Logos associated with failure.

[Joshawaggie]

There's a Jack FM in Minneapolis that's still going, same tag line. I think those are all around the country, aren't they?

[burgundy]

For any of the other coaster nerds out there, Arrow Development/Arrow Dynamics:

...and Geauga Lake:

Montgomery Ward:

G4:

[illwauk]

Hmmm...Then of course there were a couple of radio stations in NYC that failed MISERABLY.... Blink 102.7, 101.1 JACK FM, Fresh 102.7 , HOT HITS 103.5 WAPP, FM NEWS 101.9, just to name a few...now if only somebody could put those logoa up....

I do remember Jack FM.

We're going to play all the Bon Jovi and U2 we want no matter how offended people get by it because we're anti-establishment.

Think that lasted about six months.

We still have a Jack station here in Buffalo. For those that don't know, the idea behind the Jack format was to emulate the variety of music people might carry around with them on their iPods... with the idea that most people don't just listen to rock or just country, etc. I loved that station when it first came out, but now it's 90% bad 80's music with some other decent stuff sprinkled in.

We have Lake FM in Milwaukee... same crappy format as Jack under a different name. It started off playing a good mix of music from different eras with no DJs, then they got DJs and started playing Madonna and hair bands every other song. Now it's like every other commercial FM radio in Southeast Wisconsin which apparently thinks everyone here is either a housewife or a guy with a mullet who thinks it's still 1989.

[udubs03]

Hmmm...Then of course there were a couple of radio stations in NYC that failed MISERABLY.... Blink 102.7, 101.1 JACK FM, Fresh 102.7 , HOT HITS 103.5 WAPP, FM NEWS 101.9, just to name a few...now if only somebody could put those logoa up....

I do remember Jack FM.

We're going to play all the Bon Jovi and U2 we want no matter how offended people get by it because we're anti-establishment.

Think that lasted about six months.

We still have a Jack station here in Buffalo. For those that don't know, the idea behind the Jack format was to emulate the variety of music people might carry around with them on their iPods... with the idea that most people don't just listen to rock or just country, etc. I loved that station when it first came out, but now it's 90% bad 80's music with some other decent stuff sprinkled in.

We have Lake FM in Milwaukee... same crappy format as Jack under a different name. It started off playing a good mix of music from different eras with no DJs, then they got DJs and started playing Madonna and hair bands every other song. Now it's like every other commercial FM radio in Southeast Wisconsin which apparently thinks everyone here is either a housewife or a guy with a mullet who thinks it's still 1989.

That's why I pretty much only listen to 88.9. Everything else sucks (unless you're said housewife or mullet guy).

[pianoknight]

This is kind of on-going, but I strongly suspect history will consider this a failure:

[Mac the Knife]

This is kind of on-going, but I strongly suspect history will consider this a failure:

Not only that, but the logo itself is a bit of a bust. You have a PERFECT opportunity to make the "window" comprise 8 panes, and you use 4. STUPID.

[miamimarlins]

unfortunately. they should've / would've won it all in 94.

[FGWB]

[BBTV]

I never really understood why GM needed so many different brands, and what niche each was supposed to fill.

Chevy - mainstream value line. Buick - nicer trim / nicer ride than Chevy (kinda like Infinity to Nissan). Cadillac - the flagship, top of the line. Then they had Pontiac, the "performance" brand, but that was diluted by having cheap under-performing cars that were just Chevy's with different logos. Oldsmobile - I have no idea where this fits in. We always had Oldsmobiles growing up, but they weren't really "nice". Kinda in between Chevy and Buick, but not significantly different than either. We had one of http://postmoderngentleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Oldsmobile.jpg]these jawns.

Then they had Saturn, which didn't really fit in anywhere. They didn't even share the frames or designs of the other cars. I guess that's a good thing - maybe all of the brands should have been more independent, but it's not financially feasible.

Then there's GMC, which makes sense, except that everything GMC marketed was also marketed by Chevy.

Never understood why the US car manufacturers just can't separate their brands better, and then market cars within each brand that actually make sense for said brand.

[pmoehrin]

I never really understood why GM needed so many different brands, and what niche each was supposed to fill.

Chevy - mainstream value line. Buick - nicer trim / nicer ride than Chevy (kinda like Infinity to Nissan). Cadillac - the flagship, top of the line. Then they had Pontiac, the "performance" brand, but that was diluted by having cheap under-performing cars that were just Chevy's with different logos. Oldsmobile - I have no idea where this fits in. We always had Oldsmobiles growing up, but they weren't really "nice". Kinda in between Chevy and Buick, but not significantly different than either. We had one of http://postmoderngen...obile.jpg]these jawns.

Then they had Saturn, which didn't really fit in anywhere. They didn't even share the frames or designs of the other cars. I guess that's a good thing - maybe all of the brands should have been more independent, but it's not financially feasible.

Then there's GMC, which makes sense, except that everything GMC marketed was also marketed by Chevy.

Never understood why the US car manufacturers just can't separate their brands better, and then market cars within each brand that actually make sense for said brand.

Well I think the problem with them more was that they essentially went all in on SUV's and ignored their other brands/designs. I don't think they was anything wrong with having brands as they did, I just don't think they invested in them enough.

I also completely agree with what Michael Moore said back in '89 in that they were a company far more concerned with short term profits and their stock price then building a company that could be successful in the long run. Say what you want about him politically, but he was 100% correct with that criticism of GM. We're turning record profits but we need to cut back on the number of employees and plants we have in order to survive. That I look at as the number one reason why they went from being the largest auto company in the world to being bankrupt within two decades. It wasn't done to make the company better, it was done so the investors could make a quick buck and then dump the stock. It was corporate raiding from the inside out.

[greyraven8]

I just associate Kmart with everything equating failure. I don't know how they're still in business.

In Canada, in the late 90's Kmart did go under - bought out by the Hudson Bay Company. They made most of them into Zellers store.

Now Zellers is no more - 2 of the 3 Zellers in my city are going to be Walmarts with the 3rd becoming a Target store.

so I'll add Zellers to the list:

[shaydre1019]

I have jack fm where I live and it's alright. The radio is terrible here so I have very low standards and they'll sometimes play great music so it's not THAT bad.

And man I used to get phone calls from Montgomery ward when I was really little! I didn't even know they still existed.

[sc49erfan15]

I just associate Kmart with everything equating failure. I don't know how they're still in business.

In Canada, in the late 90's Kmart did go under - bought out by the Hudson Bay Company. They made most of them into Zellers store.

Kmart hasn't gone under (yet...) so they really haven't "failed," but like I said, I don't know how.

I've been in a Kmart twice in the past 10 years. In both experiences, the store was less than clean and it seemed like everything was overpriced. It doesn't seem to have any sort of market that it caters to like Wal-Mart (I want my and I want it cheap!) or Target (slightly more expensive, but better quality) does.

[LMU]

[Cujo]

[Lights Out]

[illwauk]

We have Lake FM in Milwaukee... same crappy format as Jack under a different name. It started off playing a good mix of music from different eras with no DJs, then they got DJs and started playing Madonna and hair bands every other song. Now it's like every other commercial FM radio in Southeast Wisconsin which apparently thinks everyone here is either a housewife or a guy with a mullet who thinks it's still 1989.

That's why I pretty much only listen to 88.9. Everything else sucks (unless you're said housewife or mullet guy).

Same here, my FM dial never goes past 91.7.

[Lights Out]

[lancealot]

16 seasons and 0 premierships with this logo, every other team (bar the past two years expansion teams) has won at least 1

[jc...]

I never really understood why GM needed so many different brands, and what niche each was supposed to fill.

Chevy - mainstream value line. Buick - nicer trim / nicer ride than Chevy (kinda like Infinity to Nissan). Cadillac - the flagship, top of the line. Then they had Pontiac, the "performance" brand, but that was diluted by having cheap under-performing cars that were just Chevy's with different logos. Oldsmobile - I have no idea where this fits in. We always had Oldsmobiles growing up, but they weren't really "nice". Kinda in between Chevy and Buick, but not significantly different than either. We had one of http://postmoderngen...obile.jpg]these jawns.

Then they had Saturn, which didn't really fit in anywhere. They didn't even share the frames or designs of the other cars. I guess that's a good thing - maybe all of the brands should have been more independent, but it's not financially feasible.

Then there's GMC, which makes sense, except that everything GMC marketed was also marketed by Chevy.

Never understood why the US car manufacturers just can't separate their brands better, and then market cars within each brand that actually make sense for said brand.

Well I think the problem with them more was that they essentially went all in on SUV's and ignored their other brands/designs. I don't think they was anything wrong with having brands as they did, I just don't think they invested in them enough.

I also completely agree with what Michael Moore said back in '89 in that they were a company far more concerned with short term profits and their stock price then building a company that could be successful in the long run. Say what you want about him politically, but he was 100% correct with that criticism of GM. We're turning record profits but we need to cut back on the number of employees and plants we have in order to survive. That I look at as the number one reason why they went from being the largest auto company in the world to being bankrupt within two decades. It wasn't done to make the company better, it was done so the investors could make a quick buck and then dump the stock. It was corporate raiding from the inside out.

I have worked at a GM dealer for 14+ years. And I still don't understand some of the things they do. The place where I work at one time had Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac. When Oldsmobile went away, GM gave our dealership a $10,000 for losing a franchise. When Pontiac went away, we got nothing. We had to pay for the new signage. And......and.......you had to agree to renovate your building up to GM's new standards, after completely renovating the showroom 5 or 6 years prior! I have talked to a dealer who lost his Chevrolet franchise when "old" GM went through the bankruptcy and didn't get picked up with the "new" GM and he said, that knowing what he knows now, he would have dropped the franchise himself a long time ago. He continues to be successful and a used car dealer and a repair shop. No more "requirements" to buy anything. Here is a good example of GM not making any sense at all. The Chevrolet Volt, the plug in electric/hybrid car is a really great car. They cost about $40,000 and can get the equivalent of 93 miles per gallon of gas. Now, as you can imagine, there isn't a big market for these yet, and in 2 years, we have sold about 4 of them, and really, if you make a $1,000 profit on one, you did pretty well. Here is the kicker, there is a battery diagnostic tool for this ONE vehicle that our service department is required to have. The cost: $6,000!!! So, just generalizing a bit and not adding in the cost for other things like training and what not, that is a $2,000 loss on 4 cars! Sorry to throw my rant in there. LoL.