COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS
-
Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.
Mustang Plus' Continuing Battle With Ford
- Thread starter Mosesatm
- Start date
P
PNewitt
Guest
"In my opinion"...It's probably the same diatribe as in the Feb 2007 "Mustangs and Fords". He could have said the same thing in three paragraphs--it could use some editing, better grammar, and less rambling.
I was told (by a very reliable Mustang parts dealer) that Ford had dropped the whole legal thing (about last November), and had fired the PR folks and outsourced legal team as well. I just wonder, with the magazine lead time why this was still in print in the Feb issue.
ON the other side...I think that Ford should rethink the Mustang hobby, and the consider the thousands of loyasl classic Mustangs owners' opinions and loyalties. But- Ford, like other car manufacturers are truly focused on what is there today ($$$!!), not yesterday. A meeting of some good Mustang parts dealers, and owners (not club officers, but everyday owners) should sit down with Ford execs and hash out how marketing and legal should work together. Everything from parts, to marketing through clubs, licensing, and just getting to know the everyday Mustang owner.
I personally think that Mustangs Plus hurt the hobby, by their comments. I don't think that any corporate-structured Ford exec would take that rambling seriously. When you have a monthly "splash" of eight pages of "stuff", you can't help but catch the ire of Ford's legal team.
Paul N.
I was told (by a very reliable Mustang parts dealer) that Ford had dropped the whole legal thing (about last November), and had fired the PR folks and outsourced legal team as well. I just wonder, with the magazine lead time why this was still in print in the Feb issue.
ON the other side...I think that Ford should rethink the Mustang hobby, and the consider the thousands of loyasl classic Mustangs owners' opinions and loyalties. But- Ford, like other car manufacturers are truly focused on what is there today ($$$!!), not yesterday. A meeting of some good Mustang parts dealers, and owners (not club officers, but everyday owners) should sit down with Ford execs and hash out how marketing and legal should work together. Everything from parts, to marketing through clubs, licensing, and just getting to know the everyday Mustang owner.
I personally think that Mustangs Plus hurt the hobby, by their comments. I don't think that any corporate-structured Ford exec would take that rambling seriously. When you have a monthly "splash" of eight pages of "stuff", you can't help but catch the ire of Ford's legal team.
Paul N.
Paul: I've tried to keep up on this subject since it's of interest to me and I suppose all Mustang enthusiasts and especially those of us who restore those cars. It's good to know that Ford dropped the legal pursuit of Mustangs Plus. I would love to see some official statement to that effect. Did Ford release such a statement?
As a side note and of interest in our area, Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World has sued a small sports shop for using the the words "outdoor world" in Buzz's Outdoor World. I don't think anyone world mistake one for the other, but corporate brand name ownership gets really touchy and ridiculous at times. I think the masses take up sides with the little guy when the big corporations attack. In my opinion, Ford needs to tread softly since their sales are currently on the downside and corporate stock is at a low. The one bright spot is the Mustang. Alienating enthusiasts of any variety car isn't a good idea for any car company. Just my 2 cents.
As a side note and of interest in our area, Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World has sued a small sports shop for using the the words "outdoor world" in Buzz's Outdoor World. I don't think anyone world mistake one for the other, but corporate brand name ownership gets really touchy and ridiculous at times. I think the masses take up sides with the little guy when the big corporations attack. In my opinion, Ford needs to tread softly since their sales are currently on the downside and corporate stock is at a low. The one bright spot is the Mustang. Alienating enthusiasts of any variety car isn't a good idea for any car company. Just my 2 cents.
miller511
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 567
Paul/all,
I still stand by my local Mustang parts place Mustangs Plus. They are a great bunch of guys and have been very helpful over the years.
Are they (Mustangs Plus' ownership) mis-informed and (possibly) beating a dead horse? Could be.
But, at the very least, I think this subject exposes (for some of us) an example of what corporate greed is all about.
-Jeff
I still stand by my local Mustang parts place Mustangs Plus. They are a great bunch of guys and have been very helpful over the years.
Are they (Mustangs Plus' ownership) mis-informed and (possibly) beating a dead horse? Could be.
But, at the very least, I think this subject exposes (for some of us) an example of what corporate greed is all about.
-Jeff
P
PNewitt
Guest
Although I don't know them personally, I've heard good things about Mustangs Plus, and they have done a lot of innovative marketing ideas, including the "restomod" project. I used to work for Sacramento Mustang ("Ultimate Mustang Parts" catalog & nat'l advert.) from 1985-93, when both SM and MP began expansion on a national level.
Since I'm only tossing out my opinion, I just thought that from where I see it (in the magazine), Ron's letters tend to ramble, and repeat. It's unique that an advertiser would use their ad space to editorialize. He must be spending about $12k / mo. to run in MM and M&F--each.
It's definately a scary experience to get a "C&D", or a nasty legal letter out of the blue like that. For someone who's business depends on trademarked items immediately has to get their priorities lined up. I just think (again, only my opinion) that his letters should be more clearly written to bring out his points more clearly. "IF" the legal threat is there, I think that an open letter in the Wall St. Journal from dealers, collectively, would make a more effective venue to explain their point(s). Look at how SEMA works with the public and politicians.
I don't know the current status of Ford's legal (outsourced team) wrangling with this issue, but I'm sure someone here can set us straight--if it's available for public comsumption.
Just like most folks on the sidelines, I just wish that Ford corporate would listen to the hobby a little closer. Ron makes many good points about the brand loyalty. On the other side, I honor Ford's interest and attention when they made the 2007 and 2008 GT/CS Mustangs. It all comes down to whom you talk to in the company. There are a lot of internal folks that are enthusiasts, and they drive (and respect) the excitement.
It's a shame that this is how things in life happen--but that's part of the real (business) world. Despite my (opinioned) comments, I do wish Mustangs Plus the best outcome in this matter.
Paul N.
Since I'm only tossing out my opinion, I just thought that from where I see it (in the magazine), Ron's letters tend to ramble, and repeat. It's unique that an advertiser would use their ad space to editorialize. He must be spending about $12k / mo. to run in MM and M&F--each.
It's definately a scary experience to get a "C&D", or a nasty legal letter out of the blue like that. For someone who's business depends on trademarked items immediately has to get their priorities lined up. I just think (again, only my opinion) that his letters should be more clearly written to bring out his points more clearly. "IF" the legal threat is there, I think that an open letter in the Wall St. Journal from dealers, collectively, would make a more effective venue to explain their point(s). Look at how SEMA works with the public and politicians.
I don't know the current status of Ford's legal (outsourced team) wrangling with this issue, but I'm sure someone here can set us straight--if it's available for public comsumption.
Just like most folks on the sidelines, I just wish that Ford corporate would listen to the hobby a little closer. Ron makes many good points about the brand loyalty. On the other side, I honor Ford's interest and attention when they made the 2007 and 2008 GT/CS Mustangs. It all comes down to whom you talk to in the company. There are a lot of internal folks that are enthusiasts, and they drive (and respect) the excitement.
It's a shame that this is how things in life happen--but that's part of the real (business) world. Despite my (opinioned) comments, I do wish Mustangs Plus the best outcome in this matter.
Paul N.
I scanned the article in Restomod News from MustangsPlus. Now not being a lawyer I dont know what the downside is to using the "Mustang" name by other companies. But I do know that here in Silicon valley when people start using your name, esp as a verb (eg "I'm going to google 'mustang'") that its known as "viral marketing" and is *extremely* desirable. In fact if you can show VCs how you can achieve...
(1) Viral marketing
(2) Getting other people to provide your content for free (eg ebay, wikipedia, youtube, etc)
(3) Get a recurring revenue stream from customers
...then they throw $ at you. So from my point of view Ford is just shooting itself in the foot. They've had viral marketing for all these years and just didnt know it...
(1) Viral marketing
(2) Getting other people to provide your content for free (eg ebay, wikipedia, youtube, etc)
(3) Get a recurring revenue stream from customers
...then they throw $ at you. So from my point of view Ford is just shooting itself in the foot. They've had viral marketing for all these years and just didnt know it...
