Eric Weiner, writing on The Huffington Post, notes that the Sunday business section story about the problems at Ford Motor Co. fails to address the main problems at auto companies — funding for pensions and health insurance.
“The story opens with an ostentatiously over-written description of William Ford’s office that proves one thing — the reporter was granted access to William Ford’s office. And it continues along those superficial lines for an astonishing length. Essentially it concludes that Ford’s problems were caused by a failure to adapt to more fuel efficient technologies and a lack of innovation in design. Nothing we haven’t heard before.
“But roughly a third of the way through the story there’s a startling quote from respected auto industry consultant John Casesa on the future prospects of Ford and General Motors: ‘Both these companies could fail. That’s how fundamental the problems are in Detroit.’
“Why are the problems in America’s auto industry so urgent all of a sudden? The designs coming out of Detroit have been lackluster for decades. So the recent shift in driving fashion from gas guzzlers to fuel efficiency has these companies on the brink of ruin? How many people do you actually know who’ve traded in their SUV for a Prius? And the last time I checked there still was a strong demand for pickups and other trucks, which are enormously profitable for U.S. automakers.”
Read more here. It’s an excellent critique.
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
Larry Avila has been named interim editor for Automotive Dive, an Industry Dive publication. He…
View Comments
Chris,
I thought the NYT piece was very good. The intro painted his idiosyncrasies and vision, which was essential to the backbone of the story -- that he had a idea that might have steered the company towards competitive vehicles but he lacked the confidence or resolve to override nettling middle managers who couldn’t get off SUVs.
Now maybe his vision will lead the company back. And if not, yikes.
Plus, the essential problem is lousy cars, not the pension issues. If Ford cars were wildly popular because they were the most pleasing to the eye and best performing, all the pension talk is moot.
The ford focus. Need I say more?
I'm out.
AK