Jeep is introducing the 2011 Grand Cherokee and it seems it is quite a vehicle:
“The newest generation of Jeep’s iconic luxury SUV can still rock-crawl with the best of them, but it looks a whole lot nicer doing it, both inside and out.” AutoWeek 7/5/10
The new advertising is impressive and seeks to re-invigorate some distinctly American values:
Let’s face it, as Americans we are feeling a little down. The worst recession in generations is a big part of the problem. Nagging unemployment, a recovery that is sputtering and concern over the looming deficit are not helping.
So I think Jeep’s strategy of appealing to values we all hold dear makes some sense. What American isn’t proud of our heritage as a “nation of builders, craftsmen, men and women for whom straight stitches and clean welds are a matter of pride.” We built the railroads, invented the airplane, built the Empire State Building, and created the original Jeep.
The idea that “the things that make us American are the things we make” strikes an emotional cord. A cord that makes us feel proud, and right now a little pride would help. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is something we can all be proud of because it was “imagined, drawn, carved, stamped, hewn and forged here in America.”
Powerful stuff, beautifully executed, leaves the viewer saying “yeah, bring it on.”
Only two things bother me about this commercial. (more…)
Now that SAAB has shed the shackles of General Motors they are getting on with the business of re-building the brand.
Two weeks ago they announced (NYT’s 6/22/10) that they have hired a new head designer who has said that: “We want to return to the Saab DNA.” Just last week they announced (Media Post 6/29/10) that they were ramping up marketing investment, going back on TV and in print with a new campaign.
After years of being part of GM where the SAAB brand was neither appreciated nor nourished it appears to be getting it’s footing back. The SAAB brand has always stood for independence and a willingness to break convention. SAAB has always had a devoted group of loyalists, some of whom played a vocal role in the brand’s most recent resurrection, PGM (Post General Motors). Historically, SAAB has had all the foundation stones of a great automotive brand; a point-of-view, good interesting product, a genuine enthusiast group willing to proselytize, a group of loyal owners and marketing that conveyed its essential character.
As part of the GM stable of brands, SAAB’s essential character became a barrier to increased sales volumes. “Different” didn’t mean special or unique, it became “quirky” or “weird.” As we all know, very few people buy “quirky” or “weird.” So SAAB product became less distinct, not necessarily bad, just less unique. SAAB’s marketing also became more expected, more traditional. Consumers were subjected to campaign after campaign that hung its hat on the idea that SAAB also makes jets…as if that was ever what the car company was about.
Yesterday’s Automotive News had a brief piece about Infiniti marketing that struck me as interesting. In it, they reported that “Infiniti has told its dealer advisory group that it is committing to a five-year run for the new ‘Way of Infiniti’ campaign–a long-term pledge intended to reassure retailers that the brand will have a consistent message.”
I immediately thought to myself “Good for them.”
Infiniti from the very beginning has had a difficult time establishing a brand identity and finding a way to execute it in communications. Introduced in 1989, Infiniti was Nissan’s response to the introductions of the other Japanese luxury marques, Acura and Lexus. The original Q45 was a sporty performance alternative to the Lexus. Unfortunately, Infiniti got off to a rough start when it introduced the car and brand with the infamous “rocks and trees” campaign created by its agency Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos.
The “rocks and trees” campaign sought to present Infiniti as the result of the unique Japanese culture and sensibility. The campaign attempted to make its Japanese origin an asset, similar to the way that the German brands have used their ‘German-ness.’ The Infiniti ads were very different than any automotive company had ever done (they didn’t even show the car initially). (more…)
For many years I have been concerned that many once great automotive brands have been allowed to fall into disrepair. Mercedes-Benz, a prime example, has been sliding ever since the early ’90s when it walked away from “Engineered like no other car in the world.” Superior engineering was deemed “unsupportable” in a market filled with able competitors like Lexus. Then unfortunately, Mercedes-Benz went through a period where its product quality was questionable. It seemed that the strategists were right, Mercedes-Benz could no longer hang it’s hat on its engineering creds.
That conclusion has always bothered me. I’ve always thought that Mercedes-Benz had a its own brand of engineering, it wasn’t always “better” than anyone else’s (although often it is), but I always felt it was “different” and therefore uniquely Mercedes-Benz. It always seemed crazy to walk away from one of the four or five true category drivers. But in an effort to “broaden” the appeal of Mercedes-Benz, they gave themselves credit for engineering and assumed that all their customers and prospects understood the core of the brand.
After years of neglect, it seems to me that the marketers at Mercedes-Benz are returning to the brand’s authentic roots and regaining their focus on engineering. Here are two commercials that have been on-air recently:
Last year, fresh out of bankruptcy, General Motors ran the first ad with Ed Whitacre. At the time, GM rationalised the Whitacre ad by saying:
“The spot will set up a wider TV campaign featuring commercials about each of GM’s four surviving brands: Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac.” Automotive News, 9/10/09
The implication being that the brand advertising would clarify the brands’ identities. Almost three heads of marketing later, we still have yet to see an ad or an idea that positions these brands clearly in the marketplace. Three of the four GM brands have not put a stake in the ground telling us what they stand for (GMC is the exception and that work was done years ago).
Last week it leaked out that Chevy was going to have the tag-line “Excellence for all.” That idea has been roundly criticized as a strategy looking for an execution. We used to describe an idea like this by saying its “strategy is showing.” The point of course is that it lacks passion, emotion, bravado, something magical that makes you feel something about the brand, rather it’s as if research wrote the line. Chevrolet is truly one of America’s most storied and iconic brands, surely it deserves better.
Predictably the industry was quick to blame Publicis (Chevrolet’s new agency), I think that’s misplaced.
Ironically, exhibit number 1 in defense of Publicis is the new Cadillac campaign from Bartle Bogle & Hegarty. Just announced yesterday, here are a couple of the commercials: (more…)
What a difference a year makes. It’s 2010 and the auto industry is beginning to recover.
After an incredibly tough 2009, consumers seem to be coming back. For the first time in recent memory, Americans’ perception of domestic automobiles seems to be on the mend (Business Week 4/23). Ford’s bet that Americans will buy smaller, fully featured automobiles looks like it may pay off. GM’s product plan created by soon-to-retire Bob Lutz is leading a resurgence for the General. Hyundai and Kia, supported my excellent product quality, have taken advantage of recessionary sensibilities and grown share of market. Audi , Subaru and Mini have come out of the recession on a tear.
On the other side of the ledger, Toyota continues to struggle with recalls and concerns about quality. This has led to unprecedented incentives by Toyota and the predictable response by competitors to match them. So a good number of consumers who had been sitting on sidelines during the recession have come back to dealerships looking to for a good deal. After 2009, it’s a relief to see traffic in the stores but at the same time if the incentives continue that will not be good for the industry long term. In 2009, some progress had been made at reducing the use of incentives, but the moment Toyota jumped in to defend its franchise, that opened the floodgates again.
So the good news is that customers are returning to the stores, but are they coming back for the right reasons?
I know we live in a world dominated by spin and soundbites but there is something cynical about GM making a big deal about repaying the “loans” and “early” no less. GM has the marketing & PR folks going 24/7, they’ve even made a commercial:
I think it’s great that they have repaid the loan and are showing progress, but this PR/advertising effort seems a little misplaced. Does GM think that we’ve forgotten that the taxpayers provided another $43B for which the government got stock and now owns 60% of the company?
It’ll be one thing when there’s a public offering, the government sells it’s stake and gets its investment back plus interest. That will be something to crow about. In the meantime making a big deal out of the fact that they paid us back roughly 15% of what we put in feels a bit like they’re trying to “sell” us something.
Rather than “sell” us that they’re succeeding, just get on with it, and when they’re no longer Government Motors, bring in the marketing guys.
In the meantime, marketing should be working on clearly positioning their remaining brands. That will help sales and create value for the shareholders.
When I first saw this Acura commercial it got me thinking about what constitutes “old news” versus something relevant and important:
This Acura commercial is about crumple zones and their ability to absorb energy in a crash while directing it around the passengers ensconced in a safety cage. It’s a nicely executed commercial that provides people with information that gives them confidence that Acuras are safe.
But it isn’t new and it certainly isn’t exclusive to Acura. Many of us would say that crumple zones are “old news.”
In 1952, Mercedes-Benz received a patent for a crumple zone in an automobile. Up until that point rigidity was regarded as the key to protecting passengers in an automobile accident. The 1959 Mercedes-Benz W111 series included crumple zones and was actively crash tested by the company.
I can still vividly remember the first time I actually saw a crash test. It was at the Mercedes Benz Safety Center in the Sindelfingen plant outside Stuttgart. I was amazed at the devastation created by a thirty mile an hour off-set crash. Right then and there I learned the value of a crumple zone.
Today, every automobile manufacturer uses crumple zones to make their cars safer.
Yet here is Acura, using their version of a crumple zone to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
If every car has crumple zones, then what’s differentiating about Acura’s? (more…)
Curvin O’Rielly has been kind enough to allow us to publish this article on McNaughton Automotive Perspectives. For those of you who don’t know Curvin, he is one of the most respected copywriters in the advertising business. Among his automotive accomplishments was the creation of the Saturn brand with his colleagues at Hal Riney and Partners. As you will see, Curvin’s perspective on automobile advertising is both timely and timeless.
Everything “Old” Is “New” Again
By Curvin O’Rielly
In 1982, when I was a young creative director at BBDO in New York, I was asked to write an article about the automobile business for Magazine Age.
The article was well received. I even won an American Business Press award for it. The question is, has it stood the test of time?
Well, some of the details I included in the article are as dated as the wide ties we used to wear (the ones you’re saving, hoping they come back into style again), or the disco music we used to listen to (admit it; you boogeyed to disco), or the haul-ass iron we used to drive, the cars with more horsepower than their suspension systems and brakes could reasonably handle (unless they were well-engineered vehicles from Europe).
What’s still true about my article, unfortunately, is that the automobile industry is once again in deep trouble. This time, it’s poised at the abyss, owing in part to the economic tremors that came close to causing a complete meltdown. At the abyss, too, because it was smart (or so it prided itself) but then not smart enough. I mean, surely those at the wheel had to have seen all the danger signs on the road they were heading down, just as they had to have known they were racing toward a disaster of epic proportions.
That said, here are the observations I made 28 years ago, with some minor rewrites here and there.
The big news in automotive marketing this week was that Joel Ewanick is leaving Hyundai and going to head up marketing at Nissan. Hyundai won 2009 marketer of the year under Ewanick’s leadership and the company implemented the breakthrough Hyundai Assurance Program.
The Hyundai Assurance Program was a stroke of brilliance at a time when the economy and the auto industry were in a tailspin. It basically gave consumers a no risk way to purchase a vehicle. If you bought a Hyundai and subsequently lost your job, you could return the car, no questions asked. Truly brilliant and it propelled Hyundai through the recession and out the other end. Hyundai’s 2009 sales grew 8% and its share of market was up 1.1 points. This performance earned it elite status as one of only three automobile brands (Kia & Subaru were the others) to increase volume in 2009, while the industry overall declined 21%*.
The Hyundai Assurance Program was an unqualified success in a tough marketing climate. But now what? (more…)
http://autoperspectives.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2011NewSaab9-5-150x83.jpg
