Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Last week on Facebook Wendy “outed” the first car I owned when I was a sweet, petite, high school student. Unlike Wendy’s first car, a perky ’57 MGA convertible, I drove…an Edsel.
Yes, the car with such a bad reputation that, when you look it up in the dictionary, one of its definition is “a poor or unsuccessful product, especially if vigorously promoted.” In my defense, the vehicle was our family’s car until my father purchased a new one and he dumped the embarrassing Edsel on me. I wondered if I could drive into the school parking lot in the dark of night, sleep in the boat-sized car, and then drift into the school building early enough for my classmates not to connect me with the Edsel.
For those who don’t the car’s history, here’s a primer.
The Ford Motor Company created the Edsel amid a muscular marketing campaign, proclaiming it to be an “entirely new kind of car.” The day it was presented to the public, “E Day,” on September 4, 1957, the windows of the dealerships were papered shut. The only way to view the car was to stand in a line that snaked around the block, with a few people admitted at a time. After a massive campaign that included multi-page “teaser” ads in major national magazines, 2.5 million Americans poured into Edsel dealerships.
Much to everyone’s surprise the car looked…average. Like any other car. Except for the silly, horsecollar-shaped front grill.
The car truly was innovative, offering design features never seen before, and some we’ve come to expect in our vehicles today. The massive list included:
- a rolling-dome speedometer
- warning lights for such conditions as low oil level, parking brake engaged, and engine overheating
- push-button Teletouch transmission shifting system in the center of the steering wheel
- ergonomically designed controls for the driver
- self-adjusting brakes
- safety features such as seat belts and child-proof rear door locks that could only be opened with the key
But the public had come to expect something never seen before, startling and beyond imagining. A pancake-flipping, make-your-bed-in-the-morning and drive itself sort of car. The Edsel couldn’t live up to the hype. It was short-lived, from 1957-1960.
What can we learn from the Edsel boondoggle?
One of the most stunning aspects of the Edsel story is that Ford had no idea the car’s sales would be lackluster. Instead, they were anticipating a booming success. They did research on what the public wanted when they started to design the car, but I’ve found no evidence they asked for feedback during the process. Instead, they seem to have made decisions based on what their gut said was right.
For example, they did extensive polling on a name for the car, but when it came down to the final choice, the results were inconclusive so an executive went with “Edsel.” The name of Henry Ford’s son, Edsel is a clunky word, not one that causes the potential purchaser to think about a smooth-riding, debonair car to coast around town in. Even Henry Ford II objected to its use. By the way, some of the other names under consideration were Citation, Corsair, Pacer, and Ranger.
Lesson: Consider what a title or name tells a potential buyer to expect from your product. Make sure the title projects the right image. Survey potential users and then pay attention to what they tell you. Don’t make decisions in a closet and pop out of it with product in hand, never having ascertained if you were assembling the most attractive item possible.
Ford also misjudged what the public would pay for the car. To own the automobile with all the options cost so much that interested buyers, on hearing the price, turned around and walked out of the dealership in search of a more affordable automobile. Ford hadn’t asked the consumer what he would pay for a car with the Edsel’s features.
Lesson: We all know consumers are price sensitive. While the market will bear high prices for significant innovation, the question always is, Will the consumer think he will get his money’s worth with my product?Asking would be a good way to find out.
The Edsel came off the production lines at a time when consumers were thinking about smaller, fuel-efficient cars. The Volkswagen Beetle was gaining in popularity. The Edsel, on the other hand, was a much larger car, required premium gasoline, and was fuel-inefficient. The right car at the wrong time.
Lesson: This one is tricky because, when Ford started to develop the Edsel in 1955, its size and other characteristics were what customers wanted. But it took until 1957 to release the first models. Tastes had changed, and a recession had hit. Perhaps the best lesson we can gain is to assume that a product will need to be adjusted if it takes a long time to produce. Keeping up with changing tastes and being flexible is paramount, especially in our rapidly changing world.
Design oddities also created challenges for the Edsel. The push button transmission confused drivers because it was located where they used to find the car’s horn. The driver who meant to tap his horn could actually ask the car to go in reverse. The station wagon’s rear turn signals were boomerang-shaped and, when seen from a distance, gave the impression the car was turning right rather than left and vice versa. And then there was the odd-shaped front grill design, which people had a lot of fun coming up with ways to describe–a toilet seat and the “O” of an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon, being among them.
Lesson: Always remember that it’s one thing to be innovative, it’s another to be odd. Doing something different for the sake of being different seldom results in something good.
The hype, of course, has to be mentioned as a major fail. Huge amounts of marketing dollars went into a campaign based almost exclusively on promising the extraordinary and on being a teaser campaign.
Lesson: I’m personally weary of the hype promos we see online: Webinar ads promising that, if we attend, we’ll learn the 5 Vital Ways to Kickstart Our Social Media; the Must-Know Secrets to Writing a Bestseller, etc. Stop the hype and make promises you can fulfill.
After examining the reasons the Edsel failed, I think it’s only fair to say that our family owned a 1959 model, and many of the first year’s oddities had been adjusted. It was a great car to drive, and mine happened to be a pretty turquoise. I kind of liked it, just as I would have liked an odd but interesting cousin. I would have been further consoled if my father had let me sell the car when I purchased my spunky red 1964 Ford Mustang. But, no, he had decided to give the Edsel to his sister, who was a car collector. Insult to injury.
What other products can you think of that failed, in part, because they were over-hyped? The Susan B. Anthony coin, for example? How can you be smarter about the book you’re writing or the brand you’re creating, based on the Edsel failure?
TWEETABLES
Lessons learned from a marketing flop. Click to tweet.
Got an innovative idea? Give it the Edsel test. Click to tweet.
You’ve brought to mind “Star trek: The Motionless Picture”, and for that I do not thank you.
* Oh, sorry. Got the title wrong…it’s the “…Motion Picture”. Horribly misnamed.
* Its genesis is fairly well-known; after the cancellation of the original series, it did so well in syndication that a new series, “Phase II”, was planned. When this was cancelled, Gene Roddenberry successfully lobbied for a feature film, expanded from the first episode of the now-defunct new series.
* Robert Wise was hired to direct, but constant bickering through the production process, including hourly script revision, clashing concepts of the ‘new look’ Enterprise and Starfleet uniforms, and sheer bloody-mindedness in almost everyone concerned.
* The film was wrapped with just days to spare, against its widely hyped and ironically appropriate premiere on December 7, 1979.
* It was not a flop; it was StarTrek, after all, and at the time it couldn’t lose. But it was a joke. The then huge budget of $35M paid for cheesy special effects and some truly laughable acting…and a concept that completely missed the point of the whole Star Trek universe…comradely good humour, and a hopeful future. This thing’s trying to sell a moral lesson, with a terrifying earnestness.
* Taken by itself, it’s a bit of a bore; taken in context with both history and hype, it’s an abomination.
* And that may be the point of my exposition, that a product with a well-loved history has to be hyped very carefully, and with some delicacy. It’s competing against a memory, and the lovely ghost of the original slotted into consumer’s own past, seen metaphorically as Fitzgerald’s shimmering green light on the end of Daisy Buchanan’s dock on Long Island Sound; the fatal lure for Jay Gatsby, and nearly the end of the Star Trek franchise.
* Never thought I would mention Gatsby and Star Trek together in one comment.
Ah how I love Star Trek…and yet I have seen “Star Trek the Motion Picture” exactly one time. The other movies and the original series, I’ve watched over and over again. That first movie was an epic fail and an embarrassment, but the true Trekkies held on and many more thought out offerings followed, thank goodness.
Andrew, what a great point to make: When you’re creating product connected to a beloved icon, tread carefully and be sure you’re staying true to the inherent voice of that icon.
In publishing, we’ve just had the brouhaha over Go Set a Watchman, which in a very different way, asked us to see To Kill a Mockingbird differently. It was too far a stretch for some.
And last week Steig Larsson’s Girl with a Tattoo character comes to us written by a new author in the book Girl in a Spider Web. I haven’t heard much of a fuss over the new release, which suggests the stand-in author did all right with a tough assignment.
I think of New Coke, which was much hyped, but never lived up to it’s classic parentage. My family breathed a sigh of relief when Coca Cola finally fessed up that New Coke was a disaster and brought back the original.
That’s right. I’d forgotten about that incident. Here’s Wikipedia’s recounting of that marketing mistake, for those who don’t remember the details:
“Coca-Cola’s market share had been steadily losing ground to Pepsi and the company suspected that consumers preferred the latter’s sweeter taste, which they confirmed via numerous blind taste tests. However, the American public’s reaction to the change was negative, even hostile, and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction less than three months later of Coke’s original formula, re-branded as “Coca-Cola Classic”, resulted in a significant gain in sales.”
They had the same type of hype for the segway. For a couple months they built up the hype about this revolutionary new mode of transportation that will transform our cities. Then the big day came… Yawn… a scooter.
That was a yawner, wasn’t it? It’s hard to look at a scooter and to think it will transform our transportation system.
I’ve read some of the history of the Edsel, but I didn’t know it had innovative design features like what you described. It’s interesting that a product can have great features, but when marketed wrong, can be a flop.
One thing I can think of that has been touted as a wonderful thing and turned out not to be as great as advertised is an elevated rail transit system being built in Honolulu. There a lot of hype about how much it would ease the constantly congested traffic. Now, it’s waaaaaay over budget and not going to cover as much of the city as originally declared. Residents are paying taxes to cover the added cost and there’s a lot of frustration over how the actual project is turning out compared to original product they were promised.
I’m still figuring out what my brand looks like. But this post reminds me of the fact that, as I create it, I need to makes sure it’s accurate, authentic and realistic.
Such a good reminder. One of my favorite writers, Joanne Fluke, writes funny cozy mysteries for the ABA. The Blueberry Muffin Murder, Blackberry Pie Murder…I went back and read some of her thrillers in between books and I just kept expecting them to find a body clutching some delicious confection. I loved the food murders, that was her brand, and the thrillers were fine, but not what I wanted.
So she tried to redefine her brand. And that worked except that the trail of past published books is easy to locate but disappointing to read.
Jeanne there is a lesson in your take on the Edsel. The problem might not be with the offering, but how it is packaged. All the niceties of the Edsel evidently worked in a different package, so in and of themselves they had value. However, together inside an ugly body and big price it failed. Not to be outdone, either Ford or Chrysler would simply have repackaged to recover their investment. It points to the value of say genre – same content repackaged as a different genre, might work better, as Kristen implies below.
I’d say the good developments on the Edsel stayed with us; the bad drifted away. The major downfall of the car wasn’t its innovation but a marketing plan that over-promised. The Edsel was doomed before it ever was unveiled.
Jeanne, I suspect many transportation plans are over-hyped to sell these exceedingly expensive concepts to the public, which has to vote to approve the expenditures. It seems to work on a regular basis.
Janet, I suspect you’re right. I guess maybe I’ve heard more about this one because my in-laws live there and are seeing the tax increases and the frustration of unfulfilled plans for improvement to the serious traffic issues in Honolulu.
Charles Handy spoke of the irrational consumer. That people would fork out for pet rocks and selfie sticks is enough proof that on any given day, just about anything can work, or not, as the case may be. Indeed Gates went to market short of one little piggy, to the ire of Jobs who felt the consumer deserved a full hand – but Gates got what matters most – timing and position. Hence I argue that 80% right and 100% on time beats 100% right, but late. That said, sustainability is the ultimate driver of ROI, so a short term marketing tactic might not translate into a good investment.
The cliche “Timing is everything” became a cliche because it’s pretty much true. It’s just so dang hard to release a product that’s 80% there…
Yeah that’s an honest perspective … of course perfection is an illusion, but the pursuit of perceived perfection, that little bit more, often ruined mama’s cake.
Janet, Great story and lessons from it. It reminds me of the advertising slogan, “You don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.” An author’s “steak” may be wonderful, but unless the reader is caught by the “sizzle,” sales won’t reflect it. Thanks for sharing.
Richard, you’re so right. It’s easy, as an author, to concentrate on how great the steak is, not realizing that what sells is the sizzle.
Another example – the Northrop F-20 fighter.
* In 1975 Northrop privately financed development of the aeroplane, as an upgraded development of the successful F-5E (the trainer variant, the T-38, is still in use by the Air Force and NASA).
* The F-20 was a good aeroplane, and could match the F-16 in most respects, but it cost less to produce. But even though Northrop marketed vigourously (even employing Chuck Yeager as a demo pilot), the F-16 was seen as a Cadillac of fighters, and they were decidedly not interested in the F-20. It was the taxpayer’s money, after all.
* Another intended market for the -20 was export; when it was conceived foreign powers could not buy the -16 (with some exception, like Israel). But a shirt in export policies during the Reagan administration allowed almost any friendly nation to buy the -16; and even though the -20 was much cheaper, it was still seen as second rate…after all, the USAF preferred the -16. No country wants to be seen as ‘lesser’, and that meant that the -20, in spite of its being an excellent ‘package’, didn’t sell, not one. Other nations were far more prepared to buy fewer -16s, or go further into debt, than to lose face.
* While part of the problem was the aforementioned export policy shift, the fact remains – Northrop did not divine the truism that defense expenditures are driven largely by pride, not by practicality. The price for this failure was high; Northrop was eventually bought out by Grumman, due partially to the unrecouped development costs hamstringing the company’s future.
Interesting story, Andrew. And another example of really understanding what the consumer is buying. Those countries weren’t purchasing jets; they were buying more national pride.
*I can’t think of any failed products right now, but I have given a lot of thought to my author branding and the books I am writing.
*One thing, I’ve been told by other industry professionals and published authors is that with branding a writer must be specific so they have a target audience and there is a market for their novels but that also when choosing a branding the writer needs to make sure they do not brand themselves into a corner where to keep their branding intact they must only write a certain kind of book or in a certain setting or historical era, etc.
*Also I’ve learned that yes there must be a market need for your book – but that the writer must also have a passion for what they write and not just chase market trends that may be gone tomorrow. They must know what readers want and what comparables are out there for their type of book.
*It’s a careful balance of passion and what is selling as well. Do you think I’m on the right track with these thoughts, Janet? I’d appreciate any advice!
*Thank you! And great post! ☺
Also I’m taking a cue from Andrew and separating my sentences with an asterisk! Thanks for the idea, Andrew! 🙂
“Do not brand themselves into a corner.” Thank you, Morgan. I visualize my brand as the front porch swing–a cozy niche with expansive views and a few short steps down to the front sidewalk, a great place to rest and reflect (true confession: Grandma’s porch swing was the launching point of many a great idea and the comfort station for many a scraped knee).
From what I have read of your work, Shirlee, you have that brand nailed. It’s you.
You’re welcome, Shirlee! 🙂 I think you definitely have a great brand to work on with the things you mentioned above!
*My brand is “Inspirational Fiction That Travels” – Stories laced with faith and set across the world. I love a story that not only inspires and encourages me but transports me in time and location around the world. 🙂
Morgan, I’d say you are on the right track. Although, with branding yourself as a historical writer, readers have a range of periods they’ll “allow” you to expand into. I’d say, for example, a writer of American historical novels could range from first settlers to early to mid-1800s.
Once you hit the Civil War, you’ve come up against a wall because it was a unique, powerful event in our history. That time stands alone.
After the Civil War, you have up until WW1.
So thinking about the major defining moments in a country’s history will help you to find the boundaries you should write within.
Thanks, Janet! I appreciate the advice!
Janet, what a fascinating walk through history! I had heard of the Edsel but never in that detail. I agree with the others on the flop of the “new” Coke, but I don’t think that disaster was on the same scale as the Edsel. Perhaps marketers learned a bit of a lesson from the Edsel debacle?
I don’t know about New Coke not being a pretty big debacle. It was bad. Coke had to woo consumers back, which is always tough.
It does cost a lot less to develop and create a drink. Now, a car, that’s an entire different level of investment.
I thought I was the only one who was embarrassed with the car she drove the senior year of high school: a 25 year old hand-painted Plymouth shaped like an Army tank. I never quite forgave my dad for buying that for me when he bought himself a new car every year or two. I didn’t mind secondhand…but something from WWII? As soon as I got myself a full-time job I bought myself a little secondhand Spitfire.
Oh, the agony our parents put us through…
Thank you, Janet, for sharing this. I sympathize with you–although turquoise is a very pretty color. My first car was a Pinto that died almost every time it went around the block.
I agree about hype. I think over-hype always leads to disappointment, even if the product is pretty good. Certainly, I am tired of blogs, articles, etc. about writing that promise things they don’t deliver. I’ve read at least five posts recently that promise something phenomenally helpful and, when I had finished reading, I thought: I could have written that. There was nothing new, let alone earth-shattering, about the information. One can’t help but feel a bit irritated about wasting one’s time on something that promises something it doesn’t deliver. I definitely wouldn’t want my readers to come away from reading my novel feeling that way–so something important to keep in mind. Thank you!
Christine, oh, the Pinto, the car that caught on fire. That’ll generate some bad publicity for a vehicle!
Thanks for sharing in my jaundiced response to the over-hyped promises that come at us every day online. I keep thinking about snake-oil salesmen. Really, I think an honest explanation of what a blog or a webinar has to offer should call out to those who would benefit. I don’t need to promise to save the world…although that would garner attention.
Janet, I want to than you for this funny and eye-opening look at marketing. I don’t think I’ve enjoyed a blog more, in a long, long time. You’ve got me thinking about title choices and my brand. Also, my thoughts are scattered as I remember all these marketing failures!
Heidi, thank you so much for joining me in enjoying the silliness of the Edsel moment–both for the nation as a whole and for me as a high-schooler. It certainly is a graphic example of a marketing fail.
This makes me think about timing and practical knowledge. I am a walnut farmer. The company I sell my walnuts to took a huge loss when choices were made to diversify in a way which hurt sales because it focused on the margins and on products that didn’t go anywhere (plus other problems). A new CEO, one who has history for improving companies, was hired to turn the company around and make it viable and productive again. A year ago I went a meeting where the CEO shared how they looked at consumers’ needs and spending and their interest in healthy eating. He’s managed to turn the company around to where it’s one of the leaders in the industry once again. I enjoyed watching how he answered the questions of the local growers who were wary and concerned. He was confident and realistic. He understood the concerns and livelihoods of the farmers (and their fears) and also the realistic nature of producing what people will buy both nationally and internationally. Now I see the new products on the shelves where I shop for groceries. It’s an amazing reorganization and rebuilding. We face the same sort of dynamics in writing and book selling. Our offering must
have something unique, interesting, useful, attractive and wanted by the consumers here and abroad. Enjoyed the article.
Norma, I so appreciate your succinct way of talking about what makes a book “work.” I’d say you’re absolutely correct.