On this Wednesday’s wailing wall, Autoextremist.com lambastes Motown’s marketeers for their cowardice and creative poverty—without naming names, providing egregious examples or suggesting rectification. “Automotive marketers are too often squeamish, risk-averse or clueless. There, I said it. Yes, at least 75 percent of the people involved in automotive marketing don’t know what the hell they’re doing – it’s a pathetic fact but it’s the High-Octane Truth.” Not in these parts it isn’t. You want the truth? DeLorenzo is guilty of the same timidity that he assigns to unnamed auto execs and their equally unidentified ad agencies. Where’s the indignation at GM for cutting Caddy’s cutting-edge ad agency adrift? Or some good-old-fashioned finger pointing at Bob Lutz, for his infinitely asinine decision to put Chairman Wiseacre at the front of the nationalized automaker’s laughable “May the best car win” ad campaign? Where’s Chrysler? What’s up with Ford’s epic failure to figure-out Lincoln? Someone show DeLorenzo how to sample crickets chirping. Meanwhile, truth be told, DeLorenzo’s dissing the competition for no greater goal than feathering his own nest . . .
Lest we forget, the self-styled Autoextremist earns his crust as a consultant. He knows exactly how far he can push the Angry Old Cheerleader shtick before it endangers his ability to eat lunch in Mowtown again. As for “I am the Great and Powerful Oz” recommendations—an exercise with which your humble TTAC founder is familiar—I reckon DeLorenzo has yet to recover from the sniggers that greeted his “Hyundai should buy zombie Saturn dealers and launch an upmarket brand in the teeth of a recession” rant. Call it the self-actuated witless protection program.
But here’s the really strange part: DeLorenzo uses the words “marketing” and “advertising” interchangably. They are NOT the same thing. Marketing is about product, consumer research, product, positioning, product, branding, product, sales, product, service, product, customer feedback, product, advertising, product, promotion, product and direct customer communications. Oh, and product. Did I mention product? Advertising is about promoting the product. Period.
The above BMW ad is the definition of clever. And effective. And all the things that DeLorenzo values. But it only really works because the product had a justifiable rep for speed and engineering excellence.
This isn’t the first time that DeLorenzo has betrayed his mistaken belief that the sizzle is the steak. But it’s a perfect illustration of Motown’s collective failure to understand that the product is everything; a failure that’s a stake through the Detroit zombie’s heart. To wit:
The mope-a-dope, apologetic, ‘inoffensive is best’ tone being employed by too many marketers in automotive advertising today is tedious. And wrong. They need to get over themselves and in a big hurry too.
One automotive marketer who seems to get it is Scott Keogh, Audi of America’s director of marketing. In an interview with Automotive News this week he had this to say:
“Automotive marketing has become very conservative, very safe and entirely focused on the transaction – how cheap can I get it? You still have to be in the business of selling desire, dreams and great products.”
Amen, Scott.
Could DeLorenzo really have missed that last bit? Or has Sweet Pete, like the Detroit suits that put food on his table, convinced himself that American automakers have the great products thing sussed? That marketing—I mean, advertising is the only missing piece of the puzzle? If you’re a hammer . . .
Memo to automotive marketers: Stop banging out singles and start swinging for the fences. Stop anesthetizing the masses and start energizing the few who will jump-start that word-of-mouth buzz.
And whatever you do, just remember one thing: Before you can make us believe, you need to convince us that you believe.
Ironically enough, Sweet Pete has it exactly backwards. Detroit has far too much belief in itself. I believe the correct word for that state of mind is “hubris.” The reckoning continues, with or without its enablers.
DeLorenzo is now among the many in Detroit who think the problem is now largely one of perception, not the products themselves.
Many critics lost their edge when the auto makers’ survival was at stake.
But here’s the really strange part: DeLorenzo uses the words “marketing” and “advertising” interchangeably. They are NOT the same thing.
Add “Sales” and you have “Marketing”, “Advertising”, and “Sales” that are NOT the same thing.
Car commercials for most makers, foreign or domestic, can be incredibly silly or downright stupid and worthless.
Even the “mighty” Toyota used to have this ridiculous theme of clowns (aka customers) jumping up and down with delight and exclaiming “Oh, what a feeling!” (!!!)
WHat a feeling? Give me an effing break, Toyota! Do you see the same clowns jumping up and down just because their aging Maytag washer still works?
Saturn ads were probably the worst, the most embarassing in the industry, they tended to involve actors pretending they were auto illiterate consumers that chose Saturn because they knew nothing about cars, but trusted the…. Saturn Dealers and their no-haggle pricing and good customer service. After seeing the ad, no auto enthusiast would ever drive near a Saturn dealer, regardless how good or how bad the product was!
How much have BBDO and other ad agencies lost from the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies? I’m surprise we are not bailing them out as well.
Twotone
I like that ad. You have to watch it all the way through to get the punchline, but it’s worth it.
The High-Octane Truth without naming names? All bark and no bite? That’s why I quit reading Sweet Pete a couple of years ago — why waste my time?
Most car ads are worthless, telling the viewer/reader/listener nothing about the vehicle. I particularly hate seeing the car just driving along, blowing autumn leaves out of its way.
Truck comparison ads can be OK.
But that BMW ad is pretty good.
@Autosavant – Please no more kicking of a man down. Saturn dealerships were part and parcel of its car brand. Saturns were never, in my mind anyway, marketed as serious ridge burners pulling mad negative G’s through Laguna Seca. It was marketed as a decent car with decent stuff at a decent price. In ’97, buying my first Saturn SL valued at a whopping $12K, I was treated to freshly baked cookies, coffee, and a sales team that did everything possible to make me feel like a big-shot. And who doesn’t like a little of That!
It was fun watching Tim, my sales guy, whale on the door panels with a Louisville slugger, sleaves rolled up like some past baseball hero mugging for his waning crowd. Flash forward to 2008 when I bought my Astra XR for a haggled price of $18K and I got the slimy salesguy who leered lasciviously at my wife and a sales staff so young they had never heard of throwing a party for anyone at Saturn. It was disappointing to say the least that Saturn had so lost its Mojo that it didn’t even care anymore about what made it work in the first place.
@ RF
To add to your observation; apart from notification of the new model via small, deliberately placed advertisements, nearly no money is spent on ADVERTISING the BMW M range.
MARKETING of the BMW M brand however is carried on in many varied ways, including; Formula 1, drive days, product review/placement, on and on.
Ultimately, BMW discovered that enthusiastic word-of-mouth kept the repeat buyer rate at one of the highest in the industry.
(The X5/X6 M might need some serious advertising however – apologies).
“dolorean23 :
October 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am
@Autosavant – Please no more kicking of a man down. Saturn dealerships were part and parcel of its car brand. Saturns were never, in my mind anyway, marketed as serious ridge burners pulling mad negative G’s through Laguna Seca. It was marketed as a decent car with decent stuff at a decent price.”
That’s a strawman. I never expected a civic-class car to fly at mach 2. I also approve of the no-haggle pricing. But the problem is that the Father of the Saturn brand, the infamous Roger Smith, had very grandiose hopes for the brand, not only to specifically kill the above civics and corollas, but also to “leapfrog” that Japanese competition! The execution of his pipe dream was so horribly botched, that when the first Saturns went on sale, they were already Obsolete and far inferior in refinement and overall quality than these Civics. I am fully aware of them, as I considered buying a top of the line coupe with very low miles, and one test drive in the cramped, noisy and unrefined thing convinced me to run away. The owner’s ludicrously high asking price was also convincing.
” Flash forward to 2008 when I bought my Astra XR for a haggled price of $18K ”
You may be aware that Bob Lutz himself said that the problem with the Astra is that not only is it way overpriced for the US market, there was no significant Ad budget so most people in the US do not have a clue what an Astra is.
I have taken a long trip in the uncomfortable back seat of a 96 Astra 5-door, which had very nice exterior styling, but was rather poor inside. In Europe, where the market is not as competitive as here, they sold a lot of them. BUT apparently at the end, even Opel had to be sold (hopefully) or, worse, closed down..
” It was disappointing to say the least that Saturn had so lost its Mojo that it didn’t even care anymore about what made it work in the first place.”
It was more dissapointing to see that, to keep Saturn alive a few more years, GM had to close down a far more important, successful and histroric brand, going back 100 years, Oldsmobile, whose logo, BTW, was remarkably similar to that of Saturn..LOL.
@ Autosavant –
I’m with you for the most part. I never liked Oldsmobubble myself, never really saw the point. As it was explained to me by my Grandfather, Olds was the “experimental and futuristic” arm of GM, where true innovation took place and took hold. I liked that idea but through the 80s and into the 90s, Olds was essentially a other-than brand. GM generated a lot of hype over the Achieva and how it was going to compete well against Acura and Lexus, but as usual was just more rhetoric. Saturn OTOH was exactly how it was marketed. At least at first. I would actually wager against you that Saturn didn’t cause the death of Olds, rather Olds was and had been the sickman of GM that wasn’t getting any better.
I really believe Geo and Saab had more to do with Olds demise.
You know, you could’ve bought your own coffee and cookies by negotiating $5 more off the car- any kind you like!
I (born in 77) ALWAYS saw Oldsmobile as an old person’s car. Having “old” and “mobile” right in the name didn’t help, but back when they actually made a competitive product that is easily overlooked.
Pete’s right — car advertising does suck. Has since the late 80s. There are very few voiceover personalities that stick with a brand. And the ones that are there you don’t want to hear their voices. And there’s no music anymore. Just techno jungle music that doesn’t elevate the emotions, only depresses them. That BMW spot tells me nothing about the car, only that it goes fast. Well, so does a Mustang GT. The spot sucks. Unlike these 3 Jeep spots starting at 3:15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxlFaYwgL4
Would be marketers, take notes on how it’s done.
Television car commercials suck. In 40 years I can remember only four that I liked. Two of them (for Porsche) appeared on the Speed Channel during Formula 1 races.
Circa 1970, there was one that showed a TransAm Camaro on a road course. You could tell the driver was trying hard because he had to catch the rear end now and then. I only saw it three times and have always wondered if it was dropped because some safety freak complained.
Several years ago, Honda put a Civic on a clock face. The car rotated in short steps like a second hand. What was neat about the commercial was the sound effect that went with the motion.
Porsche had a cute Boxster commercial that had a young guy in a Boxster meeting an old guy, who had just awakened from a multi-decade “nap”, in a 550. Each was impressed with the other’s car.
Porsche also had another one, for the 911 Carrera 4, that showed the car hustling down a winding road in heavy rain.
Don’t car ads suck mostly because the cars that need advertising to sell suck?
Off the top of my head, the only ‘good’ car ads I remember are the VW Unpimp my ride ads…
Perhaps the reasons Sweet Pete has become so dyspeptic and unreadable are:
– His ideas were great in 1969, not 2009;
– What did his paid counsel do for Chrysler, Buick and Pontiac? Bupkis.
Both of which led to no more lucrative gigs pulling hats out of his ass.
I would think most car enthusiasts find most advertising crap because they’re not trying to engage the “car bore.” The majority of cars are appliances and are sold like that. “Best safety rating” gets those housewives all riled up for the latest crossover and all that.
If you want to look at successful marketing – Lexus and BMW. Although Honda’s JDM ads can be good sometimes.
one of my all time favorites…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aInne49-DcM
no price, no payment, no rebate, no interest rate, no “hurry before it’s over.”
just panache.
The Toyota “Oh what a feeling + leaping about” advertising campaign originated in Australia. At the time Toyota Australia only had the “Oh what a feeling” tag line then they started to sell the LEXCEN, a rebadged Holden Commodore, named after Ben Lexcen of Australia II fame (America’s cup, look it up). When they filmed the ad with him in it he created the leap. Toyota execs were impressed and kept the theme running through their ads.
The LEXCEN was sold from 1989-1996. It should be noted that the original name plates Commodore (Lexcen), Camry(Holden Apollo) & Corolla (Holden Nova) all outsold their badge engineered cousins. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6gcwIt5nSM
Technically, it’s a Shell ad, but also a reason why Ferrari need not advertise at all.
James2 – you nailed that one! That is one of the great automotive ads in history.
All the advertising in the world won’t alter the fact a chocolate covered turd is just a turd.