ford edsel case study

4 lessons from the failure of the Ford Edsel, one of Bill Gates' favorite case studies

On this day in 1957, Ford released a car that flopped so spectacularly that it has become a timeless case study on how not to develop and launch a product.

The 1958 Ford Edsel was supposed to be the new premiere car for middle-class Americans.

Ford was so confident in the product that it pumped $250 million into it. But instead of starting a revolution, the company lost $350 million on the unattractive gas-guzzler.

In the late John Brooks' book " Business Adventures ," a collection of New Yorker articles from the '60s that was republished last year, Brooks explains what went wrong in the story, "The Fate of the Edsel."

"Business Adventures" is Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates'  favorite business book , and he finds the Edsel piece especially interesting. He explains in his blog:

[Brooks] refutes the popular explanations for why Ford's flagship car was such a historic flop. It wasn't because the car was overly poll-tested; it was because Ford's executives only pretended to be acting on what the polls said.

"Although the Edsel was supposed to be advertised, and otherwise promoted, strictly on the basis of preferences expressed in polls, some old-fashioned snake-oil selling methods, intuitive rather than scientific, crept in."

It certainly didn't help that the first Edsels "were delivered with oil leaks, sticking hoods, trunks that wouldn't open, and push buttons that … couldn't be budged with a hammer."

Here are some lessons from the failed launch that are still relevant today:

Don't let egos trump research

Ford's designers and marketers began development on the car in 1955, with the intent of creating an automobile tailored to the desires of the American people, as determined through seemingly endless polling.

Ad men got to work thinking up thousands of names and testing them in focus groups with civilians and Ford execs, and even consulted the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Marianne Moore for the perfect name for the perfect car. (Moore suggested such absurd names as the Utopian Turtletop and The Intelligent Whale.) Despite endless hours of testing and consultation, the chairman of the board decided at the last minute that he was going to go with Edsel, the name of Henry Ford's son.

Related stories

"As for the design," Brooks writes, "it was arrived at without even a pretense of consulting the polls, and by the method that has been standard for years in the designing of automobiles — that of simply pooling the hunches of sundry company committees."

Focus your vision

In the late '50s, American consumers had a limited choice of car models, and there weren't tremendous differences in performance from model to model, at least by today's standards. Edsel's designers knew that they were creating an image, a character, but instead of refining their vision, they decided to make it everything at once.

In a lazy attempt to please everybody, they made the terrible decision to debut 18 variations of the car at launch . The academic S. I. Hayakawa dubbed the car the Edsel Hermaphrodite because it seemed as if it were explicitly trying to be masculine and feminine.

And, because it was 1957, Ford decided to have two media previews, one for male reporters and one for their wives. In the former, the Edsel was driven around a stunt course as if it were in a Hollywood blockbuster — at one point an Edsel almost flipped.

Gates mentions in his blog that the women's event, a fashion show, was one of his favorite passages in the story because the host was revealed to be a "female impersonator" (i.e. a man in drag), which was not only bizarre but, as Gates says, "would have been scandalous for a major American corporation in 1957."

Don't put yourself in a situation you can't get out of

A year before launch, Ford began a teaser campaign for the E-Car, the code name for the Edsel as it was being developed. It gave customers the expectation that they were going to get an irresistible car of the future.

Ford execs seemed to never once consider failure to be an option. They created an entire Edsel division and persuaded dealerships to order a certain number of cars before the Edsel was even finished.

Had they acted more cautiously and avoided betting so much on the car, they could have pulled back once the stock market took a nosedive in the summer of 1957, and people stopped buying mid-priced cars. Mere weeks before the car's launch in September, Brooks writes, "Automotive News reported that dealers in all makes were ending their season with the second-largest number of unsold cars in history."

If you fail, accept it and move on, all the wiser for it

At launch, the car was too expensive, used up too much gas, and was mocked in the press. A redesigned 1959 Edsel debuted to better reviews, but the damage was done. Nobody wanted an Edsel. A 1960 Edsel came out in limited production, but Ford president and future secretary of defense Robert McNamara finally pulled the plug in 1960.

Brooks estimates that "every Edsel the company manufactured cost it in lost money about $3,200, or the price of another one."

Even though Ford recovered from the setback, the executives who led the project expressed to Brooks no recognition of their countless mistakes and even looked back fondly on their time developing and marketing the car.

J.C. Doyle, an Edsel marketing manager, even went so far as blaming the American public for the failed launch. He tells Brooks that he was flabbergasted that the American consumer dared to be so fickle.

"What they'd been buying for several years encouraged the industry to build exactly this kind of car," he says. "We gave it to them, and they wouldn't take it. Well, they shouldn't have acted like that ... And now the public wants these little beetles. I don't get it!"

Watch: Google's self-driving car has a huge problem

• Main content

What Happened to the Car Industry’s Most Famous Flop?

Any crossword puzzler knows there’s a five-letter word for a Ford that flopped: Edsel.

More from TIME

At the heart of any big flop–like when Ford ended the Edsel 55 years ago, on Nov. 19, 1959–lies high expectations. The Edsel was named after Henry Ford’s son, no small honor, and it had its own division of the company devoted to its creation. As TIME reported in 1957 when the car debuted, the company had spent 10 years and $250 million on planning one of its first brand-new cars in decades. The Edsel came in 18 models but, in order to reach its sales goals, it would have to do wildly better than any other car in 1957 was expected to do. The September day that the car first went on the market, thousands of eager buyers showed up at dealers, but before the year was over monthly sales had fallen by about a third.

When Ford announced that they were pulling the plug on the program, here’s how TIME explained what had gone wrong:

As it turned out, the Edsel was a classic case of the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time. It was also a prime example of the limitations of market research, with its “depth interviews” and “motivational” mumbo-jumbo. On the research, Ford had an airtight case for a new medium-priced car to compete with Chrysler’s Dodge and DeSoto, General Motors’ Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick. Studies showed that by 1965 half of all U.S. families would be in the $5,000-and-up bracket, would be buying more cars in the medium-priced field, which already had 60% of the market. Edsel could sell up to 400,000 cars a year. After the decision was made in 1955, Ford ran more studies to make sure the new car had precisely the right “personality.” Research showed that Mercury buyers were generally young and hot-rod-inclined, while Pontiac, Dodge and Buick appealed to middle-aged people. Edsel was to strike a happy medium. As one researcher said, it would be “the smart car for the younger executive or professional family on its way up.” To get this image across, Ford even went to the trouble of putting out a 60-page memo on the procedural steps in the selection of an advertising agency, turned down 19 applicants before choosing Manhattan’s Foote, Cone & Belding. Total cost of research, design, tooling, expansion of production facilities: $250 million. A Taste of Lemon. The flaw in all the research was that by 1957, when Edsel appeared, the bloom was gone from the medium-priced field, and a new boom was starting in the compact field, an area the Edsel research had overlooked completely.

Even so, the Edsel wasn’t a complete loss for Ford: the company was able to use production facilities build for Edsel for their next new line of, you guessed it, compact cards.

Read the full report here, in the TIME Vault: The $250 Million Flop

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Coco Gauff Is Playing for Herself Now
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Lily Rothman at [email protected]

Advertisement

Was the Ford Edsel really that much of a failure?

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

In a word, yes. Many consider it the biggest failure the Ford Motor Company has ever had. However, the car itself really wasn't all that bad. Sure, it wasn't conventionally attractive and Ford did make a few bizarre engineering decisions ... and, yes, there were some quality issues — but it was still drivable, which is something that people seem to forget when they reminisce about the awful, awful Edsel.

This car never had a chance, as it failed to gain traction immediately after its debut. Sales were even worse the following two years, until it was finally pulled off the market. Ford lost $350 million on the Edsel during those years, and it simply blamed the economy, which had taken a sharp turn for the worse just a few months before the car's debut, worrying consumers and leaving car dealers with a lot of excess inventory. The economy was one factor, sure, but there was much more than that.

So what was going on prior to the Edsel's launch in 1957? Well, Ford started with a good idea: a car that was slightly more upmarket than their current offerings, and the hope to capture and retain middle-class buyers rather than losing them to the competition. They spent millions on research. They wasted countless hours debating thousands of potential names, until the board chairman (in an effort to earn some brownie points), declared the car "Edsel" after Henry Ford's son. Meanwhile, the American public was told for months on end that Ford's new car would be the best thing to ever hit the road. The truth is, no car could have ever lived up to the hype that Ford and its ad agency managed to build up. Especially since no one outside the company had the chance to see what the car looked like, or even hear its awkward name, until right before the launch.

When the Edsel finally made it to the showroom floor, it was offered in 18 trims. Instead of being focused, Ford's attempt to woo everybody made the car seem confusing and poorly planned. And then there were those weird design decisions. The oval in the grille was initially intended to be a lot smaller, but the original version didn't allow enough airflow to actually cool the engine, so it just kept growing until it eventually took over the car's entire face. (Ford designers have said that it actually looked good, prior to all the revisions.) It used way too much fuel. There was a bizarre push-button transmission — innovative for no good reason. Design quirks then gave way to actual quality issues, like stuck trunk lids, peeling paint and even missing parts. As the story goes, the Edsel design was so counter-intuitive that assembly line workers simply stopped trying, and the car's reputation for being weird turned into a reputation for actually being bad. At one point, Ford dealerships tried to give away ponies in a contest to entice people to drive the Edsel. The winners instead opted for a cash prize, leaving Ford stuck with piles of poop — both figurative and literal. The Ford Edsel was killed off in 1959, but the marketing case study will last forever. Ford was its own worst enemy during every chapter of the Edsel story.

Lots More Information

Related articles.

• 5 Myths About Henry Ford
• 10 Worst Cars of the 20th Century
• Ford Tri-Motor
• How Edsel Cars Work
• How Ford Works

More Great Links

• 1958 Ford Edsel - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time
• The Flop Heard Round the World
• The Rise and Fall of the Edsel
• The Top 20 Dumbest Cars of All Time
• Why This Historic Ford Flop Is One Of Bill Gates' Favorite Case Studies
• Carlson, Peter. "The Flop Heard Round the World." The Washington Post. Sept. 4, 2007. (March 15, 2015) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301419.html
• Feloni, Richard. "Why This Historic Ford Flop Is One Of Bill Gates' Favorite Case Studies." Business Insider. July 23, 2014. (March 15, 2015) http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-flop-bill-gates-favorite-case-studies-2014-7
• Neil, Dan. "1958 Ford Edsel - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time." Time. (March 15, 2015) http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657867_1657781,00.html

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

• Entertainment
• Latest Mortgage Rates
• Credit Cards
• Restaurants
• Food & Drink
• Lamborghini
• Aston Martin
• Rolls Royce
• Harley Davidson
• Honda Motorcycles
• BMW Motorcycles
• Triumph Motorcycles
• Indian Motorcycles
• Patek Philippe
• A. Lange & Söhne
• Audemars Piguet
• Jaeger-LeCoultre
• Vacheron Constantin
• Electronics
• Collectibles

Why Was The Ford Edsel Such a Failure?

By 1950, Chevrolet had built a grip on the top spot as America's best-selling automotive brand. Chevrolet sold one million more vehicles than Ford, the runner-up. On the other hand, General Motors took the next three spots in the top five in that same year. In the mid-1950s, Ford Motor Company decided to add another automotive line to compete with General Motors. Since 1908, when it merged with the Oldsmobile Motor Company, General Motors Corp had developed into six independent divisions. Ford would employ a similar tactic to expand its market share. Edsel Bryant Ford, the company's founder Henry Ford's only son, would be the name of the new car line. During spring in 1957, Ford launched a hugely effective advertising campaign that capitalized on the human desire to know more. "The Edsel is Coming," read the first commercials on the airwaves.

The mysterious car, however, was invisible. The sight of it piqued people's interest. They gradually allowed a hazy glimpse of the vehicle's shadow as well as the hood ornament as the campaign advanced. Anyone connected with the Edsel was pledged to secrecy, promising not to say anything about what was billed as a revolutionary new automobile. According to Liveabout , dealers were supposed to store the Edsel covertly, and if the automobiles were seen before the release date, they would be penalized or lose their franchise. The hooplas drew a record-breaking crowd to see it unveiled on September 4th, the “E-day,” in 1957. They then left without purchasing anything. In this article, we have highlighted some of the main reasons that led to the failure of Ford Edsel.

The beginning of Ford Edsel faliure

Ford Edsel was not purchased since it was a lousy or unsightly car. People did not purchase the vehicle since it did not measure up to the lofty expectations set by the company's spectacular advertising effort in the preceding months. So the Ford Edsel's first failure occurred before anyone had even seen the vehicle. Those who did purchase an Edsel discovered that it was plagued by substandard construction. Various automobiles that arrived at the dealership had notes on the steering wheel indicating the manufacturer's parts had not been installed.

Discord in the workplace

Based on early 1950s market research and a strong US economy, Ford's executive vice president, Ernest Breech, effectively Edsel's father, persuaded the company's top management that premium midsize cars would thrive. Chairman Henry Ford II was wary of jeopardizing his father's reputation with a vehicle that ventured into uncharted territory, but the Edsel label was approved while he was away. According to Motorcities , Robert McNamara, who was in charge of keeping the company on track financially, advised against having various sales divisions, as well as the mechanical differences between the Edsel and the new vehicle's an advertising and promotion budget. He was the first to advocate pulling the plug when the E vehicle did not fly to minimize more losses. Unfortunately, the great Lee Iacocca was preoccupied with something else. The Ford Edsel scheme would have performed better if he had supplied his keen knowledge of client demands and needs.

The vertical grille feature of the new For Edsel was meant to be far slimmer than it was in production. This was according to Edsel design leader Roy Brown. Engineers increased the size of his grille, claiming that the original design did not provide the radiator with enough cooling air. People began calling it the horse collar, a toilet seat, and an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon due to the resulting design. The manufacturer replaced the vertical grille with a horizontal pattern for the third model year, which ironically resembled a 1959 Pontiac.

Poor timing

The introduction of Ford's nascent automobile could not have come at a worse moment. A recession hit the United States in the fall of 1957, causing car sales to plummet. Desoto sales were down 54% from the previous year. Mercury sales were down 48%; Dodge sales were down 47%; Buick sales were down 33%; Pontiac sales were down 28%, and so on. Ford pondered launching the vehicle in June rather than September but ultimately opted against it. As a result, the company only sold 63,000 Ford Edsels in the first year of its launch. The recession was largely to blame for Edsel's dismal sales, while the American Motors Rambler, a different car, sold more than 100,000 that year and double that the following year. The market accepted the Rambler positively compared to the Ford Edsel’s. With the Edsel, Ford made yet another blunder. The stylish, mid-priced Ford Fairlane had debuted in 1956, undercutting Edsel's market category. Many automobile purchasers who sought a Ford considered the Fairlane a better value than the Edsel because it cost less.

To decrease costs, Ford consolidated the Edsel and Lincoln-Mercury divisions, reduced the number of available models, added a six-cylinder engine, and changed the appearance slightly for 1959. For 1960, plans were already in the works to update Edsel's appearance. In 1959, just about 45,000 Edsels were sold. Ford Edsel is a classic case of corporate arrogance and disrespect for market reality. It also shows that advertising and pre-delivery excitement can only go so far in persuading people to buy a new, unproven car. The success or failure of an automobile is determined in a free market economy by the car-buying public, not by the manufacturer. If a car company oversells a new model, consumers will have false expectations. If the newly launched car fails to meet expectations, it is condemned to fail on the showroom floor. Edsel taught Ford that it could not tell people what to buy. Since then, it has not made another blunder. Ford introduced the Mustang, a brand-new, sporty, cheap car that Americans quickly welcomed, some years after the Edsel was discontinued. Ford recently introduced the Taurus, which was designed in response to automobile buyers' demands and desires and has proven to be a huge commercial success. On the other hand, the Edsel will continue to be an oddity in the automotive world, the solution to a question that no one asked.

Written by  Benjamin Smith

Related articles, what is the difference between a ford ranger xlt and lariat.

A Closer Look at the 2023 Ford Escape

The 10 best ford falcon models of all-time, the 10 best ford explorer models of all-time, the 10 best ford thunderbird models of all-time, the 10 best ford taurus models of all-time, the 10 best ford ranger models of all-time, the 10 best ford escape models of all-time.

Wealth Insight! Subscribe to our Exclusive Newsletter

Ford Edsel: A Study in Marketing Missteps

Imagine launching a highly anticipated product after investing millions of dollars in research and development, only for it to fail spectacularly in the market. This scenario not only undermines the company's reputation but also shakes investors' trust. One such case of product launch failure due to marketing missteps is the Ford's Edsel car, first introduced in 1958.

Understanding the Ford Edsel Case

Ford's Edsel was supposed to be the next revolutionary product in the automobile industry. However, due to a series of marketing errors, Edsel became one of the most significant failures in the history of industrial production.

The Marketing Missteps

Product Positioning Errors: Edsel was intended as a medium-priced car, supposed to fit between Ford's existing lines - Ford and Mercury. However, customers could not distinguish the value proposition of Edsel over similar priced models from Ford's prior lines.

Over-hyped Promotions: Ford built huge anticipation by promoting Edsel as an innovatively different product. When introduced, it didn’t significantly differ from other cars, disappointing customers.

Naming Confusions: The name "Edsel" didn’t resonate with the target customers, partly due to a lack of research into naming conventions. Many considered it unattractive and hard to remember.

Lack of Coordination: There was a clear lack of coordination between the design and marketing teams, leading to inconsistencies in the product and marketing messages.

Lessons from the Ford Edsel Failure

Understand the Market: Recognize what the market needs and wants, and ensure your product fulfills those requirements.

Positioning is Crucial: Clearly position your product so that it stands out from the competition and offers unique value.

Avoid Over-Promotion: Marketing should communicate real value and benefits, not create unrealistic expectations.

Factor in All Aspects: Consider every aspect, from product name to design to marketing coordination, to successfully launch a product.

Applying the Lessons to Your Product Launch

The lessons from the Ford Edsel case can apply to your next product launch or the marketing strategy of an existing product. Align your marketing messages with actual product values and keep customers' needs and expectations at the forefront. Understand market sentiments and trends, avoid over-promoting, and ensure effective coordination across all teams involved in the product development and launch.

While Edsel is a classic case of marketing blunders, it continues to offer invaluable lessons for business and marketing professionals. The failure of Edsel reminds us that marketing is not merely about promotion but understanding the market, effectively positioning the product, and delivering consistent messages and value.

Practice Decision-Making

Company A spends a significant amount on advertising for its new product, ignoring feedback from early trials indicating potential dissatisfaction. If the product flops, which error might have contributed?

Ford Edsel: A Case Study in Automotive Flops

In light of the twenty-twenty clairvoyance of hindsight, Ford’s Edsel was a good idea at a bad time. When planning began in 1955, demand for cars in the low to medium price range was booming, and Ford was hoping to fill the niche between their Ford and Mercury lines. But when the Edsel hit the streets in 1957, economic recession had stymied consumer confidence.

At least five other upscale brands—DeSoto, Hudson, Nash, Packard, and Studebaker—would close their doors as buyer preferences shifted toward less expensive cars like the Volkswagen Beetle, which gained momentum thanks to its cuteness, dirt-cheap pricing, and extraordinary fuel economy.

Perhaps one of the biggest hurdles the Edsel encountered during its development was its name. Among some of the rejected ones were Mongoose Civique, Turcotinga and Utopian Turtle Top. The name Edsel was adopted against the wishes of the Ford family but at the insistence of board chairman Ernie Breech.

Who Was Edsel Ford?

Intended as an homage to Edsel B. Ford, the son of Henry Ford, and president of the company between 1919 and 1943, as well as the father of the company’s current president, Henry Ford the Second.

It was at best an awkward name for an automobile. and clearly lacked the romance, intrigue or elegance traditionally associated with automobile marketing in the 1950s. Besides its ill-fitted name, Edsel’s styling was thought to be controversial at best, and just plain ugly at worst.

For instance, the front vertical grill was frequently compared to a freshly-landed wide-mouth bass, as it gulped for air through its now waterless gills. In 1959, with sales plummeting, Ford modified the grill to be less controversial, but the damage had already been done in the eyes of the car-buying public. Edsel would live on through 1960, but only to fulfill existing contracts.

In today’s overheated collector car market, the Edsel stands as one of the most desirable and much loved examples of the 1950s outrageous automotive styling. As for Ford Motor Company, its mistake would cost the organization some $250 million, which in today’s money would equal six and a half billion dollars.

« Theo Jansen: Kinetics, Art and Strandbeest Aliens Invade Europe

Trail of Tears: Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 »

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My Portfolio
• Latest news
• Stock market
• Premium news
• Biden economy
• EV Deep Dive
• Stocks: Most Actives
• Stocks: Gainers
• Stocks: Losers
• Trending Tickers
• World Indices
• US Treasury Bonds
• Top Mutual Funds
• Highest Open Interest
• Highest Implied Volatility
• Stock Comparison
• Advanced Charts
• Currency Converter
• Basic Materials
• Communication Services
• Consumer Cyclical
• Consumer Defensive
• Financial Services
• Industrials
• Real Estate
• Mutual Funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash-back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Car insurance
• Morning Brief
• Market Domination
• Market Domination Overtime
• Opening Bid
• Stocks in Translation
• Lead This Way
• Good Buy or Goodbye?
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Yahoo Finance

4 lessons from the failure of the ford edsel, one of bill gates' favorite case studies.

(Flickr/free photos The Edsel has new life today as a collector's item.

On this day in 1957, Ford released a car that flopped so spectacularly that it has become a timeless case study on how not to develop and launch a product.

The 1958 Ford Edsel was supposed to be the new premiere car for middle-class Americans.

Ford was so confident in the product that it pumped $250 million into it. But instead of starting a revolution, the company lost $350 million on the unattractive gas-guzzler.

In the late John Brooks' book " Business Adventures ," a collection of New Yorker articles from the '60s that was republished last year, Brooks explains what went wrong in the story, "The Fate of the Edsel."

"Business Adventures" is Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates' favorite business book , and he finds the Edsel piece especially interesting. He explains in his blog:

[Brooks] refutes the popular explanations for why Ford's flagship car was such a historic flop. It wasn't because the car was overly poll-tested; it was because Ford's executives only pretended to be acting on what the polls said.

"Although the Edsel was supposed to be advertised, and otherwise promoted, strictly on the basis of preferences expressed in polls, some old-fashioned snake-oil selling methods, intuitive rather than scientific, crept in."

It certainly didn't help that the first Edsels "were delivered with oil leaks, sticking hoods, trunks that wouldn't open, and push buttons that … couldn't be budged with a hammer."

Here are some lessons from the failed launch that are still relevant today:

Don't let egos trump research

Ford's designers and marketers began development on the car in 1955, with the intent of creating an automobile tailored to the desires of the American people, as determined through seemingly endless polling.

Ad men got to work thinking up thousands of names and testing them in focus groups with civilians and Ford execs, and even consulted the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Marianne Moore for the perfect name for the perfect car. (Moore suggested such absurd names as the Utopian Turtletop and The Intelligent Whale.) Despite endless hours of testing and consultation, the chairman of the board decided at the last minute that he was going to go with Edsel, the name of Henry Ford's son.

"As for the design," Brooks writes, "it was arrived at without even a pretense of consulting the polls, and by the method that has been standard for years in the designing of automobiles — that of simply pooling the hunches of sundry company committees."

Focus your vision

In the late '50s, American consumers had a limited choice of car models, and there weren't tremendous differences in performance from model to model, at least by today's standards. Edsel's designers knew that they were creating an image, a character, but instead of refining their vision, they decided to make it everything at once.

In a lazy attempt to please everybody, they made the terrible decision to debut 18 variations of the car at launch . The academic S. I. Hayakawa dubbed the car the Edsel Hermaphrodite because it seemed as if it were explicitly trying to be masculine and feminine.

And, because it was 1957, Ford decided to have two media previews, one for male reporters and one for their wives. In the former, the Edsel was driven around a stunt course as if it were in a Hollywood blockbuster — at one point an Edsel almost flipped.

Gates mentions in his blog that the women's event, a fashion show, was one of his favorite passages in the story because the host was revealed to be a "female impersonator" (i.e. a man in drag), which was not only bizarre but, as Gates says, "would have been scandalous for a major American corporation in 1957."

(Ford) An advertisement for some of the many variations of the Ford Edsel.

Don't put yourself in a situation you can't get out of

A year before launch, Ford began a teaser campaign for the E-Car, the code name for the Edsel as it was being developed. It gave customers the expectation that they were going to get an irresistible car of the future.

Ford execs seemed to never once consider failure to be an option. They created an entire Edsel division and persuaded dealerships to order a certain number of cars before the Edsel was even finished.

Had they acted more cautiously and avoided betting so much on the car, they could have pulled back once the stock market took a nosedive in the summer of 1957, and people stopped buying mid-priced cars. Mere weeks before the car's launch in September, Brooks writes, "Automotive News reported that dealers in all makes were ending their season with the second-largest number of unsold cars in history."

If you fail, accept it and move on, all the wiser for it

At launch, the car was too expensive, used up too much gas, and was mocked in the press. A redesigned 1959 Edsel debuted to better reviews, but the damage was done. Nobody wanted an Edsel. A 1960 Edsel came out in limited production, but Ford president and future secretary of defense Robert McNamara finally pulled the plug in 1960.

Brooks estimates that "every Edsel the company manufactured cost it in lost money about $3,200, or the price of another one."

Even though Ford recovered from the setback, the executives who led the project expressed to Brooks no recognition of their countless mistakes and even looked back fondly on their time developing and marketing the car.

J.C. Doyle, an Edsel marketing manager, even went so far as blaming the American public for the failed launch. He tells Brooks that he was flabbergasted that the American consumer dared to be so fickle.

"What they'd been buying for several years encouraged the industry to build exactly this kind of car," he says. "We gave it to them, and they wouldn't take it. Well, they shouldn't have acted like that ... And now the public wants these little beetles. I don't get it!"

NOW WATCH: Google's self-driving car has a huge problem

More From Business Insider

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman explains how the CEO role evolves as a company grows

7 presentation tips from the 2015 world champion of public speaking

Why Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read about how the poor spend their money

Ford Fiasco: Tracking the Rise and Fall of the Edsel in American Newspaper Archives

author of  Clipper Ship Sailing Cards

Automotive sales tracker R. L. Polk & Co. recently announced that the Ford Focus was the best-selling passenger car in the world in 2012.  Impressive!

By contrast, Ford Motor Company’s ill-fated Edsel, sold for the 1958-1960 model years, is a dark icon of product failure even today.  Ford sunk $250 million into Edsel development; what on earth went wrong?

In 1948, Henry Ford II, Ford’s president and son of previous Ford president Edsel Ford, formed a committee to look into the viability of a new car in the expanding medium-priced segment of the automotive market.  General Motors, by far the largest of the Big Three auto makers, had Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick as entries in the medium-priced field, while Chrysler Corporation had Dodge, De Soto, and Chrysler.  Ford had only Mercury.

In April 1955, Ford’s board of directors approved a plan for a new medium-priced product line and created a Special Products Division.  To promote manufacturing efficiency and economy, the E-Car, as it was known internally at Ford (E for Experimental, not Edsel), would be built on both the Mercury and Ford platforms, and interchangeability of parts would be maximized.  In terms of design objectives, the E-Car would have strong and unique styling elements, making it easily recognizable from the front, side, and rear.  There would be unique functional aspects as well.

Ford’s plan was to reposition Mercury at the high end of the medium-priced segment to compete against Buick and Chrysler.  The E-Car would take Mercury’s former spot, a notch lower in the medium-priced spectrum.  Somehow, Ford did not realize this approach was tantamount to creating not one but two new market entries—which would compete against each other.

More trouble would follow.

Let’s track the Edsel story through articles in the Readex American Newspaper Archives .  For geographically diverse coverage, we’ll call on these newspapers from Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and California: the Springfield Union, Augusta Chronicle, Rockford Register-Republic, Dallas Morning News , and San Diego Union.

*     *     *     *

By early 1956, development of the E-Car was well underway.  What should it be called?  Edsel was rumored early on, but members of the Ford family were against it.

True, Ford was scrambling to find names other than Edsel for the E-Car.  The company tasked ad agency Foote, Cone & Belding with submitting potential names.  This effort in turn led to asking a poet, Marianne Moore, to suggest names.  Her ideas included Utopian Turtletop and Mongoose Civique.

Back to work.

After sifting through thousands of possible names and spending tens of thousands of dollars, Ford settled on Edsel.  The official announcement came on November 19, 1956, with newspapers reporting the story the following day.

Note Henry Ford II’s comment at the end of this article, stating that his company had no plans to build a “low priced small car.”  Actually, Robert McNamara, General Manager of Ford Division (and later Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson), was already pushing for just such a car.  In early 1957, Ford began development of the Falcon.

But it was the Edsel, a medium-priced car, whose debut was forthcoming.  Was this market segment still strong enough for the Edsel to succeed?

In this fascinating piece, George Romney, president of American Motors (and later governor of Michigan and presidential aspirant) is said to believe that the heyday of the medium-priced car was over and that Americans wanted smaller cars.  Ford chief research engineer Victor Raviolo thought otherwise.

But a few months later, some people within Ford were in fact worrying about the medium-priced Edsel’s prospects.  Publicly, though, Ford remained confident.

Nope, no gamble, said D. Edward Manning, Edsel Division district sales manager.  Ford had undertaken extensive market research—that much was true—and this “proved” the viability of the medium-priced field.  The Edsel program would move forward.

Edsel production was set to begin July 15, 1957.

In the beginning, four Ford Motor Company plants were engaged in Edsel production: Mahwah, New Jersey; Somerville, Massachusetts; Louisville, Kentucky; and San Jose, California.

Early on, Ford decided the Edsel would be sold through its own brand-new dealer network.  Ford wanted 1,200 dealers in place well before the Edsel went on sale.  Many of these dealers were new to the auto business, thereby adding yet another element of seemingly unanticipated risk to a successful Edsel introduction.  Some longtime auto dealers, such as J.R. Townsend of San Diego, dropped their existing franchises and signed up for Edsel sales.

Many dealers would regret their choice.

A formal press conference on August 26, 1957, introduced the Edsel to an eager and curious public.  Plenty of Edsels were on hand, demonstrations were made, and members of the media were given the opportunity to do test drives themselves.

Clearly, the Dallas Morning News business editor was impressed!

Edsel images and product specs and features were offered that weekend in the San Diego Union .

Well, at last, there it was.  Horse collar grille, wrap-around bumpers, scalloped side inserts, gull-wing taillights, Teletouch Drive push-button transmission control (with the buttons in the center of the steering wheel), floating-drum speedometer, powerful E-400 and E-475 engines  .  .  .  who wouldn’t want one of these?

On E-Day, September 4, 1957, the Edsel went on sale nationwide.  Ford Motor Company and its Edsel dealers placed ads heralding E-Day.

The Edsel saw good initial sales in Michigan, the Southwest, and the East.  Edsel ads continued after E-Day, emphasizing things such as its touted Teletouch Drive transmission system.

Even if Teletouch Drive—available on only a few Edsel models anyway—“put shifting where it belonged,” it did not work very well.  And many drivers inadvertently hit the horn when they wanted to shift.

By November 1957, Edsel sales were less than hoped for.  Was price a problem?  It was certainly one of the problems.  As stated earlier, Edsel was supposed to fill the market gap between Ford (low-priced) and Mercury (formerly medium-priced, now high-medium-priced).  In reality, the lowest-priced Edsel, at $2,519, was all of $20 more than the highest-priced Ford.  The highest-priced Edsel, at $3,801, was $1,254 more than the lowest-priced Mercury.  So much for distinct market segmentation.

Ford’s panicked response made things even more confusing for consumers, at least those buying on price.  “Low price” became Ford’s theme, as seen in subsequent ads.

As the last two examples show, some of Edsel’s advertising slogans were rather awkward, even by 1957 standards.  Another less-than-compelling slogan was “It acts the way it looks, but it doesn’t cost that much.”

Barely three months after E-Day, Ford was becoming worried.

Note the gloomy economic headlines on this same page of the Springfield Union .  Yes, the USA was entering a recession.

In January 1958, with Edsel sales too low to justify a separate division, Ford folded the Edsel Division into the Lincoln and Mercury Division, with the consolidated unit named the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln (MEL) Division.  Not a good sign!

As the recession deepened, all auto makers experienced soft sales.  Dealers sought relief from Congress, to no avail.

Meanwhile, the ads continued to run—often placed, coincidentally enough, on the obituaries page.  An omen, perhaps?

In fact, many Edsel owners were NOT satisfied.  Quality control over the new Edsel—critical for early, potentially positive word-of-mouth success—was all but absent.  Ford was building Edsels on existing Ford and Mercury manufacturing lines, and gave no emphasis to Edsel-specific training.  The focus was on hurrying and making as many Edsels as possible.  Some Edsels arrived at dealers with such shoddy build quality that dealers had to sink time and money into making the cars presentable—or even saleable.

Note the box in the lower right of the preceding ad.  Grasping for straws, Ford was now sponsoring the TV show “Wagon Train”—and occasionally awarding a pony, of all things, to people who test-drove an Edsel.  The pony campaign succeeded only in bringing more headaches—but not sales—to increasingly forlorn Edsel dealers.

By historical standards, sales of 50,000 for a rookie automobile were actually quite good.  But Ford had—unrealistically—hoped for 200,000.

Trick or treat!  On October 31, 1958, the 1959 Edsel was advertised for sale.  Eighteen models—in truth, probably too many—had been available for the 1958 model year.  But Robert McNamara, now president of Ford Motor Corporation and a longtime opponent of the Edsel program, saw to it that only ten Edsel models were offered for 1959.

The 1959 Edsel most noticeably toned down the front grille, arguably the most distinctive styling element of the 1958 car.  Ford had certainly heard the jokes about the 1958 grille looking like a toilet seat.  Or a component of female genitalia.  Or that the 1958 Edsel looked like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.

Many boasts in this ad seem more like atonements for things Ford realized had gone wrong with the 1958 Edsel.  But the Edsel would soon make history—by becoming history.

1959 Edsel sales started soft and stayed soft.  By spring 1959, only the Louisville plant was producing Edsels, and in limited quantities.

In September, Ford announced a forthcoming car that could have been a lifeline for Edsel.

Yes, Ford was now ready to enter the compact car arena—but would sell the Comet through Mercury dealerships.  Originally, Ford planned to release the Comet as an Edsel product for 1961, at which time it would replace the full-size Edsels (note the reference to ‘Edsel B’ in the Dallas Morning News article).  In fact, early Comets had tail lights and other parts with E-prefix part numbers.  Ford Motor Company archives hold photographs of clay design models of the Edsel Comet.

Meanwhile, it was time to introduce the 1960 Edsel.  With the ship sinking, the line-up was further reduced to only seven models, set to go on sale October 15, 1959.

True, the 1960 Edsel was a very different car than the 1959 edition.  But it was little different—and not even skin-deep different—than the 1960 Ford.  This is easily seen by comparing the Ford and Edsel photos and specifications in the San Diego Union article.

So, how would the 1960 Edsel sell?  If you blinked, you missed it.  On November 19, 1959, Ford announced all Edsel production was ending.

With Ford pulling the plug after only five weeks in production, the 1960 Edsel became the only automobile in history that was never actually produced in its model year.

Ford’s Comet compact car went on sale March 17, 1960.  With the Edsel line terminated, Ford sold the Comet through Mercury dealerships, although the Comet was not officially branded as a Mercury until the 1962 model year.  The Comet was a huge success.

Had Ford stuck with its plan for an Edsel Comet and allowed the Edsel nameplate to live a little longer, the Edsel might have wound up a success rather than a failure.  And, Comet aside, even the hallowed medium-priced market perked up in the early 1960s.  But thanks to a multitude of poor management decisions by Ford, plus just plain bad timing, the Edsel’s die as a loser was cast.

Aw!  THAT’S not very nice!

Bruce D. Roberts spent a month in 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, and returned home with a newfound interest in the American Civil War. He’s been researching the women who spied during that time, and has many new Civil War girlfriends—even if they’ve all been dead for well over 100 years. Bruce has studied, collected, and written extensively about nineteenth-century advertising cards for more than three decades. He published Clipper Ship Sailing Cards (2007) and Mechanical Bank Trade Cards (2008), both available through Lulu.com.

Published in

Filed under, stay in touch.

Receive product news, special offers and invitations, or the acclaimed Readex Report

By clicking "Sign Up", you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy  and  Terms of Use .

1.800.762.8182

• Customer Service

1.800.243.7694

General Info

Offices/Departments

• All Products
• Newest Products
• Product Families
• MARC Records
• Login Through Your Library
• America's Historical Newspapers
• America's Historical Imprints
• Archive of International Studies
• Origins of Modern Science & Technology
• Twentieth-Century Global Perspectives
• About Readex
• Impact in the Classroom
• Recent Praise

Blog Categories

• African American Studies
• American History
• Historical Imprints
• Historical Newspapers
• International Studies
• Course Mapping Services
• Discovery Services
• Product Training
• Promote Your Products

• Insider Reviews
• Tech Buying Guides
• Personal Finance
• Insider Explainers
• Sustainability
• United States
• International
• Deutschland & Österreich
• South Africa

• Home ›
• Slideshows ›
• miscellaneous ›

25 of the biggest failed products from the world's biggest companies

Bill Gates cites the Edsel flop as his favorite case study . Even the name "Edsel" is synonymous with "marketing failure." Ford invested $400 million into the car, which it introduced in 1957. But Americans literally weren\'t buying it, because they wanted "smaller, more economic vehicles," according to Associated Content:

"Other pundits have blamed its failure on Ford Motors execs never really defining the model\'s niche in the car market. The pricing and market aim of most Edsel models was somewhere between the highest-end Ford and the lowest-end Mercury."

It was taken off the market in 1960.

1957 — Ford Edsel

Bill Gates cites the Edsel flop as his favorite case study . Even the name "Edsel" is synonymous with "marketing failure." Ford invested $400 million into the car, which it introduced in 1957. But Americans literally weren't buying it, because they wanted "smaller, more economic vehicles," according to Associated Content:

"Other pundits have blamed its failure on Ford Motors execs never really defining the model's niche in the car market. The pricing and market aim of most Edsel models was somewhere between the highest-end Ford and the lowest-end Mercury."

Bill Gates cites the Edsel flop as his favorite case study . Even the name "Edsel" is synonymous with "marketing failure." Ford invested $400 million into the car, which it introduced in 1957. But Americans literally weren't buying it, because they wanted "smaller, more economic vehicles," according to Associated Content:

"Other pundits have blamed its failure on Ford Motors execs never really defining the model's niche in the car market. The pricing and market aim of most Edsel models was somewhere between the highest-end Ford and the lowest-end Mercury."

The 1970s saw a war in home video formats between Betamax and VHS.

Sony made a mistake: It started selling the Betamax in 1975, while its rivals started releasing VHS machines. Sony kept Betamax proprietary, meaning that the market for VHS products quickly outpaced Betamax. Though Betamax was technically superior, VHS won out by simply being ubiquitous.

1975 — Sony Betamax

In the early 1980s, Coke was losing ground to Pepsi. The infamous "Pepsi Challenge" ads were largely responsible for Pepsi\'s surge. In response, Coca-Cola tried to create a product that would taste more like Pepsi .

While New Coke fared well enough in nationwide taste tests before launching in 1985, it turned out those were misleading. Coke abandoned the product after a few weeks and went back to its old formula. It also gave its product a new name: Coca-Cola Classic.

1985 — New Coke

In the early 1980s, Coke was losing ground to Pepsi. The infamous "Pepsi Challenge" ads were largely responsible for Pepsi's surge. In response, Coca-Cola tried to create a product that would taste more like Pepsi .

In the early 1980s, Coke was losing ground to Pepsi. The infamous "Pepsi Challenge" ads were largely responsible for Pepsi's surge. In response, Coca-Cola tried to create a product that would taste more like Pepsi .

In 1989, Pepsi tried to target the "breakfast cola drinker" with Pepsi A.M. It lasted only a year.

In 1992, Pepsi tried again, this time with a clear cola: "Crystal Pepsi." No dice — it died in 1993. As a throwback, Pepsi briefly re-introduced Crystal Pepsi in 2016. It\'s still weird and kinda gross!

1989, 1992 — Pepsi A.M. and Crystal Pepsi

In 1992, Pepsi tried again, this time with a clear cola: "Crystal Pepsi." No dice — it died in 1993. As a throwback, Pepsi briefly re-introduced Crystal Pepsi in 2016. It's still weird and kinda gross!

In 1989, Pepsi tried to target the "breakfast cola drinker" with Pepsi A.M. It lasted only a year.

In 1992, Pepsi tried again, this time with a clear cola: "Crystal Pepsi." No dice — it died in 1993. As a throwback, Pepsi briefly re-introduced Crystal Pepsi in 2016. It's still weird and kinda gross!

In the 1980s, just as anti-smoking campaigns were heating up, RJ Reynolds put $325 million into a new product: smokeless cigarettes .

They didn\'t work, and people weren\'t buying them — so four months later, they were gone. You might even say the idea went...up in smoke.

1989 — RJ Reynolds smokeless cigarettes

They didn't work, and people weren't buying them — so four months later, they were gone. You might even say the idea went...up in smoke.

They didn't work, and people weren't buying them — so four months later, they were gone. You might even say the idea went...up in smoke.

This was an interesting experiment in brand extension: Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water launched in 1990 and didn\'t fare well. It turns out beer drinkers want only one thing from their favorite label — beer!

Things turned out okay for Coors in the end; the company continues to be one of the world\'s largest brewers.

1990 — Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water

This was an interesting experiment in brand extension: Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water launched in 1990 and didn't fare well. It turns out beer drinkers want only one thing from their favorite label — beer!

Things turned out okay for Coors in the end; the company continues to be one of the world's largest brewers.

This was an interesting experiment in brand extension: Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water launched in 1990 and didn't fare well. It turns out beer drinkers want only one thing from their favorite label — beer!

The Newton is held up as an example of Apple\'s bad old days, before it was the world\'s most valuable company.

Forbes says the Newton PDA flopped for a number of reasons: Its price started at $700, it was 8 inches tall and 4.5 inches wide, and its handwriting recognition was so bad that a classic "Simpsons" episode made fun of it . Of course, Apple eventually turned the mobile tablet market on its head with the introduction of the iPad. They\'re not called "PDA" devices anymore because of the iPad.

1993 — Apple Newton

The Newton is held up as an example of Apple's bad old days, before it was the world's most valuable company.

Forbes says the Newton PDA flopped for a number of reasons: Its price started at $700, it was 8 inches tall and 4.5 inches wide, and its handwriting recognition was so bad that a classic "Simpsons" episode made fun of it . Of course, Apple eventually turned the mobile tablet market on its head with the introduction of the iPad. They're not called "PDA" devices anymore because of the iPad.

Forbes says the Newton PDA flopped for a number of reasons: Its price started at $700, it was 8 inches tall and 4.5 inches wide, and its handwriting recognition was so bad that a classic "Simpsons" episode made fun of it . Of course, Apple eventually turned the mobile tablet market on its head with the introduction of the iPad. They're not called "PDA" devices anymore because of the iPad.

Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a user-friendly interface for Windows, a project that was at one point managed by Bill Gates\' now wife, Melinda. Microsoft killed it one year after launching it in 1995.

"Unfortunately, the software demanded more performance than typical computer hardware could deliver at the time, and there wasn\'t an adequately large market," Gates later wrote . "Bob died." As a former Microsoft Bob user with an underpowered 486 PC, I can personally attest to its poor performance on "typical" PC hardware of the time.

1995 — Microsoft Bob

Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a user-friendly interface for Windows, a project that was at one point managed by Bill Gates' now wife, Melinda. Microsoft killed it one year after launching it in 1995.

"Unfortunately, the software demanded more performance than typical computer hardware could deliver at the time, and there wasn't an adequately large market," Gates later wrote . "Bob died." As a former Microsoft Bob user with an underpowered 486 PC, I can personally attest to its poor performance on "typical" PC hardware of the time.

"Unfortunately, the software demanded more performance than typical computer hardware could deliver at the time, and there wasn't an adequately large market," Gates later wrote . "Bob died." As a former Microsoft Bob user with an underpowered 486 PC, I can personally attest to its poor performance on "typical" PC hardware of the time.

Nintendo\'s Virtual Boy was an ambitious push into a burgeoning new technology — virtual reality. Simply buy the Virtual Boy and get swept away into the digital environs of VR.

Except the reality of Virtual Boy was totally unlike what it promised. Games were little more than black and red nightmares, with low-resolution graphics and gameplay that would\'ve been better suited to a standard game console. Virtual Boy ended up selling under 1 million units — it\'s the biggest hardware flop in Nintendo\'s history (a history that goes all the way back to the late 1800s). The tale of the Virtual Boy is often held up in modern times to push back on the waves of hype surrounding new VR tech.

1995 — Nintendo's Virtual Boy

Nintendo's Virtual Boy was an ambitious push into a burgeoning new technology — virtual reality. Simply buy the Virtual Boy and get swept away into the digital environs of VR.

Except the reality of Virtual Boy was totally unlike what it promised. Games were little more than black and red nightmares, with low-resolution graphics and gameplay that would've been better suited to a standard game console. Virtual Boy ended up selling under 1 million units — it's the biggest hardware flop in Nintendo's history (a history that goes all the way back to the late 1800s). The tale of the Virtual Boy is often held up in modern times to push back on the waves of hype surrounding new VR tech.

Nintendo's Virtual Boy was an ambitious push into a burgeoning new technology — virtual reality. Simply buy the Virtual Boy and get swept away into the digital environs of VR.

Except the reality of Virtual Boy was totally unlike what it promised. Games were little more than black and red nightmares, with low-resolution graphics and gameplay that would've been better suited to a standard game console. Virtual Boy ended up selling under 1 million units — it's the biggest hardware flop in Nintendo's history (a history that goes all the way back to the late 1800s). The tale of the Virtual Boy is often held up in modern times to push back on the waves of hype surrounding new VR tech.

In 1996, McDonald\'s introduced the Arch Deluxe , which never caught on. It was intended to appeal to "urban sophisticates" — outside of its target demographic. To reach this group, McDonald\'s spent $100 million, which makes it one of the most expensive product flops in history.

Turns out, McDonald\'s was just around 10 years too early — today, burger chains like Five Guys and Shake Shack are wildly popular upstarts, hawking slightly more expensive fast-food burgers to the modern equivalent of "urban sophisticates."

1996 — McDonald's Arch Deluxe

In 1996, McDonald's introduced the Arch Deluxe , which never caught on. It was intended to appeal to "urban sophisticates" — outside of its target demographic. To reach this group, McDonald's spent $100 million, which makes it one of the most expensive product flops in history.

Turns out, McDonald's was just around 10 years too early — today, burger chains like Five Guys and Shake Shack are wildly popular upstarts, hawking slightly more expensive fast-food burgers to the modern equivalent of "urban sophisticates."

In 1996, McDonald's introduced the Arch Deluxe , which never caught on. It was intended to appeal to "urban sophisticates" — outside of its target demographic. To reach this group, McDonald's spent $100 million, which makes it one of the most expensive product flops in history.

Turns out, McDonald's was just around 10 years too early — today, burger chains like Five Guys and Shake Shack are wildly popular upstarts, hawking slightly more expensive fast-food burgers to the modern equivalent of "urban sophisticates."

Although the soda, which looks like a lava lamp, appealed to young kids, it was not tasty (people compared it to cough syrup). It disappeared off shelves within a year of its 1997 debut .

However, Orbitz is still sold on eBay. If you\'re into drinking decade-old soda, Orbitz is for you .

1997 — Orbitz soda

However, Orbitz is still sold on eBay. If you're into drinking decade-old soda, Orbitz is for you .

File this under "too good to be true": In the late \'90s Frito-Lay rolled out a miracle food, a line of chips with the upbeat branding of WOW! The marketing claim was tantalizing — a compound called Olestra allowed for a fat-free potato chip.

But, much like the "Seinfeld" episode where supposedly fat-free frozen yogurt led to unexpected weight gain, a secret was bubbling under the surface.

"While it provided the satisfaction of tasting just like fat, (Olestra\'s) molecules were too large to be digested by the body, passing directly through the digestive tract unabsorbed," writes Fast Company . "Sadly, the result was similar to that of a laxative — stomach cramps and diarrhea prevailed." Assuredly, those consuming the chips were exclaiming "WOW!" for the wrong reasons.

1998 — Frito-Lay WOW! Chips

File this under "too good to be true": In the late '90s Frito-Lay rolled out a miracle food, a line of chips with the upbeat branding of WOW! The marketing claim was tantalizing — a compound called Olestra allowed for a fat-free potato chip.

"While it provided the satisfaction of tasting just like fat, (Olestra's) molecules were too large to be digested by the body, passing directly through the digestive tract unabsorbed," writes Fast Company . "Sadly, the result was similar to that of a laxative — stomach cramps and diarrhea prevailed." Assuredly, those consuming the chips were exclaiming "WOW!" for the wrong reasons.

File this under "too good to be true": In the late '90s Frito-Lay rolled out a miracle food, a line of chips with the upbeat branding of WOW! The marketing claim was tantalizing — a compound called Olestra allowed for a fat-free potato chip.

But, much like the "Seinfeld" episode where supposedly fat-free frozen yogurt led to unexpected weight gain, a secret was bubbling under the surface.

"While it provided the satisfaction of tasting just like fat, (Olestra's) molecules were too large to be digested by the body, passing directly through the digestive tract unabsorbed," writes Fast Company . "Sadly, the result was similar to that of a laxative — stomach cramps and diarrhea prevailed." Assuredly, those consuming the chips were exclaiming "WOW!" for the wrong reasons.

Cosmopolitan made an interesting decision to launch a brand of yogurt in 1999 . Needless to say, the yogurt market was already saturated, and Cosmo\'s readers were content enough reading the magazine. No word on whether or not it was any good.

1999 — Cosmopolitan Yogurt

Cosmopolitan made an interesting decision to launch a brand of yogurt in 1999 . Needless to say, the yogurt market was already saturated, and Cosmo's readers were content enough reading the magazine. No word on whether or not it was any good.

The Zune was built to take on the iPod. It didn\'t.

Robbie Bach, the former leader of Microsoft\'s home entertainment and mobile business, gave his explanation as to why :

"We just weren\'t brave enough, honestly, and we ended up chasing Apple with a product that actually wasn\'t a bad product, but it was still a chasing product, and there wasn\'t a reason for somebody to say, oh, I have to go out and get that thing."

The good news is you can still grab one on eBay if you\'re feeling wild. Go ahead and grab a Microsoft Kin while you\'re at it.

2006 — Microsoft Zune

The Zune was built to take on the iPod. It didn't.

Robbie Bach, the former leader of Microsoft's home entertainment and mobile business, gave his explanation as to why :

"We just weren't brave enough, honestly, and we ended up chasing Apple with a product that actually wasn't a bad product, but it was still a chasing product, and there wasn't a reason for somebody to say, oh, I have to go out and get that thing."

The good news is you can still grab one on eBay if you're feeling wild. Go ahead and grab a Microsoft Kin while you're at it.

"We just weren't brave enough, honestly, and we ended up chasing Apple with a product that actually wasn't a bad product, but it was still a chasing product, and there wasn't a reason for somebody to say, oh, I have to go out and get that thing."

Mobile ESPN, introduced in January 2006, was one of the biggest flame-outs of "mobile virtual network operators," or MVNOs , in the past decade, which also included Amp\'d Mobile , Helio , Disney Mobile , and others .

The idea was that ESPN would exclusively sell a phone that offered exclusive ESPN content and video, leasing network access from Verizon Wireless. But ESPN had only one phone at launch, a Sanyo device selling for $400. Can you imagine buying the phone above for four-hundred big ones? Neither can we.

No one bought it, and ESPN quickly shut down the service, instead providing content to Verizon\'s mobile internet service. And, of course, smartphones essentially obviated this entire concept.

2006 — Mobile ESPN

Mobile ESPN, introduced in January 2006, was one of the biggest flame-outs of "mobile virtual network operators," or MVNOs , in the past decade, which also included Amp'd Mobile , Helio , Disney Mobile , and others .

No one bought it, and ESPN quickly shut down the service, instead providing content to Verizon's mobile internet service. And, of course, smartphones essentially obviated this entire concept.

Mobile ESPN, introduced in January 2006, was one of the biggest flame-outs of "mobile virtual network operators," or MVNOs , in the past decade, which also included Amp'd Mobile , Helio , Disney Mobile , and others .

Sponsored mostly by Toshiba, HD-DVD was supposed to become the hi-def successor to the DVD when it launched in March 2006. Standalone HD-DVDs players were sold, and Microsoft\'s Xbox 360 — a wildly popular game console — sold an HD-DVD attachment.

But the Sony-led Blu-ray faction ended up winning the format war when Warner Bros. announced it was dumping HD DVD for Blu-ray on Jan. 4, 2008 . It certainly didn\'t hurt that Sony\'s PlayStation 3 game console had Blu-ray playback functionality built right in — the PlayStation 2 helped christen DVD as the dominant format previously, and the PlayStation 3 took that concept another step further.

About a month later, Toshiba said it would shut down its HD-DVD efforts. Years later, Blu-ray is still the most dominant media format for video playback.

2006 — HD-DVD

Sponsored mostly by Toshiba, HD-DVD was supposed to become the hi-def successor to the DVD when it launched in March 2006. Standalone HD-DVDs players were sold, and Microsoft's Xbox 360 — a wildly popular game console — sold an HD-DVD attachment.

But the Sony-led Blu-ray faction ended up winning the format war when Warner Bros. announced it was dumping HD DVD for Blu-ray on Jan. 4, 2008 . It certainly didn't hurt that Sony's PlayStation 3 game console had Blu-ray playback functionality built right in — the PlayStation 2 helped christen DVD as the dominant format previously, and the PlayStation 3 took that concept another step further.

Sponsored mostly by Toshiba, HD-DVD was supposed to become the hi-def successor to the DVD when it launched in March 2006. Standalone HD-DVDs players were sold, and Microsoft's Xbox 360 — a wildly popular game console — sold an HD-DVD attachment.

But the Sony-led Blu-ray faction ended up winning the format war when Warner Bros. announced it was dumping HD DVD for Blu-ray on Jan. 4, 2008 . It certainly didn't hurt that Sony's PlayStation 3 game console had Blu-ray playback functionality built right in — the PlayStation 2 helped christen DVD as the dominant format previously, and the PlayStation 3 took that concept another step further.

Joost, originally known as "The Venice Project," was supposed to be a peer-to-peer TV network for the future, invented by the European geniuses behind Skype. The company recruited a rising star — Mike Volpi — away from Cisco to become its CEO. It nabbed a deal with CBS.

Joost was supposed to reinvent the way we consumed professional video.

Instead, Hulu, a joint venture between News Corp., NBC, and Disney, became the go-to site for TV episodes on the web. And who\'s ever heard of Joost nowadays?

Meanwhile, Joost had all sorts of problems with its P2P architecture, its bulky software player, its content library, and more. After launching in September 2007, it never took off; its scraps sold in late 2009 .

2007 — Joost

Instead, Hulu, a joint venture between News Corp., NBC, and Disney, became the go-to site for TV episodes on the web. And who's ever heard of Joost nowadays?

Joost, originally known as "The Venice Project," was supposed to be a peer-to-peer TV network for the future, invented by the European geniuses behind Skype. The company recruited a rising star — Mike Volpi — away from Cisco to become its CEO. It nabbed a deal with CBS.

For some reason, Google thought it had to compete with "Second Life." Remember "Second Life"? The virtual world that looked like a game but was actually just a virtual world for social interactions? Neither do most people. It still exists, powered by a super-dedicated userbase.

Google created its own version of "Second Life" in "Lively," which came out in July 2008. (Unlike "Second Life," "Lively" was supposed to be sex-free .) When the economy went down the toilet, those dreams faded fast. Google quickly pulled the plug by November 2008.

2008 — Google Lively

For some reason, Google thought it had to compete with "Second Life." Remember "Second Life"? The virtual world that looked like a game but was actually just a virtual world for social interactions? Neither do most people. It still exists, powered by a super-dedicated userbase.

Google created its own version of "Second Life" in "Lively," which came out in July 2008. (Unlike "Second Life," "Lively" was supposed to be sex-free .) When the economy went down the toilet, those dreams faded fast. Google quickly pulled the plug by November 2008.

In the era of a $499 Apple iPad, an inferior tablet computer that also costs $499 doesn\'t work. (You may remember this device from its previous title, the CrunchPad.) It came out in 2009 and was gone by 2010.

2009 — JooJoo

In the era of a $499 Apple iPad, an inferior tablet computer that also costs $499 doesn't work. (You may remember this device from its previous title, the CrunchPad.) It came out in 2009 and was gone by 2010.

Launched in 2009, Barnes & Noble has now spun off the NOOK into its own company, orphaning the under-achieving e-reader . Sales had been plunging for awhile .

Brian Sozzi, chief equities strategist at Belus Capital Advisors , explained the demise to us : "Shoppers couldn’t get beyond Barnes & Noble being a destination for something they no longer want or generally care about, books," Sozzi said. "Barnes & Noble management perpetuated that by not investing aggressively enough in marketing to alter perception."

Perhaps even more importantly, the Nook just isn\'t a great e-reader — Amazon\'s Kindle is inexpensive, easy to use, and syncs up easily with an Amazon digital account.

2009 — The Nook

Perhaps even more importantly, the Nook just isn't a great e-reader — Amazon's Kindle is inexpensive, easy to use, and syncs up easily with an Amazon digital account.

Launched in 2009, Barnes & Noble has now spun off the NOOK into its own company, orphaning the under-achieving e-reader . Sales had been plunging for awhile .

Brian Sozzi, chief equities strategist at Belus Capital Advisors , explained the demise to us : "Shoppers couldn’t get beyond Barnes & Noble being a destination for something they no longer want or generally care about, books," Sozzi said. "Barnes & Noble management perpetuated that by not investing aggressively enough in marketing to alter perception."

Perhaps even more importantly, the Nook just isn't a great e-reader — Amazon's Kindle is inexpensive, easy to use, and syncs up easily with an Amazon digital account.

In September 2011, Reed Hastings announced that Netflix would spin off Qwikster as a DVD rental business. This move met tons of criticism , and Hastings backtracked on his statement 23 days later .

At the same time, Netflix announced a video game add-on that would ship game discs to your house. Beyond just the name Qwikster, those plans were also scrapped.

2011 — Qwikster

HP gave up the TouchPad and its mobile operating system, WebOS, after just a month and a half on the market.

The tablet was no iPad killer, selling just 25,000 units for Best Buy over the 49 days it was on the shelves .

And, in fairness to HP , the TouchPad wasn\'t that bad . It was rough around the edges, but those could have been smoothed in the coming months. It just didn\'t really do anything better than the iPad , which means it\'s just like every other tablet out there.

2011 — HP Touchpad

And, in fairness to HP , the TouchPad wasn't that bad . It was rough around the edges, but those could have been smoothed in the coming months. It just didn't really do anything better than the iPad , which means it's just like every other tablet out there.

With Home, Facebook tried to become the homescreen for your phone .

It failed. From our review :

"So, what happens when you have no control over what appears on your phone\'s home screen?

It becomes a mess."

In less than a month of being released, the two-year subscription plan dropped from $99 to $0.99 . The consensus between reviewers and critics: Home worked only for the most fanatical of users. "It was fine for a Facebook addict," one reviewer noted . "But [it] seems to run through a lot of data and battery. Uninstalled."

The flop is reflected by a re-organization in the company . "Facebook has disbanded the team of engineers originally assigned to work on Facebook Home," The New York Times’ Mike Isaac reported.

2013 — Facebook Home

"So, what happens when you have no control over what appears on your phone's home screen?

"So, what happens when you have no control over what appears on your phone's home screen?

It becomes a mess."

In less than a month of being released, the two-year subscription plan dropped from $99 to $0.99 . The consensus between reviewers and critics: Home worked only for the most fanatical of users. "It was fine for a Facebook addict," one reviewer noted . "But [it] seems to run through a lot of data and battery. Uninstalled."

The flop is reflected by a re-organization in the company . "Facebook has disbanded the team of engineers originally assigned to work on Facebook Home," The New York Times’ Mike Isaac reported.

Amazon\'s Fire Phone was a flash in the pan — getting announced and released in 2014, then being discontinued the following year. It ran on Android, and looked competitive.

In reality, it was a critical and commercial failure. The one big sell point — 3D face scanning technology — was seen as a gimmick, and a limited availability at AT&T initially didn\'t help it get off the ground. In the long run, Amazon discontinued the phone 13 months after its launch, and outright retired from phone manufacturing after this one model.

2014 — Amazon's Fire Phone

Amazon's Fire Phone was a flash in the pan — getting announced and released in 2014, then being discontinued the following year. It ran on Android, and looked competitive.

In reality, it was a critical and commercial failure. The one big sell point — 3D face scanning technology — was seen as a gimmick, and a limited availability at AT&T initially didn't help it get off the ground. In the long run, Amazon discontinued the phone 13 months after its launch, and outright retired from phone manufacturing after this one model.

Amazon's Fire Phone was a flash in the pan — getting announced and released in 2014, then being discontinued the following year. It ran on Android, and looked competitive.

In reality, it was a critical and commercial failure. The one big sell point — 3D face scanning technology — was seen as a gimmick, and a limited availability at AT&T initially didn't help it get off the ground. In the long run, Amazon discontinued the phone 13 months after its launch, and outright retired from phone manufacturing after this one model.

What can be said about the disastrous Galaxy Note 7 that hasn\'t already been said? The Note 7 — one of Samsung\'s big flagship phones — had a little problem where it occasionally caught fire and/or exploded. There was a car that supposedly was burned down by one. The phones have been outright banned on flights, and Samsung had to recall the entire line. Talk about a self-own!

The Note line, however, persists — the latest version is the Samsung Galaxy Note 8.

2016 — Samsung's Galaxy Note 7

What can be said about the disastrous Galaxy Note 7 that hasn't already been said? The Note 7 — one of Samsung's big flagship phones — had a little problem where it occasionally caught fire and/or exploded. There was a car that supposedly was burned down by one. The phones have been outright banned on flights, and Samsung had to recall the entire line. Talk about a self-own!

What can be said about the disastrous Galaxy Note 7 that hasn't already been said? The Note 7 — one of Samsung's big flagship phones — had a little problem where it occasionally caught fire and/or exploded. There was a car that supposedly was burned down by one. The phones have been outright banned on flights, and Samsung had to recall the entire line. Talk about a self-own!

The Note line, however, persists — the latest version is the Samsung Galaxy Note 8.

• JNK India IPO allotment date
• JioCinema New Plans
• Realme Narzo 70 Launched
• Apple Let Loose event
• Elon Musk Apology
• RIL cash flows
• Charlie Munger
• Feedbank IPO allotment
• Tata IPO allotment
• Most generous retirement plans
• Broadcom lays off
• Cibil Score vs Cibil Report
• Birla and Bajaj in top Richest
• Nestle Sept 2023 report
• India Equity Market
• Best printers for Home
• Best Mixer Grinder
• Best wired Earphones
• Best 43 Inch TV in India
• Best Wi Fi Routers
• Best Vacuum Cleaner
• Best Home Theatre in India
• Smart Watch under 5000
• Best Laptops for Education
• Best Laptop for Students
• Advertising
• Write for Us
• Privacy Policy
• Policy News
• Personal Finance News
• Mobile News
• Business News
• Ecommerce News
• Startups News
• Stock Market News
• Finance News
• Entertainment News
• Economy News
• Careers News
• International News
• Politics News
• Education News
• Advertising News
• Health News
• Science News
• Retail News
• Sports News
• Personalities News
• Corporates News
• Environment News
• JNK India IPO allotment
• JioCinema New Subscription Plans
• Realme 70X 5G Launched
• Apple Let Loose Launch event
• Top 10 Richest people
• Top 10 Largest Economies
• Lucky Color for 2023
• How to check pan and Aadhaar
• Deleted Whatsapp Messages
• How to restore deleted messages
• 10 types of Drinks
• Instagram Sad Face Filter
• Unlimited Wifi Plans
• Recover Whatsapp Messages
• Google Meet
• Check Balance in SBI
• How to check Vodafone Balance
• Transfer Whatsapp Message
• NSE Bank Holidays

Copyright © 2024 . Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.For reprint rights. Times Syndication Service.

• Resource Portfolio Management
• What-If Scenario Planning
• Integrations for Resource Management
• Strategy Execution
• Strategic Portfolio Management
• Adaptive Project Management
• Resource Management Capabilities: Tempus Resource
• HR Workforce Agility
• Audit Resource Management
• Tempus Insight+
• Portfolio Kanban
• Program & Project Management
• Project Financial Management
• Business Intelligence Project Management Reporting
• Project Management Spreadsheets
• Resource Management
• Resource Forecasting Tools and Techniques
• Resource Management Request Workflows
• Skills & Competency Management
• Scenario Planning
• Project Scheduling
• Microsoft Project Add-In
• Project Intake
• Case Studies
• Infographics
• Press Releases
• Whitepapers
• Help Center
• In the News

4 Famous Project Management Failures and What to Learn from Them

October 8, 2018 | by greg bailey.

Every project begins with a single idea or goal, and the best of intentions. But as they progress, mistakes are made, communications break down, and deadlines and budgets change. It’s these problems that mean, even when projects are started for the right reasons,  55% of businesses experience failed projects. In fact, 17% of large-scale IT projects  go so badly that they threaten the very existence of the company.

Why do projects fail? And what leads to a failed project? This post will look at some project failure examples, including the worst-case scenarios, to identify the root cause of the problem, in the hope that we can ensure project managers don’t make the same fatal mistakes.

1. Ford Edsel

Ford Edsel is one of the most spectacular project failure examples in automotive history. Ford ’s team did extensive market research before it released the Edsel , even doing studies to make sure the car had the right ‘personality’ to attract the ideal customer . They spent 10 years and $250 million on research and planning—but by the time all this was completed, and the car was unveiled in 1957, Ford had missed its chance. The market had already moved on to buying compact cars, which didn’t include the Edsel.

Lessons learned: The Ford Edsel is the perfect fail project example that emphasizes the importance of speed to market and how even a major brand and product can fail if a project loses velocity. Poor communication and inaccurate deadlines can slow a project down to the point where it’s no longer relevant or valuable,  let alone successful.

Paying ultimate attention to areas like resource availability and utilization—ensuring project workers are working to capacity and to the best of their ability—creates more accurate project timeline estimations and stops projects from dragging.

2. NHS Civilian IT

Back in 2007, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) looked to revolutionize the way technology is used in the health sector, through the introduction of electronic health records, digital scanning, and integrated IT systems across hospitals and community care. They called it the ‘Civilian Computer System. ’ It would have been the largest of its kind in the world. But it failed because of contractual changes—including changing specifications, supplier disputes, and technical problems. Estimates of the cost of the now-abandoned project hover around the £11.4 billion mark.

Lessons learned: Change is almost inevitable during the course of a project, especially with large and complex ones like the NHS undertook. This is one of the most talked-about project failure examples that shows the importance of flexibility for achieving great results. You need to be able to react to changes as they occur, but also preemptively identify potential problems in order to stop them before they wreak havoc.

Project and resource modeling allows project managers to create a model where they can test, in real-time, the effects of changing or modifying their projects to keep ahead of schedule. So even in the event of unexpected changes, you’re prepared for what’s next.

3. Airbus A380

Building the Airbus A380—the world’s largest commercial aircraft at the time—required production facilities from across the globe to build individual parts of the airplane. Unfortunately, these teams used different computer-aided design (CAD) programs. During installation, they discovered the parts designed by different teams didn’t fit together. This cost the company $6 billion to put right and set the project back two years.

Lessons learned: The Airbus A380 is one of those failed projects examples that teach you the importance of proper workforce coordination. Unexpected problems will always be a challenge, but there are added challenges when your workforce is based remotely or in silos. For instance, it can take longer to report problems and coordinate the right response. If Airbus’s dispersed project teams had better-prioritized communication, the problem could have been solved before the installation phase, before it was too late.

When teams work across geographies, it’s important to set goals and metrics to ensure everyone understands their tasks, like what they’re expected to achieve and when. Resource management allows you to manipulate resource data in real time, so, if something goes wrong, the problem can be resolved as soon as possible. Using remote workers makes it difficult to gather everyone in a room, explain the problem, and find the solution. Resource management tools provide real-time reporting for full visibility over your resources, so you can instantly enact change.

4. Knight Capital

In 2012, when Knight Capital was brought on to work on new code for a new SEC program, an over-optimistic deadline caused them to go to production with test code. After production, a glitch cost the company  $440 million within the first 30 minutes of trading , and company stock fell 75% within just two days.

Lessons learned: You need a granular-level view of your projects to forecast how long a project will feasibly take to complete and avoid setting unrealistic targets or deadlines. Resource management is crucial in analyzing and utilizing project resources, so projects can be completed as efficiently as possible without the need to rush work or take shortcuts.

Avoid famous project management failure with resource management

The project failure examples listed above were carried out on a monumental scale—involving a sea of moving parts and relied on a lot of people to complete. While no project can guarantee success, resource management can help measure and manage the moving parts of a project. The right resource management solution can help a project manager gain more control over their projects , providing insight into every step of the process .

Tempus Resource is a sophisticated resource management software that includes practical functionality like modeling, forecasting and ‘What-If?’ analysis. Tempus Resource can help organizations of any size and any level of project maturity reduce the risk of project failure.

To find out more on how resource management can reduce the risk of project failure,  get in touch with ProSymmetry today .

Subscribe to our Blog

Be the first to know when we post new content!

Ready to get started?

Related resources:, the best kpis for resource management.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are one of the best ways to make…

Tempus Resource User Community

We are thrilled to introduce a brand-new hub created exclusively for our…

Secrets to Strategic Portfolio Delivery

Strategic planning and execution has become a central part of the portfolio…

What is Audit Resource Management?

Internal audits are a complex process with a plethora of moving parts…

ProSymmetry LLC

2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 460

Beachwood, OH 44122

© 2024 ProSymmetry. All Rights Reserved

Edsel & Eleanor Ford House Case Study

The Ford House located along the shores of Lake St. Clair in Michigan became the residence of the Edsel and Eleanor Ford family in 1929. Edsel Ford was the son of Henry Ford. The house and grounds are open for tours, programs, and events.

“The upgraded irrigation system is a sensor-based system in order to maximize water efficiency. The system will deliver only the amount of water needed to maintain the landscape.” —Dave Miller, Project Manager, 2015 Green Initiatives, Edsel & Eleanor Ford House

The Ford House grounds were landscaped by Jens Jensen between 1926 and 1932. Jensen designed the grounds in a naturalistic style with woodlands, meadows, and wetlands. Visitors usually don’t notice an apparent design in the landscape, but they enjoy the sense of open space and the variations of light and shadows.

In 2015, the Ford House replaced their aging irrigation system with Baseline products. Like the previous system, the new irrigation system pulls water from Lake St. Clair. Using a state-of-the-art sensor and software system, the Baseline system maximizes water efficiency by reducing the amount of electricity and water used when irrigating the grounds

Baseline Products

BaseStation 3200™ biSensor™ Soil Moisture Sensors BHM Series Hydrometers Mobile Access™

The new irrigation system pulls water from Lake St. Clair

Project details.

Irrigation Consultant: Geoff Graber Design Irrigation Contractor: Marc Dutton Irrigation