Agco discussion from Farmtrac thread

[dgl24087]

If CNH retained the McCormick name in the US, then why do we have Argo now marketing McCormick here? Further, Case is renaming all of the tractors smaller than the Maxxum to Farmall.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

MFRED said is about as accurate as can be. AGCO dealers were told in summer 2006 that the compact tractor segment would be focused around the Massey Ferguson brand. This does not mean that AGCO dealers will not have compacts. Basically, R&D and expansion efforts within the compact tractor offering will be on MF. This is in part to the number of MF dealers in the concentrated compact markets and MF's brand equity in smaller tractors.

As for the Dutch magazine article. Those statements were from a Global perspective. AGCO Brand is only sold in North America and will continue to be sold here. It is not and never has been sold in other countries. Therefore, it was not referenced in that article.

AGCO Brand will continue with a limited tractor line <100HP. They will continue to have a complete line of HHP models that are considered premium products. Hay equipment branded AGCO (still with the Hesston name attached - same as what Massey Ferguson is doing), tillage, planters and Gleaner combines.

Hopefully this information will stop the speculation of this thread.

Here is a word for word translation off what Richenhagen said about the 4 brands is : "We have four brand names that keep AGCO afloat, we will use the AGCO name for parts financing and schooling, the Agco tractor brand does only exist in North America and will disappear all together, there will be four strong brand names left"

You can take it for what its worth.

 

[WilliamBos]

Here is a word for word translation off what Richenhagen said about the 4 brands is : "We have four brand names that keep AGCO afloat, we will use the AGCO name for parts financing and schooling, the Agco tractor brand does only exist in North America and will disappear all together, there will be four strong brand names left"

You can take it for what its worth.

You speak Dutch Robert? They never should have had an orange tractor after the Allis name was put to sleep a few years back anyway. I really think that AGCO Allis, and AGCO were only filling in until they acquired another brand. JMHO. Not a bad move on their part. Only more good things to come.

How are you feeling??

Will

 

[Robert_in_NY]

If CNH retained the McCormick name in the US, then why do we have Argo now marketing McCormick here? Further, Case is renaming all of the tractors smaller than the Maxxum to Farmall.

McCormick is allowed to sell tractors here but they can not sell any merchandise. Have you ever seen a McCormick toy here in the US? They have them in Europe but Argo can not sell McCormick branded merchandise in the US. The few toys you do find here are brought over by importers as they can't buy them direct from the manufacturers.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

You speak Dutch Robert? They never should have had an orange tractor after the Allis name was put to sleep a few years back anyway. I really thinkg that AGCO Allis, and AGCO were only filling in until they acquired another brand. JMHO. Not a bad move on their part. Only more good things to come.

How are you feeling??

Will

I can barely speak English but I have a lot of friends overseas who can speak Dutch. Plus there are great programs online that translate for you

Overall I am doing well. I am looking forward to getting back to work and hopefully in a month or so I will be able to. Thanks for asking

I should add, Deutz did more damage to the Allis name then anything Agco did. Agco just put Allis out of its misery after the Green Allis days.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Bill, please re-read my post. I did not say anything negative about Agco's products. They make great products and I would own one in a heart beat which is why I was glad my local dealer took on Agco (more so now that I am on the outs with my local NH dealer). What I disagree with is Agco's marketing. It is in my opinion poorly thought out.

While I do not know Internationals history as well as you I can not comment on International dropping the Farmall name. But they did that before I was born. When New Holland bought Case-IH they had to sell off the CX plant and Argo wanted the McCormick name. What you may not know is CNH only sold off the McCormick name to be used overseas. CNH retained all marketing rights for McCormick in the US where it has more history.

I have no problems with Agco dropping a brand. But it seems counter productive to be rebranding their products every few years. Ford sold their ag division to Fiat. Fiat wanted the Ford name but Ford only allowed them to use it for a few years while phasing in the New Holland brand. When Fiat/New Holland bought Case-IH they kept them as Case-IH. Same with Steyr. Three brands that all have their place. Case-IH is popular in North America, New Holland in the rest of the world and Stery is popular in Europe. What Case-New Holland screwed up with is naming their tractors. Only now are they finally getting that straight (well, I am not so sure they are on the Case-IH side but the NH side is). If Agco didn't forsee keeping the orange line of tractors why change the name from Agco-Allis to Agco only to drop it. I still disagree with their decision to create the Challenger line as I feel they should have bought the Cat tractors to give Massey Ferguson a 4wd again. Agco dropped the AgcoStar a while back so they needed a 4wd again and Cat gave them a great one. Paint them red so MF would finally have another 4wd again.

I see Fendt and Valtra being their own brands still but I do not know how long Valtra will fit in Agco's plans. Massey Ferguson should be the major brand for Agco and they should promote it that way.

As for dealers, I told you I had two Agco dealers, one is 20 minutes, the other is over an hour away and I have one MF dealer who use to be a good size dealer till the old guys passed away and the kids took over. That dealer is 30 minutes away. John Deere has 5 dealers within 1 hour drive that I know of and that is only in New York. Case-IH has 3-4 in New York (I am not too familiar with the dealers in PA), New Holland has 5-6 (one of which is in PA), CAT has none and there are no Challenger dealers either. My one Agco dealer is also a Valtra dealer and has been since before Agco bought them. This area is a large farming area and Massey Ferguson should be in this area as they have a nice fruit and vineyard tractor that would fit in well here with all the vineyards in my area as well as the Finger Lakes area. Plus there are a ton of dairy farms and huge vegetable farms and row crop farms. Western and Central New York is a major farming area for all types of farming which is why New Holland is so well represented here as they make a lot of great products that fit the types of farming we have here. John Deere does too and their dealer network shows that. Case-IH has not had as great a selection to meet the farming market here but since New Holland bought them they have been getting more models which fit New York farming so I would not be surprised to see the dealers here expand in the future. Agco should be here as Hesston is still popular in the hay industry and the dairy farms who want large square balers tend to prefer the Hesston baler over the New Holland. The Massey Ferguson lineup would easily match the New Holland lineup and you have no idea how bad I want a good Massey Ferguson dealer here. So if Agco wanted to push the MF brand they should have done away with Agco when they dropped the Agco-Allis brand or stopped signing new dealers on. Then my Agco dealer would have been a Massey Dealer and I would be happy. But as it is Agco seems to do something to irritate the farm community every five years. Just make up their minds and stop adding and dropping brands.

First, reread MY post. I never thought or said anything about you critisizing AGCO's product line. I had a few things to say about their products BEFORE AGCO purchased them. Your critisizm was regarding AGCO dropping a couple names that weren't worth keeping in the grand scheme of things. Their eliminating AC and White from their branding hasn't hurt a thing and at the same time, the company has grown and prospered. Your bit of nostalgia is nice, but it doesn't feed the bulldog.

I'm aware of all of the "history" of Fiat's selling brand names, US and foriegn licinsing of those names, and in general, their doing the same exact thing you're critisizing AGCO for doing.....abandoning or simply shelving old, now insignificant names from the past. The business affairs of CNH are public record, and have been well documented in virtually ecvery farm publication.

Simply because MF doesn't have a strong presence in your immediate area doesn't mean they've failed on a grand scale. As I said, New Holland has just about bailed from farm oriented sales in this area, but that doesn't mean New Holland is on the rock, does it?

AGCO's first responsibility is to their owners, the shareholders, and not to keep propping up a dead entity in old names that don't sell in todays world. I just don't see your comment about "AGCO doing something every 5 years to irritate the farming community". No more so than any other brand that's done what they had to do to survive and prosper in todays ever changing business environment. As a part of "the farming community" myself for the past 40+ years, I've not seen anything "irritating" from AGCO that wasn't warranted by good business practices. I never faulted ANY business that did what needed to be done to stay competitive. That's what success is all about.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

First, reread MY post. I never thought or said anything about you critisizing AGCO's product line. I had a few things to say about their products BEFORE AGCO purchased them. Your critisizm was regarding AGCO dropping a couple names that weren't worth keeping in the grand scheme of things. Their eliminating AC and White from their branding hasn't hurt a thing and at the same time, the company has grown and prospered. Your bit of nostalgia is nice, but it doesn't feed the bulldog.

I'm aware of all of the "history" of Fiat's selling brand names, US and foriegn licinsing of those names, and in general, their doing the same exact thing you're critisizing AGCO for doing.....abandoning or simply shelving old, now insignificant names from the past. The business affairs of CNH are public record, and have been well documented in virtually ecvery farm publication.

Simply because MF doesn't have a strong presence in your immediate area doesn't mean they've failed on a grand scale. As I said, New Holland has just about bailed in this area, but that doesn't mean New Holland is on the rock, does it?

AGCO's first responsibility is to their owners, the shareholders, and not to keep propping up a dead entity in old names that don't sell in todays world. I just don't see your comment about "AGCO doing something every 5 years to irritate the farming community". No more so than any other brand that's done what they had to do to survive and prosper in todays ever changing business environment. I never faulted ANY business that did what needed to be done to stay competitive. That's what success is all about.

I agree, Agco's responsibility is to their owners and that is why I wish they would just make up their minds about what brands they want to promote. Changing brand names every 5 years isn't helping their owners who are looking for a stable company. Why do you think John Deere likes to promote themselves like "Solid, Stable, Still John Deere". They know their customers like the fact they have a stable company. Agco changing and creating brand names doesn't help give the feeling they are a stable company. If they didn't see Agco as being a brand they could build on then why did they create it? Why not leave it as Agco-Allis till they killed it off completely?

While you may disagree with me and I respect you enough to not take it personally I feel Agco has failed miserably when it comes to marketing their products.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I agree, Agco's responsibility is to their owners and that is why I wish they would just make up their minds about what brands they want to promote. Changing brand names every 5 years isn't helping their owners who are looking for a stable company. Why do you think John Deere likes to promote themselves like "Solid, Stable, Still John Deere". They know their customers like the fact they have a stable company. Agco changing and creating brand names doesn't help give the feeling they are a stable company. If they didn't see Agco as being a brand they could build on then why did they create it? Why not leave it as Agco-Allis till they killed it off completely?

While you may disagree with me and I respect you enough to not take it personally I feel Agco has failed miserably when it comes to marketing their products.

I feel you've failed miserably to make your arguement stick. With the logic you use to determine why YOU think AGCO has "failed miserably", John Deere failed us all by not keeping their tractors badged as Waterloo Boys. Deere got into the combine business by purchasing early Caterpillar combine designs and production. How on earth do they have the nerve to put John Deere on their Holt & Best combines? They've changed their logo 8 different times in their history. WHY? Need to keep up with an ever-changing world is why. Has CNH has failed miserably by not badging some of their tractors as Farmall Regulars, Fordsons, and McCormick Deerings? Why not a singular brand named Case? Why not an International Harvester dealer? By the same logic you're applying to AGCO, CNH has failed us all.

And where did the "every 5 years" thing come from? The name was changed shortly after Allis Chalmers was absorbed by AGCO, more than 20 years ago, and then just recently marked for elimination. In roughly the same time period, we've seen Ford, Case IH, New Holland, CNH, ect, all the while being bought by Fiat. Why is that any different? The names change as the company changes.

AGCO, in particular, Massey Ferguson, is one of the leading sellers worldwide. In some reprts, the number one selling farm tractor worldwide. Does THAT sound like they've "failed miserably"? There's a long list of brands that would like to fail in the same manner. Their failure to impress one person in one corner of one state isn't a "miserable failure" on AGCO's part.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Agco was created in 1990 when they bought Deutz Allis from KHD, this as you know was the start of Agco.

In 1991 Agco bought White tractors for the tractors. They bought the White/New Idea company in 1993 for the planters as these were two different companies. So now Agco has Agco-Allis tractors and White tractors they are promoting in the US.

Agco first bought into Massey Ferguson in 1993 for the North American distribution rights. So now there are 3 brands Agco has bought for North America.

In 1994 Agco buys the rest of Massey Ferguson giving them a worldwide brand.

Agco bought Fendt in 1997 mainly for the technology but that gave them another brand for the US market also.

In 2002 Agco drops White tractors completely. They also discontinue the Agco-Allis brand and start the Agco brand (why did they do this as it makes very little sense to anyone).

Agco bought Cat ag tractors in 2002 and created the Challenger line of tractors. So now they have three brands again but with a dealer turnover.

In 2003 Agco drops the last model of its AgcoStar 4wd line.

Agco buys Valtra in 2004 giving them another brand that is popular in Europe and growing in the US.

Now Agco is going to drop the Agco tractor line.

I have no problem with Agco dropping a name or a line. But they have not shown any real direction to this company since it was formed in 1990. Yes, they are a large company with great products but why do you think Agco is struggling here in the US (which is Agco's home country). It isn't because of their products. It is because customers do not look at Agco as being stable because of all the brand turnover. Dropping the Agco brand is not going to help them build any trust.

I feel Agco should have commited to Massey Ferguson in 1994 after they aquired the entire company. Concentrate on that brand and build it up. Adding and dropping brands along the way while letting them all compete with each other didn't help anyone.

Your argument about Fiat and John Deere is very weak. Deere (while I dislike defending them) bought brands to build "ONE" main brand. They bought other companies that had good products to add to their own lineup. This is what I feel Agco should have done. Build one brand. As for the Deere logo changing???? What does that have to do with anything. The changes to the Deere logo are all so minor it is silly to even bring it up. The basic shape and design as well as color has been a mainstay since almost the beginning.

And Fiat bought Ford. They wanted to keep the Ford name on the tractors but Ford wouldn't allow anyone to use their name but Ford itself. So they used the New Holland name. Then they bought Case-IH to add to their product range and dealer range in the US. They merged the two brands and have a huge market here now. They failed with their model names but that is about it. There was talk about doing away with Case-IH but that would have been a huge mistake in the US market which is the main reason there are still red and blue tractors. Fiat didn't drop any of the old names but has helped to bring some of them back not that it has anything to do with this discussion as I can care less what the brand is called.

Agco should have built Massey Ferguson up as their main brand as soon as they bought them. Massey had a great history in North America and Ohio had quite a few Massey tractors as did PA and NY (I do travel outside of my little corner of my one state). The Allis name was failing because of KHD, White was in decline also so when they bought Massey why didn't they jump on the chance to build them up in 1994? Instead they drag Agco-Allis and White along till 2002 when they add Challenger, drop White and the Allis name. What is the reasoning behind their marketing decisions? And why carry the Agco brand for another 5-6 years only to drop it? Wouldn't it have made sense to convert the profitable dealers to Massey and drop the other two brands as soon as they made the transition?

As soon as Fiat bought Case-IH they had a plan in place to integrate the two large companies (both of which had a large marketshare). They didn't create new brands or drop the IH from Case-IH. They had a plan and are a large, stable company now. Agco could have done the same thing long before CNH was ever formed but they didn't. If you can explain to me their decisions over the years I would appreciate it.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Agco was created in 1990 when they bought Deutz Allis from KHD, this as you know was the start of Agco.

In 1991 Agco bought White tractors for the tractors. They bought the White/New Idea company in 1993 for the planters as these were two different companies. So now Agco has Agco-Allis tractors and White tractors they are promoting in the US.

Agco first bought into Massey Ferguson in 1993 for the North American distribution rights. So now there are 3 brands Agco has bought for North America.

In 1994 Agco buys the rest of Massey Ferguson giving them a worldwide brand.

Agco bought Fendt in 1997 mainly for the technology but that gave them another brand for the US market also.

In 2002 Agco drops White tractors completely. They also discontinue the Agco-Allis brand and start the Agco brand (why did they do this as it makes very little sense to anyone).

Agco bought Cat ag tractors in 2002 and created the Challenger line of tractors. So now they have three brands again but with a dealer turnover.

In 2003 Agco drops the last model of its AgcoStar 4wd line.

Agco buys Valtra in 2004 giving them another brand that is popular in Europe and growing in the US.

Now Agco is going to drop the Agco tractor line.

I have no problem with Agco dropping a name or a line. But they have not shown any real direction to this company since it was formed in 1990. Yes, they are a large company with great products but why do you think Agco is struggling here in the US (which is Agco's home country). It isn't because of their products. It is because customers do not look at Agco as being stable because of all the brand turnover. Dropping the Agco brand is not going to help them build any trust.

I feel Agco should have commited to Massey Ferguson in 1994 after they aquired the entire company. Concentrate on that brand and build it up. Adding and dropping brands along the way while letting them all compete with each other didn't help anyone.

Your argument about Fiat and John Deere is very weak. Deere (while I dislike defending them) bought brands to build "ONE" main brand. They bought other companies that had good products to add to their own lineup. This is what I feel Agco should have done. Build one brand. As for the Deere logo changing???? What does that have to do with anything. The changes to the Deere logo are all so minor it is silly to even bring it up. The basic shape and design as well as color has been a mainstay since almost the beginning.

And Fiat bought Ford. They wanted to keep the Ford name on the tractors but Ford wouldn't allow anyone to use their name but Ford itself. So they used the New Holland name. Then they bought Case-IH to add to their product range and dealer range in the US. They merged the two brands and have a huge market here now. They failed with their model names but that is about it. There was talk about doing away with Case-IH but that would have been a huge mistake in the US market which is the main reason there are still red and blue tractors. Fiat didn't drop any of the old names but has helped to bring some of them back not that it has anything to do with this discussion as I can care less what the brand is called.

Agco should have built Massey Ferguson up as their main brand as soon as they bought them. Massey had a great history in North America and Ohio had quite a few Massey tractors as did PA and NY (I do travel outside of my little corner of my one state). The Allis name was failing because of KHD, White was in decline also so when they bought Massey why didn't they jump on the chance to build them up in 1994? Instead they drag Agco-Allis and White along till 2002 when they add Challenger, drop White and the Allis name. What is the reasoning behind their marketing decisions? And why carry the Agco brand for another 5-6 years only to drop it? Wouldn't it have made sense to convert the profitable dealers to Massey and drop the other two brands as soon as they made the transition?

As soon as Fiat bought Case-IH they had a plan in place to integrate the two large companies (both of which had a large marketshare). They didn't create new brands or drop the IH from Case-IH. They had a plan and are a large, stable company now. Agco could have done the same thing long before CNH was ever formed but they didn't. If you can explain to me their decisions over the years I would appreciate it.

Robert, I'm at a loss as to why you can't see the facts as they are. AGCO didn't do ANYTHING any different than Deere, CNH, or 10,000 other companies assembled from bits and pieces. They don't need to please you personally, nor me, nor anyone except the stockholders of AGCO. Would it have pleased you more if AGCO would have dropped AGCO ALLIS branding immediatly after taking on Massey Ferguson? I doubt that. That would have left most of their already established US dealer network out in the cold. You seem to have a bone to pick with them for doing what they had to do to remain competitive, and that's your beef. It's not a beef based on logic or common sense however. The reason behind the marketing desicion is obviously one where the most recognizable name they own throughout the world will be their mainstay, AFTER establishing itself as a viable part of AGCO. What's so difficult to see about that? When AGCO started the Allis/AGCO line, there was no indication that someday they would also own Massey Ferguson. A plan could not have possibly developed based on unknown, unpredictable factors. Once AGCO owned Massey, they've gradually taken things in that direction, culminating in the recent branding changes. I would not suspect this is the last change to be made at AGCO or ANY of the major players in todays AG market. Even Deere changes marketing strategies as needed.

Fiat has managed to take a mixmatch of brand names and make a go of it. They bought several strong business's. AGCO DIDN'T They bought ONE successful farm equipment brand and a few old names with a VERY limited worth. As I said earlier, anyone who would buy a tractor based strictly on an old name dredged from the past, RATHER THAN buying what they see as the best buy for their money isn't going to be in business for long. Nostalgia is for the high school reunion and not for running a business or turning a profit.

You continuously refer to "everyone" not seeing the logic. I see one or two that don't, one being you. The vast majority understand the why's and wherefors of a successful merger done over enough time to do it RIGHT. It would be absolutely ridiculous to assume AGCO would automatically do EXACTLY as CNH did in their merging several companies as they're dealing with a totally different cast of characters.

This is going no where, there's not much more to be said. I suppose when you're appointed CEO at AGCO they can do things your way. Until then, they seem to be doing just fine on their own.