Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Indeed, the choices in terms of portfolio diversification through the introduction of newer car models on the market, in an attempt not only to retain existing customers, but to bring forth new ones, are obvious for both Ford and GM.
As such, in the automobile industry, the method of distribution (or rather the distribution network in this case) is quite important. Ford's CEO was willing to travel across the U.S. In order to meet the dealers, evaluate their performances and decide on future action in this area. Ford's approach was to encourage dealers in their activities through the direct presence of the company's CEO. On the other hand, they do so by applying the particularities of the automobile industry, with its dependency on innovation and customer loyalty, on the variation of fuel prices etc. In this sense, we often find that there is more than one driving force behind the company strategy, that there are several strategic objectives and that the front leader may or may not play a defining role in the success of the implemented strategy.
In terms of differences between the two companies on the road to recovery, probably the most important example is given by Tom Krisher. He points out towards the fact that "the essential difference between Ford and GM, according to some industry analysts, is that GM went into the tank first and is ahead in the restructuring game." This meant a different approach in facing the company's problems. The fact that the restructuring was begun earlier and more forceful at General Motors than at Ford meant that the company was also able to enjoy the changes brought about by corporate cultural change much quicker. Ford is still facing uncertainties in the new realities of the global market.
Differences between the approaches of the two companies do not resume to different means. They also encompass different leading figures, different resources, different visions and, in the end, different strategies.
Bibliography
1. Fields, Mark. Mark Fields Lays Out Ford Strategy. Automotive News, May 14, 2007. On the Internet at http://www.automotivedigest.com/view_art.asp?articlesID=22289.Last retrieved on June 4, 2007
2. Ford vs. GM: Who's Ahead?. January 2007. On the Internet at http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/01/ford_vs_gm_whos.html
Ford vs. GM: Who's Ahead?. January 2007. On the Internet at http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/01/ford_vs_gm_whos.html
Bibliography
1. Fields, Mark. Mark Fields Lays Out Ford Strategy. Automotive News, May 14, 2007. On the Internet at http://www.automotivedigest.com/view_art.asp?articlesID=22289.Last retrieved on June 4, 2007
2. Ford vs. GM: Who's Ahead?. January 2007. On the Internet at http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/01/ford_vs_gm_whos.html
Ford vs. GM: Who's Ahead?. January 2007. On the Internet at http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/01/ford_vs_gm_whos.html
For this reason, they have stepped out to pursue alternatives, especially foreign cars. On the contrary, as consumers become price oriented, they have minimal purchasing power because they are not buyers of large volume automobiles (Porter, 1985). 3.3 Threat of New Entrants It is extremely difficult for new entrants penetrate the auto industry because of the existing high level of brand loyalty. Nevertheless, the few popular overseas firms and entered the
The economic environment is difficult. The United States may finally be showing signs of emerging from recession, but the recent economic difficulty has taken its toll of Ford. Following the short-lived spike provided by the 'cash for clunkers' program, auto sales have slumped again. Many competitors saw sales fall dramatically in the wake of that program. Ford, however, did not suffer as much. While two of its most popular models,
4). 2.4 Effects of Environment: Concerns related to carbon emission were heightened in mid-2000s and in 2007 Al-Gore in his book 'An inconvenient Truth' condemned the big three saying "They keep trying to sell large, inefficient gas-guzzlers even though fewer and fewer people are buying them." In comparison to other developed countries in Europe and Asia, American standard for distance covered in one U.S. gallon was only 25 mpg (miles per gallon).
United States Automotive Industry and Porter's Five Forces Model American Automotive Industry United States Automotive Industry and Porter's Five Forces Model United States Automotive Industry and Porter's Five Forces Model The purpose of this report is to analyze and discuss the automotive industry of the United States in the light of Five Forces of Competition presented by Michael Porter. The report starts with an in-depth introduction to the U.S. automotive industry; including its profile,
Ford Motor Company's efforts to redefine strategies to address key strategic issues during the upcoming fiscal year. The essay also reviews Ford's business-level strategy, the company's value chain activities and identifies Ford positioning with respect to the five forces of competition. Ford's current business- level strategy was developed as a result of challenges the company has faced in the last decade. Ford saw their market share in the U.S. decline
External Environment Ford Motor Company is - according to its financial statements for the last year - in relatively good financial shape, especially if one considers the current weak state of the economy, the past recessionary months and the still extremely shaky state of the recovery. This paper analyzes the current strengths and weaknesses of the company as it moves toward increasing globalization. A useful tool in analyzing the external environment