Of course they'd be playing with fire. Mustang is a model, not a make, and as such has had a relatively specific mission (which isn't about passenger and cargo-carrying utility or pretensions of off-road capability). SUV-izing the Mustang name would better compare to Porsche doing a new SUV and hanging the 911 moniker on it, or Lamborghini resurrecting the Miura name to "enhance" (I can't believe I typed that) their SUV positioning.
My favorite Ford (and Mercury) brands were Mustang, Cougar, and Thunderbird. Ford has already effed up two of those names. I remember being seriously pissed off as a teenager when the Cougar went from being a cool low coupe with split grill and hidden headlights to a bloated squared off boulevard sofa on wheels. This was, of course, after they had done the same thing to the Thunderbird, which started out as Ford’s answer to Corvette.
That would really not be a bad idea at all
The problem is Hackett seems to only care about the stock price. So he kills all the low profit stuff (except for Mustang), even though they still sell hundreds of thousands of them, and uses whatever means necessary to boost sales, even if he drags a name through the mud. As long as the shareholders are happy. But hey, that's what they hired him for, and he's delivering as promised it seems. Mullaly was great, but Mark Fields was cool in my eyes too. It's hard to imagine Hackett letting a skunkworks team build a supercar like the GT in the Ford basement like Fields did. (I know it probably started under Mullaly, but still).
Your exactly right. Hackett was brought in solely to increase stock prices. He doesn't give two hoots about the Mustang name going on an SUV if it increases sales of said SUV. In all actuality it will likely help sales by using the Mustang name. You have millenials that may think a Mustang is cool but not practical. Now they will have an option of a practical Mustang that is also Green Friendly.
As CEO it really isn't Hackett's place to come in with a position on any brand name. It is the responsibility of the Executive Chief Engineer for Mustang and the Brand Marketing Director for Mustang to make him aware of the importance of each brand and of the consequences of doing something stupid with them. It is their responsibility to guide him on the future trajectory of the brand as well as strategies (both marketing and product content / capability) to keep it strong. If the Mustang brand gets tarnished, it is likely because the people in charge of protecting and strengthening the name were not effective in staking their position with Hackett. Hackett's job is to take all inputs and suggestions and then make decisions based on the options put in front of him. He doesn't create the options. He chooses from among them based on the strength of the business case. If the people putting stupid options in front of him are more persuasive or have better data than the ones responsible for upkeeping the brand, then shame on them. And some shame on Hackett for not being able to adequately interpret and separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sure, but as CEO he can push whatever agenda he wants. If he thinks using the Mustang name will lead to more sales, revenue and ultimately higher share prices he is going to do it.
Hackett himself has claimed to be a Mustang fan and mentioned in a press conference a year or two ago that he daily drives a GT350 (at least back then). If he was opposed to this Mustang Mach-E name he could certainly shoot it down.
True. But somebody has to bring him the data suggesting this to be true. And the "guardians" of the brand have to be there to position him that it doesn't make sense. When I was at GM there were people suggesting that when Pontiac got axed, the Pontiac G8 should be re-purposed to be a Chevrolet Chevelle. A lot of people behind that idea. There were others who thought it should be called Chevrolet SS. Obvious who won that battle. Neither name was the CEO's idea, but the people who were backing SS did a better job of positioning the leadership team and the CEO than the people pushing the Chevelle name. I expect similar discussions happen in Dearborn all the time.
And it's a shame that that's the team that won... perhaps if it had been named "Chevelle", it could've had more publicity and sold a bit better. I know they weren't planning on selling a lot of them, but maybe it could've made a business case to keep Holden around?
Yes I'm sure he isn't. The event was the Ford Europe presentation that was held in Amsterdam last week and the dealer is also an official Shelby dealer. They can tell a Bronco logo from a Mustang logo with the lights out.
I think it is kind of silly personally to call anything a Mustang other than a Mustang (2dr coupe/conv. RWD etc) Why not call it a Torino, Ranchero or Maverick? Those are just a few names off the top of my head. Whatever happens, happens. The whole SUV/Truck emphasis and abandoning the sedan/compact car segment will likely bite them in the ass in the long run.
For those that remember the Mustang letter writing campaign back in 1987, Mustang Enthusiasts pounded FoMoCo with hundreds of thousands of letters exclaiming dissatisfaction in the direction Ford was taking the Mustang - that letter writing campaign changed Ford’s strategy and saved the Mustang from being eliminated by a Probe. If you’re too young to know what happened, just google “1987 Ford Mustang letter writing campaign” and there’s a ton of available info.
