Automotive historian Thomas E. Bonsall argued that the 1958 Edsel wasn’t a flop and 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).
As a case in point, Bonsall argued that the Edsel might have survived if it had been kept in production 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 be offered as a junior Edsel.
Whether one agrees with Bonsall’s take may depend upon whether you think that 1) the Edsel brand was indeed salvageable and 2) whether Ford would have benefitted from having two premium-priced brands as the U.S. marketplace evolved over the next few decades. 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.