Harry P. Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 From Fortune magazine: Tinkering with brands is anything but a straightforward or sure thing. Just ask the marketing wizards who conjured the name “New Coke,” then “Coca-Cola II” and, finally, “Coke Classic,” which finally boosted sales, though not before a few careers went down in flames. In giving a title to the newly merged global automaker, the names Fiat and Chrysler were scrapped earlier this year in favor of the alphabetic FCA N.V., incorporated in the Netherlands. And now Chrysler is being dropped from the title of FCA’s U.S. operations as well, replaced by FCA U.S. LLC. Consistency between corporate parent and subsidiary was the reason given. So... no more "Chrysler Corporation." Chrysler cars will still be sold as "Chryslers," but the company itself is now just an acronym.
62rebel Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 it fits in with the rest of our corporate failures, Harry. we're reducing ourselves to consumers and transporters of other people's goods, mostly, other countries. but our kids and grandkids will have high self-esteem, since that's more important than being self-reliant in these "modern" times.
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) ... we're reducing ourselves to consumers and transporters of other people's goods, mostly, other countries... Yes indeed. Many Americans are somehow now too "good", too "busy" or too "modern" to work up much of a sweat doing anything, or to get the least bit dirty or uncomfortable in the process. Why on Earth would there be any incentive to maintain a strong manufacturing base in this country, which is the ONLY means to create real wealth (or to even bother to retain American ownership of a dwindling number of historically important US companies) when it's so much easier to let the other "less developed" countries make most everything for us, while, as a nation of middlemen, we happily rake off the profit crumbs and have plenty of time to text incessantly, attend an endless stream of CYA meetings, and make sure our facebook status is current. Most of us now are too "professional", too busy and too modern to even mow our own lawns. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would also tend to imagine that the armies of millenials asked if they'd ever heard of "Chrysler Corporation" by the inevitable market-researchers prior to the name change have no clue that Chrysler was once synonymous with "American Excellence in Engineering", of if they'd give a damm if they DID know. There's just no app for that. Edited January 1, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
bbowser Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 There's just no app for that. I don't care who you are, that's funny! And sad
StevenGuthmiller Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Just another mile stone in the slow slide of the American automotive industry into the dust bin of history. You could see this coming over the years as monickers such as Plymouth, Oldsmobile & Pontiac disappeared. Who would have ever thought that those names would just vanish after all of these years? & now Chrysler. Pretty sad. Steve
oldscool Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Yes indeed. Many Americans are somehow now too "good", too "busy" or too "modern" to work up much of a sweat doing anything, or to get the least bit dirty or uncomfortable in the process. Why on Earth would there be any incentive to maintain a strong manufacturing base in this country, which is the ONLY means to create real wealth (or to even bother to retain American ownership of a dwindling number of historically important US companies) when it's so much easier to let the other "less developed" countries make most everything for us, while, as a nation of middlemen, we happily rake off the profit crumbs and have plenty of time to text incessantly, attend an endless stream of CYA meetings, and make sure our facebook status is current. Most of us now are too "professional", too busy and too modern to even mow our own lawns. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would also tend to imagine that the armies of millenials asked if they'd ever heard of "Chrysler Corporation" by the inevitable market-researchers prior to the name change have no clue that Chrysler was once synonymous with "American Excellence in Engineering", of if they'd give a damm if they DID know. There's just no app for that. Amen Brother! My thoughts exactly.
Cato Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Harry, 'Chrysler' hasn't been Chrysler since 1969.
tbill Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I bet there was a lot of the same sentiment when all the names we know today became 'general motors' back in the day. and ya, Bill pretty much nailed it otherwise.
Art Anderson Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Just another mile stone in the slow slide of the American automotive industry into the dust bin of history. You could see this coming over the years as monickers such as Plymouth, Oldsmobile & Pontiac disappeared. Who would have ever thought that those names would just vanish after all of these years? & now Chrysler. Pretty sad. Steve Of course, a lot can be said about the three marques you mention--how they ceased, over time, to have any uniqueness. GM pretty much ceased to be an "umbrella" under which each of the divsions was expected to operate as if they were independent companies, competing not only against the likes of Ford and Chrysler, but competing against each other. The long, slow slide into this had its beginnings in 1930, when Harley Earl, backed up by then GM President Alfred Sloan, introduced the A-B-C body concept, wherein Fisher Body Division would produce all bodies, which could then be shared between divsions, Chevrolet and Pontiac sharing A-bodies, Oldsmobile (which for a time shared the A-body used by Chevy and Pontiac) sharing B-bodies with Buick, and Buick sharing the large C-body with Cadillac. That extended into mechanical parts, transmissions significantly. Ultimately, in the mid-1960's, in order to make itself hard for the courts to order GM broken up under the various anti-trust laws, the General took manufacturing out of the hands of the respective divisions, melding all the assembly lines into the new General Motors Assembly Division--leaving the various divisions control only over marketing and input into styling. That made the homogenizing of GM cars even more desireable and that's what pretty much happened. At Chrysler, had Walter Chrysler known he'd be buying out Dodge Brothers, his company likely would never have created DeSoto as a brand slotted between Chryslers and the then newly introduced Plymouth--DeSoto remained a stepchild within Chrysler Corporation until sales dwindled to unsustainability. Plymouth also slipped away in much the same manner--having shared body shells, drivetrains, frames and later unibody platforms with Dodge (and after about 1960 engines with both Dodge and Chrysler. In all of that, after 1951, Chrysler played an ever smaller part in the US auto industry, falling well behind both Ford and GM. Something was bound to change all of that--and that something was the craze, brought about by the 1957-58 recession, for those so-called newly discovered European subcompact cars, lead by the Volkswagen Beetle. It's also wise to bear in mind that over the history of the automobile in the US over 1,500 different makes of cars have been produced here as American companies (slightly over 500 of those having been founded/produced in my home state of Indiana. GM alone started by the buyout/merger of over 40 automakers, ultimately to be bought out by that upstart Chevrolet Motor Company in 1917 Franklin Roosevelt has been quoted as saying (words to the effect) that in the post war US, he would not stand for the domination of the auto industry by just 2 or 3 companies, but that is what happened: After WW-II the likes of Willys, Kaiser/Frazer, Tucker, Crosley, Hudson, Nash, and Studebaker (once the #3 US auto producer, BTW) all faded away, or were consolidated into companies that did fall by the wayside. If there is one thing we Americans seem to prize, it's our ability to buy whatever we want, from wherever we want (even though we complain about imports of all kinds!), and automobiles are no exception. There's never been a peacetime year since the first Duryea automobile rolled out onto the streets of Springfield MA in 1895 that there hasn't been an automobile imported into the US from some other country (the UK and Europe for starters, now from the Pacific Rim). In short, in the US, like it or not, the consumer is king, and pretty much always has been--it's the result of a free-market economy. We Americans seem to prefer the widest choice of products possible, and cars have seldom ever been an exception. In short, we Americans need only look in the mirror to see who caused all of this--as the comic strip character Pogo once observed: "We has met the enemy, and they is us!" But, survival in the automobile business has been an illustration of Charles Darwin at his best--survival of the fittest. Art
Chuck Most Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Chrysler isn't Chrysler anymore? Well, yeah... that's been true since the merger with Daimler happened in 1998. The former Chrysler Corporation ceased to exist at that point. Hardly news at this point. Edited January 1, 2015 by Chuck Most
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 What probably few Americans realize is that the name "Fiat" itself is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino, founded in 1899. Interesting that an old Italian company sees value in an old American manufacturing company, where American capital investment apparently sees none. Also interesting that the Chinese have been buying up American aviation companies like Cirrus, Mooney and Continental engines, again where American capital investment sees zero value.
Longbox55 Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Funny, I always though FIAT stood for "Fix It Again Tony" !
sjordan2 Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) So...? Chrysler has been through a number of owners before Fiat, notably Daimler-Benz, then Cerberus Capital Management, later Fiat Chrysler Management as it is know today. Chrysler hasn't been an American-owned company for years. Edited January 1, 2015 by sjordan2
Art Anderson Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 What probably few Americans realize is that the name "Fiat" itself is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino, founded in 1899. Interesting that an old Italian company sees value in an old American manufacturing company, where American capital investment apparently sees none. Also interesting that the Chinese have been buying up American aviation companies like Cirrus, Mooney and Continental engines, again where American capital investment sees zero value. And, FIAT itself is an amalgamation of several fledgling Italian automakers, and bought up such as Ferrari and Maserati. The same thing happened in Germany when Auto Union was formed by the merger of four formerly independent companies. And in the UK--need I mention British Motors Corporation, The Rootes Group, or British Leyland? Mergers and consolidations happen all the time, and have been going on in all areas of industry since the dawn of the industrial revolution. And just as true is the disappearance of once-iconic brands all over the place. Art
Peter Lombardo Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Fiat saw value in the Chrysler "platform" for a few reasons, Fiat was eyeing the success of Cooper and Scion in America and thinking that the time was right to get back into the US market. It would have been very expensive to come here and develop an infrastructure for parts warehousing and distribution. The take over of Chrysler gave them that for pennies on the dollar, secondly, they saw value in a number of the Chrysler products ( mainly Jeep ) in Europe and South America, so they could establish a "give and take" situation for the product coming and going to and from Europe and America. And lastly, and most importantly, the US government gave Chrysler away at fire sale prices. It was a smart move for all parties as Cerbus had no real interest in running Chrysler as a "for profit" company prior to the bankruptcy. The US will see more and more of this type of transaction. Our workers have and will continue to price our production out of the reach of any business looking to make a profit. The ideas and technology, for the most part still come from America.......we develop the process and third world countries produce the products for less............take golf clubs.......the name brand designs are created in the US......heads are forged in China, the better shafts, for the most part, are made in Japan, the grips are made in China and the club is usually assembled in Mexico. We get a state of the art product designed in America for hundreds less than if it were completely done in the US. Textiles are all made in the far east ( okay, almost all ), but designed here. The chips that power our computers are products of US companies, but the rest is not. We have a government in power ( both Democrat and Republican, so I blame them all ) that sells us out for votes. We are reaching a 20 Trillion dollar debt, and still, we send dollars to many countries that hate us, and there is no end for that. Our government would rather pay people to sit around and not work, vote for them, rather than go get a job......a job that is currently beneath what they want, but it is job that is a starting point to where they need to go in the future. I stated working when I was 14 years old in a job that was never going to be my final job, or skill, but it helped me earn money so I could buy my own first car, and I have been providing for myself and family ever since. America was founded as a country where we could achieve greatness if we work hard and make the effort. That self reliance attitude is going away More and more business has been effected by the internet and jobs are being shed by corporations because computers and robots do the work better for less. Banks are shifting to teller less, storefront less operations. Insurance and finance is shifting to internet based websites rather than agents. Travel agents are rapidly becoming artifacts of the past. Amazon wants to deliver products to us with drones. Google wants to give us driver less autos. The list goes on and on........progress is making the American worker a museum piece.......think about it, before long you will not have to wait for AMT, Tamiya or Revell to make the exact car model you want.......you will find the data base on line, have it rapid printed in 3D on the spot and that is it......how many jobs will be lost to that..............and then we will have nothing to complain about because you will be able to get that model of the stripped down Dodge Aspine 4 dr sedan to model the car your dad drove back in the 70's.
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) So...? Chrysler has been through a number of owners before Fiat, notably Daimler-Benz, then Cerberus Capital Management, later Fiat Chrysler Management as it is know today. Chrysler hasn't been an American-owned company for years. The point, gentlemen, is that America has been selling off her "seed corn" for quite a while now. Just because it's been happening and has been accepted as the "way of business today" doesn't make it smart for the long run. And just because we seem to be pulling out of the "recession" doesn't mean that continuing business-as-usual is smart either. Most American capital wheeler-dealers would rather be in idiotic financial "products" like derivatives that have no more intrinsic value than Monopoly money...and as a result pretty well brought the world economy to its knees...than investing in plants, facilities, and factories to actually give people places to make things...including a good living. Henry Ford proved the viability of the concept of paying factory workers enough to buy the things they make. It worked for generations, because it's logical and creates an in-country loop of monetary exchange. But unbridled greed of unions, short-sighted management stupidity in much of the American manufacturing sector, and the entitlement many folks seem to feel to get something-for-nothing have taken a set of relationships that worked and made it impossible to sustain. "Wise old farmers have long had a saying: Don't sell your seed corn. In simple terms, it means that every seed that comes through your hands has the potential to either be sold or planted for next year's harvest. You need to make sure that your farm always has enough seed corn to replant the fields on your land so you enjoy another harvest next year. If you sell your seed corn, you won't have anything to put in the ground and you lose the farm. Your family starves. You are broke." To continue the analogy, you no longer have a farm that can feed all the people who work there AND sell excess corn for a profit. You are forced to go to work for someone else, for subsistence money, working for someone who had the wisdom to buy your seed corn and plant it, rather than selling it off cheap because planting it was "too hard". Welcome to the emerging "newer, better" America. Edited January 1, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
Harry P. Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 I understand that Chrysler ceased to be "Chrysler" when Daimler took it over. But the loss of the name "Chrysler" as far as the corporation goes.... maybe I'm goofy, but that's just sad. So is the Chrysler building in NYC now the "FCA Building?"
StevenGuthmiller Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I understand that Chrysler ceased to be "Chrysler" when Daimler took it over. But the loss of the name "Chrysler" as far as the corporation goes.... maybe I'm goofy, but that's just sad. So is the Chrysler building in NYC now the "FCA Building?" I agree Harry. Regardless of who took over or bought out who when, or who's fault it is, it's sad when these American icons just go away. Steve
Rob Hall Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Harry, 'Chrysler' hasn't been Chrysler since 1969. what does that mean?
Cato Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I understand that Chrysler ceased to be "Chrysler" when Daimler took it over. Everybody's taking this literally-which is technically true. But my earlier post means the corporate excellence in engineering died in '69 - not whose name went on the door. Nothing but pure junk and relentless pick up trucks since the Hemi years up to '69. And yes there's a 'new' Hemi now which only an Eaton blower made serious. But it goes into overweight blobs, sedans and P / U's.
Rob Hall Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I understand that Chrysler ceased to be "Chrysler" when Daimler took it over. But the loss of the name "Chrysler" as far as the corporation goes.... maybe I'm goofy, but that's just sad. So is the Chrysler building in NYC now the "FCA Building?" Chrysler Building hasn't been associated with the car brand for decades,I think...
AC Norton Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 truly a sad, sad situation. gone is the world as we knew it...in just about every aspect. tradition has become a thing of the past, I'm sorry to say....the ace....
Harry P. Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 Chrysler Building hasn't been associated with the car brand for decades,I think... Then what is it associated with? Chrysler cheese? Chrysler shoes? Chrysler mascara?
Rob Hall Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I like modern Chrysler products. Thinking of getting a new Grand Cherokee to replace my old one...like the 300, Charger and Challenger quite a bit also....
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now