For the last few years, the American public has embraced Toyota's products as clean, durable and efficient. Exhibit A: the demure Camry, which has maintained its position as America’s favorite automobile. Exhibit also A: the Hybrid Synergy Driven Prius; the poster child for environmentally and foreign policy-conscious consumers. No surprise, then, that Toyota's been held up as America's responsible automaker, the one who doesn't bitch and moan about federal regulations, but just puts its head down and does the right thing. And makes money doing it! And then Toyota released the new Tundra.
The new Tundra is big and brash, with tremendous attention to detail and an [available] stonking great V8 engine. In the first quarter of 2007, Toyota spent over $100m telling Americans that the transplanted Japanese automakers had built a proper, full-sized, all-American truck– deep in the heart of Texas (no less). What they didn’t mention: the most popular version gets a combined EPA average of 15 miles to the gallon.
Perhaps that’s because, at the same time, ToMoCo ran a national TV campaign advertising the fact that its Hybrid Synergy Drive is now available in the Camry. Talk about cognitive dissonance. And when you're done, consider Toyota’s dirty [not so] little secrets: the FJ Cruiser, Sequoia and Land Cruiser.
According to the EPA, the 4WD FJ Cruiser gets 17 mpg city and 21 mpg on the highway. While GM gets slated for building big thirsty trucks, the FJ's city mileage is only slightly better than Chevrolet’s entry into the “compact” SUV segment, the Trailblazer. Ye Olde Trailblazer gets 15 mpg city in 4WD trim, and it ties the FJ for highway efficiency.
The current Toyota Sequoia is another big ass gas-guzzler. The mondo-sized SUV travels just 15 miles per gallon of gas in the city, and squeezes out a mere 18 mpg on the interstate (4WD Limited). Sequoia’s older, full-size brother, the Land Cruiser, gets a shocking 13 city, 17 highway mpg (4WD). Compare this to the GMC Yukon 4WD, which has a bigger engine, tows more, weighs more and still manages 15 mpg city/21 mpg highway.
In 2008, both the Sequoia and Land Cruiser will be replaced with bigger, better behemoths, powered by Toyota’s new 5.7 liter V8. (The new Sequoia is built on the Tundra platform.) The size of the new Sequoia and Land Cruiser and the mileage of its mighty mill have some execs within ToMoCo shaking their heads.
Don Esmond, Senior VP of Automotive Operations at Toyota Motor Sales USA said, “I worry about the Sequoia being too big and not having enough fuel economy more than I do the Tundra… there are a lot of choices besides an SUV for hauling your kids to soccer practice."
Releasing two new bigger full-sized SUVs into a declining market, into a world of three dollars a gallon gas, is a serious miscalculation on Toyota’s part. Granted, the profit on one Land Cruiser is probably greater than the margin on five Prii, but how many Land Cruisers can Toyota sell, and at what cost?
How many potential Prius buyers will be turned off by Toyota ads pushing the new Sequoia and Land Cruiser? While the Prius currently owns the hybrid mindspace, Honda, GM, Ford, etc. are not standing around waiting for people to find their new, improved gas – electric models. In fact, Honda’s recent TV ads, touting their status as makers of “America’s most fuel efficient fleet of cars,” were specifically (and effectively) designed to steal the moral high ground from Toyota.
While you could argue that Toyota allowed itself to be painted as a friend of the Earth, rather than actively campaigning for eco-sainthood, the ultimate effect could also backfire in the SUV category. How many SUV owners are going to trade in their Suburbans for full-sized SUVs made by the green company that makes Suburban owners feel guilty for owning a Suburban, instead of a Prius?
In other words, Toyota’s vastly disparate products put their marketing efforts between a rock and a green place. If they promote the Prius and other small cars on the basis of their fuel efficiency, they risk being exposed as hypocrites (done) and alienating buyers of large SUVs and pickups. If they promote their large SUVs and pickups, they look even more morally ambiguous and risk alienating buyers of small cars.
All of which place Toyota at a crossroads. As a full-line automaker, ToMoCo’s U.S. products have been defined by their low price and class-leading reliability. The Prius was a game changer, wrenching their corporate image into another category AND emphasizing their lineups’ frugality (originally an off-shoot of price, i.e. cheap to own). Now, they must either embrace the new reality and change their product mix or do nothing and suffer the consequences.
I can’t speak for how they’re gonna handle the Sequoia, but I have to believe the Land Cruiser will have a “soft launch”. When’s the last time anybody saw a Land Cruiser commercial? I don’t think that’ll change. Given it’s huge profit margin, I bet it’s almost going to be a “for-order only” type of vehicle. Those who want it, already know about it and will ask for it. At this point the Land Cruiser is only around to act as a Halo Car (truck?).
The Sequoia will present the big problem in my book.
I’m nursing my old cars along until someone decides to sell a fuel-efficient small truck in the United States.
The first manufacturer to put a fuel-efficient SMALL truck on a lot near me will instantly get more than twenty thousand of the dollars I have sitting in wait for exactly that.
On every motorcycle, political, and auto forum I visit, people are clamoring for a SMALL truck.
What consequences? When was Toyota known or defined as a low price car maker. They have sold at a premium over the comparable domestic competition since the early 80s.
Yes they make large trucks and a plethora of large and medium SUVs but unlike GM they make a plethora of class leading and desirable small cars.
When Toyota starts losing market share, I think one can start an analysis of what went wrong. If you want to be a full line car manufacturer then you need a full line of cars and trucks. Toyota has class leading cars and trucks across the board.
Contrast that with GM. They have fantastic full size trucks and a class leading set of crossovers and maybe a set of competitive midsize cars (finally after how many years) but they are almost totally lacking on class leading small cars. Yet it was GM advertising that hoary old we have more models that get over 30 miles per gallon than anyone. Too bad they had a horrible fleet average. Too bad their small cars are simply not competitive in mileage at all.
How are small car buyers going to turn on Toyota if they make great small cars and GM doesn’t? I like small cars and i don’t like trucks but so what? I’ll still buy a Toyota if they have a better small car
Toyota… Green and Mean?
I think that’s the point. The Toyota brand is synonymous with quality and economy. Until they build a truly inferior small car, they will never lose that position in the consumer mindset. I think they have a much larger challenge at the opposite end of the spectrum: we build tough trucks. They’ve been hammering on that one for about three years now to what could be best described as slightly above average results. They are trying to be all things to all people, look at the mess that got Ford and GM into!
Such marketing problems are the bane of the full-line automaker, especially when they try and go all saintly-green like Toyota. Solution? I guess they could go all GM and come out with 8 different platform-sharing brands, but that would be a big fat mistake. Now that Toyota is or will soon become #1 in the world, there’s nowhere to go but down. It’s cyclical, I give Toyota another 20 years at the top, and then before we know it we’ll all be puttering around in Mahindras (fuel efficient small trucks, eh Tommy Jefferson?) or Chinese tin-can people crushers.
There’s lots of flak being thrown at Toyota for the Land Cruiser and Sequoia, but look at their combined sales – less than 16k YTD, and less than the number of Priuses sold last month. Those two are bit players in the market.
How many Prius owners don’t buy because of Toyota’s other products? Very few, I’d guess, just like how many potential Chevy Volt buyers aren’t turned off by GM NA being completely dependent on thirsty trucks and SUV’s.
In the end, Americans want their big cars, even if they’re trucks. It’s going to take a lot to get them into smaller vehicles, but stay tuned for the subprime mortgage crapstorm…
Way off the mark. There is no dissonance in building profitable cars. This is why Toyota is what it is. They are full line, they are competitive in every class they enter, and they follow through like no other manufacturer in the world. The full-size utes were due for a replacement, so they replaced them. They didn’t let their product rot on the vine a la GMs minivans, Ford Rangers, Chrysers PT Cruisers. The market is tough for SUVs right now. Fine, they just don’t make as many. They’ll still enjoy large margins, even in a shrinking market.
Toyota, in the main, is successful because of their ability to produce competitive cars with higher margins than anybody else. They rarely lead any segment, but they always make money. And that money goes right back into their product. IMHO, they don’t really market themselves very aggressively, or very well. Sure, there is a divide between the “green” Toyota and the “tough” Toyota, but as long as the Prius is in a class of one, Toyota gets to take the enviro cred. And even if they lose the green image, what are they left with?
Oh yeah, high-quality cars and trucks. Nobody ever wanted those. (Now is the time for all you pistonheads to talk about how boring Toyotas are.)
IMHO the big SUVs were seen as a necessary evil to grow market share… and Toyota had the money to put them into production without straining. If they don’t sell well, it will be an entirely manageable loss.
On the other hand, and far more importantly, future products like the HT-FS http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2006/12/27.html#a1930 are indeed *game changers*. This is unique, creative, and changes the paradigm of performance cars in a way that performance enthusiasts will accept if they give it a chance.
-Jeff
http://www.DrivingEnthusiast.net
I agree with other commenters: this post shows Mr. Rush may very well be missing a fundamental aspect of product marketing: Toyota understands what Americans want. That’s why Toyota is doing so well. To cater to the green crowd exclusively means losing a huge portion of market share. If members of green crowd aren’t happy with Toyota’s other products, to which car marker are they going to go? No one else does it better. It’s that simple. Toyota is working on a hybrid mini-van. I will buy it. I have a family and need the room. A Prius and Camry won’t work. By the way, Toyota, please offer the AWD on the hybrid minivan.
Thanks!
Daniel Fisher
Portland, Oregon
I would have to agree with posts that are taking the “no real effect on ToMoCos image” slant. We enthusiast disect, pulverize, analyze and philosophize about this stuff.
The average car buyer (including most Prius jockies) just goes out and buys what he wants from the company he thinks gives him the best value/design/trust combination for his bucks.
They are not as wrapped up in this as we are.
TTFN
Bunter.
Hmmmm…first, until there’s a federal law requiring people to buy gas guzzlers, there should be no whining. If you want to save the world (or look like you do), buy a Prius. And be quiet.
And who are these people making “lifestyle” choices? I’m not buying an image or a brand…I need a machine! I couldn’t care less who’s advertising what and to whom.
I agree with most of the posters here, look at the sales numbers on Camry, Corrolla, Prius, total numbers for Scion – clearly Toyota sells primarily high mpg cars and deserves kudos for doing so.
I have a hard time being too upset with Toyota or Honda for making bigger cars & trucks than they used to. I’ve always had the sense that they were making more appropriate sized vehicles (like the T100 and Ridgeline, their sedans from the 80’s) assuming that we americans would at some point realize we didn’t really need such large vehicles. Looking at the sales numbers it’s obvious to me that Americans still aren’t buying it. I think we have a Swiss-Army knife mentality about things we buy, get the biggest, most heavy duty, multifunction one we can afford.
What’s the alternative here? Should Toyota deprive me of the right to buy a full size Tundra from them on principle?
Toyota’s plummeting quality dwarfs all its issues. The public will pay a premium for its products as long as the quality, reliability and durability holds. Failing that Detroit products are thousands less.
Maytag appliances legendary durability once commanded premium prices. Bean counter value engineering devastated quality. The Maytag repairman is as lonely as ever. Few buy now notwithstanding bargain pricing.
Car vogues like ladies fashions come and go. Toyota will offer truck SUVs until sales dwindle, then jump on the next gravy train.
Toyota’s image shouldn’t be dented by the guzzlers, just as it isn’t and shouldn’t be dented by the ridiculous environmental footprint of the Prius (battery recycling anyone).
I say: bring on the guzzlers! The sooner we rid this world of oil in its various forms, the sooner we can get serious about renewable energy, and at the same time stop subsidizing unstable and hostile Middle Eastern and South American regimes.
I am doing my part in bringing this about every day driving to work and back (14/18 mpg). Expensive? Yes, but I am willing to suffer for the cause and put my money where my mouth is.
I have to go with the majority here and say the article is not only flawed, but wrong.
George Romney (yeah, the father of Mitt Romney) ran American Motors in the 1950’s through about 1962 (when he became Governor of Michigan). He once was quoted (about his huge selling Rambler compact lines which started selling like gangbusters in 1956) (paraphrased) “Detroit cars are like dinosaurs, huge oversized…” and the part that was always left off his statement?
“and we build them too” (as in the 1956 Nash Ambassador and Hudson Hornet FULL SIZED V8 cars with huge Packard supplied 352 cubic inch engines).
“I’m nursing my old cars along until someone decides to sell a fuel-efficient small truck in the United States.
The first manufacturer to put a fuel-efficient SMALL truck on a lot near me will instantly get more than twenty thousand of the dollars I have sitting in wait for exactly that.
On every motorcycle, political, and auto forum I visit, people are clamoring for a SMALL truck. ”
HEAR HEAR! I can’t believe my old 1990 Dakota gets 31 mpg on the highway and now I can’t find anything even close. Suzuki is coming out with a rebadged Frontier, I HOPE it’s a single cab version with a 4 banger and good mileage. If so I’ll buy!
John
This really is a non-issue for just about everyone except the environmental extremist. The popularity of the Prius has a lot more to do with lower fuel costs, high tech coolness and tax incentives than it does with saving the planet. As long as LandCruisers & Hummers still sell… then build them. It’s nice to see that at least Toyota recognizes that the future is in much higher MPG vehicles.
If marketing were everything, you’d be enjoying herring ice cream with pickle chips and chocolate sauce.
Not everyone lives in an American city. Having driven in Northern British Columbia in winter, the woods in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) and in the forest in the Russian Far East, I know how justifiably loved the Land Cruiser and the new FJ are. These are niche markets that require sturdy, well protected, reliable vehicles. And that’s what Toyota customers who work in the bush get.
We’re like a bunch of yappy little squirrel-size dogs snapping at Toyota’s ankles–including all the domestic-industry hysterics like deLorenzo, who are just livid that Toyota is doing so well and who insist that the media are all in bed with Toyota.
Neither Toyota nor 98 percent of American car buyers notice or care, and why should they? It’s like complaining about German cars because they ran concentration camps. “Oh, did they? Gosh. Great cars, though…”
There are a few points in this article which I think need clarifying.
“Why are GM slated for building thirsty trucks, when Toyota do it, too?”
Answer: Because GM focused solely on trucks and SUV’s and neglected their car market. This is shown, beautifully, by GM’s floundering to rally up their car divisions to compete with Toyota after years of neglect. GM’s didn’t think to try and MAKE their cars profitable.
“Toyota’s brand is at a crossroads”
No it isn’t. Toyota still stands for quality, reliability and durability. 3 values which fit nicely in the car and truck division. As someone said earlier, apart from the hardcore environMENTALIST (note the capital letters) people will distinguish between the 2. Let’s face it, the average car buyer isn’t really going to care about Toyota’s truck division and vice versa (at least, not in the UK). If Toyota REALLY wanted to separate the 2, they could have “Toyota” for cars with high mileage and low petrol costs and “Hino” for their truck division. But I think that’d be unnecessary.
When you look at how Toyota have become a juggernaut who’s nimble, as well (a great combination of skills) it’s been a slow and steady march or refining their cars and honing the “Toyota” brand. I don’t expect them to drop the ball badly, but one thing is for sure, they need to kill their reliability issues once and for all. Outside of “reliable, quality and durable” what other values does the “Toyota” brand have? Good looking cars with soul? Yeah right(!)
You missed the boat on this one. The public compares the MPG of vehicles of the same class when they are cross-shopping. The MPG of the Sequoia only has to compete with the likes of the Tahoe, Expedition, etc. If the Sequoia MPG is near the top of comparisons of similar vehicles, Toyota has still done its part regarding fuel efficiency. For those fictitious Prius owners that would whine about the Sequoia MPG, have them try to put 7 passengers in their Prius and tow a 6000lb boat.
I think the fretting about Toyota’s “image” is coming from people who, unasked, placed the crown of environmental saintliness on Toyota’s head because of the Prius, and then were shocked – shocked! – to find out that Toyota also makes trucks and SUVs. Sounds like a pretty insulated view of Toyota to me. Out here in the Rockies, Toyota means reliable, efficient, well made vehicles: 4 wheel drive trucks, Land Cruisers, and reliable family cars and minivans.
We’re not shocked or dismayed about Toyotas big gas guzzlers because we’ve never assumed that Toyota was all about the Prius and Camry.
Decent cars that last a long time and don’t fall apart – that’s Toyota’s reputation around here and as long as they don’t mess with that, they’ll be fine.
Toyota can simply not ignore the high profit margins of large vehicles sold in this country. They probably figure they can market their way out of any negative publicity.
But don’t blame Toyota – they are just giving the consumer what they want. If a consumer wants a large SUV and Toyota will not sell them one then GM, Ford or Chrysler will. If anyone thinks that you can change the market by refusing to sell what the customer wants they need a lesson in economics 101.
The United States is somewhat peculiar in their value perception of vehicles in that they are prepared to pay much more for a bigger vehicle (even though it doesn’t cost much more to build). This means that large vehicles have much better profit margins than than small and medium size ones. Even with shrinking market size for large SUVs, Toyota can leverage their brand perception and take market share away from the 2.8. And since these vehicles platform share with commercial vehicles, it makes perfect economic sense – just not environmental sense.
Currently, there is no problem with Toyota simultaneously selling the Prius and Tundra but I think the point of the article is that Toyota needs to pick one or the other. The longer they wait, the harder it will be. GM is placing their bets on hybrid trucks and SUV’s. Honda’s line trumps Toyota’s on fuel economy even without a hybrid. If Toyota doesn’t pick a consistent marketing image and stick with it, they’re stuck with a mediocre lineup that no one has a compelling reason to buy.
You say most people aren’t concerned with this but they will be. Ask most people now and they will tell you they don’t like the Detroit automakers because they make too many trucks.
While I understand arguments that Toyota is relatively immune to these issues at the moment, I agree completely that the brand would be well advised to reposition itself in line with consumer expectations– however much Toyota did or didn’t encourage them.
IF Toyota is all about reliability, then sure, build anything at all, make it reliable and sell it. But as authors on this website have argued previously, reliability is not the unique selling point it once was. The “reliability gap” has shrunk to the point of near invisibility. Consumers may not understand that yet, having been burned by the domestics, but they will, eventually.
If the early adopters have thrust eco-sainthood upon Toyota, they should seriously consider accepting that mantle. Who amongst us thinks it’s a bad idea to be known as the “green automaker?” Who on this forum thinks environmental friendliness is a lousy branding precept, with a limited shelf life?
But again, again, again; a brand can only have ONE identity. It cannot be all things– or even several things– to all people. Fate has given ToMoCo an opening, a lead, a priceless opportunity to be both the biggest AND the most respected automaker in the world. I reckon the author’s right: they should take it. ANd if they don’t, someone else will.
I understand Toyota is developing a big reliability issue… and taking aggressive steps to counter it.
But I’ll also add that I have to question some of the recent reliability studies… products are scoring well in it but they are in many cases products that have been in existence for several years without fundamental change, or on long-standing platforms. GM in particular. All this says is that a manufacturer is building an *old* product well, not necessarily state-of-the-art or desirable by anybody looking for reasonably state-of-the-art.
So I have to question the reliability “gap”.
-Jeff
DrivingEnthusiast.net
Mr Farago:
“a brand can only have ONE identity”
Don’t start this again! :O) Brands can have more than one identity. Toyota’s image of reliability, quality and durability is still head and shoulders above many other marques. Ask a non-motor head (A.K.A Someone who DOESN’T read TTAC) to think of Toyota and no doubt they’ll say “Reliable, everyday cars”. Toyota is still the by-word for trouble-free motoring. I hate to say it but there is a small market who want painless motoring for going to the shops and back (OK,it’s not small. It’s flipping huge!).
Toyota can be new kind of “World’s biggest automaker”. It can be the world’s biggest automaker with a distinct brand which non-motorheads understand and every car is made with reliability in mind.
Toyota’s brand values are still there. Though I think my ego won’t be after Mr Farago reads this!
I think it was RF who said no brand should have more than 3 models. I think that's right.
Toyota is not going to be hurt at all by marketing updates to the Tundra, Land Cruiser, etc. Toyota is now the world’s automotive company in the way that GM and Ford once were. A car for every purse and purpose.
The problem with GM and Ford is that they are defined by their big trucks. Just try to find the SEDANS at a California Chevrolet dealer. Lots of luck. Here on the coast GM and Ford are already big trucks all the time. There are a host of reasons why so many people are rip snorting mad at the 2.8. Toyota’s Teflon shield is still in good shape.
Anyway, nice try, but the article missed the mark by a long shot.
Instead of having a single focus as other carmakers do, perhaps Toyota’s is to actually try to be all things to all people. It’s big and profitable enough to attempt this, having made more money than all others combined last year.
The green side, the tough side, the boring appliance side of Toyota – it’s a rehash of the story about the blind men and the elephant. Or is it an 800-lb gorilla with Teflon fur?
If fuel prices go up significantly in the USA and fuel economy becomes important, then Toyota can lighten, shrink, and reduce the power of their trucks. By entering the market now (even with inefficient vehicles) they will be well positioned to apply the fuel-saving technologies when the market swings in that direction.
I thought this was going to be about far Toyota has gone from being “driver’s cars”!
I don’t care what the other vehicles in an automakers line-up are, as long as they’re reliable and the one I want suits my tastes. You’d have to be pretty shallow to buy or not buy a car because of a false corporate image.
Stephan Wilkinson:
“We’re like a bunch of yappy little squirrel-size dogs snapping at Toyota’s ankles–including all the domestic-industry hysterics like deLorenzo, who are just livid that Toyota is doing so well and who insist that the media are all in bed with Toyota”
Get Used to It—this is what we in America do to #1..it will not change.
Most people I know who want/have a Prius are largely unaware it’s a Toyota. They know it’s made by Toyota but “Prius” has supplanted “Toyota” as the brand of the car; hence (as reported on this site recently I think) soon there’ll be whole slew of Prius models.
The trend is to name cars with alphabet soup so as to force advertising the manufacturer when stating the car name (who makes a B-M-W-3-3-0 ?), but Toyota is moving in the opposite direction by almost making sub-brands from each model line; Prius, Tundra, LandCruiser. Each can have a different sub-identity while being sold at the same dealership.
IF Toyota is all about reliability, then sure, build anything at all, make it reliable and sell it. But as authors on this website have argued previously, reliability is not the unique selling point it once was. The “reliability gap” has shrunk to the point of near invisibility.
Based on what? Consumer reviews? Reports of warranty repairs? Fuzzy-headed surveys of nebulous concepts like “satisfaction?” It’s not just reliability, it’s value. Reliability is a part of value, but so is design, quality of construction and other intangible factors.
I think the one really measurable metric is resale value. Take a Camry and a Taurus/500/whatever. Identically equipped (to the extent possible), same year, same basic options. Using the actual purchase price of those cars (not the MSRP) as the starting point, look at their resale values in 2, 3, and 5 years. I’ll bet good money that people will still pay more for the Toyota, all other factors being equal. That tells you what people really think, as opposed to what they say they think. In the end, people will pay more for the Toyota than they will for the Chevy or the Ford because they perceive they are getting more.
That’s the hurdle that the big 2.9 have to get over. Reliability is part of the equation but it’s not the whole thing. And notice that corporate image or green friendliness doesn’t play into the equation at all.
It might also help us to step back a little from the American solipsism that we all seem prone to. It’s not always about us. Toyota sells cars worldwide. There are many places on the planet where a Land Cruiser or a Hilux is the only way to get to that remote village or settlement. These are the kinds of places where a Prius would be a fish out of water – nowhere to take that battery pack in for service, and not many paved roads at all. Nevertheless, Toyota sells cars there, and wants to sell more.
In these places a preoccupation with “green” branding is seen as meaningless posturing. People buy the vehicle that gets the job done. Period. For Toyota to forego this market in an effort to bolster their “green cred” in the US and Europe would be a horrible business decision.
I strongly differ with this editorial as well.
Simply put, Toyota does not market itself as a “green” company, but as a maker of highly reliable, trustworthy automobiles. It has an uber-eco product for those who want it (Prius), plus it has some other choices that offer good-in-class fuel economy, but that does not bar it from selling other vehicles.
Toyota’s core branding message is: We won’t burn you or leave you stranded. This vehicle will start when you want it to start. Just so long as it makes cars that fulfill that promise and they do this better than most of their rivals, the brand will remain strong. When quality becomes ubiquitous and is no longer an exceptional trait, they will need to come up with something else.
The underlying message here seems to be that Toyota employs a hypocritical branding strategy and that the company will pay for that hypocrisy. I won’t debate the merits of hybrids here, but I will say that the only people who I find to be upset about this alleged hypocrisy are those who strongly object to hybrids, a group that is small in number and not inclined to buy Toyotas, anyway. I don’t see that segment of the buying public that is interested in transplanted vehicles being all that concerned about this.
Martin Albright:
It’s not just reliability, it’s value. Reliability is a part of value, but so is design, quality of construction and other intangible factors.
While redefining terms is an excellent way to win an argument, I don’t think there’s much semantic wiggle room withing the word “reliability.”
I think most people would agree that a reliable product is one that continues to do what it’s been doing without interruption. Or, even more simply, something that doesn’t break.
If you use THAT definition of reliability as a basis of discussion, yes, we can look at scientific surveys of reliability to determine if ToMoCo’s products are more reliable than its competitors, and by how much (a subject near and dear to the heart of Mr. Karesh of True Delta fame).
I think you’ll find that modern cars are, in the main, similarly reliable.
By the same token, I think Katie Puckrick’s assertion that Toyota is OK to offer three brand attributes– reliability, quality and durability– offers us a distinction without a difference.
Yes, “quality” is a sensually subjective concept that can back up perceptions of reliability. But I don’t think the average Toyota (i.e. mainstream) buyer would say, “the door closes with a solid thunk, so the car must be reliable.”
Think of it this way: would they trade a tinny-sounding door in a reliable Toyota for a thunking portal in an Audi that had constant mechanical or electric issues? In a word, no.
I’m not saying Toyota should abandon reliability. I’m saying they should seriously consider altering their brand focus to eco-friendliness. Given the current regulatory climate and the complete impossibility of it shifting, as a long-term play, it would work.
Straight from the horse’s mouth:
1. Be a driving force in global regeneration by implementing the most advanced environmental technologies.
2. Create automobiles and a motorized society in which people can live safely, securely and comfortably.
3. Promote the advantages of cars throughout the world and attract more Toyota fans.
4. Be a truly global company that is trusted and respected by all people around the world.
Translated into a popular cliché:
a. be all things to all people
b. TPS
c. profit!
Am marketing statement.
To RF,
I think “Reliable” is the perfect brand for Toyota and I think it means more than taillights that work (why do so many 3-4 year old cars have one taillight out!!), gaskets that don’t blow and computers that continue to work for thousands of miles.
One can also rely on Toyota to: have a car for most purses and purposes, for the dealerships to not rip you off (but what do I know, at least the product is “good” if the dealer is evil), to have service available pretty much anywhere in the US and A, to have decent resale, to not be embarrassing to drive, to give you green if you want and heavy duty if you want and to take care of their workers (a friend in KY. loves working for ’em). They even offer faux upscale – safe and soundproof.
Toyota can be relied upon to basically make vehicles period. The only company that could compete in some way would be Honda. These cars are not exciting or all that interesting imho but they are appliances; in the morning you want decent coffee and unburnt toast, not a problem. If you want a cappucino, better look elsewhere.
I also agree that the fact that Toyota sells trucks mean zero to the people I know who are buying Prii. Where else would they buy a teched out high mileage car, Honda? What’s the difference?
Sorry, y’all already took off with the discussion while I wandered away from the comment that I had started but didn’t finish (damn job). Neve mind me, I’ll catch up to RF and MA and KP at some point.
The trend is to name cars with alphabet soup so as to force advertising the manufacturer when stating the car name (who makes a B-M-W-3-3-0 ?), but Toyota is moving in the opposite direction by almost making sub-brands from each model line; Prius, Tundra, LandCruiser. Each can have a different sub-identity while being sold at the same dealership.
That’s a very intersting insight! I never thought of that. But you are right. And with the way that Toyota keeps a model name alive so long, it really is just like each model is it’s own brand. Kinda smart on their part.
I may be mistaken but I believe the Land Crusher has been a limited model run for the US for a long time. They could likely sell more.
Also, I think the posts reflect the reality here from the very first one to the last.
One interesting question would be if Prius became a more well known brand than Toyota (ala Legend and Acura), what should Toyota do about it? What do all you Branding experts say?
Martin Albright:
You may be onto something here with the value thing. I had a 2001 Saturn SL1 with a shade under 100k miles that I think I was lucky to sell for a little less than $2k. I have a friend with a 1990 Toyota Camry with close to 200k miles and he doesn’t feel like he would be wrong in asking for $3500. Granted he’s not an auto appraiser or anything like that, but if he thinks the car is worth that much, surely some other members of the general non-enthusiast public will too.
“You may be onto something here with the value thing. I had a 2001 Saturn SL1 with a shade under 100k miles that I think I was lucky to sell for a little less than $2k. I have a friend with a 1990 Toyota Camry with close to 200k miles and he doesn’t feel like he would be wrong in asking for $3500.”
Try looking up Toyota trucks on Ebay. I see old ones with over 100000k miles on them going for several thousands of dollars. The Toyota name at work.
John
How’s this: Toyota’s trucks are thirsty ’cause they’re high-tech.
GM trucks, V8 and V6 (and old Tech 4)cars do well because they run comparatively backward OHV pushrod engines that just thrive under loads at 1000-2000 RPM.
Hitched to Bonneville (the salt flats) gearing, they’re wonderfully fuel-efficient.
Remember the old first-to-fourth Corvette manual transmission gimmick, that sneaked the Vette under the EPA Gas Guzzler Tax wire ? Everybody laughs that so many of the General’s engine designs date to the 60’s or even the 50’s, but I’m not sure how well a Honda VTEC would like fourth gear at 16 mph.
Theoretically Toyota could go old-school, pushrod, high-torque, low rpm too, but all of the Toyota engineers’ friends would laugh at them. Most Asian cars have all these features that only the Fast & Furious appreciate. It’s peer pressure I say.
Honestly, I tilted a midsize Isuzu cab forward TEN YEARS AGO to check the oil and the engine said OHC on it ! Who wants an overhead cam diesel delivery truck motor ?
_240D_ is with me on this one I bet.
I’m with you on the Toyota reliability and resale. I don’t pay much attention to new cars but everyone I know who’s looked for a small used truck has bought Toyota, and doesn’t have a problem paying what would be a high price for any other vehicle with over 100k miles.
OK, I give up. Toyota should stick with reliability and let the carbon footprint fall where it may. How about Honda does the green thing?
Honda had it, until they let it get away from them. No good follow up to the Insight, no response to the Prius (I expected them to one-up the FIRST Prius, and they still haven’t!).
I personally consider Honda the greenest auto manufacturer right now, the fact that Toyota carries that flag is evidence that few people see the big picture. It’s flagship products in each segment that matter.
My view of the saga so far:
Toyota (and Honda/Datsun/etal) benefit from the late 70s gas ‘crisis’ and make major inroads in the North American market. The US consumer eventually sees the trend: savings at the pump and unheard-of reliability and longevity. Mid 70s Toyotas purchased to keep gas costs agreeable were still running fine into the 80s. Oringinal engines and trannys with 100k/200k/+ miles and still going strong. American cars simply did not match this.
Yada yada…
Number One in the world. Why shift anything now? Like many above posters have commented, until Toyota really blow it big time (Pinto, Citation…) my take is they are doing fine.
Toyota is a full line vehicle maker. This means they make large SUVs and pickups when the market demands them (and the market in the US does, although slightly less so now then in the past).
Honda is willing to forgo larger vehicles (for example, any V-8s at all) because they are willing to not be a true full line auto maker. Toyota is not willing to make that sacrifice.
OK, I give up.
Toyota should stick with reliability and let the carbon footprint fall where it may.
How about Honda does the green thing?
Robert,
How many people do you know who make their decision to buy a car (the second-largest purchase most people ever make) based on the enviro-cred of the company? Sure, there are plenty of people at college campuses who will festoon their Prii with bellicose stickers touting their greenness and slamming SUVs, Big Oil, Bush, et al. But are those buyers enough to make any real difference for a company? The vast majority of car buyers are neither environmental absolutists nor gearheads. They just want a decent car/truck to get them where they need to go, and do so without draining their wallet or their patience.
Toyota makes vehicles people want. Some people just need a transportation appliance to get them to work or school. Some want high mileage and high tech so they can save the planet and feel superior to the rest of us lowbrows. Some want big engines and low gears so they climb the Colorado Rockies. Toyota is smart enough to make a vehicle for each of these customers, and every one in between.
Gas prices are already trending back downward from their now-normal Summer peak. An environmental halo and 50 cents still won’t get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Honda has been pushing their high-mileage stats all Summer, but has it resulted in additional sales? Toyota isn’t in business to make the world a better place, they’re in business to make money.
Boy do I have a lot of catching up to do with this discussion.
First of all, kudos to the fellow who mentioned that a ‘model’ is just as important as a ‘brand’. Toyota recognizes this and will generally only get rid of a particular model when one of two things take place.
1) A model not only fails miserably in the marketplace, but also develops a strong negative image with a portion of the market Toyota wants to attract.
Example: The Toyota Echo. There was a very strong belief that male buyers would write-off Toyota’s next generation economy car if it was sold as an Echo. Due to this market handicap, the Echo was replaced with the Yaris.
The Toyota T100 and Toyota Previa were two other noteable examples of what can loosely be called ‘model prejudice’. These models offered weak engines, weird styling, and hefty price tags which made them unappealing to the mass of buyers who were considering vehicles in those markets. The Tundra and Sienna replacements did far better than their predecessors, and as a result, Toyota has continued to build on that brand equity for several generations now.
2) The model is attractive to a market segment that has been an unprofitable and shrinking one for several years.
The Toyota Celica, Toyota Supra, and I would even argue the Toyota Paseo were all victims of this reality. The next-gen Celica became less of a boy-racer car and changed it’s name to Tc, in part, because that segment alone could no longer support the economic viability of another Celica.
The Supra and Paseo were both axed when those markets experienced steep declines. Toyota even tried to reduce the Supra’s selling price by nearly 10k during it’s last gasp in the states. The sales volume needle barely moved.
In practice, Toyota is a fervent believer in building ‘model’ equity and will usually delay a new generation’s entrance into a market in order to retain it. In North America the Camry is 24 years old, the Corolla is close to 26, the Land Cruiser is nearly 40, the 4Runner is 20, and even ‘relative’ newcomers such as the Avalon, Sienna, RAV4, Tacoma, and Tundra have been around for about a decade on average. It’s also worthy to note that all of these newcomers have introduced at least three generations of that model in the American marketplace.
One key to Toyota’s diversity and success is building this ‘model’ equity. Toyota see no dilemna with selling a Prius, a Land Cruiser, or an Avalon so long as there is a continuous improvement in that model’s equity with the public.
If Toyota did not build a Camry, a Corolla, a Sienna, or a Prius, they would not be the market leader. Even within Toyota’s customer base, there are those buyers who are simply more loyal to a specific model than they are to the manufacturer.
It’s not hypocrisy for Toyota to build big-ass trucks and still sell themselves as a green company, but it’s a little hypocritical if they can’t even commit themselves to sell the greenest big-ass trucks on the market.
This article is way off the mark. I agree with what most posters so far have said.
The Prius and Toyota’s trucks in no way harmfully impact one another.
It’s as if some people are either envious of everything Toyota has achieved, or have nothing better to do and complain that Toyota is offering trucks and *gasp* fuel efficient cars as well!
Toyota is not going to pick one or the other. As has been mentioned ad naseum, Toyota is a FULL-LINE automaker, that tries to be all things to all people. Part of Toyota’s corporate philosophy even mentions this.
Andrew Rush:
Releasing two new bigger full-sized SUVs into a declining market, into a world of three dollars a gallon gas, is a serious miscalculation on Toyota’s part. Granted, the profit on one Land Cruiser is probably greater than the margin on five Prii, but how many Land Cruisers can Toyota sell, and at what cost?
This part of your article is a miscalculated assumption. How many Land Cruisers will Toyota sell? Let’s see now, Toyota sells about 250,000 Land Cruisers worldwide each year. It’s not just about North America you know; if we look at the BIG picture (worldwide) then it’s quite obvious Land Cruisers are VERY popular and despite the small sales in America Toyota offers the LC because it’s a legendary vehicle that some of it’s American customers want. As for a new Sequoia, it’s part of Toyota’s goal of being a full-line automaker.
dear toyota, be careful with that NA market, and don`t let your demands wobble , just because the us-based audience has wobbly quality demands. Don`t let your solara bang for the buck lifestyle take over toyota ethics. look what has happened to Mitsubishi Galant, when designed and engineered in usa. toyota, watch out of us market, it is not only money rich, it is also low-ethics rich in manufacturing field. don`t get seduced by how easy you could sell cars with subpar plastics. don`t degrade yourself!
If the world were reduced to GM vs Toyota I’d say Toyota can keep doing what their doing. A little of everything for everyone and not much brand focus, along with overlapping product where they have tried to define brands – that’s what Toyo and the General have in common.
But, reliability isn’t really going to be an advantage for Toyota any more – partly because they’ve slipped a few times (though they can get by with that if it doesn’t happen too often) and more so because Honda, Mazda, Hyundai, Subaru are seen as being about the same in reliability. We might even see the “perception” gap close for the D3.
This isn’t to say reliability isn’t important, it’s just not going to be unique to Toyota. In fact it isn’t unique to Toyota now.
So what does Toyota mean? What’s it stand for? Right now, it still means reliability. But it’s going to need to mean more than that – it’s going to need to give me another reason to buy because I can get reliability from lots of manufacturers.
What does Toyota mean to a 23 year old non-gear head looking for her first new vehicle? If it only means reliability, then it has no advantage over a half dozen other makes. For us boomers, we were happy to find a car company that made a product that would outlast the warranty. Younger customers take that for granted.
It seems to me more brands are called for. Toyota, as a corporate parent, needs to sell “big ass” trucks, because there is money to be made doing it. But the ba truck doesn’t need to share a name with the Corolla. Much the way GM has gone to Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers, Toyota could go to Toyota/Greenie/Big Ass dealers.
The brand is diluted by bein all things to all people. In the past it didn’t matter because we were looking for a car to last as long as the payment schedule. But those days are gone.
that is why, toyota making 15bn annually, doesn`t stop pourung cash into R&D. they crank out sweet lexus megacoupe and are heavily working on Supra replacement and do the engineering on nex gen lexus retractable hardtop coupe. they are also planning to launch a Prius as a seperate hybrid brand, work on a new avensis replacement and will add a new premium truck. besides they plan to add a new minivan. What crossroads?
It seems to me more brands are called for. Toyota, as a corporate parent, needs to sell “big ass” trucks, because there is money to be made doing it. But the ba truck doesn’t need to share a name with the Corolla. Much the way GM has gone to Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers, Toyota could go to Toyota/Greenie/Big Ass dealers.
In my opinion, the last thing that any automaker should do is to emulate GM’s progressive branding model. That was a fine business model when there is minimal competition in the marketplace, but it fails miserably in today’s market. Too many badges leads to badge engineering, as dealers and brand managers seek to expand their reach and do so by cannibalizing their own sister products.
I think that there are some misunderstandings of branding in this thread. There is more than one way to go about it — it can assume the extremely focused single-message position advocated in the article, but there are also variations on the theme that can be effective. One of the world’s best brand builders is Proctor & Gamble, which has both established a strong parent brand which makes it a leader in consumer products (P&G itself) as well as numerous product brands that endow the product lines themselves with their own unique branding messages (the Olay body care products, Crest dental hygiene products, etc.). There are two levels of branding being used by P&G, and the two tiers support each other.
Toyota and other successful mass automakers is doing something similar. In Toyota’s case, it not only builds strong upper-tier brands at the badge level (Toyota, Lexus, and quasi-badge Scion), but it also builds strong branding identity at the nameplate level (Corolla, Camry, Lexus LS, Prius, etc.) Both tiers are important and work in concert with each other to sell the message.
Take the Prius. The Toyota badge communicates quality, reliability, dependability and trust. The Prius nameplate sells cutting-edge R&D, cool geek tech and eco-friendly fuel economy. The Toyota badge helps to convince the customer that his adventures into tech geekdom won’t leave him stranded by the side of the roadway, making the Prius a low-risk purchase.
Take the Lexus LS. Lexus sells perfection; LS is a big, luxury sedan. Combine the messages, and you end up with a variation on the S-class for those who want top-end reliability. The nameplate and badge work together, and support each other.
I think that the key takeaway here is that there is more than one way to skin a branding cat, and that this single-band branding concept doesn’t necessarily work for mass market products. For distinct luxury products, such as Gucci, it is extremely important to stay highly focused and maintain a fairly limited breadth, but for a mass automaker, that would be flushing a lot of potential brand equity away without benefit. This sort of uber-narrow brand focus is appropriate for an exotic car line such as Aston Martin or Ferrari, but for a Ford, Toyota, etc., it’s not necessarily a good idea. If GM proves anything, it’s that badge segmentation has real limits and that a failure to cultivate nameplates as support brands is a highly risky strategy.
Article is correct. Toyota will cede the king of green title to Honda.
In Canada, Honda has already started to sell itself as the green automaker, touting its best-in-every-class fuel economy.
They also took out a full page ad recently in the major dailies that called on the government to recognize some of their efficient non-hybrid cars in the various eco-rebate schemes that are popping up, rightly claiming that an efficient gasoline-powered vehicle shouldn’t be punished for being non-hybrid when it achieves comparable numbers.
In fact, they went so far as to offer a rebate of $1000 to anyone that purchased an ’07 Fit or Civic with M/T (cars that didn’t qualify for the tax credit).
On a slight aside, Toyota had a full page ad in the paper a couple days ago that sought to bust up a couple myths about hybrid vehicles (e.g. myth: hybrids need to be plugged in).
I found it telling that they made no mention of battery life or recyclability in the ad. (E.g. Myth: the batteries will need to be replaced at a cost of several thousand dollars in a couple years). Since we know that many people have that perception, it seems remarkable that it wasn’t addressed. Which leads a cynic to wonder if they aren’t willing to dispel that myth in writing…
The comment,
“Simply put, Toyota does not market itself as a “green” company, but as a maker of highly reliable, trustworthy automobiles. ”
Is completely 100% wrong.
Go to the BART subway in San Francisco. They have Toyota billboards for 4 months now with “There is no “E” (as in empty) in Toyota” They have each billboard with a model and the taglines like “4 gallons from SF to Monterey” or “6 gallons from SF to Seattle”
The entire subway is plastered with Toyo ads.
That is a green statement from Toyota.
Go to the BART subway in San Francisco. They have Toyota billboards for 4 months now with “There is no “E” (as in empty) in Toyota” They have each billboard with a model and the taglines like “4 gallons from SF to Monterey” or “6 gallons from SF to Seattle”
That’s a fuel economy message. Fuel economy does not equal green.
In Canada, Honda has already started to sell itself as the green automaker, touting its best-in-every-class fuel economy.
Which of course would be incorrect. Some models of the Civic lose out to fuel economy to the Corolla, even though Civics have 5 speeds across the line, while most Corollas make due with 4 speeds.
Honda may tout whatever it wants, but that doesn’t mean it is true.
I read the article and I’m thinkin’ “jeezis – here we go again.”
Toyota’s green image starts and stops with whether or not I can be (relatively) green by buying a Toyota. I can. If Toyota chooses to also build big-ass trucks (I note the Tundra’s big engine is ULEV), all well and good for them. I still can’t go to GM, Ford or Chrysler and pick from three or four cars that get 40+mpg on the highway.
And green is much less a matter of what you drive than where and how often you drive it and what your lifestyle is. We chose a house near work, schools and the routine shops. We don’t drive much. When the weather’s decent, I commute and run errands by biking or even walking. The kids walked to school. It’s not a big house, so it’s easy to heat to sweater temperature, and we only use the A/C when the weather is unbearable (three days this year). We wouldn’t be much less green than we are now if we owned Tundras instead of a Rav4 and a minivan.
pch100
“Toyota and other successful mass automakers is doing something similar. In Toyota’s case, it not only builds strong upper-tier brands at the badge level (Toyota, Lexus, and quasi-badge Scion), but it also builds strong branding identity at the nameplate level (Corolla, Camry, Lexus LS, Prius, etc.) Both tiers are important and work in concert with each other to sell the message.”
Ok, I think you’ve made a very good point, and I think you may be right. I’m not 100% sold though, because Toyota is trying to be “green” (or at least allowing others to label it as such) and it really is hard to be green with the SUVs and PUs.
But you’ve got a good point. Prius can be green even if Tundra isn’t. But what happens when some other company that already matches Toyota for reliability becomes “green” with more cred than Toyota? A company like Honda which doesn’t have BA PUs, and only one full size SUV, for example. Does one buy the Prius or does one buy the Honda equivalent (assuming they come out with one) due to Honda’s green cred?
Johnson, the Civic hybrid beats any Corolla in fuel economy, and is in the same class. But they certainly don’t have top fuel economy in the mid-size sedan segment, where the Prius lives.
The 5-speed auto Civic gets slightly better highway numbers and slightly worse city numbers than the 4 speed auto in the Corolla, while the manual Corolla beats the manual Civic by 2 mpg in the city and 3 mpg on the highway. I think that indicates the Honda 5-speed auto is superior to the Toyota 4-speed in terms of fuel economy, but the Corolla is simply more efficient to begin with. Of course, we’re talking about a pretty negligible difference here anyway!
1.xA
2.xB
3.TC
4.Yaris
5.Corolla
6.Camry 4cyl.
7.Camry Hybrid
8.Avalon
9.RAV4 4cyl.
10.Highlander Hybrid
11.Matrix
12.GS450
13.LS600
14.RX450
15.RAV4 v6
16.Camry v6
Off the top of my head I can name 16 vehicles that Toyota makes that get either very good gas mileage in general or get very good gas mileage for their class.
NOTE: These models are only from the NA market not the entire world market that Toyota serves.
My point being that with the exception of Toyota’s large SUVs and Pickups the overwhleming majority of Toyota products are designed and engineered with fuel efficiency in mind.
Another way to put it is that Toyota currently has the best collection of technology and equipment in its own home grown inventory to be as green as it needs.or wants to be.
Think about this way, if the price of gas rises above the level that will really make us say ouch, and Toyota needs/wants to sell a more efficient CUV than the Highlander, Toyota can install the Camry hybrid powertrain into the RAV4 and be posied to charge a premium for it!
I like Andrew’s arguments, but I tend to agree with the dissenters here. The problem is that Toyota can have its cake and eat it too.
Case in Point: Houston, Texas.
The City of Houston owns a very large fleet of Priuses (1st and 2nd gen) and we also have the Toyota Center (basketball arena) with its adjacent parking garage. Its called the Tundra Parking Garage. How weird is that?
The artsy-fartsy areas are all about the Hybrids, but drive 45 mins south into Richmond/Rosenburg and you’ll see yellow/black billboards everywhere for the new tough/manly/durable/ass kickin’ Tundra.
There is pent up demand (urban) for Hybrids, and the hype that goes with. But there is also pent up demand (rural) for a long history of durable and desirable Toyota trucks: for DECADES the 4-runner (until the current gen) the indestructible Land Crusher and the compact pickup (not the new Tacoma) have carved a niche in the world of Ford and Chevy trucks. They get the job done, or at least they did. I have my doubts about the newer ones.
Toyota should stick with reliability and let the carbon footprint fall where it may.
Agreed, Robert. I think its fine for Toyota to sell different cars to our urban/rural needs. I think our culture is too diverse to “collectively” call out a company for catering to the tree-huggers and the brush-clearers at the same time.
The lingering question in my mind is if these latest Toyota pickups are worthy of the 4Runner/compact PU/Land Cruiser forefathers who had to work their collective asses off to win over America’s rural population. These brands could very well have more long-term equity than Hybrids.
Do we really have to categorize the people of this country in such a cliched and constricted way? “Artsy-fartsy…tough/manly…tree-huggers…brush-clearers”? We’re already tearing ourselves apart with every possible regional, societal, religious and sexual hatred we could possibly devise, and I’d really like to see us back off from it a few notches.
” I’m nursing my old cars along until someone decides to sell a fuel-efficient small truck in the United States.”
Keep an eye on Tata and Mahindra (both of India). I suspect one or both will go after that market in the US soon.
The current Civic is a much larger car than a Corolla and is in fact quite comparable to a Prius:
Civic Prius
Length 176.7 in. 175 in.
Width 69 in. 67.9 in.
Height 56.5 in. 58.7 in.
Have a look:
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=100804554&styleid=100777218&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs
You guys are going on and on about whether Honda is the greenest automaker or not. You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter if they are, it matters only if they are perceived to be.
Someone astutely pointed out that the average car buyer doesn’t spend hours dissecting brands. Of course he doesn’t – consciously. However if he perceives Honda to be green after seeing endless commercials about it, when it’s time to buy a car, if he values environmental conservation, he defaults to Honda. If the marketing’s done right, it’s a reflex.
Toyota isn’t the most reliable brand out there. It’s just perceived that way. The true reliability gap may have shrunk to a statisically neglible value, but in people’s perceptions, Detroit is still 20 years behind. So when Mrs. Hair Dresser needs a small car what does she buy? A Toyota Yaris.
Toyota may give up the mantle of Green King to another company, but the sad thing here is they are doing nothing to play up their reliability advantage. To me, reliability will always be something bankable, whereas the jury’s still out on whether Green marketing is this decade’s fad (kind of like digital speedometers of our era).
We’re already tearing ourselves apart with every possible regional, societal, religious and sexual hatred we could possibly devise, and I’d really like to see us back off from it a few notches.
SW: Which are all terrible, but I see little correlation to the entertainment value of associating a car’s attributes to the perceived lifestyle of the person behind the wheel.
I for one was told that I 1) drive an old man’s car, 2)drive like an old man and 3)will never get a girl driving it. It gave me a good laugh.
These are straight-up funny, but its even more hilarious when Marketing and PR departments spew it out for the world to see.
And didn’t you once say that C/D should be recognized for its entertainment value? On occasion, TTAC should be treated as such.
I’m still trying to find all of this alleged “green” marketing under the Toyota banner. I’m looking, but I’m still not finding it.
The marketing of fuel economy is largely an economic and budgetary message, not a green one. Obviously, the Yaris, Versa and Fit are being sold in the US because gas crossed the $3.00 per gallon threshold in some places, and there is an increasing demand to burn less fuel to save money. The automakers might attempt to get a bit of added mileage with the occasional green reference or two. But their advertising emphasis for these cars is ultimately on the money you can save by not having to buy so much gas, not on saving the planet.
The Prius is a special case. The marketing effort that built the original audience for the Prius focused on the technology and green aspects, with the fuel economy used more as a way of keeping score than as a way to save the consumer money. The Prius has been touted largely as the electric car with a gas engine to support it, rather than as a gas-powered car with a lot of batteries. The former appeals to both the tech-oriented and environmental crowds, the latter is the perception held by the critics who don’t get it.
As I survey Toyota’s various efforts to build the Toyota brand (as opposed to the branding of some of the vehicles), I frankly see more energy being devoted to positioning Toyota as a company that employs a lot of Americans than one with an uber-green consciousness.
A press release describes the core branding message of its current “Moving Forward” campaign as expressing a “passion for innovation and discovery and that we’re never standing still. As a result, we’re designing and building cars and trucks that help our customers achieve their goals.” The only green I’m seeing with this is in your wallets.
Sajeev, what that person meant to say is that you:
1) drive an old man’s car, 2)drive like an old man and 3)will never get a shallow, gold-digging girl driving it.
Toyota has positioned itself to be America’s Car Company. They are now the company everyone else benchmarks themselves against. The vast majority of shoppers will at least have Toyota/Lexus on their consideration list while every other company has to fight it’s way onto that list. The only exception is for big trucks, where for years only GM and Ford were automatically on the consideration list. Toyota’s current massive Tundra promotion campaign says not one thing about “Green”, but is all about getting Tundra onto the consideration list for pickup truck buyers who need a truck. Hence the huge effort to be at every farm/construction/county fair effort possible.
Toyota has made itself ubiquitous and pushes it’s American made image relentlessly. They are clearly the leader now and every pundit will look for ways to take a shot, but this article doesn’t land a single good punch.
If you want to find Asian brands with a muddled image, go after Nissan. Just what the **** does Nissan really stand for? Shift __, you must be kidding.
Prius was originally made to reduce the overall consumption of the Toyota fleet (CAFE standards) and not because the company wanted to be green. But they would be crazy to not sell it that way. As for big and efficient cars, one could make huge SUVs with tiny engines (1.4L for example). Of course all reviewers would use the word ‘underpowered’ and cry about slow cars, but honestly, isn’t that the way soccer moms drive anyhow (slow, safe, keeping the limits etc) ? As far as I know there is no legal time limit on reaching 60 mph or doing the quarter mile. Big, fast and efficient – pick two.
Libal wrote, “Prius was originally made to reduce the overall consumption of the Toyota fleet (CAFE Standardards)…”
Cite a credible source. Toyota was already selling many fuel-efficient cars and has brought out several new lines of fuel-efficient cars since they started developing their hybrids (Yaris, Echo, Scions).
There’s no way they had to pour tons of cash into developing the Prius just to solve a CAFE problem that they probably didn’t have, anyway. Look at GM or Chrysler, those schlubs have trouble building cars that get into the 30’s at all while Toyota has several that reach into the 40’s. Who has CAFE problems?
There’s no way they had to pour tons of cash into developing the Prius just to solve a CAFE problem that they probably didn’t have, anyway.
CAFE was not likely it, for the reasons that you’ve stated. However, I do believe that at least part of the motivation came from California CARB (California Air Resources Board) rules, which in 1990 imposed a mandate that 2% of each automaker’s sales be comprised of zero-emissions vehicles by 1998.
California is a critical market for many automakers, so CARB rules motivate all of the majors to make efforts to comply with them. (Case in point: GM’s EV-1 project.) At the same time, automakers were actively negotiating with CARB to chip away at the planned regulations, so the hybrid concepts must have certainly been viewed as a positive bargaining chip that could be used to eliminate the (impossible to meet) ZEV requirement.
I would imagine that Toyota also viewed hybrid systems as an opportunity to gain a technological advantage that could be used to sell the company as being an R&D leader. Since they needed to develop it, anyway, they may as well earn some bragging rights from it.
It’s also forward thinking for its expansion into markets such as Europe, where its market share remains small, while fuel taxes remain high and where concerns for both fuel economy and green issues are important to many consumers. Taking a challenge and turning it into an opportunity, rather than merely combating it as a threat, is a hallmark attitude of successful businesses everywhere.
KixStart, I would read this:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=4434
Toyota makes trucks and SUVs that have some of the worst mileage in the class, and it needs to counterbalance them. I agree however that it was not the only reason behind it.
Pch101, I agree with you that Toyota desperately needs bragging rights and this is one of the reasons the undertook the hybrid project, which was risky at the time. Also it is a reason behind pouring billions of dollars into Formula-1 (which is not yielding much at the time). But they do have the money to undertake such risks. And when something turns out right as the Prius did in the US then they do brag about it (duh).
As for the hybrids in Europe, they have not and are not successful there because Europeans already drive diesels that get better or comparable fuel economy to the Prius. And if we’ll think about hybrids, Peugeot showed already in a concept car that 70+ mpg is possible with a diesel-electric combination.
powerglide:
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
How’s this: Toyota’s trucks are thirsty ’cause they’re high-tech.
then howcum the “thirsty hi-tech” tundra 5.7 makes more power and torque than the gm 6.0, and still get higher mgg than the 5.3?
…I’m not sure how well a Honda VTEC would like fourth gear at 16 mph.
prob’ly as well as a chevy 6.0 at 9000 rpm! ;)
a honda vtec doesn’t HAVE TO run at low rpms to yeild good mileage. a 2.0 honda/toyota turning at 3000 rpm is burning no more fuel than a 6.0 gm turning at 1000 rpm. and cranking out more hp and torque at the same time!
Theoretically Toyota could go old-school, pushrod, high-torque, low rpm too, but all of the Toyota engineers’ friends would laugh at them.
theoretically, toyota could make an old tech pushrod v8, and their engineers themselves would laugh at how easy it is to build a BETTER pushrod v8 than detroit, high OR low tech.
oh wait, it’s not just theoretical. toyota HAS those old school v8s running in nascar trucks!
Most Asian cars have all these features that only the Fast & Furious appreciate. It’s peer pressure I say.
most Asian cars have these features which make them far more EFFICIENT, which ALL owners appreciate.
I agree with Mr. Rush that Toyota branding is facing a dilemma. Toyota could have made more efficient trucks and SUV’s, instead, they chose a different, non-green, un-Prius like path. That’s all he wuz sayin!
Ok, I think you’ve made a very good point, and I think you may be right. I’m not 100% sold though, because Toyota is trying to be “green” (or at least allowing others to label it as such) and it really is hard to be green with the SUVs and PUs.
Two points:
1. As far as Toyota “allowing” itself to be labeled as “green”, I’m confused. If some influential writer or other public figure lauds the green credentials of the Toyota Prius or some other car, wouldn’t they be stupid not to try and cash in on it? I mean, really, what are they supposed to do? Put up billboards saying “hell no, we’re not the greenest auto company in the US”? Run ads with FJ cruisers and Tundra Pickups doing donuts in the Pristine ANWR wilderness to the tune of BTO’s “Four Wheel Drive” and a caption that reads “Screw you, Mother Earth”? Toyota is just doing what any smart manufacturer would do, which is to take advantage of the current fads in popular culture to sell cars.
Second, you ask “what happens when some other company that already matches Toyota for reliability becomes “green” with more cred than Toyota?” Well, in my case not a damned thing. I don’t give a hoot about whether a company has the #1 green credentials in the US or whether their factory is built on a sacred indian burial ground and powered by burning spotted owls.
Like most buyers, I have a list of important criteria, the biggest of which is that I want to get the most value for my money – value means reliability, it means elegant, useful and comfortable design, it means something that I can depend on to get me where I need to go, and it means something that won’t cost me more than it has to – which can mean good fuel economy, but can also just mean fewer (and less expensive) repairs. After all, saving $1500/year on fuel is great, but if the tradeoff is a $5000 repair bill after 3 years, then it’s really not a good deal for me, however much it might save me in the short term. Environmental “credibility” doesn’t fall into my calculations at all. Obviously, YMMV, but I can’t imagine that the number of people who place “green cred” at the top of their factors in choosing a new car is enough to make or break any company, least of all an automotive juggernaut like Toyota.
Environmental “credibility” doesn’t fall into my calculations at all.
I agree that this statement applies to your average consumer, at least in respect to the US auto market. (Most of them won’t admit it, but their purchases would indicate otherwise.)
Again, I would say that no major auto manufacturer is actively pursuing a “green” US marketing campaign in respect to its main badges.
Yes, the corporate investor website will offer some generic platitudes to corporate responsibility and environmental awareness (all of them do this, the alleged mission statements are practically interchangable). And those specific products that operate on hybrid systems or alternative fuels will be touted as being green.
But otherwise, no automaker sells the green message very hard. The green aspects of the Prius do not represent the entirety of Toyota lineup in the company’s marketing effort, and I’ve never seen Toyota attempt to market itself as if it was. If anything, Toyota tends to push the Prius largely as an example of how innovative and clever it is because of the technological advance that it represents, and not merely for the alleged ecological benefit.
If you want to be green. Get an 80s civic. 50 mpg and you’re keeping it out of the land fill.
In re Toyota and their CAFE “problems,” Andras Libal linked an earlier TTAC article…
After some thought, I’m unimpressed by that.
How much CAFE credit do the big 2.8 get because of their E-85 capability? Quite a bit, I’d wager. And how many of their behemoths actually tank up with E-85 on a daily basis? I’d risk a buck on “vanishingly small percentage.” I’d risk quite a lot of money on “less than 10 per cent.” Those who have filled up a Suburban with E-85 have probably noticed that a tank of corn-squeezin’s goes nowhere near as far as a tank of regular unleaded, and I have little doubt that those soccer moms are all that excited about stopping half again as often to fill that Suburban up with E-85 even if, somehow and magically, a dollar of corn-squeezin’s goes as far as a dollar of regular unleaded.
That led me to think about something else and to chuckle. No one seems to have remarked here that Toyota’s own occasional green campaigns (for both the hybrid Camry and the Prius) have been less noticeable than Ford’s own green campaign (with their earlier Kermit “It’s Not So Easy Being Green,” and it’s partly because Kermit grabs your attention) or anywhere near as pushy as GM has (with their incessant “popping corn” E-85 ads).
For those who care about their own impact on the environment, it’s the car not the company that sells green. If Chevy actually produced a Volt and I thought it had a chance of being reliable, I’d consider it. It would have nothing to do with Chevy’s SUV baggage and everything to do with the capability of the Volt.
But I think 2010 will come and go without a Volt showing up in any Chevy showroom.
Those who have filled up a Suburban with E-85 have probably noticed that a tank of corn-squeezin’s goes nowhere near as far as a tank of regular unleaded, and I have little doubt that those soccer moms are all that excited about stopping half again as often to fill that Suburban up with E-85 even if, somehow and magically, a dollar of corn-squeezin’s goes as far as a dollar of regular unleaded.
I have to quibble a little with you here. A dollar’s worth of E-85 will get you farther than a dollar’s worth of dinosaur juice, at least around here.
Here in Colorado E-85 runs about $1.00/gallon less than regular unleaded. That varies over time but when gas was at $3.00+, E-85 was pretty consistently at $1.99 – $2.19.
Yes, E-85 vehicles get worse mileage. So let’s do the math.
If your vehicle gets 20mpg on dinosaur juice and 15mpg on E-85 (approximations but reasonable ones) here’s how the numbers break down:
Gasoline: $3.00 gallon = 20 miles on one gallon, 20 miles / $3 = 6.66 miles per dollar.
E-85: $2.00 gallon = 15 miles on one gallon, 15 miles / $2 = 7.5 miles per dollar.
Obviously, if the discrepancy between E-85 and gasoline is higher, or if the difference between the price of E-85 and the price of gasoline is less, the advantage may disappear, but for right now, at least, the E-85 advantage is present and it is real.
My lunch break is almost over, I have to skip most of the comments/posts, so if someone already mentioned it, I apologize: in one of the auto-related newsletters I receive, someone quoted Toyota’s drive train chief as saying that by 2020 the hybrid will be the base engine for all Toyotas.
Martin Albright: I just spent a week in your beautiful state and couldn’t help but notice the debate brewing in the newspapers about how your already scarce water resources are being threatened by additional pressures related to E-85 production. It might cost less up front (with heavy tax subsidies-paid for by all of us), but in the end, what is the true cost of ethanol?
Martin Albright: Not around here (a corn producing state). The differential is on the order of $.60 or less. GasBuddy doesn’t track it but the forum suggests the difference is often less.
Edmunds looked into this, too:
E-85 Comparison
In their test, the cost of using E-85 was significantly higher for their test trip.
And I still can’t imagine those soccer moms are going to want to spend more time at the gas station.
One thing I will say for Toyota, in my own experience and for those I know who have had warranty work performed, Toyota did what it took to fix the few defects while the new Chevy I bought, well, it IS a decent truck but three years of hearing “We can’t relicate the problem” thus absolving their need to actually diagnose the defect in the dealer’s minds (went to three separate dealers) has left a bitter taste in my mouth and mind. Corporate GM shunned me…. it wasn’t their problem. Just go back to the dealer. Sheeesh, I did, over and over and over and over.. leaving the truck for up to five days at a time. Interesting how when I picked the truck up with no defects fixed there was less than a one-mile increase on the odometer.
No more GM products here. Toyota’s far superior response to warranty work will bring me back to them.
Sorry I left you, Toyota. I thought I was helping the “home team” when I bought a truck made in a Ft Wayne Indiana factory. It’s a shame the “home team” doesn’t offer loyalty in return.