Hang around Herr Farago long enough and you'll eventually hear, "The Brand isn't everything; it's the only thing." Of course I've made a pretty good career out of disagreeing with Farago about nearly everything. See, I believe that products trump brand. Case in point, Porsche. The Cayenne was a brand killer, right? A travesty of all that Porsche stands for and all that Porschephiles believe in. And I agree with them totally. Except for the Turbo model, a vehicle so good in so many ways that I want one. And remember, to the brand faithful, the mid-engined (and therefor sacrilegious) Boxster is just as terrible as the Cayenne, even if the little roadster is more fun to drive than big daddy 911. Or how about Volkswagen. Personally, I've never cared for many VWs. Sure, I like GTIs just fine but aside from (some of) those, pass. However, I loved the brand defying Touraeg V10 TDI and I lust after a Phaeton. The latter being one of the best cars ever made, badge be damned. And I'm fine with that. And how about Buick? They've got their brand down pat (old people and old people who golf) but I'm not interested in any of their products, even as loaner press cars. But what about Jaguar? A friend of mine asked for my advice on a car. Turned out he decided his 12-year-old Plymouth Breeze just wasn't saying all the right things about him, and he wanted a vehicle that broadcast his socio-economic achievements to the world. "So I'm thinking something upmarket, like an Audi A4 or a Jaguar X-Type." I was taken aback. Jaguar X-Type? Why on earth would he want one of those? "It's a Jaguar, they're classy." Really?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I know where he can find a really clean Citroen SM.
It’s both. A bad product supported by a good brand will fool the public for awhile until the word gets out, at which point the brand will lose value and the entire line will harmed.
A good product supported by a bad brand may never get noticed in the first place. Also, if the brand is poor due to complimentary problems such as poor service or reliability, then the brand may dissuade those who like the product from choosing it.
The Cayenne fits well within the brand if you understand the brand values. If one’s view of the brand is so narrow that you view Porsche strictly as a maker of rear-engine, tail happy cars, then that would be missing the point.
Some successful brands are very narrow, while others are quite broad, and many more are somewhere in between. A brand need not be laser-focused in order to be an effective brand. Context matters, there is no one single rule for good branding.
Your friend is correct. Despite what anyone thinks of the X-Type (and goodness knows, I’ve heard it all!) it does follow Jaguar’s core values of a brilliant ride quality and classy interior.
And that’s pretty much my point. Brand and product are pretty much the same.
A brand’s value should be infused into every product it makes and likewise, the product should reflect the brand. Ferrari would never make a small diesel hatchback and Toyota would never make a $250,000 supercar an unreliable car (Doesn’t match its brand values).
A perfect story to illustrate this point is James Dyson.
When he marketed his bagless vacuum cleaner (which was an excellent product, bye the way. I have one, myself) he PURPOSELY made the brand obscure. He wanted people to see the product for what it was (which was a well, built, well engineered piece of machinery). Now, whenever Dyson brings a new product to market people will associate it with his brand values (i.e innovation and good build quality); it’s almost like a stamp of quality.
Brand is a big weapon in a company’s arsenal, but your reputation is meaningless without the products to back it up.
Hence, brand and product are symbiotic…..
Depends what you see in a brand
A brand implies someone to stand behind the product: I probably won’t trust Chrysler no matter how good a product is because I don’t think they’ll be willing (or able) stand behind it. I worry about GM for the same reason. I will never, ever buy a Volkswagen outright because of the warranty performance, or lack thereof, even if the MarkV Jetta isn’t a rolling glitch factory anymore. It’s hard to sign the papers on something expensive when you don’t know if someone will be there for you.
This is an entirely valid way to think about brands and models.
A brand implies virtues or vices that may or may not be there: BMWs are upmarket and sporty; Toyotas are reliable and fuel efficient. You can call this brand stereotyping. It’s shallow and wrong, but it exists.
Jaguar’s are different and in an era where BMW’s Merc’s and Audi’s all seem the same then why not be different and go for a Jag. They are more reliable too. The X type’s quite a good car it’s just not as good as a 3 series or a Merc. But if you can accept that then you do get something different, not a class leader but a car which people will let you out at Junctions in.
The new Xf is a fantastic car with a fantastic brand so if your friend could afford one then that’s the car to drive!
I’ll admit its brand for me, or maybe its the dealers. Apparently Nissan and Toyota make good cars by everyone’s reviews. I don’t like Nissans or Toyotas. I don’t like their dealers.
I like Chevrolets, even the Aveo and the Aveo isn’t well reviewed by anyone.
I might give up on a brand if they change their focus and vehicles so much that I don’t recognize the brand anymore. This is Cadillac’s problem.
GM is not a brand. Chevrolet, Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, Opel, Saab, Cadillac, Vauxhall, Holden, GMC are.
It all depends, in my opinion:
Porsche>Mercedes>BMW>Nissan>Chevrolet
But
Cayenne<SLK<335i<GT-R<ZR-1
I think some brands depend on their brand image just to survive, appealing to tradition. And there are also some brands to which the brand as a whole is unimportant.
Examples of brands relying on their reputation and appealing to tradition: Jaguar, Porsche, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes-Benz.Buick (as mentioned), Ferrari, (all other high-end exotic brands), etc etc. These brands have all sold some real duds and people clapped till they couldn’t breath. C230K Coupe? 318Ti? X-Type? Cayenne V6? C30?
Then there are brands to which brand image is unimportant. Like Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Pontiac, etc. These are the brands that, while not making the best quality and designed cars, usually have innovative and original designs.
Toyota pooped out the Harrier/Lexus RX300 and created a genre, which is impressive considering that these cars do nothing well and nothing poorly.
Kia is the constant brand that whispers, “I mean, I’m cheap and put together quite well and have a ridiculously long warranty. You could pick me.”
Mitsubishi somehow manages to stay afloat with a lineup of cars that will either A) Delight, and then promptly kill you (Evo, Eclipse GT-V6) or bore you into bean-counter induced hellish dreams (All Their Other Models.)
Pontiac makes cars for generally tasteless individuals that are largely plastic. But be honest – Some of them are just bad*ss. The mid-ninties Grand Prix GTP 3.8 S/C that with a few bolt-ons could lay a hurting on Mustang GT’s. The 8200rpm, 6-speed Vibe GT (early.) The 350, then 400bhp GTO, mate. The northstar-powered Bonneville. The small-block powered Grand Prix GXP and upgraded 260bhp supercharged V6 GTP Comp G. The Solistice, and it’s turbo counterpart, and it’s coupe counterpart. The G8, It’s Corvette-powered counterpart, and it’s El-Camino counterpart. Be honest, Pontiac has been making some cool stuff.
Toyota makes cars no one likes, but no one can really hate because of the supposed build and dealer reputation, etc.
Brand identity gives potential customers somewhere to start looking. Certain brands are known for certain things, VW/Audi for some of the best interiors in the business, Mercedes for being a technology and R&D innovator, Toyota/Honda for reliability, Volvo for safety, etc. Certain brands even focus on an identity within a certain budget or niche, Mazda is great handling and performance on the cheap, Lotus is handling at the expense of all else, BMW/Porsche are driver focused cars with strong performance, handling, and luxury at a price premium, Ferrari/Lamborghini/Bugatti take the same idea to the extreme, but for an extreme price as well.
Advertising and ‘branding’ gives the general public enough of an idea of what a brands goals are that potential customers looking for a specific vehicle know where to start.
Of course not every vehicle under a brand umbrella can encompass the central philosophy of the brand, and so you end up with your Cayennes, G5s, and etc that miss the mark.
Personally, I shop for model more than brand, but brand does come into the decision for image purposes. Pontiac doesn’t offer a lot that I like, but the G8 GT turns my head plenty, I would never risk being seen driving a Toyota car, but I do have a certain shameful lust for the new Tundra, Sequoia, and FJ Cruiser.
I gotta go with Farago on this one.
Properly executed, a product line is directly defined by and in line with the brand. The brand isn’t the logo or the tagline, but instead a unique set of overarching traits, characteristics and principles which (among other things) echoes public perception of said brand. Yes, there are exceptions and tangents, but not a single one of them is executed without some level of damage to the core. Right or wrong, there are people who will never again consider a Porsche because of the Cayenne.
Yes, there are cases where a single product receives such acclaim and mainstream adoption that it succeeds in redefining the brand. But that also is a dangerous prospect, as having a single product redefine a brand usually means that you didn’t have much equity or strength to start with. Additionally, your brand now rides the ebb and flow of tide within that particular product and is hostage to it’s success or failure.
I guess we’re overdue since it’s been about 36 hours since we’ve had a brand discussion.
I’m not really sure you can easily divorce these two concepts in the same way you can easily divorce a president and his pretzel.
Enough crappy products and the brand suffers. Jaguar, in particular, is waaaaaaaay down the chain down after the Jac Nasser era.
A strong brand gives it’s owner a variety of advantages. It provides focus which translates into efficiencies in product development, marketing and production. If maintained over a period of time a well-defined brand also offers the organization a guidepost for the future and a reference point in the past. It also gives the thing that is created and informed by the brand a life and a relevant place in the world. Toyota is reliability. Honda is simple. Mazda is zoom. General Motors is a complicated jumble of products with a rather sketchy provenance, created by a huge bureaucracy designed to meet financial targets instead of customer satisfaction metrics. In short, once upon a time GM’s brand was BIG. Now it isn’t.
As to the question of what comes first the brand or the vehicles, I say these two things are interdependent. You couldn’t have built a brand like Toyota without building the Corolla or the Celica. So those vehicles paved the way because they delivered on the brand promise of reliability thereby strengthening the Toyota brand. Same with the Civic and Accord for Honda and simple. While the RX-7 and Miata give Mazda its zoom.
@Mullholland:
A strong brand gives it’s owner a variety of advantages. It provides focus which translates into efficiencies in product development, marketing and production. If maintained over a period of time a well-defined brand also offers a the organization a guidepost for the future and a reference point in the past. It also gives the thing that is created and informed by the brand a life and a relevant place in the world.
Very well said. I was trying to be brief, but to add my two cents; when a company develops a strong brand, they have the ability to consistently execute product, marketing, advertising (everything, really) against the brand and it’s attributes. Constant reinforcement of the brand creates consistency, and consistency engenders trust. And people buy products from brands that they trust.
Just thinking for a bit more, sometimes a lack of brand image can add a ‘cool’ factor and desireability to a product.
In the US any British brand is instant cool. Aston Martin and Jaguar are obvious, but even Mini with its tenuous links to the UK is hip. If an originally badged Vauxhall were to land on our shores, it would be lapped up eagerly.
Actually, I think pretty much any brand not sold in the US would be cool here, Seat, Skoda, Lada, etc, while they may be crap in their home countries, exclusivity trumps price.
I bought a BMW M3 despite the brand. I think BMW’s current ‘brand’ is bit of an embarrassment, but the ‘product’ (E36) suited me just fine.
I may remove the roundels if I can find something decent to replace them with.
Pch101, jrlombard, and mullholland have pretty much nailed it for me. In the long run, brands are key.
I’d say more, but I’m dieting for the first time ever (down from 178 to 170 so far), and I need dinner before I can do more thinking…
@NulloModo:
Nah, those are only desirable here because you can’t have it. Everyone wants what they can’t have.
@Michael Karesh:
Yay health! Here’s a tip: vomit up everything you eat, but make sure to use antacids like 5 minutes before. :)
RF is right, it’s all about the brand.
We’re living in a time where product (model) might be more important to most customers, which only goes to show how weak branding is – espeically in Detroit.
Consider the Civic. I’d buy it for Honda’s reputation for reliability. I might buy a Corolla for the same reason. If I wanted something zoomey in the same class, I’d opt for the Mazda 3. But if I’m in the market for a car in this class, what possible reason would I have for buying a Ford Focus or Chevrolet Cobalt? What do those brands mean? They mean nothing. What do the models mean? They mean nothing because the brand means nothing. They don’t stand for quality or reliability, or made in America, or good value for money, or anything.
As Katie points out, the brand/model are intertwined. It has to be real. It can’t be a marketing slogan. Honda gives me an assurance of reliability. Mazda gives me an assurance of zoominess. Chevy gives me “An American Revolution” (And here’s me thinking that took place in 1776). Ford gives me – I don’t even know Ford’s current tag line, but it doesn’t matter because the brand has no identity.
There is also negative branding. Chrysler stands for 3rd rate shit with interiors “carved from solid blocks of cheap” (I’ve forgotten which of the B&B to credit for this, but it really sums up Chrysler quite well) Chrysler has such a poor brand image that I’m disinterested in even looking at anything they sell. Why should I? It’s not like there aren’t a dozen other makers offering something in every class Chrysler competes in. Why bother?
The new Malibu is a really good car. Very much on par with it’s competition. What a pitty then, that Chevrolet doesn’t mean anything. I can choose other really good cars in the same class, from manufacturers with brand identities- brands that mean something. Guess which one I’ll choose.
Ford gives me – I don’t even know Ford’s current tag line, but it doesn’t matter because the brand has no identity.
It’s ‘Drive One’ which is actually pretty good for a number of models in the line-up. The Fusion, Taurus, Expedition, Flex, and F-150 are all superior to the majority of vehicles in their class, but you really have to get behind the wheel to feel the response and see the touches of detail to appreciate it (especially the case for the Flex).
I guess that brings up another point – some brands have models look great on paper, but for the most point don’t back it in the actual experience (e.g. the entire Kia lineup), while others have models that offer more for the money but somehow get overlooked (Mitsubishi’s late Montero springs to mind, as well as Isuzu’s Axiom and Vehicross, the (new, renamed from 500) Ford Taurus, and Suzuki SX-4).
Over the long term brand is product. look what happened to the GM brands over the past 40 or so years. Cadillac is no longer what American car drivers aspire to, and that’s not just because there are so many other luxury options. It’s mainly because Cadillac is no longer a high end option.
If Mazda cars weren’t sporty, how long would that “Zoom-Zoom” branding last?
Actually, I think pretty much any brand not sold in the US would be cool here, Seat, Skoda, Lada, etc, while they may be crap in their home countries, exclusivity trumps price.
I think that you’re taking it a bit far with these examples. A Lada for instance will never be cool, and anybody who thinks that a Lada is cool really needs some help.
Mazda’s branding is good, they’ve always had a sporty feel. Except maybe the bubble 626 and the 929.
I think Mitsubishi’s branding is delivery trucks driven by people who don’t speak English. They make cars?
Chrysler hasn’t been a brand since they started selling the LeBaron GTS/Cirrus/Sebring.
Knock the Aspen all you want at least it’s a real Chrysler.
Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge are strong brands. It’s the first place you go when you talk about American cars and trucks. They are also the representative brands of the corporations. If Pontiac, Saturn, Cadillac, Saab, Subaru, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Volvo, Lexus, Infiniti, Buick, Lincoln, Mercury, Scion, and likely a few others (Audi) went away tomorrow the amount of people who actually cared would be outnumbered by the people who are still buying F150s every month.
If Chevy, Dodge or Ford goes away there’s a gaping hole with nothing to fill it.
Then there are cars with no homes. The brand doesn’t fit the car.
Jeep Compass, great car, affordable basic transportation, great utility and even decent fuel mileage. Is it a Jeep? NO! As a Jeep it’s a travesty, an abomination. What is the Compass? The Jeep Compass is a Plymouth. More precisely the Compass is the new Plymouth Valiant.
@ Mrb00st :
The 8200rpm, 6-speed Vibe GT (early.)
then:
Toyota makes cars no one likes, but no one can really hate because of the supposed build and dealer reputation, etc.
Pretty sure toyota something to do with the Vibe GT, seeing as how it had a celica engine. I believe it was called the Matrix XRS.
Brand.
Why would anyone buy another Benz or Audi after their first one spends half the year in the shop? Having a decent product doesn’t hurt, either.
davey49:
Knock the Aspen all you want at least it’s a real Chrysler.
How is the Aspen a real Chrysler? It is the epitome of badge engineering, all it is is a rebadged Durango. I used to live in Newark, DE where they build the both of them, and they have one of each on pedestals in front of the plant.
The thing that frustrates me the most about Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep is that there is so much potential there, and yet it always seems wasted. The Jeep Wrangler is the original small and capable SUV, if they had managed to give it acceptable road manners and fuel economy it would still be a huge seller. The Grand Cherokee is the original luxury SUV, the Caravan the original minivan, and the K-car lineup the first domestic products to address the notion that in times of high fuel prices and poor economy Americans want reliable and fuel efficient transportation. It just sickens me to know that a company that has done so much good, and had so many opportunities for greatness (such as the merger with Daimler which opened up a whole world of Mercedes platforms and technology, Cummins diesels in the pickups) can drop the ball so many times, and make cars with so much promise (Magnum, 300C, Charger, Challenger, Ram pickup) by not paying attention to details.
I usually like the writings and agree with RF.
But my brothers and I just sold our consumer brand.
There are a lot of competitors out there, but with our loyal consumers, they don’t have a chance.
And the auto industry really allows for second chances.
Early Japanese imports were known as rust buckets with fake everything…with good MPG.
And look at Hyundai!!!
They were cars without a frame or chassi!
Today they rank high in consumer choice.
Today I test drove the new Genisis.
WOW!!!
Awesome.
Tomb quiet.
Solid.
Powerful V6.
Luxury with the best.
Affordable.
In fact, we decided to get one.
For every snobby smirk I get from logo wearing, huffy export idiot, my blood pressure will go down 10 points.
In this case…the brand is not anything.
The car is.
Now it might be me.
Most men end their mid life crisis with a red sports car and pretty arm candy.
Me?
I seem drawn towards a pillow top matress and down pilows in a quiet hotel room.
That is the Genisis…but with power and MPG.
Try it…you’ll like it.
NulloModo- because the Aspen is big and long and plush. Just like an old New Yorker or Imperial.
If you give the Wrangler better on road manners you ruin its off road ability. Besides that is what the Grand Cherokee and Liberty are for.
ppellico- I think you found Hyundai’s brand identity. Value. More power to them and to you.
davey49 :
August 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
NulloModo- because the Aspen is big and long and plush. Just like an old New Yorker or Imperial.
If you give the Wrangler better on road manners you ruin its off road ability. Besides that is what the Grand Cherokee and Liberty are for.
I can see the big and part of the plush, but there are plenty of other makes that do big, long, and plush much better than the Aspen. If anything, I would say the 300 is the crown jewel of Chryslerhood. The only big problem they have to fix there is giving it a first rate (or even a high side of second rate) interior and it would be a worthy successor.
As for the Wrangler and off-road/on-road manners, the Range Rover and Land Cruiser do both very well. Of course both cost quite a bit more, but with economies of scale there is no reason a low-cost vehicle couldn’t perform just as well as a high cost. Manufacturers simply try to handicap the low end to entice buyers to the high. The first company that manages to make a (however slim the profit margin) profitable low cost vehicle that matches offerings in considerably higher price offerings while giving up nothing will be in for a huge win.
I don’t think it’s a matter of either/or. A great brand helps sell the product, and a great product helps (sell the) the brand. Only in the case where a new product is introduced by a completely new brand are they synonymous; once the brand starts introducing other products, they diverge.
The more casual a customer you are, the more the brand matters, in any industry. I find that especially true with cars. People who read this site are going to take notice if someone is driving a G8, but the typical driver will mistake it for a G6 or just see that it’s a Pontiac and be like, “oh it’s an American car, (insert domestic stereotype) “.
davey49 :
August 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I’ll admit its brand for me, or maybe its the dealers. Apparently Nissan and Toyota make good cars by everyone’s reviews. I don’t like Nissans or Toyotas. I don’t like their dealers.
I like Toyotas because I never have to be yelling at the farking dealer because my farking car broke down for the fifth farking time this farking year and why the fark didn’t they fix the farking thing the first farking time?
I’ve owned two Toyotas since 2000, both fairly low end cars (a 1997 Toyota Tercel and a 2006 Scion xA). Total number of times both broke down? Zero. Total number of times both failed to start on the first crank? Zero. The Tercel had some repairs, but nothing major (I think the only non-scheduled maintenance item (other than due to accidents) was replacing the motor mounts due to a vibration). I had one warranty repair for the Scion-to replace the stereo (my car was a very early 2006 model, and the 2006s had a new stereo, and it appears many/most/all of the early head units were defective). No problems getting the dealer to cover it. Other than that, no non-scheduled maintenance at all (other than accident damage due to a rather stupid lady hitting me while I was stopped at a stoplight).
Again, who cares if your dealer is a prick if you never have to deal with him after you buy the car? I will continue to buy Toyotas until this changes. (Well, I plan on keeping the xA for quite awhile, but the next car I will buy will be another Toyota product.)
To respond to earlier commentary that Chrysler hasn’t an identity since 1984– Chrysler’s brand is affordable, high-style. Like in art; there are hits and misses inherent to such an identity. It may be true that by the late 1980s and quite early 1990s, the Chrysler Corp. portfolio was comprised of any number of Three-box sedans and notchbacks, The 1990s saw Chrysler completely redevelop itself, phoenix-like, and on a shoestring budget. They had mojo, in excess.
Thinking as I do– Product is what makes a brand valuable. Why else would the Daimler guys have wanted Chrysler when they did? They’d have never given them a second glance in 1992, but by 1997, they needed what Chrysler had. They didn’t, however, need to be DaimlerChrysler.
“therefor sacriligious”
Should be therefore sacrilegious. Therefor relates to exchanges, according to dictionary.com.
Anyway, the brand is all that matters. Product is of penultimate importance, but branding takes the cake. You can argue that BMW selling SUVs or Porsche Panameras is great because it’ll make them money and be good products, but even great products that are off-message dilute the brand. In an ideal situation, the goal of every company is to find an unoccupied mindspace in a population of consumers and fill it exclusively. Your brand can contain nuance (Toyota = boring & quality vs. Honda = kinda sporty & quality) but producing a car that is too far outside of your brand’s core message is dangerous as hell.
Of course your friend thinks the Jag X-type is classy – regardless of whether you know anything about build quality or reliability, Jaguar as a brand inhabits the British Luxury pocket of the American mindspace, and even a 60% effort like the X-type is not enough to undo 50+ years of solid branding. If they make 3-4 more X-types, they’re in trouble, but as of now when people think Jaguar they think British Luxury Car and vice-versa.
This is why peope freak out so much about Bangle’s designs for BMW – the cars are still magnificently engineered and powerful and luxurious, but the new daring lines were dissonant with the public’s firmly established understanding of BMW as a boring, reserved, Teutonic all-business brand. Of course, this will elicit, “No I hate it because it is so ugly” responses, but I think we all know better than to think it’s that simple.
brndn81: August 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
@ Mrb00st :
Pretty sure toyota something to do with the Vibe GT, seeing as how it had a celica engine. I believe it was called the Matrix XRS.
Yes, I’m aware. But it was an interesting car with a Pontiac badge. And, just personal opinion, the Vibe was MUCH better looking. Which is why they sold it in Japan with a Toyota badge as the Voltz.
Interesting cars that Toyota’s made in the 2000’s: Celica GT-S, MR2 Spyder, FJ-C, Matrix XRS, and MAYBE the Corolla XRS. They’re really not a brand that concentrates on neat cars.
KatiePuckrik: I would have bought one of the Dyson vacuums but the plastics felts flimsy and it just felt cheap. I don’t even like the looks but i would have bought it if it the quality was superior. I got a Miele instead. The Truth About Vacuums?
Branding is like an actor who’s been typecast. Forever pigeonholed in one role, unable to break into something else, they’re doomed when their one-trick-pony fails to bring in customers, much less the ‘right’ customers.
If the Phaeton was a big mistake for Volkswagen, then the Genesis will be an even bigger mistake for Hyundai. By branding rights, the Evo shouldn’t even exist for Mitsubishi, and Nissan is absolutely bonkers for even thinking about a car like the GT-R.
Dynamic88:
There is also negative branding. Chrysler stands for 3rd rate shit with interiors “carved from solid blocks of cheap”.
This is not branding. Branding takes years to develop. The problem with their interiors has only existed for less than 10 years (the Dumbler era). It’s the latest “in thing” to rip them for their interiors but it is not who they historically are. That’s just the influence of the blogasphere. Just a few years ago their interiors looked like this:
http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/300M.html
Scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd pictures. These are not PR beauty shots in perfect lighting, they are taken with a handheld camera in natural light.
davey49:
“The Jeep Compass is a Plymouth. More precisely the Compass is the new Plymouth Valiant.”
Spot on Davey. I said in a post almost two years ago that the Compass was built because of the demise of Plymouth – proof that it was wrong to discontinue the brand which had no more expenses that Toyota’s Scion, probably less when you consider it had no unique vehicles (it would have in the PT (Plymouth Truck) Cruiser but they assigned it to Chrysler).
NulloModo,
“How is the Aspen a real Chrysler? It is the epitome of badge engineering, all it is is a rebadged Durango.”
Uhh, just no. Look at a Cobalt and G5, or an Aveo and G3/Wave. They are the “epitome of badge engineering”. The Aspen shares no sheet metal with the Durango. The ride is dfferent. Years ago the Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim would have held that title or the original K-cars. You could literally swap the grills and tailights, that’s how similar they were.
iNeon:
“They’d have never given them a second glance in 1992, but by 1997, they needed what Chrysler had.”
What Chrysler had in 1997 that they didn’t have in 1992 was $10 billion in the bank. That’s what Dumbler wanted. The new methodology of developing new cars faster and for less money than anyone else? Nah. The SCORE and Extended Enterprise system that treated your suppliers like partners and shared cost savings and set up an American style Keiretsu? Nah. Leading edge styling and concepts? Nah.
@geggamoya
Dyson vacuum cleaners are made out of ABS and Polycarbonate (they make riot gear out of it).
In James Dyson’s autobiography “Against the odds” he tells this rather interesting story:
He had a group of sales people at a department store in the UK holding a presentation on his cleaner. He boasted that the Dyson cleaner was durable and the Sebo cleaner wasn’t. So someone fetched a hammer from DIY part of the store. James Dyson invited the person to hit the Dyson cleaner as hard as they could. “Harder!” they hit it again. “HARDER!”. The hammer bounced off. “HARDER!!!!!” it didn’t make a mark on the Dyson cleaner. “Now hit the Sebo cleaner…!”
The Sebo shattered on the first strike……
Back to cars, please…….
Brand or Product:
Simple, if you are trying to hold on the ground (market) your brand is key (lets be honest something got you were you are today)!
On the otherhand if you are trying to take ground your product is key (you need something the IS special to make a conquest).
In a nutshell the Germans (In America) sell on brand while the Japanese sell based on product.
While the Americans have appeared to have lost
the plot altogehter.
Notice brand sellers generally use model number to identify their cars while those selling product give their cars real names. MB and BMW sell because of the brand name. Folks that drive C-classes will tell you they drive a MB while the driver of an Accord will tell you he drives an Accord before he will say a Honda. Outside of Benz owners and car enthusaist tiltes like C300, E350, C-class, or E-class mean nothing but the name Mercedes Benz says it all, yet everyone knows what an Accord or Camry is.
Funny, with the exception of Mazda all cars for sale in the USA that list for under $30,000 all have names. With the exception of Porsche it appears that all cars sold in the $30,000 to $100,000+ range all have alpha-numeric model designations (I know I know, but Prosche are commonly referred to by name). Once we get to the top o’ the heap we start to see names again (at least with those VW “brands” and RR).
With all that said, IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE PRODUCT! It is the product(s) that make the brand. If you have a popular brand but crappy products that world WILL catch up with you!
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”
Windswords–
It’s called the PT because it’s a variant of the neon platform; PL.
Cars that defy their brand:
Chevrolet Corvette
Hyundai Genesis
Pontiac G8 (or the opposite – all Pontiacs BUT the G8)
VW Toureg V12
All current Acuras
No longer sold:
VW Phaeton
Volvo R Wagons
The one thing they have in common is that, except for Acura, they were/are all GREAT cars. The brand is a lot, but it ain’t everything. At least to those who care more about the product than the message said product delivers to those other than the buyer.
NulloModo- If you drive the Wrangler on the road you’re an idiot and deserve the poor ride and lack of “luxury”. Buy something else, the Wrangler is unbeatable off road.
geotpf- millions of people think like you. Toyota reliability is the strongest branding in the car world.
Vacuum Cleaners- classic Electrolux/Aerus over all. Especially a classic metal Electrolux canister that still has the braided hose.
iNeon:
“Windswords–
It’s called the PT because it’s a variant of the neon platform; PL.”
True dat, but it was always meant to be a Plymouth. The PT designation had that meaning (Plymouth Truck) within the corporation and it was no coincidence when they chose it as the platform code. Chrysler was never supposed to get a vehicle that based MSRP’d for $17,000.
Sometimes, even a seemingly good brand image can hurt the brand and the individual models. I remember once reading about someone who described the BMW lineup (at the time it consisted of the 3, 5, 6, and 7-series) as being good cars, but that they all too much alike, as if they were links of sausage cut into different lengths.