Every year, the California-based whack jobs at Strategic Vision announce their "Total Quality Index" (TQI) with some headline-grabbing conclusion. Each year, the media swallows it hook, line and sinker. Each year, we point out that Strategic Vision's methodology is from Planet Claire and their client roster indicates a greater conflict of interest that Gerald R. Ford's presidential pardon. This year we get "Ford vs. Toyota, The Battle for Total Quality Intensifies." Yes, “Ford is back, establishing its vehicle quality in the hearts and minds of its customers,” proclaims Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision’s automotive division. Not to mention Mercury, whose Sable (what the Hell's a Sable?) scoops SV's best large car. And if that isn't enough to discredit these Bozos highly-paid market researchers, ALL the winners are Strategic Vision clients. (Still.) HOW they won is anyone's guess– unless you can envision a way to create a point system measuring "consumers’ motivational hierarchies, including the values that shape perceptions and capture the customers’ emotional responses and drive behavior." Yes, once again, we're ready for someone else to cut down Strategic Vision's "Tree of ValueCentered Knowledge." Please.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I guess I missed TTAC’s articles on previous year’s TQI results compiled by Strategic Vision. So why exactly are the results a joke? I see the statement but dont really see much to back it up. Not saying you are right or wrong, but care to elaborate or are you just unhappy with the results? It is notable that you are particularly unhappy with the Mercury Sable result yet you dont even have a review of the Mercury Sable on TTAC’s entire site. How would you know?
For instance, more detail on the conflicts would be nice, an analysis of the methodology used to determine winners would also be nice.
gamper:
an analysis of the methodology used to determine winners would also be nice.
If there was anything to analyze, we would. But c’mon! Click through the site! Much hilarity will ensue.
Robert, this is from the Stratigic Vision press release:
The Total Quality Index™ was calculated from the responses of 20,655 buyers who bought 2008 models in September, October and November of 2007. Strategic Vision has presented Total Quality annually since 1995.
So essentially a subjective survey of car owners who have owned their cars for about 6 months. Generally speaking, I think most people are happy with their cars initially, or just happy to get out of their old car. I think the biggest flaw would be calling this “study” the “Total Quality Index”. It doesnt really measure quality as to me that measure is mostly objective and more properly guaged on long term results. Nor is the study really “Total”, as most owners have had their car for a short time.
Still, I dont see this as any better or worse than the subjective surveys conducted by Consumer Reports that get thrown around. Perhaps just misleading in title. A better title would be “The 6 Month Opinion Index”.
I’ve slowly stopped listening to people like JD Power, CR reports etc. because quite simply, I don’t trust them.
It’s all nonsense. Either the metric for quality and reliability is skewed or someone paid for the survey.
The 2 best ways to get your message across that your quality and reliability is now on par with the stalwarts are:
1. Put your money where your mouth is and issue a longer, more comprehensive warranty.
and or
2. Word of mouth. Face it, how many people ask us petrolheads what cars are good at the moment? It’s because people ask other people, especially ones in the know. If you trust the dealer to tell you whether the brand’s quality and reliability is up to scratch, then, you deserve to be lied to! I still hear many stories of how Toyota and Honda still produce good cars and how Detroit produce junk. Don’t moan to me about a “perception gap”; if it bothered Detroit that much, they’d do something about it. Just ask Hyundai….
P.S A sable is a small carnivorous mammal.
Mercury Sable = Ford Taurus (TTAC review) with the added heat from Jill Wagner
gamper: So essentially a subjective survey of car owners who have owned their cars for about 6 months. A survey of what? WHAT DID THEY ASK THE OWNERS? If you ask a million people a series of really idiotic questions about their car it doesn't make it a valid survey. And if you're not a trusted number cruncher, who's to say the conclusions drawn from your ridiculous questions are valid? We've taken Consumer Reports to task for their lack of transparency in their rating system. But SV is in cloudcuckooland. Seriously. Did you click on the link for "Method?" Can you tell me what that tree means, and how you would put together a survey based on the underlying, uh, philosophy? This is nonsense. And the fact that automakers advertise the results is disingenuous– at best.
The ads which pop up sure are ironic. Today on this discussion I get two for Jeeps and one for the Chrsyler minivan. Hah, Cerberus is helping to fund TTAC. That is sweet.
Anyhow, the Total Quality Index thing seems to be a mixed bag. None of the vehicles on their list is an obvious POS, but the top honors list begs the question of how much the “top” vehicle beat the runners up by and on what aspects. The Mercury Sable is a clone, and a slow selling one at that, of the Ford Taurus. So how did the Mercury beat the Ford? The Volvo C30 is a very low volume vehicle in a low volume niche. Small specialty under $25k? That might almost be a category of one vehicle. Do any buyers really pay attention to this silly list?
P.S. I wonder if Dr. Darrell Edwards of Strategic Vision fame is the same guy as the Darrell Edwards found on myspace:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=21650506
I used to work for a firm where incomprehensible, feel-good blather was the order of the day. It was all about perception, with no sound business model below the shiny surface. Needless to say, I didn’t last long, even though that company still finds highly-paid execs to sell its services to.
At least we know the award wasn’t based on sales.
There is, of course, a brand that does unexpectedly well in quality surveys.
The customers responding to these surveys can, however, only report failings of their cars that they happen to notice…
One fine morning, at a service department of a dealership featuring this brand, one of the customers drove straight into the back of another customer’s car with a resounding whack.
Both of the customers were seated behind the wheel, yet neither of them, being old and full of years, were at all aware the collision occurred.
They just stared out the windshield, awaiting service.
Are they so very likely to notice, say, panel fits ?
Underdogs, especially cars few car buyers are aware of, tend to do well on TQI. Maybe it’s because the owners feel they have something to prove. Or maybe it’s because a car buyer needs more initial desire to buy a relatively unknown or even widely disliked model in the first place.
A prime example of this is the Pontiac Aztek, which used to do well in this survey. Why? Because only people who really liked the Aztek were likely to buy one.
The technical term for it is “self-selection.”
There might be a way to conduct a satisfaction survey to mitigate this and other such factors. But currently existing satisfaction surveys, including this one, lack any such controls.
All of this talk about specific survey results is getting banal.
Look at multiple sources—if they are saying the same thing about a particular vehicle (which is the case most of the time)—I tend to believe the conclusion.
If one survey is saying something totally different than four others—well—time to dig into the detail of that survey because there is most likely a biasing factor.
There does exist 3, 6, 12 and 36 month data on Customer Satisfaction; the longer time period data is just never referenced in the media…
Consumer Reports is unfairly maligned in my opinion by Gamper and Katie Puckrik, above. They survey tens of thousands, and they survey for 6-7 years out of the life of the car, not just six months or something ridiculous like that. I’m not saying they are perfect, but I wouldn’t buy a car without consulting them, and taking their ratings pretty seriously.
consumer Reports HATES domestic cars. Don’t even try to argue that one. And don’t ridicule surveys just because you don;t agree with them. Some are just so disappointed (KP) that Toyota is simply not handed accolades automatically.
If you want a good idea of where a brand/model’s failures/quality are join a good brand specific forum and start reading.
If a car has a quality problem there will be discussion about it or start your own.
Folks who have owned several examples of a brand can often point out reoccurring problems to watch for. They can often point to go parts sources.
My wife and I tend to buy the same brand time after time b/c I have the knowledge and tools to fix them and we know where to get information and parts without relying on a dealer’s honesty or paying their overinflated prices. With the internet I have found OEM dealer sources for both of my cars that are similar in price to the FLAPS but I think better quality. I mean if the part lasted 150K miles the first time, why wouldn’t I expect an OEM replacement to last just as long? 200K miles is nearing my ownership limits anyhow. The OEM fit and materials are obviously good.
I don’t spend a whole lot of time worrying about what Consumer Reports or JD Powers or Strategic Vision’s Total Quality Index thinks of a car. I’ll give it a glance but a new car is like has been mentioned above – going to be like a new toy and problem free (at least under warranty).
Of course the neighbor’s Buick is A+ – it’s new. Now if the neighbor has a quality 150K mile Buick with a minor problem or two with lost of miles left in it I’ll believe that Buick is a good vehicle.
FWIW I do believe Buick is a good vehicle. We’ve got two in the extended family. They are both Buick Centuries. Plain and beige but good with lots of little extras. Problems: low tire pressure sensor will false sometimes (counts tire rotations and compares them) and no problem – press button to reset, the intake manifold leaks a little antifreeze, and low coolant light has been on for two years. Dealer had no information on the light, the internet does. Buy one? Sure if I didn’t want driving or styling excitement. 31 mpg on the highway with three adults and luggage.
The surveys are marketing gimmicks. They have their place but I start shopping by trying to measure a car’s quality. That doesn’t explain my VW ownership but at least it has been cheap.
Wow, that methodology is something else. Apparently copyrighted clip-art bonsai diagrams are supposed to convince people that Strategic Vision is way better than any other company in measuring total quality. The tree might at least be a good enough example of SV’s methodology to keep their auto company clients happy.
Seriously, is obfuscation of SV’s methodology the best way to win new business, with references to “super-ordinal discrete-step instruments with extreme anchors” and other nonsense? I’m surprised Dr. Darrel didn’t just say that he uses Dianetics to calculate his Total Quality Index. One glance at the website demonstrates that the goal of SV isn’t to produce unbiased, useful information for consumers; it’s to generate additional business from deep-pocketed corporations. And SV can measure the corresponding increase in its bank account, though the use of super-ordinal discrete-step instruments with extreme anchors is unnecessary.
One surefire giveaway that SV’s results are meaningless? The pinnacle of the car ownership experience is “Balance,” which includes unity and oneness. Anybody who watches TV or reads TTAC knows that Subaru owners are at the pinnacle of oneness with their cars, which means they should top all their categories in the TQI. Why else would Subaru owners go through the effort to send their worn-out cars to the elephant Subaru graveyard where they can live again?
I don’t think CR hates domestic cars b/c there are many that are ranked as best buys or recommended vehicles. CR just hits them where they deserve and doesn’t sugar coat their deficiencies – they also strike out at very poorly rebadged versions (Vue to Kia’s version) versus very well done versions (Camry – LS300).
CR doesn’t rely as much on automaker advertising revenue to survive versus many others that pay them for analysis (like Ford’s recent paid for quality study that surpise ranked then one of the highest). JD power relies on doing research for automakers for other purposes and that is where they make their money – so don’t upset your cashcow. SV does not release the detail of how they measure and they are solely dependent upon profit driven research from their customers (who amazingly do very well in their findings).
David Holzman wrote:
Consumer Reports is unfairly maligned in my opinion by Gamper and Katie Puckrik, above. They survey tens of thousands, and they survey for 6-7 years out of the life of the car, not just six months or something ridiculous like that. I’m not saying they are perfect, but I wouldn’t buy a car without consulting them, and taking their ratings pretty seriously.
Consumer Reports has essentially become a self fulfillng prophesy. Generally speaking, people like their cars and like to pat themselves on the back for a smart purchase and for being a savvy consumer. So they read Consumer Reports, consumer reports recommends vehicles a,b,c, said buyer purchases one. Consumer Reports then surveys all its self congratulating readers about their cars. Said readers enjoy the opportunity to report on their brilliance and the circle is complete. Instead of surveying its readers, perhaps it should obtain sume public records and send out random surveys based registrations. THAT, is a report I would be more interested in. But like any publication, CR caters to its audience, at least to some degree.
Not only that, but CR fails to recommend what are otherwise excellent vehicles due to its own agenda driven reporting. Vehicles with poor/average fuel economy, vehicles without certain safety features as standards, etc, etc.
Consumer Reports is a source of information, not the bible as many make it out to be, particularly Honda and Toyota owners who love it because it supports their beliefs.
The most scientific and trustworthy report I have ever seen regarding reliability was from one of those aftermarket warranty companies where you can buy extended warranties for your vehicles. I wish I could remember the name of the report or who conducted it. Anyway, the report was based on ACTUAL claims made. Documented problems per vehicle taking the owner out of the equation. Nothing subjective, strictly factual data. Toyota and Honda did not come out on top, though I believe Honda did well. As I recall, this report used a very large sample of vehicles.
Correction, Consumer Reports likes Ford now.
So… what study is relevant then? Counts of exact TGWs? Some of the most loved automobiles would fail that test (VW and Mini come to mind). Is CR fine because it doesn’t accept paid adverts (even TTAC has had Toyota banners flashing everywhere recently)? Or is it unbelievable too because they would dare claim that Ford’s quality is right there with Toyota now?
When did these studies (SV, JDPower, etc) start becoming useless? Was it when Ford finally achieved similar rankings to Toyota and Honda? Was it when Hyundai owners rated their cars the best last year in Strategic Vision’s survey? Ownership experience is expectation going in and execution coming out. The expectations for, say, Toyota and Honda are just extremely high. A single mechanical or trim defect could damage the experience because of expectations in that case. Then, you have transaction price. Hyundai and Ford owners get steals compared to Toyota and Honda owners in many cases. Price has an effect, too. The Yaris is probably the worst car made by Toyota and doesn’t even stack up to others in its class, but it’s cheap and fuel-efficient, and that’s EXACTLY why its owners bought one.
All automakers pay for these results. That doesn’t invalidate the data. If SV didn’t have real data asked from good questions, auto companies wouldn’t pay them for that data and their services. It isn’t worth the marketing dollars in even the medium run.
I would like real context and analysis before you dismiss something out of hand.
Robert, I want my brain cells back after reading through SV’s “Method.”
And what a business model: make a vague quality assessment that sounds official, but where you can fudge the numbers, then get automakers to pay you to recommend their cars.
we as a group pass by a lot of driver’s side windows, it’s just who we are. now, sometimes we take a look hoping to find a hot babe driving, or to bore a laser shaped hole through the forehead of some dimbulb driver. ah yes, my point. when you drive past a sable or marquis or anything mercury, do you look? no of course you don’t. that’s because there will be a bluehair driving the car 99.9% of the time. so now imagine asking that bluehair if they like their car. duh, of course they like their car, it has a steering wheel, it’s huge (safe), and the ride is cushy. so the results of any owner survey involving mercuries will result in a very favorable score.
Sorry, guys, but ALL subjective surveys are biased; some more than others. For example, I adore my car; it reflects my personality very, very well. It has been reliable and it’s very durable. It has not been perfect but how do you think I’d rate it? Before you answer it’s Grand Prix season, Hamilton won Monaco, the weather has been very good, there’s new rubber on the tires and there are some very nice roads where I’ve just moved to… Get it?
For the vanilla wafer, grocery getters things may not be so “rosy”. They are, afterall, appliances. And it’s not so easy to distinguish who identifies with their vehicle and who has purchased a “mobile toaster oven”. Yes, the specialty cars are easy, but do you think Mustang, Corvette, Lotus Elise and Porsche Cayman responders are going to rant about their vehicles? Maybe, but at the end of it all they’ll be “Very Satisfied” because they bought “image of performance”, image/cred and performance. And that’s what they’ll resonate with. Can’t blame them.
When I worked for GM the Corvette, Camaro and Firebird were the worst of the fleet for TGW yet they had the highest Customer Satisfaction Numbers. Like any tool, it must be wielded properly.
Just consider CR as a single data point. But compare them with WhatCar in the UK and the official figures from Bilprovningen in Sweden and you start to see the cream rise to the top.
Robert Farago:
I’m sure it was an honest oversight not to mention the automaker that in fact topped Strategic Vision’s survey:
BMW
Right?
Yes, I realize that this post was partially — mostly? — about the spin of the news headlines announcing the results of the survey. But there’s a lot of criticism in it about Strategic Vision itself, and I find it hard to fathom that BMW somehow was unable to get in on the exerting-undue-influence-on-the-lazy-news-media game.