As I was looking for interesting articles and happenings of the day, I came across this article. I was a bit puzzled by the language. So I deconstructed it with the power of my feeble mind. Allow me to share this information with you in
(special italic Cap'n text!)
Ford Finally Shifts Focus to Offer More Fuel Efficient Vehicles In the U.S.(The word 'Finally - this is an unnecessary word. Finally shows writer's bias. I now know that the writer is a Kool Aid Slurping ClimateFaith thumper) Ford Motor Company's two-decade obsession with selling Americans millions of gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks is finally waning.
(No. Ford Motor Comany sold millions of products that millions of Americans wanted. They no longer want 'gas-guzzling' products since 'gas-guzzling' is not as affordable. Plus, the word finally is used again. As if Ford was forcing only these products onto their customers.)
The company announced plans to drastically shift its focus to building more fuel-efficient cars. Ford plans to convert three of its North American assembly plants from producing trucks to cars, and to realign its factories to manufacture more fuel-efficient engines. Ford will also begin domestic production and sales of six of the car models it currently sells only in Europe.
(Simple meaning, supply and demand is forcing a business re-alignment. And according to the information, Ford has been focused on selling fuel efficient cars, has been building them, but can only SELL them to their European customers.)
Many Americans are reacting to high gas prices by purchasing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and since Detroit had little to offer to meet those priorities, Japanese automakers have capitalized on surging consumer demand for their more fuel-friendly cars and hybrids.
(Yes, this information is true. However, Ford OWNED the SUV and especially the American Truck markets, which has a much higher profit margin than sedans and small vehicles. Why would Ford build unwanted sedans and small cars when they can sell more trucks, and more importantly at much higher profit levels than sedans or small cars? They didn't. But they are now.)
Ford posted the worst quarterly performance in its history this week, losing $8.67 billion in the second quarter. The company lost $15.3 billion in 2006 and 2007 combined. Ford slashed more than 40,000 jobs in the past three years, and sold off three of its European luxury brands to raise money to cover the losses from declining SUV and truck sales.
(This paragraph illustrates my point exactly. There's less profit because there are fewer SUV and truck sales. There is less profit for two reasons, the insane amount they were making on the SUV and truck sales, and when that market dried up, they had less product in the sedan and small lines, and the Japanese automakers do. Double whammy. Perhaps they expected gas prices to level off?)
The company is faring only slightly better than General Motors, which is facing the possibility of bankruptcy thanks to Detroit's collective gamble that Americans would keep buying big trucks and that gas would remain cheap.
Honda announced record profits for the quarter, and Toyota
beat General Motors in worldwide sales in the first half of the year, setting a pace to strip GM of its long-standing title as worldwide auto sales leader.
(The language here is a bit harsh - collective gamble? The writer is comparing one of the largest American corporations to my degenerate Uncle Vick? It is not false information though, but the wording leaves an aftertaste. And in the final paragraph, there is a little hint of recognition of supply and demand and economic forces at play. However, it does not redeem the writer for insinuating that Ford forced Americans to buy Stupid Useless Vehicles... They did that on their own. And Ford was there to sell 'em what they wanted.)(Omissions? How long does it take a battleship of a corporation like GM or Ford to turn around their organization to deal with changing market forces or fads? I'm going to guess about 3 years? Maybe 5? That might have been helpful in this article.
Look, I don't like Ford. Haven't since I was a kid... in Detroit! It still doesn't make the author of the original article less of a biased jerk-off who should probably be writing commentary, not business articles. And shame to the editor who let this language pass. If I want biased crap I'll listen to talk radio or watch the CBS Nightly News.
Perhaps the article should have read: Ford changes gears to shift Focus on fuel efficient fleet Fusion. Oh, then it's just an ad for Ford? I disagree, as I think this evokes the standard AP copywriter's equivocation and witticism. The debate continues in the comments bar.)
