As I’ve been saying since 1846, the Ford “brand” is so amorphous that it wears a set of air quotes. In other words, Ford doesn’t stand for much of anything. It stands for everything (another way of saying nothing): innovation, excitement, great value and family product [sic]. And those are just the four selling points FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally mentions in the Taurus YouTube video before the editor cuts him off. These days, brand-wise, Ford’s greatest selling point (singular) is that it isn’t GM or Chrysler. Compelling as that may be, it’s not all that compelling. And so The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford is building on its non-GMness by launching a 24-week ad campaign featuring “actual [as opposed to?] Ford customers talking about the features of the Ford vehicles that they like.” Yes, well, does anyone really buy a Ford over a Toyondaissan based on “surprise and delight” features like a capless fuel filler or a built-in refrigerator, neither of which is unique to Ford? I still think The Glass House Gang would be better advised to re-build their brand on the “Built Ford Tough” meme. You?
Category: Branding
Stefan Jacoby has been the top dog at VW of America for over two years now, but he still has the fresh curiosity of a freshly arrived tourist. Sitting down with “Max” and the Washington Post to hump VWOA’s mass-market dreams, he offers a few thoughtful insights.
“Here, there is more cruising and long-distance driving. In Europe, there are more tiny roads and you drive more actively than in the United States,” explains the highly-paid executive. “We Germans drive and we are not drinking in the car. Americans have breakfast and coffee in the car. We have to adjust to this.” Mein Gott! With insights like this, Jacoby should have no problem breaking a million annual sales by 2018. All these things take is “a more user-friendly steering wheel and entertainment system, an accelerator and brake pedal that are farther apart, and larger cup holders.” Oh yeah, and not evaporating your brand in the process. Or, as VW exec Werner Schmidt once described the Americanization of the Mk1 Rabbit, “Malibuing” away the Euro-appeal that is the Volkswagen brand in this country.
“I certainly don’t want to leave you with the feeling that, y’know, things are humming,” quips Frtiz. “Because they’re not.” Then what, pray, was the point of today’s “progress report” snowjob? But Fritz is just kidding, things really are ginger-peachy keen. As recent trips to the Harvard and Michigan business schools taught him…
Automotive News [sub] reports that the promotion of Lancia CEO Olivier Francois to Chrysler brand boss heralds a closer alignment of the two brands in the European market. According to AN’s Fiat source, Chrysler and Lancia will share products and distribution going forward, not mention a luxury mandate that has yet to convince the wider market. The association might lend a certain amount of panache to the Chrysler brand, which its former CEO Peter Fong has said should aspire to “a notch above Cadillac.” If nothing else, Chrysler will probably get a version of the next Lancia Ypsilon city car. And Lancia? A new Thesis flagship based on Chrysler’s LX platform, and “a car derived from the Sebring’s successor,” according to AN. In other words, a Fiat. Nothing about these product-sharing plans sound particularly exciting, considering they hardly get Chrysler and Lancia away from their traditions of peddling upscale versions of pedestrian grocery-getters. But Messr. Francois has kept Lancia from going the way of Oldsmobile through his Gallic brand of sultry marketing, like the Carla Bruni spot above (by the way, is that a Chrysler limo?). The hope is that the Francois panache can similarly rescue Chrysler’s efforts, but that’s a tall order for a brand with basically no competitive product. Meanwhile, does Europe need another brand of luxe Fiats?
We jumped on Alan Mulally last week for sitting quietly on a $2.5b offer for Volvo from the Chinese automaker, Geely. At the time we told him to take the offer and be glad of it; after all, no one else would pay that much for a brand that hasn’t made money in nearly a decade. Or would they? Of course Alan knew more than we did, and over the weekend the truth emerged: Volvo has another bidder! The Wall Street Journal reports that the Crown consortium, led by Ford director Michael Dingman and former Ford and Chrysler executive Shamel Rushwin, are making a play for the Swedish marque. Crown is trying to lure former Volvo executives (including former CEO Roger Holtback) on board with a third of new Volvo equity in hopes of “emphasizing the Swedish nature of the company.” But can Swedish roots (or at least a good dye-job) match up with Chinese cash? The downside to the Geely bid is that the new company would walk away from pension obligations and inventory, making the deal worth less to Ford than the offered $2.5b. Meanwhile, SAIC is reportedly still in the running to buy Volvo as well. This one is still far from over.
Automotive News [sub] reports that GM has announced plans to roll out a police-only Chevrolet Caprice in 2011, based on the Holden Statesman. V8 and V6 version of the Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle will be available for order in late 2010, giving GM a competitive entry in the police cruiser market long-dominated by Ford’s Crown Victoria. Though this photo is an official GM image, spokesfolks warn that details aren’t completely finalized yet. “Some of the elements, some of the styling will be different in the production version. We are not releasing all the details in terms of specs at this point,” say GM’s Brian Goebel. Just don’t expect the changes to be major upgrades, because they are intended “to bring it in line with the Chevrolet look and feel.” GM’s RWD cop car comes just as Ford has hinted that it will develop future police vehicles based on the FWD Taurus. Meanwhile, if you want a civilian version of the Caprice, you’re stuck waiting on future police auctions. Sorry.
As Colonel George Taylor would say, they’ve finally done it. Chrysler, the formerly bankrupt, federally-financed, Italian-owned carmaker has created a fourth automotive brand: Ram. As the company can’t come out and say they’re hiving-off Ram trucks to simplify Chrysler’s inevitable Chapter 7 fire sale, CEO Sergio Marchionne’s birth announcement blamed Dodge for the move (of all things). “This reorganization will allow us to protect and develop the unique nature of the product offerings within the Dodge Brand.” Yeah, ’cause all those Dodge Rams were muddying-up Dodge’s otherwise pristine image, used to such great effect with the Caliber and Avenger. To continue Dodge’s evolution towards filling Pontiac’s performance remit (I shit you not), Sergio’s appointed Ralph Gilles as the old brand’s new head, which will, presumably, no longer be that of a male sheep. As Gilles is the Canadian designer who unleashed the gangsta-riffic Chrysler 300, here’s hoping for an official name change to “The Dodge Boyz.” Meanwhile, The Detroit News [sub] is ROTFL about Sergio’s intentions to take Chrysler upmarket. Apparently, it’s going to be a “tough sell.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that Roger Penske has pulled out of a deal with GM that would have kept the Saturn brand in business. Per the WSJ report:
The deal called for Penske to initially acquire vehicles from GM but eventually branch out to sell products from Renault SA (RNO.FR) and its Samsung Motors unit, which is based in South Korea. Penske Auto said Wednesday that it negotiated a supply agreement with “another manufacturer,” but that company’s board rejected the deal.
“Without that agreement, the company has determined that the risks and uncertainties related to the availability of future products prohibit the company from moving forward with this transaction,” said Penske Auto.
Reuters confirms the story, adding “GM said in a separate statement it would wind down the Saturn brand and its dealership network.”
The Wall Street Journal reported today that Geely has offered Ford $2.5B for Volvo, making the Chinese automaker the “leading contender” for the Swedish brand. Leading? Are there other contenders we don’t know about? According to the WSJ, “the offer is higher than Ford or outsiders had expected for a brand that has lost more than $1 billion in recent years,” and yet the latest news from China [via Xinhua] has Alan Mulally saying there’s been “no new progress” in the ongoing negotiations. Now don’t get it twisted: nobody expects Mulally to publicly accept this kind of offer within hours of being reported, but you’d think he’d at least send encouraging signs. Instead Mulally tells Xinhua, “Volvo is a good brand, but Ford will sell it in order to shift its main focus on developing the Ford brand.” Which is like someone on Craigslist talking about the sentimental value of an item with the words “or best offer” attached to the asking price. The fact that Geely has made an offer for 100 percent shows that they’re serious (that used to be a Ford negotiating point). So what’s Big Alan waiting for? Offload the money-loser, snag some cash and move on. The deal doesn’t look to be getting any sweeter.
You might be forgiven for thinking that a major lesson of GM and Chrysler’s kicking-and-screaming-and-sucking-down-tax-dollars reorganization was that less is more when it comes to brands. Only you’d still be wrong. Chrysler appears to be adding brands faster than GM shed them, as the Pentastar adjusts to life under its Italian overlords. We’ve already heard that the Fiat 500 will be America’s only Fiat-branded product, that Chrysler is supposed to become a Cadillac competitor, Alfas are en route, Dodge and Jeep will stick around, and somehow Mopar is a brand as well. Well, let’s throw another log on that fire. Edmunds Inside Line is confirming wild-ass rumors (by way of anonymous sources, of course) that Ram will become a standalone brand, selling pickups, vans, SUVs and commercial vehicles. Why? In order to “allow [Dodge] to develop as an affordable performance-car brand,” goes Inside Line’s insider’s line. So why not just throw Lancia into the mix and give ChryCo a GM-tastic eight-brand lineup?
If you go on advertising alone, it’s easy to think every 2010 Ford Taurus is an EcoBoosted, twin-turbo wonder. And while the SHO dominates public perception of the new Taurus, its $37,170 base price is a good reminder that SHO-boaters will be paying halo model money to get what the TV ads are dangling in America’s face. But as new Tauruses once again become part of the automotive landscape, another reality is bound to hit intrigued observers: it’s damn hard to tell a $37k+ SHO from a $25k+ SE model. Car and Driver claims that’s because Ford’s clinics revealed “there was no consensus on the level of pizazz the SHO should wield,” so they went with a sleeper. Or, “the cautious side of conservative,” to borrow a phrase. And then they changed their minds.
TTAC’s call for Chrysler to reveal what the hell it plans on doing with U.S. taxpayers’ $10 billion “investment” has been answered. According to Automotive News [sub], a plan for Chrysler’s product line-up is “emerging” ahead of the official reveal in . . . November. That said, calling so-called plan “vague” would like be calling Hillary Clinton’s tome “It Takes a Village” slightly left-leaning and insufficiently attributed. Anyway, here ya go: “A Chrysler brand with more luxury than Cadillac. A Dodge brand known for driving dynamics. A Jeep lineup that is — well, Jeep. And vehicles to cover every market segment so that wildly fluctuating fuel prices won’t destroy sales.” Sounds crazy and it’ll never work.
A brand is a promise to the consumer. It’s the umbrella under which all products must shelter. All the people responsible for a brand must ensure that it meets that promise. The Toyota Prius is a promise of reliable transportation that achieve high-mileage with low emissions. So it’s no wonder that Toyota has decided to stretch the brand to other vehicles. Oh, wait, the Prius isn’t a brand. It’s a model within a brand, which contains other examples of reliable transportation that achieves high-mileage with low emissions. Is that confusing? Well if it isn’t now, it soon will be. “The Highlander hybrid and Camry hybrid do OK, but calling it ‘Synergy Drive’ never resonated with consumers,” veteran Toyota dealer Earl Stewart told Automotive News [sub]. “But they can make hay on the Prius name. It’s a magic name. If somebody says ‘I drive a Prius,’ everybody knows what he means.” But for how long? The truth about a brand is that its products must fulfill the brand’s promise, or the brand dies. Confusing that brand diminishes it and alienates the people who gave birth to it in the first place. Maybe not straight away, but eventually. And forever.
Or is that pointlessly endearing? First off, they’re MINIs with trunks. Figure that out. Our first reaction to news of the Coupe and Roadster was to observe that the only thing the MINI brand needed was cars with a little less room. But, as MINI’s press release points out, the brand-defying decklids do have a point. Specifically, “[giving] the car a notchback look clearly distinguishing the MINI Roadster Concept from the MINI Convertible.” Too bad three-box MINIs aren’t MINIs. They’re RILEY ELFs. Ultimately though, brand confusion shouldn’t be too much of a problem. Not because nobody’s mentioned the Riley Elf in decades, but because the concept has a “buddy radar” display which alerts drivers to the presence of other MINIs. Which was a great way of addressing the second least common complaint among MINI drivers: anonymity.
Subaru’s first US-market continuously-variable transmission (CVT) was a major factor in the 2010 Outback’s recent two-star TTAC review. Not in the “one niggling fault” way either. Think more along the lines of the “metaphor for myriad brand betrayals” kind of dislike. Subaru’s vehicles are getting heavier, their interiors are becoming more plasticky-gimmicky and much of the driving fun once available in say, a stock Impreza, has gone the way of quirky styling and rugged functionality. And guess what? Subaru’s mainstream trend-encies look to be here to stay.
Recent Comments