Can The Lincoln MKC Revive A Once-Proud Luxury Brand?

[Agent G]

The Town Car is the last thing Lincoln needs to build. The median age of a Town Car buyer was 65-death. No one wants to build cars for dead people.

Trouble is Tom, those "dead people" are/were brand loyal. That's what pays the bills.

Marketing in general lately has totally missed the point. Why alienate your prime demographic? I'm not 65 yet but was and I quote was, a loyal Lincoln customer. They, read Ford, no longer builds anything with a Lincoln name that I want to spend my money on.

Aren't sales the bottom line ?

G

[1930fordpickup]

Some great points were made here .

The one I was looking for was the fact that when Lincoln had Cadillac on the ropes they went into the prevent defense .

Cadillac is now winning because they went for the youth market . The buyers that can still crawl out of these low riding modern cars . Most older people could care less about going fast around a corner . They want a car they can get out of and ride around in comfort. With the Baby Boomers buying less cars and having less money to spend on cars the market is shrinking. Most people my age do not have a problem looking at or buying non American brand Autos, the market is shrinking even more.

[Rob Hall]

Cadillac sells nothing but RWD. Most cars the Lincoln wants to aim for are RWD. Lincoln selling FWD cars is a fail.

Actually, Cadillac has the FWD/AWD XTS and the FWD/AWD SRX. But the good stuff (ATS, CTS) is RWD.

[Chuck Most]

Like I said- I think the MKC is little more than a stopgap. But here's what I think...

Chrysler has been on the edge of financial ruin for most of its existence, and has actually changed hands more than a few times. But if lowly old Chrysler can go from building stuff like this...

To stuff like this...

There's still more than a little hope for Lincoln. Ford execs have stated Lincoln is their main focus, and if the past is any indicator that's a good sign, unless they SEVERELY mishandle the situation. (Cough, cough, GM remaking Oldsmobile to appeal to younger buyers when the first three letters in the name spell OLD...) I mean, Chrysler is considered a "legitimate premium brand" again, that after years of building nothing but Dodges with egg crate grilles. Then again I'm a bit cynical, as it seems that "ultimate luxury car" nowadays just means "it's the car every rapper and NFL player drives". In that case, looks trump substance.

[Agent G]

To be honest Chuck I have looked at the 300 and the Charger long and hard. I decided to wait to replace the Town Car for the time being for a myriad of reasons. Finding a low mileage newer TC is problematic as is finding a similar Grand Marquis. I have driven a CTS for an extended period and have taken a spin in an XTS as well. I'd buy the XTS right now but the gas mileage figures disturb me. The same issue arose with the Maxima. I'm trying to understand why my 5350 pound behemoth gets better mileage.

My daughter currently drives a '93 New Yorker with 102 + on the clock. She calls it "Pablo" and it has served her well in college. My sons and I refer to the car as "Pauly Walnuts" . It's just now starting to nickle and dime her, not tooo bad for a "stopgap" measure eh?.

G

[Danno]

Actually, Cadillac has the FWD/AWD XTS and the FWD/AWD SRX. But the good stuff (ATS, CTS) is RWD.

I'm trying to decode this carp. See if I've got it right:

XTS means Escalade

SRX means Sedan de Ville

ATS means Aldorado

CTS means Coupe de Ville

XLR means Ex-Luxury Racer (No Longer Available)

Right? Why couldn't they just SAY it?

[Rob Hall]

I'm trying to decode this carp. See if I've got it right:

XTS means Escalade

SRX means Sedan de Ville

ATS means Aldorado

CTS means Coupe de Ville

XLR means Ex-Luxury Racer (No Longer Available)

Right? Why couldn't they just SAY it?

Nope. Not remotely. Escalade is still Escalade. XTS is the full size FWD sedan replacement for the DTS. The SRX is the midsize CUV. ATS is the compact BMW 3-series competitor, CTS is the midsize BMW 5-series competitor. The modern Cadillac TLAs (three letter acronyms) aren't abbreviations. Though in the past, some were (STS used to be Seville Touring Sedan and DTS was DeVille Touring Sedan on the 1st gen DTS).

Edited November 24, 2013 by Rob Hall

[Agent G]

OMG my eyes are crossed...................

G

[Rob Hall]

I currently have an '11 STS (last year of production), and my sister has an '00 DTS (first year of production). Nice cars. My next daily driver may be a 300C or Charger R/T, though...wouldn't mind having a RWD V8 again..though a well-cared for used CTS-v would be very nice to have.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Rob Hall

[Danno]

Nope. Not remotely. Escalade is still Escalade. XTS is the full size FWD sedan replacement for the DTS. The SRX is the midsize CUV. ATS is the compact BMW 3-series competitor, CTS is the midsize BMW 5-series competitor. The modern Cadillac TLAs (three letter acronyms) aren't abbreviations. Though in the past, some were (STS used to be Seville Touring Sedan and DTS was DeVille Touring Sedan on the 1st gen DTS).

You're wrapped too tightly, Rob. I was just making some fun.

In truth, I could care less what the "TLAs" are. Cadillacs should NOT be Japanese-style alphabet soups. Cadillacs should have classic 'standard of the world' names, not secret codes or text-message-tags.

Just MHO. ( !) Ooops.

[Rob Hall]

That's just the way it is...I'm not a big fan of the alphanumeric names, but I do like modern Cadillacs quite a bit...back to the original topic, I'd love to see Lincoln make a comeback, but the dull FWD appliances do nothing for me...I like Lincolns large, hefty and RWD...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Rob Hall

[Nxr]

Why don't we ever get cool stuff like this

[charlie8575]

Why don't we ever get cool stuff like this

That's due to several other cans of alphabet soup....

EPA, IIHS, DOT, NHTSA, etc., etc. These governmental bodies (and the IIHS, which is a private group of nannies funded by insurance companies) have decried that no, we can't have anything fun, potentially enjoyable, or comfortable, but instead must make do with ho-hum cookie-cutter-mobiles that protect us from ourselves and get great mileage, although in many cases, not as great as you'd expect. But, that's another story.

Those factors, along with an American consumer that's been trained and stupefied to accept bland and unexceptional as the greatest thing since sliced bread- and Wonder Bread at that, not even decent stuff like Sunbeam or Arnold.

Unfortunately, we've managed to focus-group everything to death and have killed our ability to produce things intelligently.

Recall, if you will, my earlier post regarding the differences between smart and intelligent.

We're making stuff smart now- no doubt about it. We have plenty of information, plenty of data and we can plan using logic and reason, with a small dash of creativity if so inclined.

However, what made cars of the past, and many other products so endearing and iconic wasn't smart, it was intelligence.

Intelligence was the creative power and force unleashed. It was the ability to say "we're not sure, but let's try this," and see what would happen. Successful? Not always, but always an opportunity to learn. You learn more from failures than successes.

Now, between the "smart" people running things, many of whom are as robotic as they come, to the cans of alphabet soup, other nanny groups (example: the whining moonbats that got Chevrolet to pull the Corvette commercial with the two kids in it because some idiot parent might actually let their seven-year-old pilot a $60,000 car supposedly), to the cadre of lawyers, meddlers, "cosumer advocates" (frequent codeword for "control freak"), and a bunch of other nudniks, here we are.

Yep, we've made progress.

Charlie Larkin

Edited November 25, 2013 by charlie8575

[charlie8575]

Trouble is Tom, those "dead people" are/were brand loyal. That's what pays the bills.

Marketing in general lately has totally missed the point. Why alienate your prime demographic? I'm not 65 yet but was and I quote was, a loyal Lincoln customer. They, read Ford, no longer builds anything with a Lincoln name that I want to spend my money on.

Aren't sales the bottom line ?

G

I saw this post earlier, Wayne, and I wanted to consider how to word my response. By the way, I largely agree with you.

Sales are indeed the bottom line, but, in order to maintain sales, you also need to attract new business. Doing one does not necessarily mean not doing the other.

I refer back to my proposed business model for Lincoln Division on P. 2. Adopting something like that would work very well for Lincoln going forward, I believe. It attracts the younger more affluent buyers with cars like a Mark IX and a Zephyr that would go toe-to-toe with the 3-Series and ATS, a revived Continental for something a little bigger that serves as an engineering flagship, and a re-introduced Town Car, which, again, whether unit or frame construction, could be made to work very well. I was originally thinking the Mustang, but why not a well-designed frame? That's what people who want Town Cars generally want- especially livery companies, because the body-on-frame construction, good as unit construction has become, is still more durable in many respects. If they insist on unit body, why not use the Australian Falcon as the basis? That's a decent-sized car to start with, and with very little effort, could be made into a six-passenger sedan with appropriately-sized trunk.

You are correct in that Lincoln must retain its existing customer base while cultivating new markets.

I'm only 38 myself, but after bouts of sciatica and catching a piano coming down a moving truck ramp when I was in college, I care more about big, comfortable seats and a good ride than I do scalpel-precise handling and sports seats I usually don't fit in very well. That said, if someone came up with a car that offered Town Car size, room, seating comfort and ride with Corvette-like handling, I'd gladly take it, as that would be the best of all worlds.

Some great points were made here .

The one I was looking for was the fact that when Lincoln had Cadillac on the ropes they went into the prevent defense .

Cadillac is now winning because they went for the youth market . The buyers that can still crawl out of these low riding modern cars . Most older people could care less about going fast around a corner . They want a car they can get out of and ride around in comfort. With the Baby Boomers buying less cars and having less money to spend on cars the market is shrinking. Most people my age do not have a problem looking at or buying non American brand Autos, the market is shrinking even more.

Right now, markets for a lot of products are shrinking. Without going into too much detail, it's a combination of shifting priorities of society, governmental policy, including spending, taxation and other social policy, and monetary policy, which has led to a devaluation of the dollar.

My parents are in their 60s, and my mother always wanted a Cadillac. Until she saw what they're making now. With bad knees that can't be repaired due to other problems, and that she looked at them and said, "that's not a Cadillac," they are losing their older market, quite true. Although it's wise to capitalize on future markets, and it does seem to be working for Cadillac for now, I'll be very interested to see the long-term effects of the strategy and the effect of future sales, particularly as the now-young clientele ages and begins to experience some of the shifts in tastes and physical needs that might make a Cadillac, as presently offered, less attractive to them like it is now to their parents and grandparents.

Charlie Larkin

[Chuck Most]

I'm trying to decode this carp. See if I've got it right:

XTS means Escalade

SRX means Sedan de Ville

ATS means Aldorado

CTS means Coupe de Ville

XLR means Ex-Luxury Racer (No Longer Available)

Right? Why couldn't they just SAY it?

ETC stood for Eldorado Touring Coupe, but whenever I pull up behind one at a stoplight, I always think it looks like Cadillac was too lazy to put the rest of the name on the deck lid. "Eldorado, Etc. ... "

Yeah, I'm sick of strings of alphabet soup and numbers passing as car names too, but let's be honest, they ran out of cool names for cars decades ago.

[buffalobill]

No one has mentioned Audi in this topic, and perhaps Lincoln could take a hard look @ how Audi has marketed its products in the USA.

Audi - in many ways - is a gussied-up VW product (and that in no way implies that there's anything wrong w/ the VW product line). The Passat and the Audi A6 shared the same platform for quite a few years (I'm not sure if they still do, however, since I haven't sold them for a number of years. . .) They have shared the same series of engines for many years, too. When I was selling Audis (in the same showroom as Jaguar & Porsche), Audi went to great lengths to tout the performance of their products, whether they were the TT, A4, A6, or A8, and that was especially true of the S-versions of the A4, A6, & A8. But, the average consumer was almost completely unaware of how much hardware that VW and Audi shared under the skin. Audi sold passion - pure and simple. The brand had style ( more great design, rather than just style, actually), it had excellent fit & finish inside & out, well designed & drop-dead gorgeous interiors, precise switch gear, responsive handling, silky-smooth powerful engines & drivetrains, and it had Quattro AWD, as an option. But, so did VW - but, they called it 4-Motion, and most consumers, as well as most dealer sales people, were unaware that the Quattro and 4-Motion were the same AWD system. (note: the AWD in the TT, and also available on smaller VW platforms - the TT shared lots w/ VW's Golf underneath - but, it was not the same system as the AWD in the A4 / Passat and larger Audi sedans) In most markets, VW and Audi didn't share showrooms, but even if they did, the 2 brands were marketed & sold very differently. VW's target consumer base was not the same as Audi, for the Audi was perceived as a desirable competitor of BMW, M/B, and to a lessor extent, Volvo, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, & Cadillac. Keep in mind that this was my experience from 10 yrs ago, and fast forward to today, it's interesting to note which brands have progressed, which have fallen behind, and that Audi is enjoying continued success in the USA.

It's all about the product - and if it's good stuff, and the sales team knows how to market & sell it, the word gets out. Audi made sure that their sales team could effectively sell their cars by providing excellent selling tools, including sending us to high speed & defensive driver-training programs @ both Texas Int'l Speedway and Phoenix Int'l Speedway where we drove the daylights out of not just Audis, but also what were perceived as their main competitors in the US marketplace. (but, no VWs were amongst those perceived competitors - for not so obvious reasons, as I believe that VW-Audi intentionally avoided any comparisons between the 2 brands - esp to not challenge the upmarket prestige of the Audi brand). And, Audi's rich motor sport's history was drawn from in how they built their brand's image - from the awesome 12 & 16 cylinder Auto-Unions of the '30s, to Audi's rallying wins, their Pikes Peak record, their domination of Touring Car series both in the USA & overseas, and their multiple outright wins @ LeMans. But, perhaps most effective, was when the weather turned bad, and customers got to experience first hand how incredible was Audi's Quattro system. The key was getting them into the showroom, first! And, seldom did price become the go/no go for making a sale, since to discount a brand, is to cheapen it in the mind of the consumer.

Also, consider that Audi had almost abandoned the US market in the late '70s/early '80s due to some highly inaccurate and equally sensational news stories re: 'unintended acceleration' on Audis (that were primarily equipped w/ auto trans). The entire thing was bogus, and was eventually traced back to the smaller size & the placement of the brake pedal compared to the typical American luxo barges that Audi's customers had become accustomed to before getting an Audi. Slowly at first, Audi's customer base changed, as they were either technically savvy enthusiasts that dis-regarded the notion that Audis were unsafe, and many were much younger, and often either professionals, or engineering-types. Audi intentionally had put a cap on how many cars they intended to sell in the USA as a result of that mess - even though there was nothing essentially wrong w/ their product - they simply didn't want to go thru that same scenario again.

Again, Lincoln could take a clue from this, since Lincoln has had it's share of successes and failures. including more than a few mundane products, w/ some of them being simply really ugly. Lincoln has a proud heritage that they could draw from - their classic products from the late '20s /early '30s, mid-late '30s Zephyrs, the '41 Continental, their road racing success in the mid-50s Pan America Road Races, the stunning '56 Lincoln, and the Mark ll of the same year, the almost perfectly proportioned '61 sedan & convertible, and even the conservative, but attractive '99 LS. (which shares many of it's pieces w/ the Jag S-type). Jag's S-type was a successful, retro-effort based on their lovely Mk ll; but as a side note, Jag's smaller X-type sedan, based on Ford's Contour, was a sales disaster - it was not a good product, as it was heavy, too small inside, under-powered, and had more than it's share of issues. A classic example of what happens when a pseudo-luxury product is based on a low-end, and not a particularly good product. But, as a contrast consider how successful was Cadillac's CTS launch, even though it was in many ways a re-do of their rather awful Catera sedan - which was a re-badged Opel Omega that had not been effectively adapted to US specs, as it was overweight, under-powered, and suffered from many reliability & quality issues. Cadillac did a much better job with the CTS (also based on the Omega/Catera platform, but w/ much attention to fixing what was wrong w/ the Catera), and it has sold very well. It's important to note that Cadillac didn't abandon it's older and more conservative customer base ten yrs ago, as they also sold a ton of DeVilles w/ bench seats along side the much more avant-garde CTS. Cadillac has successfully adapted many of the styling clues & overall image of the CTS to all of it's products, thus changing it's image completely. And, they're good products, too.

But, if Lincoln continues to simply rebadge Ford's mainstream products, and expect to sell them in a much pricier segment, they're doomed. It didn't work when Ford introduced the Edsel, and it's amazing that Mercury hung on as long as it did. Edsel was a failure due to radical styling excesses (sorry to offend any Edsel fans) and having been launched in an over-crowded market segment and in a recession year, while Mercury, during some years, offered little to distance it from comparable Ford products except some questionable at the time styling differences. There have been a few exceptions to that - namely in the '49 - early '60s when Fords and Mercurys appeared quite unique from each other, and briefly w/ the '67-'70 Cougars, esp the XR-7 option. But, consider how similar were the Mercury & Lincolns from '49-'55? Lincoln changed all that in '56, and continued to do so into the mid '60s, until Lincoln once again too closely resembled re-badged Mercury and/or Ford products. Ford Motor Co now has all the right ingredients to design a new Lincoln worthy of mention - it has great engines & drivetrains, including AWD systems, and a ever-improving quality & reliability reputation. It is also well-funded, and didn't rely on the auto-bailout of the Obama administration (and all that that implies). . .But, equally important are Ford's diverse overseas resources - engineering, design, & manufacturing. Ford is a world-wide brand, and perhaps a Lincoln brand created in the same vein as European performance/luxury brands, could be done - but, maybe they've missed the chance to do that now. . .I wish they would, however.

Edited November 26, 2013 by buffalobill

[Rob Hall]

Cadillac did a much better job with the XTS (also based on the Omega/Catera platform, but w/ much attention to fixing what was wrong w/ the Catera), and it has sold very well. It's important to note that Cadillac didn't abandon it's older and more conservative customer base ten yrs ago, as they also sold a ton of DeVilles w/ bench seats along side the much more avant-garde XTS. Cadillac has successfully adapted many of the styling clues & overall image of the XTS to all of it's products, thus changing it's image completely. And, they're good products, too.

You mean the CTS? The CTS Sigma RWD platform is unrelated to the Omega/Catera platform as far as I know. The XTS just came out last year, it's a FWD sedan on the Epsilon II platform, replaced the DTS.

[buffalobill]

Rob - You are correct - I meant the CTS. Too many letter-labeled cars, and it seems to get worse every year. Thanks for catching my error, and I'll edit it right now.

[Rob Hall]

Rob - You are correct - I meant the CTS. Too many letter-labeled cars, and it seems to get worse every year. Thanks for catching my error, and I'll edit it right now.

One thing Cadillac did that was interesting back in the day was from '00-05 they had the regular, softer De Ville w/ bench seats, while at the same time had the DTS which had bucket seats, some body color trim and tighter suspension. My sister has one, pretty nice driving car. In the '90s they had a similar idea in the De Ville Concours. Then in '06 the De Ville and DTS were renamed just DTS.

[buffalobill]

That brings up a funny incident from when I was selling Cadillacs - I sold an elderly lady a new DTS in '02 or '03 (and it had DTS's standard bucket seats & console in it), and she was soon mighty unhappy w/ her purchase, since she was no longer able to keep her handbag right next to her and secured w/ a center position seat belt like she had been accustomed to in all of the other bench seat equipped Cadillacs that she had owned during the past 25-30 yrs, or so. She insisted on trading in her DTS for a base De Ville w/ its standard bench seat.

I agree - the '00-'05 DTS was a very nice car, especially for a large 4 door sedan. Makes for a terrific used car buy today, too.

[Fabrux]

I once read that luxury automakers prefer using seemingly random alphanumeric names for their vehicles so that people will remember the brand more than the car. Which, you have to admit, works pretty good. Too many acronyms and numbers to remember and you just start calling all them by the brand.

[Rob Hall]

I once read that luxury automakers prefer using seemingly random alphanumeric names for their vehicles so that people will remember the brand more than the car. Which, you have to admit, works pretty good. Too many acronyms and numbers to remember and you just start calling all them by the brand.

Yes..I recall reading that years ago when Acura went from names to alphanumerics.

[charlie8575]

I once read that luxury automakers prefer using seemingly random alphanumeric names for their vehicles so that people will remember the brand more than the car. Which, you have to admit, works pretty good. Too many acronyms and numbers to remember and you just start calling all them by the brand.

That could be a double-edged sword, though.

To me, not just the brand-name should be memorable, but the product must be memorable.

If I were a marketing manager, I'd want not only my make, but my individual products, to leave indelible impressions in the minds of the buying public.

Charlie Larkin

[charlie8575]

That brings up a funny incident from when I was selling Cadillacs - I sold an elderly lady a new DTS in '02 or '03 (and it had DTS's standard bucket seats & console in it), and she was soon mighty unhappy w/ her purchase, since she was no longer able to keep her handbag right next to her and secured w/ a center position seat belt like she had been accustomed to in all of the other bench seat equipped Cadillacs that she had owned during the past 25-30 yrs, or so. She insisted on trading in her DTS for a base De Ville w/ its standard bench seat.

I agree - the '00-'05 DTS was a very nice car, especially for a large 4 door sedan. Makes for a terrific used car buy today, too.

Good to know. We're thinking of getting a new(er) car for my mother, and Dad and I have been seriously considering one of these vintage Sedan DeVilles. They still look enough like a Cadillac to her that she'll drive it.

Charlie Larkin

[Fabrux]

That could be a double-edged sword, though.

To me, not just the brand-name should be memorable, but the product must be memorable.

If I were a marketing manager, I'd want not only my make, but my individual products, to leave indelible impressions in the minds of the buying public.

Charlie Larkin

I suppose that still holds true for the blingiest of SUVs; everyone wants an Escalade or a Navigator, no manufacturer is needed to know what vehicle you're talking about.