Did Fox Business put themselves on the list or did they launch in 2010?

Hey, the Fiat 500 is a very nice $7500 car. It's a shame they wanted $15,000 for it.

I found the article linked at the bottom much more interesting.

http://247wallst.com/2011/06/22/247-wall-st-ten-brands-that-will-disa p pear-in-2012/

GAT_00: FishyFred: Qwikster is not a product flop.

This is technically true. The thing has to exist first before it can actually flop.

Qwikster did the job it was intended for - get Netflix quickly out of the DVD rental business. It was a massive expense that could not be kept up much longer.

Like I'm going to click on a Faux link.

FishyFred: How the Playbook is not #1 on this list is beyond me.

More than 3 non-Slashdot readers have to have heard of the thing for it to make #1.

Two words for why the Fiat 500 failed: Jennifer. Lopez.

Whoever thought marketing a halo car using some washed-up ghetto rat was a good idea should be laughed out the industry.

So they switch American Apparel with Old Navy and it's the 2011 list again. And the Fiat 500 should disappear for the simple reason they blew all their money advertising during football games with a past her prime Jennifer Lopez.

Reading Fark on my Playbook, so I am getting a kick!

Mars Needs Moms may have flopped(the shiatty name might have something to do with it), but I have heard good things about the film.

The HTC Status was a flop because it was a terrible phone. You install even a few basic apps and the damn thing runs out of memory. If the guts didn't suck, the novel form could've driven sales.

BarbadoSlim: Two words for why the Fiat 500 failed: Jennifer. Lopez.

Whoever thought marketing a halo car using some washed-up ghetto rat was a good idea should be laughed out the industry.

LOL. The person is now in charge of all North American Fiat operations. (after his boss left)

I guess it's: "Those responsible for sacking the responsible individuals have been sacked but not the responsible individuals"

7. Mars Needs Moms
> Company: Disney

Following the release of Avatar in 2009, Hollywood had a new cash cow in the form of 3-D films. This all changed with the release of director Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms - a flop of epic proportions. Disney (DIS: 37.61, -0.09, -0.24%), of course, was expecting another hit. The film cost $175 million to make. In its opening weekend it brought in just $6.9 million.

...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.

But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

3. Volt
> Company: General Motors

GM (GM: 20.09, -0.41, -2.00%) was originally so excited about the Volt that the company had announced in January it was speeding up its roll-out by six months. But by November the excitement had fizzled out. Larry Nitz, GM's executive director for vehicle electrification told Reuters, "It's naive to think that the world is going to switch tomorrow to EVs [electric vehicles]." Indeed, sales for the vehicle have been consistently low. Only 125 models were sold in July 2011. This was after GM spokeswoman Michelle Bunker was quoted as saying that the Volt was "virtually sold out" due to its popularity - a statement later shown to be misguided. Adding insult to injury, Chevy Volts are under investigation for fires involving the cars' lithium-ion batteries. For concerned Volt owners, GM has offered free loaner cars.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors here from the Volt critics.

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

So Chevy's gradual roll out strategy is sound, but it's impossible to make it sound like whatever sales they have constitutes a hit.

As the price of the cars continue to drop and it becomes easier to find a dealer that sells them, sales are going to increase.

Let's also remember that the Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997, first went on sale in the U.S. in 2000 selling only 5,600 vehicles. The following year it was only 16k; they didn't break 50k until 2004.

thornhill:

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

Maybe they should make a Volt that doesn't have exploding batteries. I'm not a marketing expert, but I bet that would be good for sales.

Sheila_McSly: thornhill:

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

Maybe they should make a Volt that doesn't have exploding batteries. I'm not a marketing expert, but I bet that would be good for sales.

That's more smoke and mirrors.

The media is making it sound like Volt batteries have been spontaneously exploding -- that they are all ticking time bombs. What actually happened, was that NHTSA conducted severe impact tests on the cars that involved crashing it into a poll and then rolling it over. The junked cars were placed to the side and three weeks later the batteries shorted and caught fire. So clearly when the car is in a serious impact, the battery can be damaged, and the damage can result in a fire. Obviously GM needs to fix a problem, but the problem is no where as serious as media fear-mongers are making it out to be -- the problem is simply that when the car gets into a major accident, shiat goes wrong.

thornhill: 7. Mars Needs Moms
> Company: Disney

Following the release of Avatar in 2009, Hollywood had a new cash cow in the form of 3-D films. This all changed with the release of director Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms - a flop of epic proportions. Disney (DIS: 37.61, -0.09, -0.24%), of course, was expecting another hit. The film cost $175 million to make. In its opening weekend it brought in just $6.9 million.

...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.

But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

thornhill: 7. Mars Needs Moms
> Company: Disney

Following the release of Avatar in 2009, Hollywood had a new cash cow in the form of 3-D films. This all changed with the release of director Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms - a flop of epic proportions. Disney (DIS: 37.61, -0.09, -0.24%), of course, was expecting another hit. The film cost $175 million to make. In its opening weekend it brought in just $6.9 million.

...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.

But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

Live action animation is creepy.

How did Google+ not make the list?

"OK, were starting up a new service called Google+ and it is an exclusive, invite only club."

"Ummm... Google+ will now let existing members send invites to their friends to join."

"HEY! GREAT NEWS! Anyone that has a gMail account can now join Google+. Just click the spiffy Google+ button and join today."

"Someone... anyone... please, Please, PLEASE join Google+."

coco ebert: Farnn: I found the article linked at the bottom much more interesting.

http://247wallst.com/2011/06/22/247-wall-st-ten-brands-that-will-disa p pear-in-2012/

Nokia and Ericsson? I know they haven't been successful in the smartphone business but plenty of people still use their phones, at least in Europe. I don't think they were ever big in the U.S. anyway.

I love my old Nokia 3310. When I'm visiting my parents in Turkey I always use the sucker. The battery lasts for like two weeks.

Nokia's fortunes are pretty much riding on whether or not Windows Phone can get enough mindshare and marketshare this year to make their gamble to go all-in with Windows Phone pay off. With Blackberry in a spectacular downward spiral, and WebOS basically dead, Microsoft has a chance to establish themselves as a strong 3rd smartphone OS/service ecosystem if they are able to convince customers that Windows Phone provides a good middle ground between the total lack of choice with iOS (where you basically only have three models to choose from based on price and specs) and the hot mess that is Android (a mind-numbing selection of handset choices, manufacturer-specific UI skins, and relatively poor support for OS updates).

I really think it is getting to the point where most hardware manufacturers can't support their own OS and services the way Nokia did back in the Symbian/Ovi days. Phones have gotten so complex and multifunctional these days that if you aren't one of the major software companies in the world (like Apple, Google, and Microsoft), you just don't have a chance. That's why RIM is pretty much a hopeless case at this point. They'll fall further and further behind the rest of the market trying to get BB OS10 off the ground next year, while their competitors will keep updating their security and management features so they can keep whittling away at RIM's enterprise market. If Microsoft was smart, they would make the focus of the next big Windows Phone upgrade getting the enterprise features much more robust, adding things like full device encryption and remote management via Exchange that blows away what you can do with a BES. If they could combine that with some great E-series designs from Nokia, they could grab a huge amount of RIM's marketshare in just a few years.

If I were making Google+, I'd focus on having 4-5 really good exclusive games and treat the whole rest of the service as a lobby.

KarmicDisaster: Like I'm going to click on a Faux link.

Oh yes, the conservative bias in this article was horrendous.

/ idiot.

Where Fiat screwed up was trying to sell those 500s in special boutique dealerships only located in certain areas.
Price them decently then sell them through all those Chrysler dealerships they bought, they'll have a lot more access.
I looked seriously into getting one until I saw what a hassle it was to buy one, no I'm not driving to Pittsburgh (closest location) to buy a car.

thornhill: 7. Mars Needs Moms
> Company: Disney

Following the release of Avatar in 2009, Hollywood had a new cash cow in the form of 3-D films. This all changed with the release of director Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms - a flop of epic proportions. Disney (DIS: 37.61, -0.09, -0.24%), of course, was expecting another hit. The film cost $175 million to make. In its opening weekend it brought in just $6.9 million.

...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.
But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

Isn't that ususally included in the cost to make?

I still miss the A&W after it closed in my home town in the early 80's. Papa Burgers with a cold glass mug of their root beer was awesome.

DigitalCoffee: How did Google+ not make the list?

"OK, were starting up a new service called Google+ and it is an exclusive, invite only club."

"Ummm... Google+ will now let existing members send invites to their friends to join."

"HEY! GREAT NEWS! Anyone that has a gMail account can now join Google+. Just click the spiffy Google+ button and join today."

"Someone... anyone... please, Please, PLEASE join Google+."

What we learned this year is that there is in fact a ceiling on places to post cat and baby pictures taken with Iphones.

coco ebert: Farnn: I found the article linked at the bottom much more interesting.

http://247wallst.com/2011/06/22/247-wall-st-ten-brands-that-will-disa p pear-in-2012/

Nokia and Ericsson? I know they haven't been successful in the smartphone business but plenty of people still use their phones, at least in Europe. I don't think they were ever big in the U.S. anyway.

I love my old Nokia 3310. When I'm visiting my parents in Turkey I always use the sucker. The battery lasts for like two weeks.

And you can open beer bottles with it!

SuperChuck: thornhill: 7. Mars Needs Moms
> Company: Disney

Following the release of Avatar in 2009, Hollywood had a new cash cow in the form of 3-D films. This all changed with the release of director Simon Wells's Mars Needs Moms - a flop of epic proportions. Disney (DIS: 37.61, -0.09, -0.24%), of course, was expecting another hit. The film cost $175 million to make. In its opening weekend it brought in just $6.9 million.

...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.
But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

Isn't that ususally included in the cost to make?

No. The marketing cost is completely separate from the production cost. When people talk about the budget, they're talking about the production cost.

thornhill: Sheila_McSly: thornhill:

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

Maybe they should make a Volt that doesn't have exploding batteries. I'm not a marketing expert, but I bet that would be good for sales.

That's more smoke and mirrors.

The media is making it sound like Volt batteries have been spontaneously exploding -- that they are all ticking time bombs. What actually happened, was that NHTSA conducted severe impact tests on the cars that involved crashing it into a poll and then rolling it over. The junked cars were placed to the side and three weeks later the batteries shorted and caught fire. So clearly when the car is in a serious impact, the battery can be damaged, and the damage can result in a fire. Obviously GM needs to fix a problem, but the problem is no where as serious as media fear-mongers are making it out to be -- the problem is simply that when the car gets into a major accident, shiat goes wrong.

And this is why I will never buy any "environmentally friendly" fancy shmancy hybrid or electric car. I value the safety of myself and my family over trying to save the rain forest, or some liberal crap like that.

Thank goodness for my gasoline-powered SUV, which does not feature a compact energy storage receptacle which could ignite or explode if it were ruptured in an accident.

If gasoline engines were good enough for Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Caractacus Potts, they're good enough for me.

Where's the Microsoft Kin? Wait, that was in 2010? Wow, it flopped so bad that I didn't even notice a year had already passed. It should at least get an honorary mention.

thornhill: There's a lot of smoke and mirrors here from the Volt critics.

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

So Chevy's gradual roll out strategy is sound, but it's impossible to make it sound like whatever sales they have constitutes a hit.

As the price of the cars continue to drop and it becomes easier to find a dealer that sells them, sales are going to increase.

Let's also remember that the Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997, first went on sale in the U.S. in 2000 selling only 5,600 vehicles. The following year it was only 16k; they didn't break 50k until 2004.


The pruis was never a $40,000 car. They were sub $20,000 cars that didn't look as ridiculous/small as an insight or other electric/hybrid cars (and IIRC came with a tax credit). At the time, the prius was a slightly more expensive alternative to the similarly priced corolla.

The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

/I'm not saying the volt is doomed for failure, but it's certainly being set up to fail.

mrtoadswildride: thornhill: There's a lot of smoke and mirrors here from the Volt critics.

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

So Chevy's gradual roll out strategy is sound, but it's impossible to make it sound like whatever sales they have constitutes a hit.

As the price of the cars continue to drop and it becomes easier to find a dealer that sells them, sales are going to increase.

Let's also remember that the Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997, first went on sale in the U.S. in 2000 selling only 5,600 vehicles. The following year it was only 16k; they didn't break 50k until 2004.


The pruis was never a $40,000 car. They were sub $20,000 cars that didn't look as ridiculous/small as an insight or other electric/hybrid cars (and IIRC came with a tax credit). At the time, the prius was a slightly more expensive alternative to the similarly priced corolla.

The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

/I'm not saying the volt is doomed for failure, but it's certainly being set up to fail.

I've said this for a long time: Make a Saturn SL type electric/NGV with a comparable price(that $10k range) and you'll sell like hotcakes(and I'll be first in line). Not spending $20k on a car, definitely not spending $40k on a car. Also not buying a used hybrid or electric.

mrtoadswildride: The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

No Volts are catching on fire -- that is, there were two fires in parking garages were Volts were burned, but the cars were not the cause of the fires' ignition. They were engulfed in a fire and became part of it.

Again, more media fearmongering about electric cars where facts are being purposely obfuscated.

The pruis was never a $40,000 car. They were sub $20,000 cars that didn't look as ridiculous/small as an insight or other electric/hybrid cars (and IIRC came with a tax credit). At the time, the prius was a slightly more expensive alternative to the similarly priced corolla.

The US pricing of the prius benefited from the fact that the car had been out for 4 years in Japan -- it wasn't a first generation like the current Volt. Further, Toyota sold it at a huge loss initially. The first generation prius cost something like $30k+ to manufacture.

bhcompy: Mars Needs Moms may have flopped(the shiatty name might have something to do with it), but I have heard good things about the film.

It's kind of like Last Action Hero: it started with a decent idea (Mars Needs Moms was based on a story by Berke Breathed, aka Mr. Bloom County) but then the studio got more and more screenwriters and directors involved, and it ended up being a movie designed by committee. Which, of course, never works--especially when the budget tops $150 million.

thornhill: ...and probably another $50 to $75 million was spent on domestic and internationally marketing.

But there's an upside: The film was such a huge failure that Robert Zemeckis cannot get financing to keep making motion capture movies, forcing him to return to live action.

If that's the case, it clearly wasn't enough. I'm familiar with the vast majority of Disney movies (at least in name and a rough idea of what it's about, if nothing else) but I'd never even heard of this one.

Weird.

thornhill: mrtoadswildride: The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

No Volts are catching on fire -- that is, there were two fires in parking garages were Volts were burned, but the cars were not the cause of the fires' ignition. They were engulfed in a fire and became part of it.

Again, more media fearmongering about electric cars where facts are being purposely obfuscated.

Yes, I exaggerated a bit. But there are some issues with the volt and fires. You can Google it if you don't believe me.

The pruis was never a $40,000 car. They were sub $20,000 cars that didn't look as ridiculous/small as an insight or other electric/hybrid cars (and IIRC came with a tax credit). At the time, the prius was a slightly more expensive alternative to the similarly priced corolla.

The US pricing of the prius benefited from the fact that the car had been out for 4 years in Japan -- it wasn't a first generation like the current Volt. Further, Toyota sold it at a huge loss initially. The first generation prius cost something like $30k+ to manufacture.

Even assuming your facts are true....so what?

GM needs to sell at a loss....GM can't figure out how to build a car 10 years after the fact....? What's your point?

becuase mine is: There is no market for a $40,000 non-luxury car. People who pay $40,000 for a car want a $40,000 car...not a $25,000 car and $15,000 battery.

Parthenogenetic: Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

So, selling only 2,029 (that includes 2010 sales) instead of 10,000 constitutes success? The Volt is so close to being a decent hybrid, but GM is trying to call it an electric car. The programming to maximize electric range forced them to put a much larger gas engine in it than necessary. So it gets lousy gas mileage on the highway and the real world electric range has fallen short of their original target.

mrtoadswildride: thornhill: mrtoadswildride: The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

No Volts are catching on fire -- that is, there were two fires in parking garages were Volts were burned, but the cars were not the cause of the fires' ignition. They were engulfed in a fire and became part of it.

Again, more media fearmongering about electric cars where facts are being purposely obfuscated.

Yes, I exaggerated a bit. But there are some issues with the volt and fires. You can Google it if you don't believe me.

I googled it. The only incidents of fire have been from the NHTSA crash tests where the batteries were damaged, and two garage fires where Volts were among the cars burned, but not the causes of the fire.

If you're going to keep claiming that there are "issues with the volt and fires," provide a link.

thornhill: mrtoadswildride: thornhill: mrtoadswildride: The Volt is $40,000 non-luxury car...That's $10-$15,000 more than a camry hybrid and double the cost of a prius...Oh, and some volts are catching on fire.

No Volts are catching on fire -- that is, there were two fires in parking garages were Volts were burned, but the cars were not the cause of the fires' ignition. They were engulfed in a fire and became part of it.

Again, more media fearmongering about electric cars where facts are being purposely obfuscated.

Yes, I exaggerated a bit. But there are some issues with the volt and fires. You can Google it if you don't believe me.

I googled it. The only incidents of fire have been from the NHTSA crash tests where the batteries were damaged, and two garage fires where Volts were among the cars burned, but not the causes of the fire.

If you're going to keep claiming that there are "issues with the volt and fires," provide a link.

Here is why the Volt is a failure, you Obama fanboi. (new window)

natazha: Parthenogenetic: Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

So, selling only 2,029 (that includes 2010 sales) instead of 10,000 constitutes success? The Volt is so close to being a decent hybrid, but GM is trying to call it an electric car. The programming to maximize electric range forced them to put a much larger gas engine in it than necessary. So it gets lousy gas mileage on the highway and the real world electric range has fallen short of their original target.

First, your sales number is wrong. From December 2010 to November 2011 6,124 Volts have been sold.

It's neither a success nor a failure. It's simply the first year of a car that features new technology. If by year three they cannot meet industry standards for percent of vehicles still in inventory at the end of the year, then they have a problem.

And this thread is the perfect example of all the misinformation out there that GM has to contend with. The media is looking to fearmonger about EV cars has successfully spun the truth enough to create the impression that Volt batteries are ticking time bombs.

Nemo's Brother:

Here is why the Volt is a failure, you Obama fanboi. (new window)

Government incentives for nascent technologies, how do they work?

The only way your "argument" is anything short of complete and utter fail is if Americans and American enterprise (not just GM, but other companies like Tesla) are too dumb to compete successfully in the arena of government-sponsored tech initiatives with other countries, so we should just give up. If you're any indication, you just may happen to be right.

One of the best cars I've ever owned was a 95 Fiat Panda. The newer ones are equally nice, still tanks, and are attractive for their price.

If they would bring the Fiat Panda to the states and priced it right I would buy one.

Also: the J-Lo thing was confusing and a really bad move. The 500 should be marketed to 20-somethings. Highlighting its trendy build, compact space, and affordability (if it were priced right in the first place) would have been a much better move.

Hell, the commercial would have been easy, too: three trendy, beautiful young girls laughing and having fun while in the vehicle, listening to Lady Gaga or something. Roll up to hip club, have girls get out provocatively, enter club. End.

thornhill: Sheila_McSly: thornhill:

Chevy only intended to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and they were sold in only several states. They knew sales from the first generation were going to be soft, that to prove to customers that the car worked, people needed to see them in action.

Maybe they should make a Volt that doesn't have exploding batteries. I'm not a marketing expert, but I bet that would be good for sales.

That's more smoke and mirrors.

The media is making it sound like Volt batteries have been spontaneously exploding -- that they are all ticking time bombs. What actually happened, was that NHTSA conducted severe impact tests on the cars that involved crashing it into a poll and then rolling it over. The junked cars were placed to the side and three weeks later the batteries shorted and caught fire. So clearly when the car is in a serious impact, the battery can be damaged, and the damage can result in a fire. Obviously GM needs to fix a problem, but the problem is no where as serious as media fear-mongers are making it out to be -- the problem is simply that when the car gets into a major accident, shiat goes wrong.

Yeah, and regardless of whatever anyone else will tell you, there is nothing in a gasoline-fueled, internal combustion engine powered vehicle that will EVER light on fire. Nothing. Nope.

OMGWTF ELECTRIC FIRE-DEATHTRAPS.

Uh... Here's some news folks, you are already driving a gasoline-fire-explodey-deathtrap.
/Agreeing with Thornhill, FWIW

thornhill: I googled it. The only incidents of fire have been from the NHTSA crash tests where the batteries were damaged, and two garage fires where Volts were among the cars burned, but not the causes of the fire.

If you're going to keep claiming that there are "issues with the volt and fires," provide a link.

Yeah, it's a good thing Volts are un-crashable cars...oh...right

Honestly, I don't care. It's minor side issue to why they are not selling. But yes continue this crusade for a terrible company and poorly designed car.

If it'll make you happy...I award you 10,000 congratulatory internet points, which are non-transferable and have no cash value, to spend as you see fit for pointing out a slight exaggeration on the internet.

/Well done, sir!!!!