Welcome to GTPlanet!
Create Your FREE Account

Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Eunos_Cosmo, post: 13456894, member: 137826"] Ferrari made plenty of good cars prior to 2015, and I'm pretty sure they were making decent money too. What's changed post-IPO is the need for them to demonstrate [I]growth[/I]. It's not enough to make money for themselves, now they have to make money for all their shareholders. The Ferrari SUV was a predictable result of this, but I think we're just getting started. There's probably going to be huge merch pushes (which this seems to be), more models in more segments at lower and lower price points, further homogeneity and platform sharing, and of course more spec-sheet [I]moreness[/I]. The problem with basing your business model on growth is that you never reach the end, and the methods needed to maintain continued growth gut the soul of the company further and further. If I were to guess, I don't think many enthusiasts will like where Ferrari ends up in 15-20 years. I think a good foil for Ferrari is Pagani. Pagani seems to be a perfectly viable, sustainable company. They are never going to generate enormous revenue...but who says they need to? They have 55 employees to keep on the books and overhead. Without shareholders demanding increased annual deliveries, Pagani can exist on it's own terms. Horacio seems totally satisfied with 1 model per decade, and Pagani has become the most exclusive name in town. Enzo in his prime would have never gone for an IPO, I'd bet. For me, personally, the prancing horse isn't nearly as evocative as it used to be and I subconsciously (like Lamborghini) sort their cars into the hierarchy of "cool" and "post-cool". [/QUOTE]

Verification