logo

Business

Written by Joe Tetreault | 27 December 2010

WHAT IF THE FCC REGULATED THE INTERNET in the early 1990s.

H/T - Instapundit

no comments

Written by Joe Tetreault | 23 December 2010

ENFORCED EARLY-ADOPTION: FUELING AN AUTO DEVOLUTION. Glenn Reynolds points out the obvious reason why people are early adopters of technology.

[W]hen I’m an early adopter, I’m doing it with my own money.

Which is why bleeding edge technologies survive on their merits, and why subsidizing electric cars will lead not to positive goods.  It's also why the talk of an mandated E15 standard is bound to wreak unholy havoc on the market for cars and gas.  Incidentally, we see the federal government pushing new methods of fueling vehicles through mandate and subsidy.  Innovation comes not by command, but by creativity.

no comments

Written by Joe Tetreault | 28 January 2010

Ford's profitable.  That's a "Man Bites Dog" headline if ever I saw one.  But a basic examination of the market factors reveals that their turnaround is one part getting back to basics to two parts abdication on the part of its rivals.

guvmintmotersOff the heels of underwhelming products like the redesigned Thunderbird convertible and the unquestionably disastrous Five Hundred, Ford's rebound was never certain.  Their profitability in 2009 can be traced to a return to core competencies - making cars that people want to drive always helps - and a marketplace ceded to them by their competitors. Buyer outrage directed primarily to GM in the form of the derisive moniker "Government Motors" reshaped the marketplace dramatically.  Chrysler started from a bad spot, but their botched and bungled bailout left them in worse shape than GM.

Ford capitalized on the weakness of their US competition by standing apart and refusing a taste from the government trough.  Americans who were more apt to consider Buy American as a patriotic selling point were among the most contemptuous of the largess bestowed on GM and Chrysler.  In that environment, Ford's products, though less fuel efficient than comparable Chevys, sold briskly.

The gist of the comparison is found in the marketwatch piece itself:

Ford increased U.S. sales by 33% [during December] while rivals General Motors Co. and Chrysler sold even fewer cars than they did in the dismal year-earlier period.

Ford's stock closed Wednesday up 3.2% at $11.55 and has now surged nearly 500% over the past year. Meanwhile, GM and Chrysler aren't publicly traded anymore.

Ford saw in the reaction to the big three's notorious appearance before Congress in late 2008 to beg for a handout a market inefficiency that they happily exploited.  That moment spawned expressions of frustration like this:

bailout

The use of a Ford in the picture must have been particularly chilling to Ford executives who saw their company disproportionately suffering.  Chrysler had been making eyes at Fiat.  GM had the promise of the Chevy Volt a theoretical descendant of the much lamented GM EV1, a car that coulda, shoulda, woulda, if only.  Ford had some promising new cars and the F-150, but the residual punchline that their company name was an anagram for Fix Or Repair Daily loomed over their heads.

Their use of differentiation enabled the company to view the marketplace in a different light.  They seized on buyer outrage to distinguish themselves as a company free of government shackles.  Independent.  Iconoclastic.  A rebel.  Americans love their cars.  Americans love their rebels, with or without causes.  Game, Set, Match - Ford.

no comments