A century ago Henry Ford Sr. was asked “How many colors does it come in?” America’s great auto industry leader responded, “Any color, so long as it’s black.”

Now, 100 years later, we learn again why the reasons underpinning Mr. Ford’s glib response about auto paint choices still apply. Henry Ford was pointing to the bottom line reality of what it takes to measure market viability. It applied then. It applies now.

The objective for any business must be to achieve the true accounting measure of operating “in the black.”

Could it be that the continuing involvement of Henry Ford’s great-grandson, William Clay Ford Jr., is one reason why, today, the Ford Motor Co. is doing better than its domestic competition, is not in bankruptcy and has not taken taxpayer dollars?

Too bad, for taxpayers and respective company stakeholders that Ford’s modern counterparts at GM and Chrysler could not, or would not, make the hard decisions to achieve and keep their companies in the black. Rather, it was easier to take billions of taxpayer dollars via government bailout and now welcome the government interveners, who obviously do not understand how to manage or get an auto company in the black.

No wonder that 61 percent of Americans, in a recent Rasmussen poll, believe that only Ford Motor Co. will survive.

So, what is that GM and Chrysler must do? The answer is found in American history.

In Henry Ford’s time, the automobile was new to society and the marketplace. Ford understood that his product had to be affordable to those with discretionary income; and, ultimately, to everyone, including the average worker. Otherwise, how could the motorized vehicle be expected to, no pun intended, unsaddle the horse and the horse-drawn carriage or wagon as a means of personal transit or to move commercial goods.

Ford also realized that if he were to initially offer a choice of colors, that decision would undermine the advantages inherent in his manufacturing methods, thus reducing output. Further, color variety would make it even more difficult to continuously lower the purchase price, impeding buyer affordability.

So, black was the decided color in order to get the new mode of transit into the marketplace at the lowest possible price, gain the most customers and, at the same time, help the fledgling company operate profitably.

We know that Henry Ford’s strategy worked. We also know this strategy will work again, and Americans won’t be limited to one color.

First, consider that Ford did not have to modify his cars to meet government imposed requirements, from bumpers to seat belts to minimum mileage-per-gallon averages. As comfort items, mechanical innovations and safety devices have been and continue to be developed and introduced, each should have been and can be made available in the free market, as customer choice options.

For example, how many new car buyers would not opt for disc brakes? How about air conditioning or automatic transmissions? What about all-wheel or four-wheel drive; there is a difference? Many of these items were added to every car as the result of government mandate, thus, raising unit manufacturing costs and the base price of every vehicle to citizens. That interferes with both manufacturer choice and buyer choice with respect to options offered and option selection.

Next, auto companies took a page out of the government playbook, adding accessories by manufacturer fiat in order to further inflate the delivered base price of vehicles to each customer. Both are manipulations that have squeezed Americans when making a purchase.

Should a customer finance or lease the vehicle, the transactional cost to them is even higher. That’s due, obviously, to typical carrying costs; but, is further inflated by the base price manipulations noted here.

What should auto companies do? Implement the Henry Ford Way.

Ford’s commitment was to constantly reduce the price of each vehicle. That was the core objective of his market strategy. In order to make that possible, his internal operating strategy was focused on cost reduction through consistent streamlining of production, process improvement and innovation, while providing strong yet appropriate wages for workers. He was a focused and fair business leader. As a result, Ford accomplished all those goals, and his company achieved 60 percent of the industry marketplace.

In a paragraph, what you just read is the outline for automobile industry reform. The ‘Henry Ford Way’ encompasses company business strategy, manufacturing operations requirements, market analysis, management effectiveness, and ultimately, the only acceptable measure of success: market viability. The question this begs, of course, is why weren’t recent and current officials at GM and Chrysler able to do the same, or at least much better, during recent years?

The excuses are many; but, they are still excuses. Expect more at post-bankruptcy Chrysler and GM. Most Americans do not want small cars and will not purchase them. That is why still more coercive government actions are coming if the people do not change the paradigm of government issuing vehicle mandates and oust the political interveners.

Henry Ford understood how to serve free people making free choices in free markets. Doing things his way will reform the auto industry, save jobs for Americans and pay back the taxpayer funded bailouts.

Richard Olivastro is a professional member of the National Speakers Association, president of Olivastro Communications and founder of Citizens For Change. He can be reached at Rich@Olivastro.NET or 877.RichSpeaks.