What’s in a Name? Potential, but not much else

Taurus Name Returns

Americans love a good comeback story.

Hollywood has capitalized on this phenomenon for generations, and lately, the domestic auto industry seems intent on selling us the same tale.

Witness, for example, last week’s announcement of Ford’s plan to resurrect the just-discarded Taurus nameplate.

In an apparent attempt at rekindling the long-extinguished fire that drove the company to mid-sized sedan supremacy twenty years ago, Ford will now consign this once-proud moniker to the refreshed-for-‘08 version of its slow-selling Five Hundred sedan.

This is risky business, given that Ford’s 2005 decision to kill the Taurus centered on the fact that is was a “damaged brand,” spoiled beyond redemption by they company’s outright neglect in favor of a temporarily-profitable ride on the late-‘90’s SUV train. Generally unloved and relegated to mostly fleet business at fire-sale prices, the last vehicle to carry the Taurus name was essentially nothing more than a bland, outdated rental car.

Talk About "Bold Moves"!

It is therefore certainly a “bold move” to place this seemingly broken name on the capable but unexciting Ford Five Hundred, especially given the relatively mild exterior update the car just received (in profile, it’s virtually identical to last year’s model, and what Ford calls a substantial update is the equivalent of what most vehicle lines received every year in the 1950’s and 1960’s).

Ford cites marketing data showing the abysmally low consumer awareness numbers for the Five Hundred sedan compared to a twice-as-high number for the now out-of-production Taurus. The company refers to the enormous brand equity (seven million cars total, half still on the road) that it “never should have walked away from,” and even mentions customer “letters, e-mails, and comments at dealerships” lamenting Ford’s decision to discontinue the Taurus name.

But what does the name “Taurus” really mean, anyway?

I believe it means two different things to two different groups of people, and that these conflicting views represent a fundamental “fork in the road” for Ford Motor Company.



To the “true believers,” whom I would define as not only the Ford faithful, but as any car buyers wanting to see an American company build products competitive with the world’s best, it means a 1985 television commercial with Ford CEO Donald Peterson looking straight into the camera and confidently telling consumers that Ford had redefined the domestic sedan and that they should give it a try. Other Taurus imagery for these folks include a Car and Driver magazine cover picturing the original Taurus SHO under the words “America’s Best Sedan,” as well as an entire issue of Motor Trend magazine entitled “How Ford Became #1.” Don’t even mention a myriad of other news stories proclaiming that the Ford Taurus remained the best selling automobile in the nation, outpacing the Camry and Accord yet again.



To the other group, however, the thoughts evoked by the Taurus name are not so rosy. To these people, who are typically younger and largely unaware of the car’s former success, the Taurus seems under whelming and mediocre at best, unreliable and costly to own at worst. On the occasion of returning their Taurus rental car, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard friends and coworkers utter the phrase, “I’m so glad to be driving my Camry/Accord again!” Numb steering, unsupportive seats, and a generally low-rent driving experience all contribute to a definite impression a car has on potential buyers…and, in this case, it wasn’t a good one.

Sedan Crossroads for Ford

In an admittedly abstract way, the two groups above signify two distinct courses of action Ford could take in developing and refining future mainstream sedan offerings.

The former group represents more of a “Go for it!” attitude…the same somewhat dangerous “big thinking” mentality that resulted in the game changing, paradigm-shifting original Taurus twenty years ago.

The latter group appears to characterize a subtler, more calculating direction for the company, likely resulting in a slow, quiet game of “catch-up” in the segment, costing the company much less money and side-stepping any major risks of spectacular failure that a go-for-broke effort would entail.

Regardless of Ford’s choice in the matter, the 2008 Five Hundred (now called Taurus) can only represent the latter. Whatever vehicle eventually replaces it will show Ford’s ultimate philosophical decision in the matter.

The fact is, no one – not Alan Mulally, not Mark Fields (not even Carlos Ghosn) – can go back in time and undo Ford’s previous 12 years worth of missteps. The current management can only play the cards they're dealt, and that means managing the current crisis until new products can get online. And it seems that they have gotten at least one very important thing right: product is king, end of story.

Unfortunately, products don’t change overnight, and great automotive nameplates aren’t made great overnight…even if they happen to reside on the deck lid of a great product.

Ford would therefore seem to have made the best decision it could by rolling the dice and hanging a great-but-weakened name on a proficient but uninspiring car. Only time will tell, however, if this was actually a strategic decision to select a worthy name for a future spectacular car. Only after the current car's replacement emerges as a bona fide world-beater will the “true believers” be satisfied that the name Taurus was aptly applied.

While a news cycle’s worth of coverage in the mainstream media is likely worth the minimal cost of a name change, the best thing about this bold decision is what it means to the company and its faithful. All statistics aside, the Taurus represents something much greater in the whole of Ford’s Way Forward plan than a marketing ploy to increase sales: It reminds every Ford employee and every Ford enthusiast that their company might still be capable of delivering a grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth.

Build a real Taurus and the name will fit, pretenders need not apply





The 2008 Taurus will undoubtedly be a good car, however by 1985 standards, the mid-sized Ford LTD (the Taurus’ universally-forgotten predecessor) was also a good car. Replacing that awkwardly angled box with an automotive revolution (both in design and quality) showed the automotive world that Ford was capable of building great cars, not just good ones.




The name doesn’t make the car…the car makes the car. For all practical purposes, the right name has been chosen (and placed on a competent vehicle). Hopefully, a not-too-far-off redesign will yield the right car to wear it.

Until next time...