In the Brave New World of electronic automotive journalism, The Truth About Cars (TTAC) squares up against some heavy hitters: KBB, Edmunds, MSN Autos and more. Separately and together, the industry leaders generate more page views than Senator Mark Foley– and us. In truth, there’s an exponential gap between their site traffic and ours. To take on these giants, to pay our writers real money, TTAC must change. Yes, we’ve broken our advertising cherry. But we need to break out of our e-ghetto. So here’s the plan.
As you know, TTAC’s editorials kick ass. Literally. But as much as I enjoy writing, editing and reading our no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners rants, as much I value your witty, passionate and knowledgeable responses, I’ve decided that TTAC’s commercial future lies elsewhere.
Quite simply, we need more of the masses to make money, and the numbers tell the tale: the masses aren’t interested in the arcane debates that float our boat. While I’m not going to deep-six or dumb-down our rants, it’s time for TTAC to re-focus our energies on our most accessible product: car reviews.
Again, rest assured that TTAC will continue to provide a steady stream of honest, literate and provocative editorials. But we’re turning this website into more of a car search widget. In other words, we’re looking to capture more of the people looking for the truth about cars they may want to purchase.
Even as we are now, TTAC gets a LOT of model searches through our Google rankings (enter the model name of a car we’ve reviewed and we’re usually on the first page or so). Once browsers click onto a review, it’s like they landed in a Swedish minimalist buff book. They don’t know what’s where, what’s what, what we’re on about and what to do next. And once they’ve got the gist, they leave.
To cater to and attract newbies, to keep their attention and profit from their interest, we’re building a new home page. It will contain one or two reviews and a simple, clear search function (for car reviews). The reviews will remain pithy, but become more user friendly. Initially, we’ll bring back the stats and stars, and add a “Why You Should Buy This Car” and a “Why You Shouldn’t Buy This Car” feature (which I designed for Jalopnik).
Eventually, we’ll add [truly] original photography and video, some way cool widgets and lots of helpful, unbiased shopping information (price comparisons, dealer recommendations, etc.).
Meanwhile, on the new home page, editorials will be accessible through title-only links to the Editorials home page. This [Swedish minimalist] navigation assumes that you, our faithful panel of engaged experts, will be able to find your new old home without delay. And again, once there, our talented writers will carry on carping in their own inimitable fashion.
So that I can devote more time and energy to developing the review side of the website, I’m appointing Frank Williams TTAC’s Editorials Editor. Working in the Department of Redundancy Department, Frank will write, commission and schedule our rants. He’ll monitor your replies and snuff out flamers. I’ll still write, but Frank will call the shots.
The basic thinking behind this review-o-centric strategy: focus. I’ve chided automakers for years for not rigidly defining their niche, staying within its confines and maintaining the long-term effort success demands. By making The Truth About Cars the world’s best car review site, I’ll be following my own advice.
Meanwhile, before, during and after our re-launch, I’d like your feedback. In this, the pre-launch phase, I need to know if you think there’s room on the web for a truly independent car review site. I’d also like to hear what functions and features you think we should add to the review mix: comparos, price comparisons, dealer locator, buyer’s club, recommended rides, etc. What should we do that “they” do? How can we innovate?
As always, TTAC lives or dies based on its ability to cater to your needs. We’ve tried tap-dancing for a living, and done well enough. But doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. It’s time for TTAC to get out of the entertainment business, into mainstream infotainment. Oh, and we're also building a MAJOR community site for launch next month (TTAC subs will get a Beta version invite.)
In any case, you have my word that TTAC will never lose its spirit or editorial independence. As the writers and I adjust to this transition, we draw strength from your past support, and inspiration from your suggestions. I will never forget that you gave me the chance to follow my heart’s desire, to work with like-minded individuals to build something fundamentally worthwhile. Thank you for your support.
It’s probably good to follow other sites with star ratings, specifications, and other standard information about cars. The editorials should be off in another area so that they don’t give bad vibes to people that just want to decide on cars.
Robert –
I’ve been hoping that someone would come up with a site with truly independent reviews. The traditional buff books have long since sold out and their reviews consist largely of rewritten PR from the manufacturer’s blurbs on the new cars. KBB, Edmunds and MSN Autos are generally lightweight puff pieces. Dan Neil seems to be one of the hold-out writers who will speak the truth at the expense of ad revenue.
Steve Edgett
Mill Valley, CA
I truly like the idea of a more review-based car website. However, I would like to make a suggestion. Would it be possible to do used cars as well? There’s lots of used cars out there that would be great to read a review on (ie: MKIV Supra, 1st gen Viper, etc).
When I look at the Big Boys, it’s impossible to get to their reviews without navigating through eight levels of links. The sites are all cluttered, and it makes finding the review I’m looking for excessively annoying. Especially if you want to compare reviews side-by-side. Your navigation should go like this:
Reviews -> Make -> Model -> List of reviews starting with current revision going backward.
Also available:
Reviews -> Make -> List of current models and their reviews
Reviews -> Search
Reviews -> Most recent reviews in reverse chronological
As far as how you rate each vehicle, I would recommend a 1-5 star system based on overall impression in each the following areas:
* Quality
* Value
* Performance
* Comfort
* Utility
* Economy/Efficiency
* Reliability (may only apply to older models)
* Safety (maybe just referencing government ratings)
Different buyers are interested in different criteria. This allows a buyer to evaluate a vehicle based on what he or she values.
Finally, don’t just review the new revisions (although that should be your initial focus), but also current models that are several years old. I’d be interested in what you have to say about my Malibu Maxx :).
Mr. Farago,
Seems like a good idea.
I’m probably in the minority, but, I’d like to see more of the reviews devoted to the actual cars themselves. I find too much of the limited space is spent trying to come up with witty sayings and catchy descriptions.
Too often, a paragraph is too full of distracting things like “That said, the 328xi’s front is busier than Dick Cheney’s cardiologist.”
Anyway, good for you for continually trying to improve your product. I hope you and you people earn a lot of cash.
Regards,
Hal.
One additional idea: Build a true vehicle database that lets people search by factors that are important to them, not by categories that manufacturers dictate.
For example, several years ago I decided I wanted to buy a five-door car with a stick shift that got over 30 mpg on the highway for under $20K. To figure that out on Edmunds, I spent hours clicking through all the choices under “station wagons, compact wagons” “hatchbacks,” and “SUVs, compact SUVs,” then sorting by price, then clicking through several screens, closing out the dealer contact box, and choosing the “specifications” tab just to find out basic info like mileage and cargo capacity on individual models. Insane.
* Quality
* Value
* Performance
* Comfort
* Utility
* Economy/Efficiency
* Reliability (may only apply to older models)
* Safety (maybe just referencing government ratings)
I agree with this list as well, except for reliability. I think reliability has gotten so close any more, it is hard to tell (right, Mr. Karesh?). I agree that safety should reference government ratings, but TTAC should give an opinion based upon the total saftey package. How well the brakes and stability control work, airbags and their placement, etc…
I would also request that you state whether you are rating based on the car against the whole market or as rated against its peers.
I look forward to the change.
Way to go, Robert! Wouldn’t we all like to tinker in our garage all day long, just interrupted by a brisk ride in something hot, superceded by an hour or two on the net, researching the production numbers of the 1949 La Salle.
But – comes a time to pay the bills, and for most of us it means generating some income first. So – just make sure you don’t fall into line behind Consumer Reports – and we will all continue enjoying TTAC and spend *far* too much time catching up with the latest rants and raves – and now also (more) reviews!
One additional idea: Build a true vehicle database that lets people search by factors that are important to them, not by categories that manufacturers dictate.
Great idea. I second that!
I really enjoy your site – it gets my attention for 5-10 minutes every day.
That said – I agree the site needs a better layout – more links on the opening page. And I’d love more car reviews. Just don’t get it like Edmunds – I don’t go there anymore in general due to the ads everywhere and ads built into the car reviews. (If I wanted to see what Mercedes thinks of a car they made, I’ll go to Mercedes.com.)
Good luck with the site changes and I hope it brings you the cash you deserve.
btw – I like your witty/busy writing style – it can be a little annoying at times, but it is far from dry.
One thing I might suggest is the “point-counterpoint” reviews that (I believe) have been done a couple times on this site.
Also, I second the idea of used-car reviews. Sometimes a car from the past that is remembered fondly doesn’t stack up when you try it again 10 years hence, and sometimes an old car surprises you when you test drive it at a used car lot. Then again, I might be in the minority of consumers who would cross shop a 10 year old mercedes with a new Honda Accord.
Robert,
As a new reader of your stuff I am encapsulated by the reviews but frustrated by the site. I’m glad you’re changing it, but as some others said, don’t make it nasty complex like some other car sites I won’t mention. Simple searches that are accurate are the best thing any site can have.
I like this site and look forward to the new design. I’m sure there will be plenty of feedback to let you know if you go too far off course ;)
People shopping for cars are always interested in how a model compares with other similar cars and how a trim level compares with others within the same model. Reviews on this site are great, but they’re usually tightly focused. Comparison tests probably aren’t necessary, though more discussion of comparable models within the reviews would greatly help.
A rating system might be nice, but ultimately shoppers simply want to know a car’s strengths and weaknesses, and a general idea its character (the Jalopnik features are great with this).
well i hope it works out, I will wait till i see the result before i start complaining… I hope that this site remains unaffected. This site is very unique, the r&t, c&d sites suck so bad i cannot possibly go there any more – even the Automobile Mag site is nasty – oh well.
Hope springs eternal!
God luck to us all!
TexasAg03: I agree with this list as well, except for reliability. I think reliability has gotten so close any more, it is hard to tell
You’ve obviously never owned a recent VW (*snicker*).
oh and i really like the idea of reviewing used rides, say 2 or three years, off lease for instance- thats where i buy. It would be interesting to compare say a two year old version of the same car with a new one, to see if it is any way worth it to buy a new one.
Except… the problem with reviewing used rides is, well, the use.
Like, if someone were to review my last WRX… boy… “For some reason, Subaru saw fit to dent each and every body panel, including the hood and roof.”
The new direction makes lots of sense to me. I would also suggest toning down the endless cutsie wordplay. A little spice is nice, but too much makes the meal impossible to eat.
Building the world’s best independent car reviews resource is an outstanding goal.
Great. What’s next? A Corvette vs. 911 shootout? Best Mini-Vans under 25K? Perhaps a special guest appearance by Chubba Cheddar?
This feels like I’ve just been dumped by my girlfriend, so she can go hang with the popular crowd.
I’ve been reading since there were probably only 20 or so reviews (all by Robert). I fondly recall the first Deathwatch!
The new TTAC plan sounds like a great resource. I would love to see a quick comparison of the model reviewed with its classmates. How does it compare in terms of value, looks, etc… All subjective, but helpful. Also a detail into a model’s safety features beyond the stars.
K.
Jonny
yeah as i was writing that comment, i was realizing that it might be almost impossible. Perhaps this – a way to compare stats of a given model regardless of year – within reason, of course. Say a 98 model with its 2007 itineration. Just to get an idea of whats changed.
Or a way to compare various late model cars with each other – like the 2002 versions of three different models.
I dunno, but it sure would be nice to have a comparison service for late model cars, instead of only new ones.
capiche?
Robert – I think the review centric site is viable. Particularly if you can remain as independent as you are and also include ‘second opinion’ reviews as well as customer reviews including a database of common complaints.
Good luck and don’t cut back on the creative writing. It’s so good I swear some other automotive sites are trying to copy the trend.
RF – just a few concerns about the change:
-If you’re going to do more reviews, please make sure the quality of the writing remains as high as it is now. Please keep them witty and interesting to read. I know I don’t have to worry about you selling out to the advertisers.
-If you’re trying to open up to the masses, then you’re going to need to change the comment system or TTAC will be ruined with flame wars. If you want to keep it open like now, then maybe something like a slashdot style moderation system where trusted users moderate comments so that the trolls’ comments get hidden from view. Or maybe a jalopnik style invite system to keep the number of accounts low. Right now the TTAC signal to noise ratio is pretty good (except for yesterday’s heliocentric debate). More subscribers will increase the noise faster than the signal until TTAC is unreadable.
-Keep the clean design of TTAC. This site is well designed, no flash, no blinking ads, nothing distracting. Everything just works well and looks good. None of the other mainstream sites are easy to deal with, and I hope that going big doesn’t do that to you.
I’m making notes.
As a car /auto industry enthusiast ,I visit yor site occasionally for relevant news.I’m not really interested in “rants”as much as credibility and facts.I like braking news stories because it seems to be where industry insiders head when then want to keep abreast of the trends.I think they(industry publicists) also tend to volunteer more material to that “particular site” which offers a steady stream of auto news.
I am all for expanded car reviews, but TTAC must continue to be different. This site gives unbiased opinions as well as rants, and this is what makes us (if I may be so bold to use that word) different. Our difference has enabled us to punch above our weight in the automotive web world. I tire of reading web car reviews that seem to be cut and pasted from the manufacturers advertising. Also, I hope that the tone of our reviews does not change, due to any added manufacturer pressure. If any aspect of a car is crap, the review should state it.
Frankly what I would also like to see which nobody has the guts for is honest calls of what to buy at different price points and categories: Something like:
$25,000:
1. Mazdaspeed 3
2. VW GTI
3. Suburu…
$150,000 Sedans:
1. Maserati Quattroporte
2. Mercedes S550
…
and so on… Just make the calls and say this is the best thing going at the price and why. I also agree with the person above who suggested comparing against used options. For example, you might like the Pontiac Solstice just fine, until you find out that a 6 year old Porsche Boxster is the same price and still a better car for the money.
The biggest change I would make to the comments section would be threading. Flat comments in an article get unreadable very quickly. Some sort of moderation would be good as well.
I’m very excited about this site becoming more review-centric, as the one thing I wish this site had more of was reviews. You should have a review of every mainstream North American model currently available.
I agree with most of the above Hey everybody has to pay the bills so I know where your coming from.
Two things I’d like to see, first is used cars its been said allready.and couldn’t agree more.
Second is remember TTAC is international There is whole lot of us up here in the frozen north, and in europe.
Sometimes we would like to hear something from a Canadian perspective.So give Lesely W some more work.
The anti flaming policy is good[even though I spend a lot of time in the dog house]as long as it is fairly applied.
Other that the whole world is changing ever day why should TTAC be any different.Bring it on!
akatsuki:
$25,000:
1. Mazdaspeed 3
2. VW GTI
Ack!! As a 6’3″ guy who likes to go on camping and cycling trips with the wife and friends, the last thing I’m going to spend $25k on is a compact car that gets lousy gas mileage. I might spend 15, but not 25. The fact that these are zippy street racers means nothing to me personally. This is why we need ratings broken down by category.
Boo! I like it the way it is!!! But, I definitely also see a need for an independent reliable review site and trust TTAC to fill that void.
I would like the site to include feature adjusted price comparo’s a la Mr. Karesh’s site. Real reliability data, ie. tgw’s, warranty, customer sat within meaningful range (not 1 month, and including outside warranty range if possible). Moderated comments regarding poster’s experiences with vehicles. Certified pre-owned vehicle reviews (to filter out the dented WRX’s and such).
I was just going to say the same thing… Your audience is from around the world. I would suggest including reviews of cars from other regions too.
But you would need to ensure reviewers conform to the same standards and formats in their assessment.
This change will certainly bring the site out into the mainstream and all for the better. Good decision.
An interesting comparative function would be to understand precisely what is different between badge engineered cars. Why, for example, is the MKZ premium worth it over the regular Fusion? Also, it would be awesome to know what other cars share the same platform/chassis for comparative purposes. It would really empower the regular buyer and defeat the smoke and mirrors hype so loved by manufacturer marketers.
You may not want to but take a look at Edmunds. They do a good job at providing detailed information about cars. Including pricing, reviews, current incentives (absolutely essential when buying a new car) and so forth. While Edmunds Insideline may not be as “in your face” about a car as TTAC I find their reviews pretty good and if it’s a stinker they say so. They just aren’t rude about it.
Next thing, on reviews you have to kill the 800 word limit. While the car reviews here are entertaining they are not substantive enough. There needs to be a set of details including performance (0-60, 1.4 mile, braking, skidpad, slalom, etc.), design, quality, competing cars in the segment, reliability, safety, etc. The hard part about that is being able to afford to come up with your own testing that can be done routinely at a facility. Having a car for a week and driving it around town is great for an overall general impression of a car but it doesn’t tell me how it really measures up.
Lastly you need to decide what will make TTAC’s reviews different from the other sources out there. Why should someone visit TTAC for car reviews besides, Edmunds, C&D, MT, and so forth?
I use the internet a great deal when shopping for cars. I’ve bought my last 4 cars exclusively online. I use KBB for pricing as their configurator is the best I’ve found. It knows what packages on the fly need to be added when you select something (like you selected the sport package which requires the moonroof package). I use the manufacturer’s site for general info and pictures of the car. I then use Edmunds for all the rest, reviews, video, current incentives, comparable models, reliability etc. I’ll of course check other site reviews to get a good feel on the car as well as read actual owner reviews.
Once I’ve narrowed my selection down I find a forum for the cars I like and talk to people who have owned the car to see how they like it and what issues it has.
Here are some snippets from a “First Look” review from Edmunds on the Dodge Avenger (This isn’t a “Full Review” but it is already very detailed and gives someone a good idea on the car. It is well over 800 words because you just can’t fit everything a customer would want to read with that limitation. It also shows that just because your mainstream doesn’t mean you are stuck to the auto manufacturer’s tit.):
“The Avenger’s haunches rise awkwardly out of the rear doors, as if they were a last-minute add-on to an already completed design…”
“…but this Dodge is built to a price, and you can tell when you put it next to a Honda Accord, Nissan Altima or Toyota Camry. “
“Even Dodge admits to us that the Japanese-label competition has a stranglehold on the market for midsize sedans, and the 2008 Dodge Avenger will have to scrap with the Ford Fusion and Pontiac G6 for what’s left over.
This doesn’t sound very aggressive to us. “
Keep as much of the “spice” as feasible, for many consider it a “litmus test” for independent journalism. I’ve gotten at least one hearty laugh per day since I started reading this site (< 1 month ago!) and would miss that aspect if it were lost. That said, more comprehensive reviews would make this a site that I could recommend to my friends as a practical resource-- the great writing would be icing on the cake.
I hope TTAC can successfully balance sophisticated reviews for car enthusiasts and the general car shopping and researching public.
So give Lesely W some more work.
Hey, I’m a Canuck too! (Just not from Tarrana)
As for TTAC’s direction, I’d like to see more car reviews too. Heck, if it wasn’t such a pain in the ass for me to get access to everything, they’re all I’d write. Personally, I find all the (brilliant) DW and SW stuff difficult to wade through every day.
But here’s a thought: the most successful motoring program in the world is not really one you’d tune into if you were seeking info on a purchasing. I hit up TG partly for the absurd commentary[which is getting a bit recycled actually] and partly for the gorgeous cinematography. Yes, stars, a lemonometer or Pros/Cons would ad a bit more cred, but in terms of commercial success, TTAC should offer something the big boys don’t.
Right now, that’s the pull-no-punches writing, and coupled with some eye candy, away you go. I love the minimalist style, but there’s nothing wrong with a little fizz and panache to pull in the punters, and make the site infotaining. People might go to edmunds for reliability ratings on a particular model, but they’ll have a year-long subscription to R&T or C&D because they want to stoke their fascination with all things automotive.
Also, maybe dividing the editorial section from the reviews will leave TTAC with a home for the hardcore, as well as improving it’s accessibility to n00bs. Draw in more pistonheads, and get advertising from Dinan, Perrin, Vishnu, and other tuning companies that recognize the importance of people who are willing to spend money on their rides. Tire companies too.
FWIW, I try and spread the word on all the auto forums I’m on.
Lastly: Hey rob, there outghta be a Paypal donation button on this site, there oughta be TTAC t-shirts, etc, etc. Take a look at how webcomics pay for themselves, and maybe try to incorporate that as well, seeing it from the point of view of an entertainment as well as information site. Forums will pull in revenue as well.
Robert,
The car reviews where the initial reason I enjoyed this site. I found them to be very entertaining. There is a ton of information readily available on the net for the automotive interested. I have read very little that is as organic or grass-roots (i.e. human vs. Large Corp. dumb-downed “special advertising” section like reviews) as TTAC. Expand on your assets.
I would love to see platform history, test tract numbers and/or design philosophy (or lack-there-of) discussed in the reviews.
Good Luck!
Merchandise?
Such as window stickers, T-shirts, thong underwear that says “thetruthaboutcars.com” from Cafepress or some other DIY site.
Totally behind what you’re proposing – the auto world could use good, clear-cut reviews with the pithiness that the site’s writing style has shown in the past. Now just keep the reviews to the car in question, and leave out any opinions about the manufacturer in general, and you’d have one hell of a source for prospective purchasers.
Definitely cull the editorials (and comments) to another section where the viewer who really doesn’t care about the motor industry can avoid them. Our propensity for slagging can be a real turn-off to someone who’s merely looking for a four wheeled transportation appliance.
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty good plan. Here’re my suggestions (and, as usual on the intarweb, they’re worth exactly what you paid for them):
1. Resist the temptation to bog down the reviews with numbers. So many reviews degenerate into lists of numbers (braking distance, 0-whatever times, and so on…) – I read you guys for your subjective views – whether it’s fast enough, whether the braking is acceptable – not what the numbers are…
2. As unpopular as it might be, I’d suggest that there be no comments section for reviews. They’re fun for the editorials but not something I’d like to see on reviews.
3. I value what you’ve got here because the article are well crafted. Stick with that – it may mean it’ll take a while before there enough writers and time are available to do things like comparisons, but that’s OK as long as the quality remains.
4. Have you considered a regular foreign correspondant (or even better, someone from the US who travels, and rents, regularly)? So many of the ‘new’ cars (even from stereotypically ‘US’ companies) showing up recently are transplants from overseas – it would allow reviews of ‘upcoming’ cars without the pain (and industry ‘help’) of getting ahold of pre-production vehicles. Sure, the interiors or fascias might be different, but it would at least allow a hint of what’s coming…
-S5
Good move, and overdue. When I first stumbled onto your site several years back, I was looking for unvarnished product reviews. Your industry-related stuff is great, and you should not abandon it, but my interest in someone else’s workplace has its limits. I can’t bring myself to sit through a Sunday of NFL games for the same reason.
There are tons of review sites out there, and even the best only hit on a few cylinders. I have found carsdirect.com/research to be useful for quick and dirty comparisons. Forbes.com has a useful format. Dan Neil approximates your narrative style. If prior to writing a review, you put the press kit through a shredder, you will be ahead of 99% of the field.
Is TTAC going to have the resources (engineering tools) to objectively compare vehicles?
0-60
1/4 mile
Braking
Slalom
Mileage
There is a lot more to a comprehensive review than just stating how it feels to you. The “Edmunds” type’s have the tools to be scientific… will you?
Be hesitant to get into assessing reliability. Other sources are available for that info. Accurate reliability ratings require heavy duty research.
They do not need to have the scientific tools to measure a vehicle performance. They can readily quote the statistics from the myriad of other sources that do measure them. If 10 other such sites measured the quarter mile, why be the 11th to repeat the test?
This site has always been about reviewing the qualitative, not quantitative, aspects of a vehicle.
I’m probably in the minority, but, I’d like to see more of the reviews devoted to the actual cars themselves. I find too much of the limited space is spent trying to come up with witty sayings and catchy descriptions.
Quoted for truth. Here’s looking at you, BM.
Robert, I have been reading car mags for longer than most of the visitors to this site have been on the planet and have been following on-line auto information and forums since about 1989. I have found TTAC to be interesting but not, as you seem to have now concluded, compelling. I believe you are correct that people do want to see honest car reviews with a good sprinkling of humor to move things along. Tom McCann, writing for Popular Mechanics long ago, was an earlier practitioner of this and Dan Neil is a respected modern purveyor of such writing.
Automobile reviews today often miss the mark because they are too cute, they shill for the manufacturer, or they fall victim to conventional wisdom. Clever wording is often entertaining, but rarely informative. Some of the TTAC editorials have fallen in this category, sacrificing insight for trick metaphors. Jeremy Clarkson is the leading advocate of this style, one that is perfectly suitable for the Sunday Times but is not particularly good for anything else. While Edmunds was once a very useful site, they have recently fallen into the Motor Trend and to lesser extent, Road & Track habit of essentially recycling press releases as original journalism. If I want to know what the manufacturer thinks about its cars, I’ll go to their websites. The most egregious fault of any review, in my opinion, is to fall for the cliché of the day. It is, for example, an article of faith that all Americans dislike hatchbacks. That same fantasy is repeated again and again, mindlessly, without any intervening original research. Yesterday we saw an example of that type of fixation on TTAC, when hammering the Taurus under the misconception that everyone looking to buy a new car has had a bad rental experience with the bull.
Another peeve of mine is the review that goes on and on about the most minor interior details of a car yet neglects to cover the essential engineering. How many times does one see paragraphs lavished on the virtues or flaws of the fake wood on the dash yet nary a word about which wheels drive the car? One of the main reasons people read reviews is to learn things that can’t be easily discovered by simply sitting in the car at the dealer.
Finally, I would like to see more reviews of interesting older cars. For example a pristine ’83 911 SC might be more rewarding and a better investment than a new vanilla jelly- bean from Korea for about the same amount of money.
Good luck with your new format.
Tough choices. Personally, I think comments are key, and that car reviews should definitely have comments sections. In fact, I’d encourage owners to write their own detailed reviews – I’d much rather hear from someone that’s lived with a car for months or years.
1. I would second the not getting bogged down in numbers. Skidpad numbers might matter when I’m shopping for a wrx, civic si, etc. However, I know that I could care less about the track numbers for a 4 cyl midsize sedan and neither will most people. TTAC has done a pretty good job of tailoring reviews to a car’s usage with some fun to drive thrown in keep that.
2. Used car reviews would really be helpful since many have to go on old reviews and would like to know how they would stack up now. This even goes for models that haven’t been totally redesigned and are forgotten by most pubs.
3. I would like to a list of recommended vehicles based on category and maybe even price point. Also look at realistic prices, don’t just compare with MSRP numbers. Fords are a lot cheaper than Hondas.
4. Keep a comments section for reviews, but restrict it to questions about the cars because it can helpful to ask about things the reviewer forgot to mention.
5. If not a reliability section, then at least put disclaimers in the reviews about known major mechanical issues (i.e. sludge in certain vw and toyota motors)
Now I have a greater understanding of what you were referring to when you made your invitation. I believe Frank and I will be able to develop a great relationship. Does he know yet? I think you have taken a giant leap for TTAC that is a harbinger of a future with an exciting upward rocketing curve of success. I do like the comment referring to the older type cars and have a couple ideas to run by Frank. I look forward to being part and parcel of this future. The e-ghetto comment rocked BTW.
When I think of TTAC I think of honest reviews but I also think of honest industry analysis. Maybe there isn’t money in that side of journalism but I hope you don’t sacrifice those insightful editorials.
This sort of echoes the theme of how to you compete with stores like Walmart. I believe that you can compete, you just need to compete on quality or on unique products. You can’t compete head on and not on price. There may be an analogy here. To compete with edmunds, you can’t just offer the same product, there should be something compelling about yours.
I’m not sure of the answer but I’ll throw out a couple ideas. One, have consistent sections and consistently formatted tables to make comparisons easier.
Maybe you could have a section called “Who this vehicle is marketed to” and a “Who we think is likely to buy this vehicle”, then give a poser factor which relates how the above two overlap. Maybe come up with other unique numerical metrics for other things like this. Keep them consistent among all reviews.
When I was shopping for a new car, I narrowed it down to 5 candidates and test drove them all. One stood out as right for me. I didn’t need the internet for that.
But when I was ready to actually buy, I found 2 things very helpful, both at Edmunds. First was their True Cost to Own forecasts which give you a holistic view of car costs over the next 5 years. The second was the “what I paid” forum. Understanding what invoice for my car was, how holdbacks work and what manufacturer incentives were in place. Saved me a grand easy.
It would be nice to see dealer rankings as well.
I would be careful about reporting “known” major mechanical issues. If you do so, I would only report Technical Service Bulletins or known recalls. As a matter of fact, I really like the idea of reporting TSBs.
I would love to see reviews and comparisons of cars that I could actually consider purchasing. It’s fun to read about the latest greatest supercar, but since I’m not actually buying it I can settle for reading about it in C&D or MT and putting up with their biases, I don’t really need the bare bones honest truth about it.
I trust you guys, and you’re the 1st place I’ll come to when I want reliable information. A comparison test between $100k cars is entertainment; a comparison test between $25k cars is actually useful, and I’m sure you’ll find a way to make it entertaining as well.
I think you said it best: “It’s time for TTAC to get out of the entertainment business, into mainstream infotainment.”
charliewhiskey: Tom McCann, writing for Popular Mechanics long ago,
I believe you’re referring to “Uncle Tom” McCahill, who wrote for Mechanix Illustrated. He was one of the first automotive writers who actually tested the car and reported on his findings instead of recycling information from the manufacturers. His use of hyperbole, metaphors and similes could put TTAC to shame.
Some quotes from some of his tests:
On the 1962 Plymouth:
” It was raining like tears in a onion cannery when I did my test…. ….the slightly teutonic looks of the Valiant, enlarged (on the 62 Plymouth) stand out like a hip flask in a bikini.”
On the 1959 T-bird:
“It went over like a keg of brandy in a prison camp…..(but)……rolls like the Queen Mary in a full gale.”
On the 1959 Chevy Impala:
“The rear deck treatment is pure Louis Armstrong: gone, man, gone!”
On the 1959 Imperial:
“This doll was as loaded as an opium peddler during a tong war……..Swivel seats make it as easy to get into as a floating crap game with fresh money……….On the 31 degree banked turns the big Imp hung in there like oil going through a hose……The finest car built in America, and I’ve been testing cars for a long time.”
On the 1968 AMC Javelin:
“It corners as flat as a tanked soprano’s high C and with the big, fat new tires holds tight corners like the painted lines on the road. I purposely threw it into several spins on gravel and found the Javelin as controllable as a mouse in a small, dead-end pipe”
Thom McCann made shoes.
Since TTAC isn’t the first, or the biggest in its field, I think its best bets are to be:
A) The most entertaining
B) The most informative
C) The most personal
A) involves keeping — and improving, where possible — the writing style. Non-gearheads don’t understand references to a 1968 Skoda, but tell them that a truck is meant for the Village People (Bless you, Jonny Lieberman) and they get a chuckle along with useful information.
B) involves giving people information they can’t get elsewhere. Can TTAC develop closer ties to TrueDelta?
Can it offer novel features like a “For the same money, we’d buy” link in the article reviews. Can it have novel ways of looking at cars that the other sites aren’t delivering?
C) relates to B. Most people when they’re shopping for cars are not interested in cars generally, they’re interested in the right car for them!
For example, I look at the “Top 10 lists” at Edmunds and see potential. But categories like “Top 10 Cars traded in for Hybrids” are not very useful.
I think if TTAC can generate something like “Cars for Tall People priced under $25,000” that focus on a particular customer’s narrow need, it would make a lot of people happy.
Especially if that can be generated on request, so people can customize it to their desires.
Another feature might be something like “Help me buy a car”. It would lead people by the nose, narrowing choices down based on selection criteria/priorities. Something like the Tire Selection Guide at Tirerack.com.
In other words, TTAC should beg/borrow/steal the best of what’s out there, make it TTAC’s own and better, and use the ‘sizzle’ of TTAC entertaining car reviews to get people to buy the ‘steak’ of truly useful car information
I’m just sayin’…..
Bravo. Although I too spend 10-15 mins each day reading TTAC, I would be apt to spend far more time if there were more reviews/ photos, etc….
One piece that I would love to see, ala ePinions, CNET, etc…is owner comments. “I bought the car because of this and I’ve learned that”
My only fear here is that folks with an agenda might login and post bogus raves.
You go Farago!
What’s the business plan? More readers = more clickthrus?
I think you’ve got a niche market cornered at this point. Adding more car reviews would be great. I’m not sure how adding technical data that can be found everywhere else won’t dilute your excellent content.
I applaud the new focus and think this site will be the better for it. Here are my suggestions:
1. Don’t annoy your audience. While this may seem obvious and self evident, far too many sites get this wrong. Others have already pointed out the pitfalls of complicated site navigation (iDrive for the web anyone?), but advertisements can be equally annoying. I’m not referring to the content of the ads, but rather the way in which they are presented to the viewer. Pop-up, banner and interstitial ads (and others of their ilk) are like mother-in-laws (except mine of course) – irritatingly intrusive.
2. Make the reviews consistent. Studies have shown that the fastest way to make mice stop pressing on a button for food is not to completely cut off the food supply but to make it completely random. If the reviews are written (as they have been to date) primarily to be entertaining, this is less important, but if the new focus is to make them informative and useful as well, the reader has to know what type of reviews to expect. As it stands now, each of your reviewers not only has a distinctly different style but a distinctly different set of values, preferences and criteria. The problem with this is that the reader has to calibrate the opinions (i.e. put them in context) for them to be useful (as opposed to merely entertaining). For example, if X writes a damning or glowing review of a car, it’s hard to know what that really says about the car without knowing what X’s values and preferences are. There are various ways to address this issue: (i) create a mission statement (the “Company line”) for the reviews and have all the reviews written with the same set of values and criteria (WR, Evo and others do this with varying degrees of success), (ii) publish profiles for each of the reviewers with their values, preferences, etc., (iii) write objective reviews accompanied by subjective editorial comments (similar to a counterpoint but from the same reviewer) or (iv) some combination of these. The idea behind option (iii) is to have each review written in as objective, impartial and, to be honest, dry manner as possible, providing a maximum of information, and accompany it with a subjective commentary from the reviewer. For example, I could write an exhaustive review of the Ford 500 nee Taurus setting forth its strengths and weaknessess, and follow it with a no holds barred commentary on why I hate it, love it our could care less about it.
3. Don’t force the entertainment. A funny/witty article can only be written by someone who is naturally funny and witty. If you start inserting ridiculous metaphors just because you think it’s what the readers want (as does a certain once irreverent magazine), it doesn’t work. Some writers can do it (JL [his RS4 review is a classic], Jeremy Clarkson, etc.) and others can’t, and trying to be funny when you’re not is ten times worse than not trying to be funny at all.
4. Stay true to the site’s origins. The new focus is all well and good as long as it doesn’t obscure the site’s raison d’etre – to give an independent and (crucially) different perspective on the industry. The market is fully saturated and the only way to succeed is by offering something unique and different. If you try to compete with the big guns on their field by their rules, you’ll lose. If you play on a different field entirely, however, you can, and I think will, succeed.
Quick note: I started subscribing to R&T in 1966 (in other words I have been reading car mags for a long, long time). I now only read English mags, they do it very, very well. Don’t bother with the stats, or make it brief, anyone who needs loads of stats can find ’em somewhere on the web. Maybe a thousand words max, and keep the reviews personal. The eds probably do need to be on a separate page, but please continue to moderate them.
I am all for an truly independent review site. But if you’re going to be different, then please continue to avoid reviewing every vehicle the same way.
You guys have done an admirable job of reviewing a vehicle in its context — the preferences of the market it’s aimed at. Please keep doing so, please be more consistent doing it. While a Civic si and a Scion xB might be aiming for the same “age of ownership,” they’re aiming for very different segments. Please keep looking at vehicles that way.
You guys can continue to set yourselves apart if you don’t view every vehicle as just a set of performance numbers. The brilliant Super Duty review is a perfect example.
Bottom line, keep up the good work and kep honing in on what will is and will continue to set you apart.
I enjoy TTAC enough to read daily, both the editorial content and the reviews. I’d love to see more of the latter, but that doesn’t mean that I want less of the former.
As others have suggested, to get more mainstream viewers, TTAC is going to have to be more of a basic information source for folks who aren’t car nuts. I see the current reviews as something akin to bebop — you need to know the standards and the melodies in order to grasp the witticism of the improvisation, and if you don’t, what you’re hearing may sound like unintelligible noise. Gearheads presume that one who considers a Camry purchase has also thought of Accord and Altima, but millions out there aren’t thinking down that path, and need to be told.
I don’t know if you want to invest the resources it would take to make the site a better source than Edmunds for detailed, objective information (size, acceleration, EPA mileage, price, etc.), but I doubt that there’s much room to try to consistently beat the field on that basis. Once you have the set of relevant information, and it’s accurate, it’s pretty much fungible, and how much more user-friendly can any one site be for any length of time?
Instead, I think TTAC can set itself apart and play to its strengths by including a comparison component in every review. Whatever its shortcomings, I think Consumer Reports gets and keeps readers because it recognizes that they’re looking for answers to the “which one should I buy?” question, and they put all their content into a format that offers ready access to their opinions of the answer.
So don’t tell the average reader how much you liked or disliked driving the new Camry — unless you tell him in the same review how it compared to driving Accord and Altima. Don’t tell me about the excesses and absurdity of an ML 63 — tell me what it does better and worse than the Cayenne Turbo S. I don’t think any source does that in any depth with any regularity. Comparisons are the exception in car review content, but when somebody’s spending money, they’re the rule.
TTAC can do comparisons better than they’re being done now. R & T (print version) has a hint of what I’m getting at in including thumbnail sketches of two cars that compete with the road tested vehicle. But that’s insufficient depth. R & T, C & D and Edmunds do comparos but seem to fixate on one or two subjective likes and dislikes in order to justify a ranking — to the neglect of other characteristics that might be relevant to a buyer (okay, you hate the Maxima’s torque steer — but I still want to know how it compares to the others in holding its line on a bumpy 65 m.p.h. curve). Whenever I see a review of a car, I’d like to see your suggestions about what its competitors are, and about where each of them ranks against the others in reliability, utility/comfort, safety and real-world driving. If there are no apparent significant edges in a category, say so.
And about that real-world driving . . . If car A beats car B from 0-60 using aggressive dragstrip launch techniques, but B’s actually faster if you start and shift normally, and if B’s faster from 10-60, 20-60, 30-60, and 40-90 then I want to know. And if you’re calling A the better handler because it’s easier to manage its tail with your right foot, I want to know — I have the room to enjoy powerslides far less often than I have an expressway curve with broken pavement beneath me and a big concrete wall a foot or two to one side, so I’m more interested in composure under those circumstances than I am in the trackday fun component. For my taste, too many reviews everywhere discuss handling in the “Can I play Gilles Villeneuve?” sense to the neglect of what average drivers are concerned about — and once again, Consumer Reports gets to thrive.
If all this basic comparison stuff were included in every review, TTAC would have something that readers can’t find elsewhere. The reviewers could be hard-hitting in ways that other sources don’t dare — thereby ensuring a continued edge on the competition. I agree with other folks who have suggested that a relaxation on the word limit would be a good thing. After the basic melody is established, the improv that we see here now, including the interaction between reviewer, colleagues and readers, could continue to be the attraction that keeps gearheads.
Now that all that’s off my chest, good luck, and I’ll go back to read-only mode.
I tried to read all the responses, but I just don’t have time:
I think the new direction is the way to go. I remember a while back the brain-storming that took place for a pay site, etc…I really think it’s better to go more mainstream (i assume advertisers pay more when you’ve got more page views), but still retain the we-ain’t-bought-by-no-one mentality.
Like RF is suggesting, you don’t want to read vanilla reviews of Corolla’s…Fine, skip that part; the editorials are still going to be as they are.
I love the minimalist site too, but I would rather have to ignore certain items, then not have a TTAC to visit.
I’m probably in the minority, but, I’d like to see more of the reviews devoted to the actual cars themselves. I find too much of the limited space is spent trying to come up with witty sayings and catchy descriptions.
Shabster, if you’re in the minority then I’m right in there with you. I actually quit visiting the site for a while because the writing was getting too annoying and repetitive. In editorials, cute phrases and standup-comic routines sprinkled with pop-culture references are occasionally amusing, but in reviews (which are supposed to provide information) they quickly become hackneyed and tiresome.
Robert: You opened the floodgates here, so I’ll respond:
I think this is a good move. Clever writing will only get you so far, and as far as opinions go, there are 10 million blogs out there with people writing their opinions. If TTAC is to survive and thrive it must offer something that those other opinion sites can’t, and I think well written, no-pulled-punches reviews is the way to go.
I would start by de-emphasising any excessive commentary on style. Style is completely subjective – after all, there’s not a day that goes by that I don’t see someone driving a B9 Tribeca or an Aztek. So if you start a review by saying “this vehicle is so ugly it would make Oedipus want to put his eyes back in just so he could have the opportunity to claw them out a second time, ” a potential buyer is just going to think your an arrogant jerk and not read the rest of the review.
The way a certain car looks is often the only thing a potential buyer does know about the car, and if the buyer is still interested, then obviously he/she likes the looks (or at least is not put off by them) so dwelling excessively on purely subjective appearance factors is both a waste of time and potentially off-putting to the person who really needs the information.
Along these lines, can we please, please, please drop the cutesy-poo neologisms? The first time I saw “spizzarkle” I thought it was mildly humorous but by the 50th iteration it had gone the way of “tubular!” or “way cool!”
Ditto with terms like “bangle-butt” and “hoon.” The effect of these silly terms has been to make all the writing look the same. And the pop-culture references make the articles hopelessly dated in very short time (take your Mark Foley reference above. Wasn’t that from about 6 months ago? And do people in Europe even know who Mark Foley is? Do they care?)
In addition, the apparent neccessity to “out-hip” the next writer encourages contributors to spend a lot more effort on coming up with their next cute pop culture analogy than they do in actually providing information that a potential buyer would use.
It also might help if the people who reviewed vehicles did so with an open mind. Having someone who hates trucks or SUVs review an SUV just so they can slag it doesn’t help anybody. Nor do extraneous and irrelevant comments about global warming, foreign policy, oil dependence, or other comments about political matters that belong on the editorial page, not in the reviews.
A danger with car reviewers, as with restaurant critics, is the tendency to get spoiled and to have unrealistic expectations as a result. Reviewers who spend a week driving the slickest, accessory-laden Caddy or Mercedes might well find the interior of a Camry or a Malibu to be “cheap” but so what? How does that help the person trying to choose between the Malibu, the Altima and the Accord? Reviewers who get to take the latest Ferrari out to the track might well find that the handling on the Chrysler mini-van is “wooden” or “unresponsive,” but again, how does this help the potential buyer?
I think TTAC has real potential, but too much of the writing is more about “opinion” than “truth” and given that opinions are like certain body parts, TTAC needs to do something different to set it apart from the crowd.
>>Another peeve of mine is the review that goes on and on about the most minor interior details of a car yet neglects to cover the essential engineering. How many times does one see paragraphs lavished on the virtues or flaws of the fake wood on the dash yet nary a word about which wheels drive the car? One of the main reasons people read reviews is to learn things that can’t be easily discovered by simply sitting in the car at the dealer.
I second this.
>>Tough choices. Personally, I think comments are key, and that car reviews should definitely have comments sections. In fact, I’d encourage owners to write their own detailed reviews – I’d much rather hear from someone that’s lived with a car for months or years.
For car shopping, I find owner comments to be very useful. You can learn the details of what’s breaking down on a particular car.
Several people have said leave off the numbers. I say, keep the numbers, but put them in a table. And definitely include turning circle. In more than a decade, I never got used to having a 40ft turning circle on my old Saturn.
Think of a make and model of a car, go to Edmunds.com, and try to find a review of that car. Count the number of clicks, the wrong turns, the “WTF?” links on that site, and realize that, despite great content, Edmunds.com is a freakin nightmare to navigate!
I like this site due to its simplicity. Simplicity. Simplicity. All I would add to TTAC is a chart full of car stats for every review.
I suppose the “Why you should buy this car” bullets would be nich touch, too. That’s about it. Keep it simple!!!!
I don’t have time for highly detailed sites. I suffer from information overload. I need short focused information.
I like the limited, targeted nature of this site. Once it gets too big, I’ll probably bail on it, and find another autoblog with laser-like focus, dead-simple navigation, and minimalist visual design. Like TTAC is now.
Martin Albright: And the pop-culture references make the articles hopelessly dated in very short time
In the case of new car reviews, is that really a problem? If you look at a review of the 1999 Lumina, aren’t you expecting it to be dated anyway? References to “Ross and Rachel on a break” or “Little Annie Skywalker” would be completely reasonable.
Quoted for truth. Here’s looking at you, BM
Least you’re looking.
Having a car for a week and driving it around town is great for an overall general impression of a car but it doesn’t tell me how it really measures up
I would beg to differ. having a car for a week & driving it around town will tell you more about a car than all the 0 to infiniti times in the world.
Maybe a table a little like Top Gear’s with a snappy line from the review linking to the main body of the review.
Keep it Simple, Sharp, and full of the consistent personality as always. Just make it easy to cross reference.
There’s always a moving window of affordable used cars. Perhaps highlight undervalued, high depreciation cars such as the VW Phaeton.
RF –
Best of success in this re-focus. My only suggestion to add to the many excellent ones above is that you resist the urge to include car model reviews in Death or Suicide Watches (see latest Sebring review ergo suicide watch). To me this may be an innapproriate context for objective and truly consumer oriented car reviews.
I think you have rightly identified the reality that most car shoppers are not like any of us “carnuts” here reading the editorials and ranting in reply. My sense is that they are looking for no-holds-barred information on various vehicles without having to wade through all the reasons why a particular models portends the end of the manufacturer.
Then apply the same defined analysis to each vehicle so that their is consistency across all makes and models. I believe you and your talented writers can still inject the usual spice even with such structure and constraints.
I too saw a void among all the many resources out there in cyber-review land. I like the rating systems and stars (ala amazon) and a consumer review section written by folks who actually own the vehicle and live with it day after day.
My favorite non-TTAC review site is NCTD.com, and my own of course –
http://www.autoreviewcentral.com
Cheers.
Martin Albright: And the pop-culture references make the articles hopelessly dated in very short time
In the case of new car reviews, is that really a problem? If you look at a review of the 1999 Lumina, aren’t you expecting it to be dated anyway? References to “Ross and Rachel on a break” or “Little Annie Skywalker” would be completely reasonable.
Well that depends on the purpose of the reviews. If the purpose is to establish the hip credentials of the writer, in essence to be the automotive equivalent of a snarky gossip column, then the pop culture references are reasonable.
But if the purpose of the review is to provide actual information or to be some useful tool, then they are a waste of space and a distraction.
Incidentally, last month, I bought a new (to me) vehicle. Despite its flaws (and I totally agree with the comments about non-user-friendly interfaces, excessive clicking thru, and pop ups) I used Edmunds extensively to do my pre-buying research.
I did not use TTAC because
(a) TTAC reviewers almost never review the kinds of vehicle I was looking for [small pickups]
(b) When they do, it’s almost always done in sneering, condescending fashion that reveals not only the sports car/luxury car bias, but also a near complete ignorance of trucks and the reasons people buy them, and
(c) I had already narrowed it down to two or three models so what I needed was the hard data to help me differentiate between them, which Edmunds (for all its flaws) has in spades and which TTAC does not.
And I think that’s the real problem with TTAC. It’s become essentially two different sites: The first one has lots of “inside baseball” discussion about the car industry, which I find fascinating, and the second one is the automotive gossip column I mentioned above, which does not interest me.
I always want reliability considered. ALWAYS. That is my primary factor for wanting a car, if it ain’t reliable who needs it. And based upon my experience with GM and Ford lately, there is still a big difference. (And VW, based on my boss’ car.)
John
I agree with liberty on both counts about getting some owners opinions of their cars. One, that it can be more insightful than review done over a short time period. And, two, that you’d have to keep an eye out for people with an agenda posting. I always find it amusing when I see people post ownership experiences on msn autos or Edmunds when the car hasn’t been released yet. (Or are there really 15 people who own 2006 Maybachs posting on MSN Autos? Shouldn’t they be rolling around on their piles on money?)
If you could filter out people by having them send you an image of their car with a certain item in it, that could help. Just a thought.
To differentiate it from the sites you mentioned, I’d rather see more audio clip and ad some video clips. I’m thinking of video review like the British Fifth Wheel that you can find on You Tube. Their reviews are irreverent, funny and sometimes down right bizarre. But generally entertaining.
I think there is room for an American version of this. Not every car review should be video, but an irreverent clip (like 3-10 minutes would be a fun diversion).
Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the are driving just a little bit. A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful. I certainly appreciate the reader’s feedback.
I once read a car mag review of a VW Eurovan Weekender (camper) and the reviewer came right out and asked “who in their right mind would sleep in a van?” The review was down hill from there. They just didn’t get it. They needed to have an open mind and possibly schedule the review where they could attend an over-night VW campout where they could talk to other VW van owners – new and old. Then maybe they’d understand the culture and mind-set of the typical Eurovan/vintage VW owners.
For example alot of folks want something nicer than a tent, don’t want to tow a popup trailer, and don’t want to drive or own a fullsized camper. We’re all different. The Eurovan was expensive new but you’ve got to understand the US tariff structure and how that impacts VW’s pricing. Lookup the German Chicken War and the 25% tariff put on German trucks and vans – don’t know if it continues today.
I quit reading car mags about the same time that I read the VW article. That was about 10 years ago. Like so many of your other readers I got tired of articles which were obviously plagerized from the manufacturer’s literature. I also got tired of articles which focused on what the cars or vans or trucks could NOT do, vs what they could.
I think what happened was that I realized that it did not matter to me how fast a car was (7.1 seconds or 7.3 seconds) or how it fared on the skid-pad doing circles. Most of us do not drive at the limits of our vehicles on a daily basis. I wanted more practical information. It’s got to be tough to compare a really good car (this week’s car) to last week’s really good car. However I need some practical information. I’d like to know how previous models have faired reliability wise, what existing owners of previous models think of their cars, and what the resale values are like. An invoice price might be nice too!
One British site I read reviewed the cargo capacity by finding how many liters of water would fit in the trunk. Tell me the weight and the weight vs HP ratio and what the range of the vehicle is per tank/charge.
I could give very detailed reviews of our 4 vehicles – pros and cons. We’ve been happy with each of them.
Chris
I actually do site usability for a living so I will keep my comments on this to a minimum.
The reason I like your site is the lack of a generic star rating system. I like the more subjective approach to the reviews. To give a new visitor quick star ratings would be a disservice because it puts less emphasis on the editorial, which is this site’s strength IMHO.
Too many of the big sites make it hard to find a down to earth review amidst the ads, fluff, etc. Stats, Stars and dots don’t help me know what it’s like to drive a car.
The “swedish minimalist” is great. I have never had a problem finding a review or determining where you guys stand on in a review.
Love the site- best of luck.
I read your site via RSS feed, and I just read most articles as they come up. If I’m doing research, I use google, so I’d probably land on the review directly. So as you do your navigation, you might want to keep in mind people who have come directly to the review without following your site navigation — give them easy ways to go to similar vehicles, different trims, etc.
I also have to second the few people who have commented on the cutesy wordplay. Some of it is very clever, but clever-cleaver often gets in the way of communication. Sometimes I actually can’t figure out what the reviewer is trying to say; at least, a description of the car’s performance couched in witty metaphors is hard to extract much use from. So while your current style may appeal to readers looking for entertainment, it may be frustrating for those who are actually doing research.
And finally, I’d like to make another plea for you to stop putting hyphens between verbs and prepositions where they don’t belong. e.g. the phrase “While I’m not going to deep-six or dumb-down our rants…” should contain zero hyphens. I’ve tried to explain the principle in email before but finally gave up. it still antagonizes me about 5x a day though when I’m reading TTAC ;)
anyway, I think the site is great, and I think the new focus will be great. I hope you get the additional traffic you’re looking for, while remaining opinionated and entertaining.
I think you,ve seen many good ideas above.
I have two comments:
1)Stress objectivity: when editing, ask yourself: Is this review TRUELY objective?
2)Ask your reviewers to think of the potential customers and usage and facing competition for this particular vehicle. Don’t get caught in the trap of comparing every B class econocar and SUV to a BMW 5 series.
Tom D
A few simple thoughts. Keep the number of font sizes on a given page to reasonable minimum. Use as few colored fonts as possible, if at all. And only flash unless you absolutely positively have to. :D
Well I have always looked to this site for entertainment, and comments/discussions on the topic of “the business of the auto business” but not for reviews of cars I might buy.
I found this site one day several months ago looking for some entertaining reading from owners of crappy cars. One of my favorite winter reads is to check up on where the junk is. And search google for “my car sucks” and “my ford is junk” somehow long way down on one of those lists I found thetruthaboutcars.com. And continue to read it for its comments about company strategy, brand strategy, model identy, you name it. But not for a review of a car, although I have read almost all of them. Deciding to follow the flock, and offer auto reviews, remember you would be writing to capture the ear of owners of most of the cars that capture your writers greatest wrath. How would you review an Outlander fairly to qualify as a review a possible shopper can use? (sorry Uplander)
Seems to me you could just purchase a database of auto review data. You guys should just use your unique journalistic style and become an investment strategist simply based on watching the moves of the very same CEO types you are watching now at FoMoCo and GM. You could start with Home Depot’s new CEO and how he’s going to get more customers in, while the housing market goes into superslump this spring…. I can tell you now, that when I read a review here, I read a few comments until posters begin comparing things like X6’s ERQ’s, M9’s SQX’s and so many other non descript 3 letter combo’s I just don’t care to look up to follow the comment. Same goes for the endless comparison of production numbers:
Tacoma: 50,000 units 2005
Siera: 20,000 units 2005
f-150: 30,00 units 2005
Give me a break…… I just grab the scroll-bar and skip a few dozzen. Can’t you giys just post an official numbers page and you guys just refer to it over and over again. You know “truck production page – part B says…” As an auto business analyst site, you guys are pretty far ahead of the wall street sites I read every day. I saw a marketwatch piece on the Galaxy/Taurus thing that made me immediately think TTAC had a hand in it.
And your depth seems like your writers are very capable of learning the lingo of the industry, and writing appropriate appraisals of the business plan. Who cares about car reviews. Every web portal reviews cars. Put your Bold into it and forge a new review. Sorry to so many knowledgable posters, but some of the production numbers, and constant comparison to BMW, or Mersedes models just gets old.
Same for the idea Ford can come up with a Prius killer, they can’t and should not try, just stay in the game, not always be off somewhere designing some great thing bigger and better………but a few years late.
A nice nitch may be to use your business buff to review cars, and predict future resale value based on what you know about the misses or hits of cars as they roll off the line. ” The new taurus recently seen on Avis lots may hit resale” hey now that would begin a nice review, then tie it into projected resale, then you could have a feedback column. Well at least you got the website name that should command a different and distinctive look at cars, new and used. Be interesting to see you guys pull off your usual reviews, combine that with appeal to Outlander drivers (Dam, Uplander), and still not be just like car and driver with a cooler sounding website.
You know just an FYI, Car and Driver, the ones I believe hand out “car of the year awards” to whatever is new that year, has 0 credibility with me. Same for JD Powers and their silly Innitial Quality crap. Worthless. That award just means you didn’t have to walk the first week you owned it. Most of you can see I don’t love cars, don’t want to know every model, just be entertained. TTAC does this well, and it appeals to someone who is not a car buff. I assume you know some of your readers are just interested in the business of the car business, and not the dam cars. A novel idea may be to pay to follow owners of cars from the dealer lot to the trade in, and keep a running log… sorry blog. A transformation from a car business blog, to a car review blog??
Good luck.
me.
Categories work for me:
Cars under $25K
Cars tall people might prefer
Cars for towing
Trucks by category
Used cars? Tough call.
Long lists of specs? Make it a 2nd click to get to ’em:
Gas tank capacity; seats 7 with third row this or that; zzz.
And about that real-world driving . . . If car A beats car B from 0-60 using aggressive dragstrip launch techniques, but B’s actually faster if you start and shift normally, and if B’s faster from 10-60, 20-60, 30-60, and 40-90 then I want to know.
Why??? OMG, no. (If there’s a full moon, and you shift from 1st to 3rd sideways, you’ll beat a Porche with a Civic. Please.)
Real-world driving for the masses does not invlove 0-60, nor do they run the 1/4 mile. Gawd the car rags beat that stuff to death already. Do you think mom and dad care about all that?
Not enough power to pass easily, okay. The rest? Not at all.
Think about terminology too: “Review” vs. “Road test.”
My preference is to seek out road tests as many “reviews” are simply a modified press release followed by a list of specs. Sorta like this. Although there are a few good paragraphs in there.
For some odd reason, I like seeing “most searched for” cars listed at sites. Guess we all like to know what others are looking for/at. ;-)
A truly useful “links” page, right off the review would be unique. I’m talking about, say you review the Civic. Then somewhere offer links to Civic-related forums and the like, such as TOV (Temple of VTEC), or 8thCivic.com No one does that now, best as I can tell. Imagine being directed to a VW ownewrs forum where you could see what actual owners think of their new Rabbit, or what the common problems are.
Either that, or somehow list “known issues” with past similar models. That type of information is useful. Not to all though.
Stars and dots don’t help me know what it’s like to drive a car.
Agreed. Nor do they tell what it would be like to own one.
I’d like to know how previous models have faired reliability wise, what existing owners of previous models think of their cars, and what the resale values are like. An invoice price might be nice too!
Invoice price is essential. Many of us print that out and bring (or e-mail) the invoice prive to the dealer to bargain with. :-)
Well said: Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the are driving just a little bit. A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful.
I’ll miss the current format, but economic reality is what it is.
Good luck!
Robert, I have found many people, perhaps your future newbies, will benefit from environmental impact of a particular model….greenhouse emissions, etc.
Environmental impact will affect my decision making when I buy my next car, and I know I’m not alone.
Thanks for an incredible site and I look forward to your new focus.
Think about termonology: Review vs. Road Test.
To me “road test” articles seem to be more fufilling.
Stars and dots? No. But people do love rankings.
0-60 and 1/4 mile times? Mom and dad don’t really care.
Let alone how to shift to get to 60 1/10th of a sec. faster.
I’m into cars but I gotta say, the rags beat that stuff to death: “During a full moon, we used this proceedure…and the Civic beat our Porche thru the 1/4 mile.” It’s so arcane.
Not enuf power to pass easily, sure that’s good to know.
Where was it that I saw a review that said something like this in a hard-top convertable comparo: In car A I could get two cases of snacks in the trunk, but in car B, I could only get one case in when the top was folded down. That’s useful info.
Few sites provide links to owner forums. That might be a differentiator. Reviewing the Civic? At the end toss in links to:
Temple of VTEC and, say, 8th Civic.com where prospective buyers can find actual owner feedback.
I’ll miss the current format, but economic reality is what it is.
Good luck!
P.S. Well said, Busbodger:
Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the[y] are driving… A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful.
Perspective is vital & counterpoints are often informative.
Reworked press releases with stats added are too common.
Oh and: If I see one more Mustang review in a magazine, I’m going to loose it. Camero this, Mustang that. Not main stream.
RF,
If car reviews are what it takes to survive, so be it. Good call. Focus is good!
Just make sure you actually drive the cars and provide real feedback. I hate the sites/mags/papers that “review” a car, but in reality it’s just recycling comments from other reviews… Also, some technologies in cars are mischaracterized, exposing a lack of “homework” by the authors. Don’t fall into that trap.
Looking forward to the reviews, but will keep visiting for the rants.
I applaud your intentions to build TTAC into a more well-rounded review-based site… I think that in the process, though, it is important to stay true to what the site has been consistently good at…
I’ve read many posts above demanding 0-60 times and other statistics, but it seems to me that these base-level numbers are readily available at any number of other sterile magazine review sites populated by automatons. What you have the opportunity to do here is evaluate the cars you drive without the obligation to quote every new feature off the press kit (as C&D might do) or run it through a battery of tests (who truly knows the value of 20-80mph times, anyhow?). TTAC has always been able to provide a very true sense of what it is like to actually drive and inhabit the vehicles it reviews – something beyond the statistical numbers. A fast Lexus doesn’t necessarily conjure up the driving enjoyment of a comparatively slow (but impassioned) competitor. Likewise, the Mustang might be a real hoon, but does the fit, finish, and quality of interior measure up to the price point? This is truly what is needed in the otherwise crowded review-space…
I think, also, that real-world comparisons of value-for-money are worthwhile. I agree with akatsuki’s request above to lay out the consumer’s options when it comes to price point. If, say, I’m interested in a car that is fun to drive, has a nice interior, and costs ~$30k, I might not be so partial to a particular market segment – I might be facing off between a base BMW 3-series and a relatively maxed out VW R32…
The last point I would hope to impress, which has been stated already – objectivity is hardly possible when one is reviewing for the “feel” of the cars, but fairness in a review is… A car is not ugly *because* it is a Chevy, despite the fact that all current Chevys might actually be. Further, it is not fair to impose a “legacy” on a brand, nor blame it for going out of its market segment… To lambaste the VW Phaeton for being “too upscale” is to miss the true merits/failings of the vehicle. Leave it to the consumers to decide what “will sell” in the marketplace, and lead on to the “good ones” – the cars that will keep us driving happy…
Best of luck to all of you at TTAC!
Hey man,
I’ve been saying the site needs to get back to its roots for months… That is, you, RF behind the wheel of cars that the average guy drives, with the essential witty repartee that follows. I imagine that if I were a car reviewer, I would love nothing more than to be able to drive the latest porsches and high end bimmers, but for us average guys, that’s just entertainment, and will not command the utility based traffic that you’re talking about up above.
It’s the writing and the truth, and mostly the truth about new cars, that drew me to site in the first place. It’s what made this site different from the Edmunds and MSNBC cars type sites. Looking forward to the new format.
Robert —
This is probably a necessary move, although I too like much about the site the way it is. A few thoughts:
If you decide keep the comments with the reviews, consider something like what Salon does: offer a choice between seeing all the comments and seeing a selection of “editor’s choice” comments. I love going through TTAC’s comments, but with so many, it often takes a long time to cull the good stuff from the ordinary.
I like the idea suggested by some of offering links to enthusiast and other sites with useful information. And a lot of the standard spec stuff can be added on (or linked to a subpage) in a table that quickly offers the data without the reader having to scan thru the review to find the 0-60 time.
The beefy writing beholden to none is definitely a draw for the likes of me. But I guess I would advise knowing who your intended audience is (or rather, who your audiences are). Car enthusiasts? No doubt. Mom & pop looking for car info? First-time buyers? My engineering friends hoovering data and scorning “all those words”? Bit of a different focus might be needed for all these audience types.
Best of luck with the new site!
I’ll reiterate what someone else mentioned – give us a profile of the article’s author. As in you click their name “By Robert Farago” and it gives me your bio.
A couple more ideas on customizing the presentation of information:
1) Don’t make it too detailed. I was just at MSN Autos (and I know Edmunds/KBB/etc. are similarly guilty) and they split their VW Beetle info into Base, PZEV, Convertible, and Convertible PZEV. That’s simply confusing.
If a consumer is shopping for a car, do the sorting ahead of time and only show one set of data. Provide a note or asterisk that other variants exist, but don’t force the customer to pick through columns of data.
2) Use the editorial expertise to provide links to alternatives and other information. Let’s say a customer is looking at the Car A review/information. TTAC can provide alternate suggestions, like
“Too expensive?” Click here to see Cheaper Car X
or
“Need better fuel economy?” Click here to see the Geewhizzer Hybrid
or
“Like this car? TTAC rated the following cars as better choices in this segment” — Alternate 1, Alternate 2, etc.
of even…
“Like this car? Did you know that Company F is going to change its name next year, which may affect resale value”
—Click here for article about name change
Not only would this last one be of interest to consumers, but it might get more people into the rant/industry/Deathwatch part of the site.
In short, the automotive website universe is full of DATA, what is in short supply is INFORMATION presented in a way customers can use.
I totally disagree with taking the culture references out. They put the car in the greater context it’s judged in.
How many people really just by cars based on 0-60 times? Look, I’m not always a big Dan Neil fan, but the guy gets the way people in LA judge their cars. When he ripped the Montego to shreds it wasn’t harsh — it was spot on for his readers. What self respecting LAer was going to be caught dead in that grandma mobile?
So keep the culture in. It makes it a much more enjoyable read for those who don’t spend their days in garages rebuilding XK120s, and helps set a realistic tone regarding the buying decision. And you’re about the only ones doing it with consistency.
Again, the Super Duty review was spot frickin’ on.
This is all re-god-damn-diculous.
I’d rather see TTAC completely killed off.
Robert, dump the whole thing, write your book, and cash out.
I understand the concerns about getting more traffic. The only thing that is constant about business is change.
I just hope that this site does not evolve into the labyrinth that all the other car sites are. Stuff should be easy to find. And the editorials, and the opportunity to respond to them, should remain first class (meaning kick-ass with a twist) in scope.
I am looking forward to seeing these changes.
Initially, we’ll bring back the stats and stars…
Maybe something other than stars? Be creative here.
C&D’s “Highs and lows” are good for those for whom less is more. Or like CNN’s “story highlights,” perhaps. The 800 word limit is good, but a bit less pith and more fact, jack.
“Most searched for” links are interesting, maybe because we like to see what others are looking for/at in new cars.
The edmunds site seems to be target, so create off of that some, and you won’t need to totally reinvent the wheel.
Finally, to “teach” buyers, it may be instructive to have a simple one-liner like your Fusion review had here, mentioning where the car was assembled (Mexico in that case). Some may actually learn its a world economy now.
All the best. :-)
Thanks. Many of these suggestions will appear in V1. Many of the rest wil show up as we go along.
Offer people the choice of selecting the make/model, or have a recommended list based on your needs.
For example:
Single/Married
Dog owner/No dog
Number of kids
Hauling stuff or hauling ass
Keep the humor and NEVER become the sterile wasteland that are the big sites. They serve a purpose, but rarely entertain. That’s where TTAC is at its best.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I tried to go through and quickly summarize what you’ve told us. Here’s what I have so far:
Features
Star ratings
Maybe something other than stars? Be creative here.
Specs
Ad hoc searches (search by factors that are important to them, not by categories that manufacturers dictate)
Threaded comments
Adjusted price comparo’s a la Mr. Karesh’s site
Get advertising from Dinan, Perrin, Vishnu, and other tuning companies that recognize the importance of people who are willing to spend money on their rides. Tire companies too.
Paypal donation button
Merchandise such as window stickers, T-shirts, thong underwear that says “thetruthaboutcars.com” from Cafepress or some other DIY site.
No comments section for reviews
Be hesitant to get into assessing reliability.
A “help me buy a car” feature that would lead people by the nose, narrowing choices down based on selection criteria/priorities.
No annoying ads like pop-up, banner and interstitial ads
Make it easy for people who have come directly to the review without following your site navigation to go to similar vehicles, different trims, etc.
Show a “most searched for” list of cars
A “links” page, right off the review showing links to other sites about the car being reviewed
Give us a profile of the article’s author. As in you click their name “By Robert Farago” and it gives me your bio.
Provide links to alternatives and other information.
Dealer rankings
Content
Do used cars as alternatives to similarly priced new cars
More substance, less witty repartee, cutsie wordplay
“Point-counterpoint” reviews
Compare a two year old version of the same car with a new one, to see if it is any way worth it to buy a new one.
A quick comparison of the model reviewed with its classmates
Something like a slashdot style moderation system where trusted users moderate comments so that the trolls’ comments get hidden from view
Honest calls of what to buy at different price points and categories
Articles from a Canadian/international perspective
Moderated comments regarding poster’s experiences with vehicles
Explain the difference between badge engineered cars and what cars share same platform
Needs to be a set of details including performance (0-60, 1.4 mile, braking, skidpad, slalom, etc.), design, quality, competing cars in the segment, reliability, safety,
Platform history, test track numbers and/or design philosophy (or lack thereof) in the reviews.
Keep the reviews to the car in question, and leave out any opinions about the manufacturer in general
Resist the temptation to bog down the reviews with numbers.
Regular foreign correspondant or even better, someone from the US who travels, and rents, regularly
List of recommended vehicles based on category and maybe even price point.
Have a section called “Who this vehicle is marketed to” and a “Who we think is likely to buy this vehicle”, then give a poser factor which relates how the above two overlap.
Depreciation information
Reviews and comparisons of cars that I could actually consider purchasing instead of exotic models.
Owner comments. “I bought the car because of this and I’ve learned that”
Keep the numbers, but put them in a table.
Resist the urge to include car model reviews in Death or Suicide Watches
More audio clip and ad some video clips
Environmental impact of a particular model….greenhouse emissions, etc
have a simple one-liner like your Fusion review had here, mentioning where the car was assembled (Mexico in that case). Some may actually learn its a world economy now.
Suggestions about what the competitors are, and about where each of them ranks against the others
Style
Keep it easy to navigate
Example: Reviews -> Make -> Model -> List of reviews starting with current revision going backward.
Reviews -> Make -> List of current models and their reviews
Reviews -> Search
Reviews -> Most recent reviews in reverse chronological
Keep them witty and interesting to read.
Kill the 800 word limit
Have consistent sections and consistently formatted tables to make comparisons easier.
Continue to avoid reviewing every vehicle the same way.
De-emphasize any excessive commentary on style.
Drop the cutesy-poo neologisms
Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the are driving just a little bit.
Stress objectivity: when editing, ask yourself: Is this review TRUELY objective?
Keep the number of font sizes on a given page to reasonable minimum.
Use as few colored fonts as possible, if at all.
Don’t use flash unless you absolutely positively have to.
You could go with PayPal to access the reviews; but as a site trying to build up traffic, there’s no point to that, other than fast cash. Long term, it is best to let advertising pay for the site and try to steer away from dealer ads. The thing is, freedom is never free, as the saying goes. If you don’t have advertising, the readers have to pay – and Internet users only seem to be willing to pay for porn.
If advertising pays for the site and the writers who write for it, some compromise is inevitable. That doesn’t mean we have to be slavish sycophants to the manufacturers. Most manufacturers don’t ask for that.
Ultimately, it is about the limited attention span of a new generation. People who use the Internet for their main, or especially their only information resource, have limited attention spans; and they want the information packaged with interesting graphics. Marshall McLuhan, the “oracle of the electronic age” (as the NY Times called him) predicted all this, even though he passed away in the early Eighties.
I know people who call the new generation “illiterate.” But as McLuhan knew, they are “post-literate,” a generation who grew of age in a time with the greatest revolution in disseminating information since the printing press.
“Frankly what I would also like to see which nobody has the guts for is honest calls of what to buy at different price points and categories”
This is the kind of thing that should be left to be argued about on internet forums in my opinion. I’ve grown tired of the discussions concerning “X car is superior to Y and Z because it has more horsepower and the interior…” and what have you. If it had any relevancy, everyone would be driving the same car. Everyone responds differently when they actually get in and drive. I would rather see useful information, and reasons why you should and shouldn’t look at a certain model. Also, someone earlier had a great idea; being able to narrow down models by features.
My advice would be to find a niche and exploit it. Trying to be everything to everybody only works (if it works) when you have buckets of cash.
Trying to out-number the number crunchers is going to be futile. Several have noted above what is usually lacking in car reviews: a pure seat-of-the-pants opinion on whether the car gets the job it was designed to do done and whether the reviewer enjoyed using it the way it was intended to be used.
The only time 0-60 times have value is during happy hour “dick measuring” contests. No one who values their car dumps the clutch at 3500 rpm from a standing stop more than once in a great while, and 5.788267 seconds to 60 feels about the same as 6.2778561.
So. Is the car good value? Is it built well? What are its strong points, what are its weaknesses, what else should I consider, will it hold up well?
I beg of you: Most motoring journalists must be trustafarians or otherwise independently wealthy, the way they banter on about tens and tens of thousands of dollars being “modest” or a “bargain” or “cheap.” Have a little respect for your readers. An occasional foray into reviewing a $xxx,xxx sports car is an interesting diversion, but its not going to attract the eyeballs you want. Declaring a $35,000 car “cheap” does not make it so.
You could do a lot worse than living up to your URL (not that you don’t now). You want people to be saying “yeah, you can get the MSRP at Edmunds, but go to TTAC to find out what the car is really like–good or bad, they pull no punches.” Recognize that you’re never going to replace Edmunds or any of the other big sites (your users are still going to go there), and therefore offload the nitty-gritty number crunching and sticker stuff to them, heck, even link their information in your reviews. You don’t want to try to steal Edmunds or other site’s customers, you want to co-opt them. You want people to know their research isn’t complete without also paying you a visit, rather than only paying you a visit.
The idea that users somehow go to a single site and simply stick there is antiquated “portal” thinking (again, not suggesting this is what you’re thinking). I can’t tell you how many disaster businesses I’ve been hired to do design or coding for where the site owners could see no other opportunity than trying to get everyone onto their site with the idea they’d never leave again. It’s silly.
How about a sidebar where you have three or four reviewers give a two sentence thumb up or down: “The Sporty Guy,” “The Practical Guy,” “The Value Guy” and the “The Cheap Guy?” That way a user could see at a glance whether their “similar” reviewer liked the car.
Sorry for the length. You have an opportunity here, Just hate to see you throw it away.
Finally: A lot of women buy cars, and do research. This site is not friendly to the majority of them in its current editorial voice. That doesn’t matter if you’re not trying to capture their time, but if your refocusing on reviews is an attempt to gain eyeballs, maybe tone down the macho a bit in the reviews.
Not enough time for me to read all of the comments, but in the main I agree with SaturnV (about halfway through). Please keep the site simple to navigate, without all the distracting clutter. That’s a big advantage TTAC (and Google) have going for them.
Please do not focus too heavily on performance numbers — these can be found anywhere, and really don’t mean all that much for nonperformance cars (the vast majority).
Please keep the comments well policed, retaining the permanent ban on flamers.
Keep up the good work. This is one of my favorite websites.
I for one welcome our new blinking text/Flash ads/confusing navigation overlords.
–chuck
Frank Williams – Thanks for the Uncle Tom McCahill quotes – I’m showing my age, but I always found it worthwhile slogging through Mechanix Illustrated for one of his reviews. And Dan Neil channels McCahill in his own inimitable way.
Keep the new interface streamlined and simple. Don’t clutter as someone said above. Edmunds is the worst steaming pile of a website I have seen when it comes to this problem. Just trying to get where you want to go is nightmarish.
When i click on a vehicle I actually want to be taken to the review with statistics listed such as; bhp, gvw, curb weight, leg room, head room etc.
Combine the pithy writing with snapshot summaries and a vehicle database searchable by features. Provide something that no one else provides!
Snapshot summaries: start with the old star system, then add a detailed chart. People love rankings, and charts. Give an overall, seat-of-the-pants performance score as before, but then break down sub-components such as engine/acceleration, handling, steering, braking. Combine objective and subjective info, ie., steering feedback impressions along with cubic feet of storage, number of seats, fuel economy, etc.. I love my current car, except the steering feedback is not great. I want great feedback in my next car, but I’d have to take a week off from work to read through all the reviews on a typical website to find the cars that have the feedback I want plus room for kids, X amount of cargo space, etc.. Make it easy.
If you can provide a way to search using many specific characteristics, do it. For example, if someone wants an AWD sedan with a manual transmission, a diesel engine and a 0-60 time under 7 seconds, they’d be able to quickly search your site to know they’ll need to move to Europe to get their car.
To Mr. Farrago & Co.
“There is always room at the top.”
-Daniel Webster
Robert,
I also read TTAC every day. If you feel it is necessary to expand your reviews, so be it. Do include spec-charts. With apologies to Mr. Williams’ earlier summary: don’t discourage saucy metaphors & similes. Maintain the 800-word limit (“brevity is the soul of wit”–Shakespeare). As 21 Odelray stated: retain the permanent ban on flamers. Despite Mr. Parkhurst’s homage to Mr. (“Medium is the Massage”) McLuhan, I agree with your readers who have suggested keeping it easy to navigate, and minimize (or better still, refuse to resort to) flash. But, above all, maintain the insightful industry analysis as captured in your Death and Suicide Watches and other similar articles. To me, those are the heart and soul of this website.
tsofting wrote:
Wouldn’t we all like to tinker in our garage all day long, just interrupted by a brisk ride in something hot, superceded by an hour or two on the net, researching the production numbers of the 1949 La Salle.
Just a friendly comment here: Nice points, except it wouldn’t take very long to find out how many 1949 La Salles were produced – it’s ZERO! The last one was produced in 1940…
I discovered the site about 3 months ago and have really enjoyed stopping by 3 or 4 times a week. Please keep the humor, wit, and sarcasm. It sets the site apart from the more mainstream carsites. Where else will the Nissan Versa be compared to a woman with hairy armpits?
I strongly agree with those that have suggested used car reviews. Many of us do not want to spend 30K for a car when we can get one 4 years old for $8K. Stats like reliablilty, problem areas, recalls, etc… would be nice. Yes, I realize that this info is available else where on the net but I doubt it can be found with the same flair that TTAC adds.
A couple more brainstorms for whatever they’re worth:
– consider having running “top 10 articles this month” type list. When I read the New York Times online, I almost exclusively go to their “Most Emailed” list and read what’s hot. of “top articles” – track them by hits, allow users to vote on them, or see what’s most emailed.
– definitely spend some time optimizing your Adsense placement, etc- you may be able to significantly increase your revenues (without making the site unattractive).
– if you can find advertisers already using the Adwords platform, contact them and encourage them to set up a “site targeted” campaign for TTAC. Right now in the Adwords box I am seeing sites like ‘new car reviews’, ‘low prices new cars’ – it would be great if you could replace some of these with more complementary sites – i.e. car accessories, performance parts, etc.
I can’t say I like it. I read TTAC for a different perspective not the same old, same old. There are already too many car review sites that say the same thing and avoid any real criticism because they don’t want to alienate the masses. If the site is to be watered down, and made more vanilla, I’ll drop by but not linger. Once a site excepts advertising they become more about making money by attracting masses not about making waves. I surf and I like waves. Good luck.
may i make a suggestion. during your test drives (mostly for comparos) dont use any computer equipment to get performance numbers. I have drive Car A which on paper is faster the Car B…but when i drive Car B it feels better.
I hate when ppl argue over 0.2sec…no amateur driver will be able to see that on the street. I think the perfect example is the epic battle between the Corvette and the 911. i think every comparo i read says the same thing. Corvette is faster in a straight line, but the 911 has better handling, brakes, interior quality and over all ride quality and is also much easier to drive at the edge. It doesn’t really matter how fast the car is if you cant use it.
Abandon the 800 word target. Some things will take more space and time to say and some will take less.
I’d like to read a review where you take a good car out on the road and actually describe in detail what the ride was like, the gear changes, the shift from one side to the other in a curve, the approach, the exit, etc. Let your writers go.
Then, if it’s useless verbiage, chop it down. But don’t restrict the prose up front.
If it hasn’t been said already; real-world fuel economy figures and reliability figures would be good additions, as well–maybe linked from Mr. Karesh’s site.
I like the style of writing here very much. It reminds me of Automobile magazine under David E. Davis (maybe a little less snooty…hmmm). Cars are not life; they are a part of life. Describing a car by listing statistics is about as illuminative as describing a meal by the carb and protein count. I like the language here; I like the seat of the pants reactions. I sincerely hope that does not change. I can get bland statistics anywhere; they are all over the place. Insightful, honest impressions… that is more elusive.
That’s why I also read Consumer reports. Though they are decidedly bland and pragmatic in their reviews, they will tell you what it might be like to actually live with a car for years. I mix that info with an enthusiast’s site like this one, and BINGO! Real information that I can use.
Good luck. Its been a great ride so far!
Robert!
I think you are doing the right thing! As much as I have enjoyed the site over the past few months of daily reading, I must admit that it has gotten a little editorial heavy.
In addition to strait car reviews, I would love to see comparisons of similar models…. And while car specs can be found all over the web, I believe it would be worth at least linking to this kind of information within your reviews. Opinions are great and all, but consumers expect some level of comparable empiric data to go along.
Keep up the great work. I look forward to seeing the new format.
PS Please test it in IE7 – the current home page looks bad in IE7.
How about a sidebar where you have three or four reviewers give a two sentence thumb up or down: “The Sporty Guy,” “The Practical Guy,” “The Value Guy” and the “The Cheap Guy?” That way a user could see at a glance whether their “similar” reviewer liked the car.
Nice. (But, um, sport person–females buy cars too).
Threaded comments
Yuck.
I’m not as optimistic as the others here. I think it’s a mistake. Once the site becomes big and bloated and chock full of detail, it will no longer be interesting and unique. It becomes another noisy car site.
I would keep the site as is and seek your fortune in more creative (or less creative, as the case may be) ways. Build a side business that leverages the brand that you’ve created. But the site itself is sacred and should not be tampered with.
TTAC’s foundation is free content. Your contributors write for free. The community is free to join. Everyone is here because they enjoy it. Trying to turn it into a profitable business turns against the e-society that allowed it to become successful in the first place. It is not “natural”.
Feel free to make money in other ways, as a result of building a respected surname in car circles. But messing with the TTAC formula spells d-o-o-m.
Keep the attitude & style, loose the 800 word limit. There’s just not enough room in 800 words – many of the reviewers have said so when questioned about things missing in their reviews.
Make the navigation simple & include the keyword searching (as many have mentioned).
Include links to all the other sites for the nitty gritty numbers. Sure they’re entertaining, but until I’m looking to drop $70-100K on a sports car, I really don’t care about a couple hundredths in the 1/4 mile, but I do care about cargo space. I can find that from any of the other sites, it’d be nice to link to it quickly when I’m ready to get down to it.
Most important: Review the car for its intended audience. All the reviews are great, but I keep thinking yeah, it sucks at canyon carving, but I’m not really interested in that – I just gotta make it to work this morning.
Don’t know if you can, but see if you can get ads targeted at add-on parts, shops, etc. not car manufacturers/dealers. That will help keep the sense of objectivity for the new viewers.
None of these are original ideas, I just wanted to add my $0.02 worth.
Keep up the great work, keep it simple, and rake in the cash!
Oh, I forgot to ask…
You said “new focus”. Does that mean we’re getting the Euro Focus now?
Sorry, had to ask… :)
I like the driver and “autophile” focus this site has. I won’t like it if TTAC becomes one of those sites that rates cars on how family friendly they are.
The standard performance stats (1/4 mile times, 0-60 accel, skidpad, etc.) are all well and good, but I’m primarily concerned with how a car makes *me* feel (how about “hoonage” factor for cars or Top Gear style track times?), not how capable it is transporting a family of four around. Please keep that passion in TTAC. Be different than the other guys.
Oh and also, like others have mentioned, please tone down on the simile’s and metaphors in the reviews. Sometimes it’s just too much.
Why it is a B-A-D idea:
I read many car magazines and web sites. I don’t contribute to any of them. I do contribute to TTAC. Do you know why? Because it is NOT a (blatently) for-profit business. It is a community in which all the contributors do so out of love for the automobile. The lead writer has a mission to educate, not to sell. Of course, some advertising here and there is necessary to cover expenses. But once it becomes a bread-and-butter for-profit business, it is no longer a community of enthusiasts.
Now, on the other hand, if I came across a brick-and-morter product or business with the “farago” name or endorsement, I would trust that that product would be a quality product. I would be comfortable supporting that business. But messing with TTAC? Sheesh!
Did I effectively express my dissatisfaction with this new plan?
I’ve been watching the comments come through on this, and I still think that TTAC is moving in the correct direction.
I think that there’s a difference between a for-profit business like Coke and a for-profit business like TTAC. As long as TTAC retains its strong parts who are we, mere web mortals, to tell Farago et. al. that they shouldn’t change? The democratic process that this site has taken is really brilliant in my mind. I read slate sometimes and no one asked me what I thought of the site and impending changes, and I f–king hate the new site. I read it much less now because it’s annoying.
I have confidence that RF is going to do what is best for TTAC AND its readers, something that is really lacking in today’s e-market. If I don’t want to read the reviews I don’t have to. And for everyone else, I think it’s the same. However, I think that the main group of readers is going to still come back for the biting industry commentary and if more people come to read reviews and stuff that’s good for the bottom line. The old adage “evolve or die” couldn’t be more true than on the internet and I just don’t think that the guys (and girl) that are commenting on the site now can maintain the traffic that is needed for TTAC to not fall.
Personally, I would prefer that there are (slightly) more ads and a new layout and a more average-car-user-friendly focus than to lose more writers like Loverman. Cause lets face it, he’s going where the $$ is and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m just saying that I’d prefer certain sacrifices if it means that the quality of the writing can remain the same.
1. Don’t get all bogged down in statistics and specifications, unless we are talking about a car likely to be used on a track. Whatever other faults it may have, C&D already does a comprehensive testing of cars. For those that want that, this is already being done elsewhere, so seek attention in other areas.
2. Used cars. To pick one example, reviewers routinely lambast i-Drive in newer BMWs, as well as their styling. The obvious missing link is “If you don’t like i-Drive, then maybe you ought to take a look at an older BMW without this.” Here’s our take (and vetted readers’) on older BMWs, if you like the BMW vibe, but just are turned off by the newer models. Or just want to save some money. I’d be glad to give a summary on what to expect from owning an ’89BMW, ’95 Mercedes, or ’03 Volvo. Reviews of cars by people who have them for longer than a week really tell you alot.
3. Keep the colorful writing style. Then again, I love Raymondy Chandler novels and his great metaphors. Most writing on cars is dry as dust. The humor is one of the big reasons I visit the site. We live in an age of conformity and euphemism. It is refreshing to see somebody call ’em like they see ’em in the automotive world. I can read boilerplate stuff anywhere.
Robert,
First this is a good idea. Perhaps the health of GM led to the move? or was it more the site’s growth/money generation? Either way good deal.
Second: I know you didn’t mention us but Cars.com is objective. We do not take any trips without paying, pay for the gas we use in test cars, take no dinners, don’t except expensive press kit items (ipods etc) and the like. It’s actually a very strict policy. We’re a big guy I know, but please don’t lump us in with the rest when it comes to that fact. Of course, finding all of our original reviews isn’t the easiest because the reviews landing page still features just one of the four reviewers but it’s not that hard to find a review…I don’t think.
Third: I’m not spamming but the guys looking to do the “search via features” like mpg, AWD, $ etc., that’s a tool we already have as well on Cars.com. I know it’s hard to find because it’s new but if anyone’s interested they can email me at editor@cars.com for the link. It’s pretty cool. Again I don’t want to spam but its been done before.
Fourth: There is always room on the web for good honest reviews and while I differ in opinion from a lot on this site I think they’re all well done. It’s not like your guys don’t know what they’re talking about that’s for sure and I think the level of discourse in the comments on TTAC is among the best out there.
another idea for a review…what if you test diff trim levels of the same car? Most tests i read are done with the top of the line model. the volume leader wont have the leather seats, sport supsention and bigger wheels. test the diff trim levels and advise on which is the best buy for the money.
Good Luck!
By now everyones eyes are probably bleeding, so I’ll keep this short.
1. A forum would be a good idea. Maybe at the end of car reviews, have a link that takes you to the specific thread for that car. Maybe that’s cheesy, I don’t know. At any rate, a forum for comments would be a good thing, I think.
2. A new car survey. If anyone has read Top Gear, you’ll know that they have this every year. Lets say I bought a ’06 Camry. TTAC invites people who have bought a new ’06/’07 Camry in the past 7 or so months to take a survey about their car. What they liked, what they didn’t, etc. After so many surveys are compiled, put up the results. This obviously might not be feasible right off the bat, but I think it could work.
Ok, I tried to keep it short.
My two cents:
Go ahead with the redesign and refocusing. I love the editorials, but they have begun to dominate the content. Without focusing more on reviews you risk becoming nothing more than an auto-related blog. Call me a luddite, but I dislike most blogs and I prefer to think of TTAC as an online magazine.
Unlike many here (apparently) TTAC is the ONLY auto site that I visit regularly. Which means that I come here for the writing, not so much for the subject. So it is absolutely imperative for me that you keep the quality up. Do not dilute the writing for sake of quantity.
Keep the 800 word limit for editorials. Keep an 800 word limit on the reviews, but consider using sidebars for additional observations (cargo space, back seat room, and the like). The short reviews keep things interesting, quick to read, and encourage the TTAC style. Sidebars (which could be written by someone else as a counterpoint, too) allow the inclusion of information some people want but others don’t care about.
Keep comments on the editorials, but lose them on the reviews, if only to save yourselves the burden of moderation. Comment sections in reviews rarely stay relevant, and often lead to stupidity and flames.
Don’t thread comments. If possible, see if the site developer can send a cookie (yeah, I know) that will allow readers to find the last comment they read.
Keep up the good work.
Haven’t read each comment, it’s just too much at the moment,
but I would like to see a set of stars for category. So a car could get 5 stars for performance but maybe 2 for comfort (Viper?). Also, let’s have quite a few extended categories, including hoonage, bling, and so on…
as well as the usual quality, safety, etc.
Provided you can maintain the spirit of The Truth, I think its a great idea to step up to the plate. I would suggest that, considering some of the great comments readers contribute, you provide the opportunity for “free”lance articles in tune with The Truth. You could review submitted articles to ensure compliance. I’m sure you’d be allowing yourselves the opportunity to provide The Truth with some great auto related articles and a niche that none of the heavy hitters would dare to enter.
I found TTAC through a review of the VW R32, thought it was hilarious, and started reading other reviews. Initially I thought TTAC was a British site, but watching it grow has been as fun as reading all the new reviews.
The idea sounds great, though I think you should continue to feature the editorials fairly prominently, since that is one of your unique features.
As others have said, it’s critically important that you keep minimalism – a page about a care should first and foremost show a review, without lots of clutter around it.
Second, there should links to similar models from any review, to keep your readers from wandering off to another site when they’re done with the review. A side-by-side comparison feature inherently complicated and busy and a bit much.
Third, true pricing information and contacting local dealer features are critical, because users have to do them eventually, and you don’t want them to leave your site for that.
Fourth, the front page needs to be helpful for people who haven’t the foggiest idea about existing models but have some general notion of what kind of car they want – for example, I might want a small convertible, or a large truck, or a medium-sized sedan. A zillion ways to search cluttering up the front page is counterproductive, but some jumping-off point is important.
Finally, you can never beat comprehensiveness of reviews – ideally your site should have a review of the latest model year of every major model. Currently it isn’t anywhere close to that, but hopefully some changes which boost readership will enable the budget to let that happen.
Robert-
Great site- I’ve been reading it for months, but only now registered to post this comment.
There are a number of features that I see lacking from other car review and comparison sites. These usually concern technical and feature details that are not published by the car companies marketing departments and are only found buries in an owners manual or service manual.
Some examples of features I’d like to see included in comparisons are:
Drive train (fwd, rwd, 4wd, awd)
More transmission details than just standard or automatic. Adjustable shift points? Paddle shifter?
Can you deactivate the traction control?
Can you deactivate the anti-lock brakes?
Do the tires have enough body clearance to allow tire chains or cables? (I live in snow country)
Does the vehicle use a common tire size. Odd/different tire sizes can greatly reduce the selection of aftermarket tires.
Interior sound levels at various speeds (30, 55, 70 MPH?)
And finally, something that will probably annoy the rest of the readers of this site- the number of cup holders accessible to the driver.
These are just some examples of things that I see lacking from most other sites.
I am looking forward to the new site. Keep up the good work.
hayes.
Robert,
Most vehicle reviews in the media are either (1) too lightweight and just regurgitate the brochure type info, or (2) are reviewed from a the perspective of a hard core performance enthusiast. What is hard to find are in depth, comprehensive reviews that can suggest how a vehicle stacks up against the competition for different types of drivers. A vehicle that is top notch for performance enthusiasts may be impractical for families, or for the commuter who wants a blend of perfromance, luxury, comfort, and gizmos. I think reviews that also address how a vehicle compares with other models targeted for the prospective likely buyer category(s) would be of more value to a wider audience.
For me, what distinguishes TTAC from other autos sites is
the high quality of its informed and literate commenters.
Farago, you have built a very high quality audience. I hope
whatever forums you have in the future perpetuate such a
culture.
As for advise on what new TTAC features to build, I second many of the above reader comments.
Do not put a huge effort into duplicating a KBB / Edmunds
type database to show that to get heated seats, the invoice
price of the LE package is higher than the premium package,
and moreover, doesn’t include the CD changer.
Do not become obsessed with test numbers especially where
normalization for road surface and temperature or tires are
questionable. Is road holding in July of 0.92g really better than
0.89g in Feb ?
Some positive suggestions:
Experiment with taxonomies and multi-faced classifications.
Looks at jobs.snap.com or zappos.com shoe store to see the
many ways of drilling down from the whole population
to a small subset to a very short list.
You are less limited in space for photos than print mags,
so show the car from all angles. So many _Automobile_
reviews mention parts of the car that are not shown in the
review, from redesigned tal lights to a new center console.
If you must run a special advertizing section, do something
original, like interviews with tort lawyers about lemon laws.
Realize you are now banking on years of archived reviews
and views, so do not make understanding the writing depend
on understanding some pop culture ephemera that’s already
deader than Anna Nicole Smith. That said, a knowning
reference to cultural touchstones is well appreciated.
The V1 startup sounds have more blips and beeps than
Cabaret Voltaire at the 1978 Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
One approach I would like to see more of is technical
background about car design and features.
Go beyond most other reviewers who provide an uncritical
feature checklist and say the car has ABS brakes, and
instead, tell me the difference between super sport abs
tuned on an STi or M3 vs the lame ABS on my 1996 Neon
rental.
Write this ABS article as a standalone sidebar for some review,
and when the topic of abs comes up in other articles, link to it.
Endulge writer’s repartee only so far; labelling a car a
shopping trolley or hairdresser’s car or soccer mom/
nascar dad’s choice without explaination is a useless cliche,
and far too many articles rely on similies such as
preferring the penetration of an RS4 to the dry humping
of a mere S4.
But telling us the roofline of the car reminds you of
the arched back of a canine doing #2 is OK.
I know this has been beaten to death at this point, but I wanted to first say that though I complained about some of the cutesy wordplay, I do not think TTAC should tone down the attitude or the high autophile standards of its reviewers. keep the sass, just make sure the writing remains clear and focused on communicating more than being clever.
second, I think the way to keep TTAC’s character while also improving a bit would be to kill the 800-word limit (as many are saying) but use the extra verbiage not for a bunch of stats but for the writers to explain and justify their opinions a bit more. for example, I often hear writers here say the ride on a car is not very good, and I’d like to hear more about why they think that and what they experienced while driving it. reading such things is entertaining, informs me about the car, and also educates me about what to feel for the next time I drive. bring it on.
also I think doing some point/counterpoint would be great. get a couple of your writers, if possible, to drive the same thing and duke out their opinions a bit. two expert, opinionated, literate people arguing about something fun is always interesting.
I know I’m late to the party on this, but in the new website design I am hoping that some accomodation will be made to make the site accessible and usable to visitors using PDA’s and other mobile devices.