Ford apparently isn’t the only firm that “speaks car.” The ChiTrib reports that a Pennsylvania parts dealer is suing Ford for using the line “we speak car” in recent ads, claiming it has used the phrase for six years. Frank’s Auto Supply of Uniontown, PA uses wespeakcar.com as its website, and has used the trite neologism in advertising since June of 2003. The parts dealer is suing Ford in federal court, seeking unspecified damages and a ban on Ford’s use of the phrase. The upside to ripping off another marketing tagline? No one really misses the unoriginal ad when it gets pulled.
Find News by Subject:
Category: Branding
In an odd interview in automotorsport, Lars Hägerborg of Saab Sweden claims they now have concrete facts about a new owner. As we all expected this really doesn’t mean the end of Opels re-badged as Saabs (not to mention Chevy SUVs) as Lars says GM’s mind-NSFW game, er, cooperation will last at least another five years. Supposedly GM Powertrain Sweden will continue to share parts and tech with the other GM divisions but will keep “the best bits to themselves.” Judging by the turbo I4s that Saab has been cranking out lately, I’d say they can keep whatever they have and nobody will mind. Next in the process is lining up some government bailout funds to (as Lars says) “[be] a loan that allows us to move forward.” Lars also whined that the automotive press is too harsh on Saab for their abject failures and that we should instead focus on the future and their new [vaporware] models which are yet again later than expected. The new models of course being the Opel in a Saab suit 9-5 and the “Chevy in a Saab suit” 9-4. Good luck Saab, you’re gonna need it.
VW is killing the Rabbit, reports C&D. Well, the name anyway. And not a moment too soon. Sure, there’s some history there: the Rabbit was one of the first foreign cars to be mass produced in the US, helping kick off one of the most significant trends in US automotive history. But the Rabbit name also embodies so many of the compromises that have become stock-in-trade for North America-only models. Ugly, “Americanized” interiors and shoddy quality (not to mention the square headlights) marred early US production of VW’s rodent Golf-alike. When the name was revived in 2006 in a blaze of nostalgia marketing, it was saddled with a thirsty, primitive 2.5-liter engine while Euro-spec Golfs boasted a wide range of more advanced, efficient engines. Ultimately, the Rabbit name has come to signify unnecessary compromise and VW’s arrogance towards an American market it sees (and helps define) as crude and unsophisticated. With the Polo headed stateside and the Golf name returning, VW is not only re-rationalizing its nomenclature (games!), it’s taking a chance that America is ready for smaller, lighter, more “European” products. Well, sort of.
Rumors have simmering for some time now that say Porsche is considering extending its once-focused brand downmarket. Again. And though the Roxster rumors prompted a repudiation of volume-chasing from Zuffenhausen, word is filtering in from the German auto press that Porsche might be considering a neo-914 project with VW. Or, as the starry-eyed fools at Motor Authority put it, “work on the next-generation Boxster and what has been thought of as a 914 revival may be a sort of cover for the even more secret work on the 356’s modern spiritual successor.” What they mean (I think) is that the new baby Porsche could be a rebadged VW, true to tradition. The Bluesport Concept, in this case. Of course that means cannibal trouble for the proposed Audi version, but that was coming anyway (VW “needs” to share the platform with “at least” three brands). Meanwhile, CAFE doesn’t just loom for Porsche, they’ve been fined every year since 1991. Oh yeah, and the lovable Boxster has loaded over $6K onto its base MSRP since its 1997 debut. So I’ll break with site tradition and say Porsche should keep stretching that brand. Let’s face it: the Bluesport ain’t coming stateside as a VW, so we can’t expect a true “performance bargain” out of the Bluesport platform. A sub-$40K Porsche? That might be worth dreaming of.
China’s Chery motors has apparently decided that its fruity moniker isn’t strong enough to carry its market ambitions, and it has launched two sub-brands, creatively named Riich and Rely. Riich’s Bentley-aping winged “R” makes no secret of its premium brand ambitions, and China Car Times reports that the sub-brand will offer “technologically rich vehicles at a low price.” Rely looks to be more of a Buick or Volvo-style, entry-luxury brand. Perhaps Chery would like consumers to think of its sub-brand as “reliable”? From the US-market perspective, these branding exercises are quite crude. Not only do they closely copy existing brand imagery (did I mention that the Riich badge looks like Bentley’s?), but their names are also overly literal. So it’s not likely that these two brands will lead Chery’s charge into the global market, but their presence begs a question that cuts to the heart of automotive marketing: are sub-brands ever a good idea? Or are they just usually poorly executed? For every Lexus or MINI which show that major OEMs can branch out of their core competency, there are two Merkurs or Scions warning how pear-shaped branding exercises can get. The fall of the house of General Motors proves that too many brands can be bad juju, but are there niches for brands out there that haven’t been considered? Or do niche vehicles strengthen mainstream brands rather than distract them?
The Detroit News is reporting that Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) is ready to float some trial balloons—I mean, announce part of its master plan for “saving” the U.S. auto industry. The News reckons the PTFOA will place the cart before the horse, revealing its bailout strategy for the domestics’ suppliers sometime this week. Then they’ll unveil the new new bailout arrangement to fund GM’s new new new new new new new turnaround plan and, believe it or not, Chrysler’s mythological recovery strategy. Meanwhile, Saturn’s keepers are busy pre-stretching the limits of credibility.
Automotive News [sub] reports that even as GM seeks to spin Opel off to anyone who has the cash to save it, it’s raiding its German subsidiary for competitive product. Specifically, Opel’s much-vaunted Insignia sedan is set to become the 2010 Buick Regal, rather than the 2010 Saturn Aura as previously planned according to anonymous sources. Which is not completely surprising considering that Saturn as we know it has shuffled off the mortal coil, and the Insignia is, by many reports, a great car. But it’s still a horrible idea. Buick has already debuted another 2010 Epsilon II-based model, the LaCrosse, making for some instant cannibal action. “We’re looking at a bunch of stuff from a sedan standpoint,” says BPG VP Susan Docherty. “We’re going to add some more sedans, so stay tuned.” Docherty declined to comment specifically on the Buick Insignia fandango, but tells AN that “as GM works to cut Pontiac’s product offerings, the company can offer new Buick vehicles to keep the Buick-Pontiac-GMC channel well-rounded.” Well-rounded? Seriously? Besides revealing that GM is light-years away from whipping its perennial cannibalism problems, this story also suggests that Opel will continue to share architecture and platforms with the corporate mothership. Whether they need them or not.
993c4s.com reports that the 250,000th Porsche Cayenne is a three-liter, six-cylinder diesel. Zuffenhausen pride!
The question that has haunted the very soul humanity for eons—“that thing gotta hemi?”—should hopefully drift out of the vernacular, as ChryCo is offering free Hemi V8 upgrades on every Ram 1500 they sell during “shovel ’em out the door,” uh, make that “truck month.” So yes, good sir, it’s got a Hemi. But as Wikipedia puts it, “today, ‘hemi’ is little more than a trademark that bears little meaning, descriptively, for the engines designated as such.”
In Peter DeLorenzo’s last column, the self-styled AutoExtremist prescribed nichedom as an “elixir” for Pontiac. Reader reaction was so positive (apparently) that Sweet Pete has jumped off the deep end. People love the “excitement brand, whether it be for nostalgia reasons or because the attitude and spirit exemplified by Pontiac in its heyday.” In short, for nostalgia reasons. “But,” reckons DeLorenzo, “warm feelings of nostalgia won’t be enough to save Pontiac – or GM, for that matter.” Fast forward through some vintage bashing of “grim-reaping, hand-wringing, self-flagellating purveyors of doom in California and Washington,” and other “green-tinged” coastal elites, and what does DeLorenzo prescribe for the broken brand? Yup, “warm feelings of nostalgia.” Specifically, the return of the Firebird Trans-Am. The screaming chicken. Strap on the mullet, folks, this is going to get interesting.
Except that it isn’t, of course. “Pontiac still has a mission in the BPG channel and it’s one that a very dedicated team of engineers, marketers, and dealers is determined to complete successfully, one step at a time,” writes Buick-Pontiac-GMC VP, Susan Docherty, at Fastlane. Actually, that’s the last sentence of the post, tacked on in case its complete lack of substance failed to convince you of the endlessly repeated talking point. So what’s changing? “Very little,” in the near term, says Docherty. “Pontiac will continue to offer the G5, G6, G8, Solstice and Vibe, and we’re adding the economical G3.” Because, as Docherty puts it, “Pontiac’s top reason for purchase is “fuel economy” and we won’t disappoint with four of our six entries getting over 32 miles per gallon on the highway.” So Pontiac is efficiency. Glad we cleared that up. Also, “the Pontiac Torrent will be discontinued to enable the brand to “focus” on cars,” says Docherty. “But the good news is that a new, five-passenger crossover SUV entry will soon be found at GMC . . . stay tuned.” Uh, no, that’s bad news too. The point of the exercise to cut the number of nameplates, remember?
I’m not much of a biblical scholar, but I did see Schwarzenegger’s End of Days. All sorts of weird shit happened before Arnie finally sent the devil packing. As we head down the home stretch for the auto industry reckoning, there’s some odd stuff percolating-up in the autoblogosphere. To wit: TheDetroitBureau.com’s suggestion that a newly independent Saturn or Saab should consider adding examples of HUMMER’s strategically doomed product line to their freshly liberated (or not) portfolio. Michael Strong makes the weak argument. Cross yourself and we’ll continue.
Longtime TTAC reader juris b writes:
What is it that differentiates good car companies from bad? Probably attitude. And by thy details [thou shalt] be known. Those tiny details and gaps slowly gather together and create financial holes. A gap here, a gap there, and soon we get a real Chrysler. Like the US economy. A trillion dollar debt here, a trillion there, and soon you lose real money. How much would it have hurt Chrysler if they spent five minutes more at their 95 Windows and at least tried not to forget to photoshop sideview mirrors on their 300 sedan for the proposed turnaround plan. They managed to insert them on interior pictures, but somehow neglected the exterior. Or do they plan to have rear-view cameras all around? Detailing gentleman! If you can’t manage a simple picture, how on earth will you manage real cars?
Now that’s its all over bar the shouting (Saab has filed for the Swedish equivalent of bankruptcy), the shouting begins. Saab’s new owners (themselves) say they need $1B to stay in the game, and they want GM to pay it. (Reparations?) Automotive News [sub] reports that GM is willing to surrender a big chunk of your taxes to cut bait and [Swedish] fish. But not a billion. “GM Europe’s head of communications Chris Preuss said GM was prepared to provide some funding for Saab but the brand needed outside money as well.” And who in their right mind would provide the lion’s share of this IV drip? “We have asked the Swedish government for loan guarantees for $600 million to give Saab a balance sheet as an independent unit which will allow it to continue.” The Swedish government has said no. So Saab is hitting up the European Investment Bank for a €500m loan. So . . . now what?
GM’s Jill Lajdziak has written a letter (PDF) to Saturn dealers and customers warning that the General is actively pursuing a spin-off for its “different kind of car company.” Explaining that Saturn Distribution Corporation is “already an independent subsidiary,” Lajdziak says that Saturn dealers would be able to source GM products until 2011, and “if successful, SDC at that point would source products from other manufacturers.” Meanwhile, sit tight and enjoy the ride. “GM will support the continued availability of Saturn parts and service as needed,” says Lajdziak. So while Saturn struggles along under the toxic stench of rejection by GM, let the speculation begin! Will a German government-backed Opel take on the distribution net? Will an upstart Chinese firm see this as a cheap entry to the American market? Or is 2011 the end of the road for Roger Smith’s experiment?
Recent Comments