Was Ferrari right to split from Pininfarina? | Page 4 | FerrariChat

Was Ferrari right to split from Pininfarina?

Discussion in 'Ferrari Discussion (not model specific)' started by Igor Ound, May 29, 2019.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

?

Yes or No?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. 027fury

    027fury Rookie

    Jun 19, 2019
    6
    Full Name:
    KungPaoPhooey
    The enthusiast in me says no, but the realist in me votes yes. Great posts in this thread, and here's my semi un-educated take...

    Since the company went public, it seems that decisions towards reforming key business processes have been made without the same level of 'passione' in priority as to do with maximising margins, redundancy plans and futureproofing the fiscal performance of the company. After all, this was Marchionne's (RIP) mission - to reform the business structure for the future - and Ferrari had been operating under some of the same practices since the 80's. We have to remember that the relationship between PF and Ferrari was one of convenience and merit. Enzo was no car stylist - remember, "if you buy the engine, everything else comes for free" and in period he relied on many different third parties to help assemble his cars - Zanasi, Michelotto, etc. As talented as the old man was, he was also brilliant at recognising where he could leverage the skills of others to better his own product - and we also need to remember that in 1951 when the deal was struck, road cars weren't exactly Enzo's priority either. Compounded onto that is the very traditional Italian way of conducting business - via trusted personal relationships, which was good in a privately owned SME business model, but worrying in a company the size that Ferrari has evolved into. Breaking away from reliance on an non-gruppo third party was simply a matter of time, IMHO - and in 2012 with PF downsizing due to dire financial straits it's not hard to see why the decision was made...

    We may long for those days of yore again, but with an increasing competitive landscape today I just can't see how they could have justified keeping that process going - especially with Pininfarina going up for tender when it was undergoing debt woes. You're absolutely correct in saying that Ferrari's major USP is its heritage and romance, something I've long believed in. Vis a vis, they have a lot of catch-up to play in terms of meeting competing technology and engineering, which is what makes the decision about design and styling even more crucial to futureproof the company. With such a critical aspect such as design left outside the control of the company, that's literally putting some of your most important eggs into someone else's basket - and hoping they don't go belly-up. There had to be a critical moment where they decided that they must move styling in-house - in no different way to them progressively migrating other processes like engine production, materials sourcing, carrozzeria work and more over the decades. I think it was an eventuality and probably best that it happened sooner than later, so that they can own a new design language of their own. The construction of the new dedicated styling centre (also designed in-house) at the factory compound is testament to that. They're laying foundation. That said, I think we are still in the infancy stage and watching them find their feet, as well as internal cohesion. This is a process of decades - it can't be an easy task for Manzoni et al.

    Some of the best cars to come out of Maranello have been PF designs, no doubt. But they also arrived at a time in history where Ferrari literally defined the category, so with scarcity and also in the context of the period they are revered more than the current day constant drip of new car announcements from every supercar marque - a monthly occurrence now. I don't know about you all, but I'm getting a little fatigued by trying to keep up with everybody's new car announcements. Perhaps that is the major issue that manufacturers face nowadays - developing and rushing products onto market to meet competitors doing the same, diluting the rest of the range in result.
     
    jm2, davemqv and paulchua like this.
  2. paulchua

    paulchua Cat Herder
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 1, 2013
    15,978
    Menlo Park, CA
    Full Name:
    Paul Chua
    I just wanted to thank you for writing an excellent post. I found myself nodding in agreement with your points. What I really don't understand is why didn't Ferrari just outright buy Pininfarinia when they had the opportunity? Mahindra got it for $150M. That's what? 75 La Ferraris? You would have control and legacy all in one swoop.

    ;)
     
    027fury and nycbrose like this.
  3. nycbrose

    nycbrose Karting

    Aug 11, 2014
    103
    Pacific Northwest
    They 100% should have bought them if they could. It would have been a completely accretive M&A transaction and allowed them to vertically integrate even further. Looking at it from a corporate perspective, would have been such the right move.

    It would be like Apple not hiring Jonathan Ive full time when his designs are what made the (new) Apple DNA.
     
    paulchua likes this.
  4. paulchua

    paulchua Cat Herder
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 1, 2013
    15,978
    Menlo Park, CA
    Full Name:
    Paul Chua
    I know right?! Good analogy!
     
  5. merstheman

    merstheman F1 Rookie

    Apr 13, 2007
    4,417
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Full Name:
    Mario
    That's exactly what I think, the FIAT group missed a great opportunity to buy PF. Even if it kept designing for other people, it would have been a good legacy buy.
     
    paulchua likes this.
  6. 027fury

    027fury Rookie

    Jun 19, 2019
    6
    Full Name:
    KungPaoPhooey
    It's a good point. I sometimes wonder too. I'm almost certain this would have been considered at the time (or at the very least, PF would have pitched this to them as one of their longest standing/biggest clients), but for one reason or another they decided not to - for their own reasons. Perhaps culture clash. Perhaps integration worries. Perhaps Manzoni didn't want to inherit a team. Perhaps they decided to hire talent instead. Ferrari doesn't have a strong history of acquiring third party vendors however. They're good with licensing and partnering with others, but they're not accustomed to outright acquisitions AFAIK..

    Also, that's more like... 110 LaFs at factory list price. ;)
    (could you imagine the riots if 110 LaFs went missing from the global allocation?)
     

Share This Page