford analysis but disappointing extrapolation to global brand characteristics:
1. Same positioning worldwide: Agreed. Also could have mentioned BMW, the BBC, et al.
2. Single product category: Disney? Films, theme parks, hotels, toys, clothing? All spin-offs of cartoon characters? GE? Power station equipment, trains, jet engines, appliances, financial services?
3. The company is the brand name: Agreed, but lots of sub-brands too (CocaCola has dozens).
4. Access to the global village: People buy Nokia or Toyota because they’re global? How about because they’re good products, well marketed at attractive prices?
5. Social responsibility: Good companies want to be good citizens, but this is a leap too far. Coke solving world problems? Puhleez!

Definetely yes. I think Ford will be back on the track in the next years. They have a lot of history and obviously they have a special possition in customers minds.

But is obvious that they need to work out in something called branding, finally they will get back into the world top companies again.

Although I agree one umbrella brand could be easier to handle (although it also comes with its problems, especially when brand is assimilated to a country - USA - and thus may face local nationalism abroad), I am kind of feeling Ford is driving forward with an eye in the rear view mirror...

Back to the basics, any product strategy must decides which trade-offs are made between variety (the right product to each customer - customization) and the economy of scale (lower cost for lower price - mass market/Ford T). Ford did put the emphasis on variety while Japanese chose scale economy (Simplistic view but still ...). As we all know, Japanese were right. The question now is: are the right choices of the past also the right choices for the future? Since Ford is reducing its portfolio (reducing variety), I am assuming they believe so. But with the rise of BRICS, the equilibrium point could change. A larger market means more products may reach the sweet spot where a targeted segment becomes large enough to enjoy economy of scale.

In addition, new competitors are emerging. Tata Motors, although not really a global player yet, is showing up, along Chery, Bajaj and many others. Their acquisition of Jaguar Land Rover is very interesting in showing a new dynamic in the market. Ford sold 2 brands on their way to profitability because they desperately needed cash to a privately own company that has time and money to make profitability happen and thus, eventually, threaten some of Ford brands ... It also gives Tata access to new markets, new market segments, new technology, etc. The competitive landscape will most likely change in the near future with new positioning and new brands. Again, are recipes from the past the right way to look at the future if the landscape is changing?

Open question I guess ...

David.