Automotive historian Thomas E. Bonsall argued that the 1958 Edsel wasn’t a flop. Indeed, he insisted that the Ford Motor Company shouldn’t have given up on the brand so quickly.
The “real failure in the Edsel saga” had little to do with the car itself, Bonsall insisted in his book, Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel. Instead, Ford management failed to recognize that the 1958 models were “actually a modest success that deserved continued support” (2002, p. 204).
“In terms of market penetration, [the Edsel] fell solidly within the range of what it was supposed to do and can hardly be faulted for the general, temporary deterioration in the market,” Bonsall argued. The Edsel held 5 percent of the premium-priced field, which was “almost identical to the market segment penetration the Mercury had achieved in 1939 in its maiden year” (2002, p. 204).
Bonsall says Comet could have saved Edsel
“There are more than a few industry observers who remain convinced that the Edsel would have made it if the company had just hung in there,” Bonsall wrote. “Instead, Ford Motor Company turned a potential silk purse into a certain sow’s ear and let it go down in the record books as the greatest automotive marketing disaster of all time. Persistence would have involved risk and some pain, but hardly more pain than that caused by the actual fiasco” (2002, p. 204).
Bonsall argued that the Edsel might have been successful if it had been kept alive long enough for the Comet to be introduced later in the 1960 model year. The larger version of the compact Falcon had originally been planned to as a junior Edsel.
Whether you agree with Bonsall’s take may depend upon whether you think that 1) the Edsel brand was salvageable and 2) whether Ford needed two premium-priced brands. What do you think?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2002. Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Fordheritagevault.com: Edsel (1958)
I have not read much about the 1958 recession and its effect on the automotive industry except in passing. Certainly this timing affected the launch of Edsel. The name didn’t resonate much past Fair Lane, and the styling was questionable. The square bird Thunderbird stole the FoMoCo show in 1958.
I think that in general, 1958 produced some of the most awkward looking cars ever.
It just seems like you can only slice the pie so many times… La Salle, De Soto, the independents (Hudson, Packard, etc. that get debated and analyzed) all fell to consolidation. Plymouth never recovered from its controversial early 60s styling and competition from Dodge for the same customers. Now today there’s hardly anything left of Chrysler. Eventually even GM had to shed the venerable brands Oldsmobile and Pontiac. I like SAABs so I just have to mention the 9-2 SAABaru or the 9-7 Trailblazer (Trollblazer) or even the Opel based 9-3. Mercury lost its reason to exist. There’s a limit to badge engineering.
That being said, It didn’t hurt Ford to base the Mustang (and lots of other cars) on the Falcon. I would have to reread how the Comet fared (for a while it was sort of its own brand before becoming a Mercury). Did it increase sales or did it cannibalize Ford sales?
In today’s market, it seems like having more than a couple of brands in a nation’s market leads to mismanagement (Stellantis, here’s looking at you!). Toyota/Lexus. Honda/Acura & Nissan/Infiniti probably don’t need two brands. Mazda dropped plans for a premium brand. VW/Audi/Porsche plus who knows what they own. Ford shed Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover and is still plugging along with Lincoln. Mercedes & BMW just have a plethora of models in lieu of different brands which is a different way of slicing that pie awfully thin.
Despite Ford sinking a lot of time and money into the brand I don’t think it was worth the extra cost of another brand. Lincoln was still hemorrhaging money, the recession of 58 as mentioned shrunk expectations. Toss in Edsel being an answer to a question no one asked plus ugly design and I find no reason Ford should have sunk additional resources effectively trying to replicate GM. At best in 10 to 20 years or less Edsel would have been phased out anyway.
Ditto to answering a question that no one was asking.
During the 50s, GM & Chrysler were starting to shed brands. The independents were trying to work out ways to combine resources to stay alive. Manufacturers were trying to find that Goldilocks size: not too small, not too large, just right.
AB stopped by to say, “Well, I think you’ve already answered your own question in reviewing the book, suggesting Bonsall’s conclusion was flawed…” (go here for the review).
That’s true, but I was interested in hearing about what readers thought. Their range of opinions can be broad and thought provoking. Civil and factually grounded disagreements can deepen our understanding of the automotive world.
This is an interesting what if. In the long term FoMoCo did not need another brand between Ford and Lincoln but that would be in the future.
The Edsel was a true embodiment of being a camel design. How many different design got thrown into the one car? Yet, the Edsel got unique sheetmetal which, if the car had of survived, might it have convinced FoMoCo to continue with unique sheetmetal across the brands. Instead, Ford mostly believed they could “sell” brand differentiation with nose and tail caps plus some side trim pieces.
Going back to the long term. Ford would of had the same situation as GM – the middle brands getting squeezed with the upscale of the volume nameplate and the luxury nameplate moving downmarket to capture more volume. So, we end of today where there is no space left for Mercury, let alone an Edsel.
There is a case to be made for keeping the Edsel. Ford division was a little dowdy in the early ’50s. The Thunderbird was out – and it did influence the standard Ford in several ways – the tailights -interiors . The Corvette influenced the 53 – 54 Belaires mainly in the grille that looked very appropriate.
Edsel couldve been a fancy upgrade on the Ford body – with or without a modest frame stretch. That would give Ford 2 trim levels – the better to attract buyers who saw Ford as too Blue collar. Edsel with its Alfa Romeo front end couldve been a great upgrade car from the everyday Ford. Mc Namara mightve approved as it didnt involve a new division new dealers . And it mightve integrated in to the production cycle without too much trouble. As Edsel finnally appreared it was as good looking as any on the market – and better looking than many.
If the whole effort collapsed ? Dropping the car wouldnt be that big a deal since it was based more fully on the Ford frame. And finally Mercury could move up a bit and continue in its own market. If Edsel supplanted the Mercury – well thats competition.Ford at the time shared many characteristic of the troubled Packard Car and Clipper that no there had a coherent plan for the 2 of them.
It sounds like what Ford had in Canada, a Mercury-ish car sold by Ford dealers. The thing was, Ford wanted five separate makes like GM and Chrysler had at the time. Problem is, “Edsel” is a funny sounding name to American ears, and Edsel Ford himself had a short unhappy life and was not that well known. They would have been better off going with Meteor instead. Also you would have to have been there to see the introduction. Hype upon hype “Exciting” “Completely new!” And at the unveiling we saw a typical mid-price car of the era, with some sheet metal shared with Ford on the junior series, Mercury on the senior. THe headlines of the day were Space Race! Satellites! Jet Airliners! Color TV! The pre release ads fed into this excitement. We expected something cutting edge, and we got another generic mid price car, no worse, but certainly no better than say, Pontiac or DeSoto.