Fair enough, but let’s face it, the promise to the consumer is an interesting story about an entrepreneur and secondarily a bit of information about Cadillac.

The two available videos (at cnnmoney.com) illustrate the difficulty of finding the balance between providing the content that the consumer is promised versus the commercial message.

The first video is about a company called Wagic and I think does a pretty good job. The entrepreneurs, their business and products are interesting.  I felt as if I actually learned something about their business idea and how they succeeded.  There is only one moment where I felt the commercial interests intrude.  Toward the end, Hardwick asks shamelessly “how do you go from something like this (pointing to a Kiddalac riding toy) to something like this (pointing to a Cadillac CTS).”  That then leads one of the entrepreneurs to say, “they (Cadillac) started from scratch, that’s what we would do if we were going to make a revolutionary car.” I don’t mind the opening and closing visuals of the car that Hardwick is driving, but forcing the brand strategy into the conversation was a bit over the top and left me a little frustrated.

Unfortunately, the commercial nature is even more overt in the second episode… which is about a company called Crushpad.  Again an interesting company and business model that I enjoyed learning about.  The entrepreneur was not as comfortable on camera as the fellows from Wagic, but that’s OK.  Where things got bad was when they got in the Cadillac to ostensibly go on a tour of the Napa Valley. First we have to shamelessly consult the navigation system (so the viewer can see it) and then while driving Hardwick says, even more shamelessly, “because I don’t live in Napa, could I start a vineyard in this car?” to which our entrepreneur replies “it’s big enough, big sunroof as well.”

At that point I felt violated.  It wasn’t clever or funny. It was the product’s strategy showing in a place that I had been led to believe would be about “Daring stories from the road to success.”  Oh I get it, nudge, nudge, the road to success.

It demonstrates what a fine line it is between providing content that’s interesting and shameless efforts to insert the brand’s commercial message.  I certainly don’t mind Hardwick driving a Cadillac or using the technology available in it, if it makes sense. I wouldn’t even mind the video bookended by commercial messages.  But to thrust stupid dialogue in the middle of the video to make a product point, i.e.: ”could I start a vineyard in this car?…it’s big enough, big sunroof as well” destroys the integrity of video from a consumer’s point of view.

This is not a new issue, for years magazine publishers have talked about the importance of “church and state.”  What they mean is that the commercial interests of the magazine are separate from the editorial, otherwise there is the possibility that advertisers might influence the editorial content, compromise the integrity of the edit staff and the relationship with their readers who are ostensibly looking for objective reporting.  Even when special advertiser supported sections that look like edit are included in a magazine they are identified as “Advertising Supplements” to make sure readers are not confused and the implicit “promise” of objective edit is not broken.

I recognize that there are all sorts of grey areas in this discussion and that serving the commercial interests of an enterprise while not breaking the trust of the consumer is particularly hard as marketers are increasingly content providers.  As if that’s not difficult enough, social media is blurring the distinctions even further.

I think a good rule of thumb is to err on the side of separating the commercial message from the content.  If you are concerned that a piece of content is becoming too commercial, then it probably is, and you should back off.

Consumers understand that marketers need to sell products and accept it, but if you are a content provider “poseur” then you are implicitly breaking a promise to your audience and that’s the kiss of death.

and one with a grade:

According to the EPA’s website the “EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are updating this label to provide consumers with simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons across all vehicles types.”

Fair enough, after almost thirty years with very little updating, it’s probably time to make some improvements to the industry’s new car stickers.  I’m all for providing consumers more and better information to enable them to make the vehicle purchase decision that is best suited to their needs and desires.  I doubt that anyone in the industry would disagree.

Here’s the rub, the option with the letter grade is a not too thinly veiled attempt on the Government’s part to pass a value judgment on your decision to purchase a vehicle. Should you make the decision to purchase an EV like the Nissan Leaf you’ll get an A+.  Should you choose to buy an “average” car like a Toyota Camry (the most popular car in the United States) you’ll get a B-.  Should you have the temerity and the cash to buy a Mercedes-Benz Maybach 57 or a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorana you’re going to get a D+ from the Feds.

This is an attempt to coerce consumers to buy vehicles that the government deems more responsible (e.g. EVs). Buy a vehicle that the government considers responsible and you’ll get a better grade and not be subject to ridicule from your peers.  If you make the wrong choice, you’ll get a bad grade and people will be talking behind your back.

The auto industry has reacted:

“Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group, said the rating system “falls short because it is imbued with schoolyard memories of passing and failing.” (NYTs 8/30)

“Automakers questioned the proposed letter grades, saying it might affect sales.”  (Freep.com 8/31)

Ironically, that’s the point.  The government wants to “affect sales” and they’ve decided that telling us if we’re “passing or failing” is a good way to get us to make the right “choice.”

By all means provide more information and data for consumers to consider while making a vehicle decision.  Make it easy to understand, enable comparisons between vehicles based on MPG, emissions and potential fuel savings.  This is all good, well-intended information, that should be available to consumers for consideration. But the Feds should not be passing judgment on consumers’ choices.

Well-informed consumers will make good choices for themselves and their families.

Rather than spending time grading our vehicle choices, our politicians could spend our tax dollars more wisely by developing a coherent energy policy.  That would be a real step forward and address the real problems rather than the symptoms.

If you would like to weigh-in on the new window stickers, the EPA is asking for consumer input at:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/index.htm   Click on “Submit comments.”

In the meantime, I’m starting a new business, I’m going to manufacture and distribute large red letter grade decals, “C” and below, that the automotive Hester Prynnes among us can proudly display on our vehicles.

How many times have I sat in meetings with manufacturers and discussed the need to get consumers engaged with their brand in the digital space? Too many times to count and the concerns are always the same.  What if they say things we don’t like?  What if they say something untrue?  What will they expect of us?  How will we respond? Inevitably the lawyers weigh-in and the reasons “why not” stack up like cordwood.

So I think it noteworthy that Buick has found a way to get beyond the reasons “why not” and to give consumers an uncensored voice regarding the new Buick Regal at www.momentoftruth.com.  This is a terrific website with tons of information from a variety of sources, the company, general media, buff books, blogs and real consumers.  The use of Twitter and Facebook feeds, Youtube videos and Flickr is terrific and makes the site feel very credible.  The net effect is that you feel as if you’re getting a chance to see the entire body of opinion regarding the new Buick Regal in one stop.

GM is using technology that searches the web for mentions of the Buick Regal, aggregates it, edits out the profane and posts the rest. The result is really fun and full of interesting commentary.  It’s not quite a dialogue with consumers but it’s a step in the right direction.

I admit that I had to wade through a lot of positive comments to find the few negative ones, but they’re there.

Good for Buick, maybe the reality is that most of the response to their new vehicle is positive!

Chrysler’s new ad for the Jeep Grand Cherokee first appeared about a month ago and seeks to stir Americans’ pride in our heritage as builders and innovators:

Chevrolet’s new ad for Corvette appeared last week on the All-Star game and draws a parallel between our country’s space program and the 2011 Corvette:

Some critics have gone as far as saying that Chevrolet should not have aired the Corvette commercial because it was too similar to the Jeep spot.  There are certainly similarities between the executions.

Both commercials try to connect contemporary products to historically relevant American values.  Jeep draws a connection between our heritage as a “nation of builders, craftsmen, men and women for whom straight stitches and clean welds are a matter of pride” and the Jeep Grand Cherokee.  Corvette draws a parallel between the scientists, engineers and visionaries of the NASA space program and those who built the 2011 Corvette.

Beyond the connection to American values, there are a number of executional similarities; for example, the use of historical footage and a narrative voice-over using a similar tone and manner.

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jeep and Corvette should happen to have developed similar commercials, after all, they are uniquely American brands.  Both iconic in their own right and products of distinctly American ingenuity.  It makes sense that these brands would try to leverage their “American-ness.” Corvette and Jeep also have well-established positionings and stand for something in Americans’ minds.  Corvette is America’s high performance sports car and Jeep is the vehicle you can go anywhere and do anything in.

What I find most interesting, isn’t that these two great American automotive brands came up with similar commercials, but that one company chose to support its long-standing brand idea, while the other walked away.

The Corvette commercial clearly articulates Corvette’s positioning: unbridled, peddle-to-the-metal, all American sports car performance. “It’s nice to know that America still builds rockets” strikes a patriotic cord, but it is in perfect lock step with Corvette’s brand essence.

On the other hand, nowhere in the Jeep commercial do we see the idea that Jeep can go anywhere or do anything.  No notion that Jeep opens up possibilities that other vehicles don’t and represents that uniquely American sense of freedom.  Jeep is now emblematic of American craftsmanship, engineering and manufacturing: “the things that make us American are the things we make.”

So while we can debate whether or not the Corvette commercial is too similar to the Jeep commercial and whether or not they should have aired it, I think a much more interesting discussion is the wisdom of sticking with or walking away from an established long-term positioning.

Time will tell, but my guess is that Chevrolet will be glad that it aired the new Corvette commercial and Jeep less so.

Thankfully, as the day wore on, Chevrolet made an effort to explain that it had been mis-understood (see the press release) and that the memo leaked to the New York Times had been “poorly worded.” Unfortunately for the folks at GM, this whole incident has just added fuel to the fire for those folks who want to find fault with every thing the company tries to do.  If you take the GM folks at their word, what they were trying to do really isn’t crazy.

At the heart of this dust-up is a real issue.  How to most effectively manage a global automotive brand.

Here’s a video of Alan Batey explaining that indeed “Chevy” is just fine but that “Chevrolet” is the global brand:

Put aside Mr. Batey’s understandable defensiveness and his desire to assure us that “Chevy” is OK.  The issue is that Chevrolet is now sold in more 130 countries around the world, that it sells twice as many vehicles outside the US as it does within and that the brand is relatively underdeveloped in newer areas of distribution.  The folks at GM think it would be a good idea if they referenced their brand consistently around the world and they have decided that it is “Chevrolet.”  They’re right, their brand’s name should be consistent globally.  ”Chevrolet” it is.

I think the folks at Chevrolet are struggling with how to best execute a global brand.  On one hand they want to be known as one thing throughout the world, on the other they have a “local” market where “Chevy” is a powerful cultural connection to their brand.

The mistake that so many automotive manufacturers make is to conclude that their brand must be the “same” everywhere and this often turns into a global advertising campaign.  Mercedes-Benz just announced that it is starting a “global campaign” (“Mercedes-Benz Plans new ad push.”  WSJ 6/10/10).  BMW launched it’s global “Joy” campaign earlier this year.  Invariably this top down approach to marketing is only marginally successful because it ignores local market sensibilities and assets (see earlier blog post).  For example, BMW’s “Joy” is not an adequate substitute for “The Ultimate Driving Machine” in the US.

With this in mind, here are four guiding principles for managing a global automotive brand:

1. The strategic underpinnings and core values of an automotive brand must be consistent throughout its areas of distribution. The essence of a brand should not change from market to market.
2. It is far less important that the execution of the brand positioning be literally the same in every market. In fact, tailoring executions to culture and brand experience in the local market (assuming it is on brand strategy) opens the possibility of more powerful communications.
3. A good corporate ID program should be in place and guide execution. Use of particular typefaces and basic design standards are critical communicators of an automobile manufacturer’s design sensibilities and adherence to them globally will ensure an appropriate level of consistency without impinging on local messaging.
4. The sharing of production assets (e.g. photography & film) wherever possible makes perfect sense. This will save a few production dollars and ensure a level of executional consistency that is appropriate.

Let’s look at Chevrolet point by point.

Ever since the bankruptcy, GM has been promising that they will focus on positioning their four remaining brands.  This job has yet to be done for Chevrolet. Representing 70% of the New GM’s revenue, this body of work needs to be done right and I’m sure the new VP of Marketing is focussed on the task.  Until the Chevrolet strategic underpinnings are agreed, there is no brand, global or otherwise.

I am hopeful that the acknowledgment that we love “Chevy” is recognition that local market sensibilities are important and that “Chevy” is an asset to be leveraged, at least in the US.  This iconic American brand holds a special place in the hearts of many Americans and a lowest common denominator global campaign would do it such a dis-service.

The dust-up over “Chevrolet” vs. “Chevy” rightly belongs in point number three.  From a corporate identity point of view, “Chevrolet” is the brand and it will be used consistently through out the world.

The fourth point should be relatively simple to execute.

So, while the “Chevrolet” vs “Chevy” discussion has been entertaining over the last day or so, it really isn’t all that important.  What’s important is that they get the brand’s strategic positioning locked-in and recognize the importance of leveraging local assets in the markets where they exist.  At that point Chevrolet will be well on the way to becoming a powerful global brand.

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?

Not much.

What is different is the context in which Acura judged the importance of the technology and its use in communications.

Rather than simply saying to themselves that everybody has crumple zones and therefore crumple zones are old news, Acura recognized that:

1. Crumple zones were no longer a staple of automotive communications. There was a period of time when you could read an ad from virtually any luxury segment manufacturer and inevitably read about the safety benefits of crumple zones.
2. One of the by-products of the recession is that consumers are interested in having factual information that helps them make informed judgements about the products that they buy.
3. There’s a new generation of car buyers who didn’t grow up during the years when car advertising was full of information designed to help you understand the benefits of automotive engineering.

Acura seems to have said to itself: nobody is talking about crumple zones, people want facts and information to rationalize their decision and there’s a whole bunch of new prospects that don’t know much about automotive engineering…good time to use crumple zones to build our safety engineering creds!

Sometimes I think we fall into the trap of thinking that many of our product based benefits are old news because everyone offers the same thing and we think that “everyone” knows it.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, exclusivity is not essential to strong communications and just because it has been done before doesn’t mean there isn’t relevant and powerful way to do it today.

Please comment, I’d be interested in your thoughts.

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.

•••

“Panic-Induced Mediocrity”

When I took on the task of writing this article, it seemed easy enough. After all, I’ve written hundreds of ads. Many of them long, fact-filled, carefully reasoned pieces of copy about cars. Labors of love, really. And who could doubt my personal involvement in the product? I’ve owned 18 cars in my life, including one just for racing.

The more I mulled over the possibilities, however, the more it seemed as if I’d only be giving the same critique of automobile advertising that everybody else does.

But then, on January 26, 1982, the day this article was written, I looked at my two morning newspapers. On page 4 of The New York Times business section was a news report headlined, ‘Auto Sales by Big 3 Down 14%.’ And next to a similar report on page 6 in The Wall Street Journal was a story headlined ‘Board of DeLorean to Discuss Finances; Auto Maker Denies Its Survival Is at Stake.’

One word jumped out at me: ’survival.’ Not so much for its use in the DeLorean Motor Cars situation or how it may relate to the rest of the auto business, but how it impacts automobile advertising.

Given the fact that the auto business is in the midst of its worst continuous sales slump in years, the threat of it not surviving is imaginable to some, though its demise is unlikely to ever occur. Nonetheless, the mere threat alone has caused some people to panic. Not hysterically so, but certainly with a degree of nervousness. And inarguably that nervousness has resulted in a certain amount of mediocrity in auto advertising.

To be completely fair, mediocre advertising is probably the least crucial factor of all the parts that make up the current auto sales problem, but mediocre advertising is also the only factor that is quickly and easily controlled.

What’s wrong, specifically?

• Marshmallow’ strategies that may have been appropriate when the market was booming but seem highly inappropriate now that the universe of car buyers is shrinking. More strategies need to be written with a ‘take no prisoners’ goal.
• Executions that look as if it’s business as usual; that don’t address the consumer’s current concerns.
• The visible hand of too many authors. Copy, in other words, that reads as though a committee of hacks wrote it. (And completely mangled it in the process.)
• A lack of adherence to the basics of advertising.

Let’s dwell on that last point. Advertising, the basics say, is no more than salesmanship in print. The job of art and copy is to tell consumers what a product is and why they need it or should want it above all other choices.

Facts should matter, but emotions should matter more, inasmuch as Mark Twain’s advice about facts and emotions was perfect: ‘Emotions are among the toughest things to manufacture out of whole cloth; it is easier to manufacture seven facts than one emotion.’

At the moment in automobile print advertising, however, the emotional part – creativity – has increasingly become the skill of ornamentation and copywriting the craft of obfuscation. The auto industry has a story to tell but the message isn’t coming through.

Go to any magazine and study the car ads. A good percentage of them are written as through a random recitation of available features constitutes a powerful sales argument. How many times, for example, have you read ‘rack-and-pinion steering’ in a car ad? Or seen the phrase ‘MacPherson struts’? Hundreds, probably. But can you explain the advantage of either of those engineering features? You can’t, can you? Neither can the millions of potential car buyers reading car ads.

And those aren’t the only empty phrases in auto copy. Here’s an assortment of other phrases lacking in horsepower, all chosen without bias from the current crop of auto ads: ‘automotive breakthrough of the decade’; ‘first-class opulence’; ‘quick-handling… road-hugging… responsive’; ‘nimble… easy to maneuver…  with a smooth, refined ride’; ‘escape to where you long to be’; ‘tomorrow’s technology…’; and so on.

Copy like this – copy written with blah blah, meaningless phrases – leads to erroneous conclusions by the reader, if they lead to a conclusion at all.

Graphic gymnastics has taken the place of substantive thought in art direction. Is ‘punk/nouveau’ anymore than a graphic gimmick? Of course it isn’t. So why such dependence on it? Why so many ads with silver as a fifth color? Why so many charts and illustrations against graph-paper backgrounds? Why are so many of the photos of car in ads presented in the same cliché-ridden poses? Is there really only one way to photograph a car? Only one angle to use? If an element of design isn’t contributing to the message, eliminate it.

These are tough times in the car business and, therefore, tough times in the automobile advertising business as well. There’s only one way to proceed: sanely.

In other words, don’t panic in the face of the enormity of the task.

Recognize that selling the heritage and value of, say, Chevrolet is infinitely more rewarding long-term than selling a model name like Bel Air, Impala, Biscayne – all names, by the way, that have disappeared. [Update: Chevy brought the Impala back.]

Recognize that there is a long-term. Invest in ideas. Good ideas survive bad executions, but the worst idea cannot be saved by the most brilliant execution.

Finally, recognize that ‘the way it’s always been done’ may have sold cars only because almost anything sold cars when everybody was employed, when interest rates were manageable, when ’sticker shock’ didn’t exist, when it didn’t cost so much to just live, and when the future didn’t seem so cloudy.

Further panic will only yield further mediocrity. And then the cycle will only escalate. Unless… well, unless something wonderful happens. Unless the people responsible for doing auto ads and the people responsible for approving auto ads begin to stand up, one by one, and say ‘enough.’

I, for one, am waiting for it to happen. It has to happen. Given my admittedly narrow perspective of the American economy, they have to do it or we’ll all be up the creek.”

•••

So that’s what I wrote 28 year ago. It was an innocent world then. Print, radio, television; those were our tools, along with our ability to find a valuable piece of territory for a brand to settle and eventually own.

Everybody in adverting has a favorite story about Bill Bernbach, the legendary founder of the creative revolution. Mine is the one, possibly an apocryphal tale, about the day Nathan Orbach, founder of the eponymous department store, told Bernbach that he had a great idea.

“I got a great gimmick,” Orbach supposedly said. “Let’s tell the truth.”

Maybe we need that now. Truth instead of hype.

Curvin O’Rielly is a branding consultant who lives in Saratoga Springs, NY. His automobile advertising credits include working as a copywriter on the BMW and Saab accounts, as well as serving as creative director on the Saturn business during its successful launch. He can be reached at curvin.orielly@corllc.com.

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?

Hyundai has a big challenge in front of it.  How do you take what was basically a tactic and turn it into a long-term brand equity.  The Hyundai Assurance Program gave consumers exactly what they needed when they felt threatened and vulnerable. As the the economy recovers and confidence returns, the Hyundai Assurance Program will lose some of its allure.  If you’re not worried about being fired, then you really don’t need the program.  Recognizing this, Hyundai extended the Assurance Program basically saying that we’re not out of the woods yet:

Pretty good job of recognizing that this “tactic” needs to be adjusted, but it’s still a just a tactic, a promotion.

Hyundai has done a great job designing, engineering and building quality products.  They also have priced them very competitively in the market place. Hyundai has been building a nice business based on terrific quality products at fair prices. Quality products and pricing are the foundation stones of a powerful automotive brand, but the folks at Hyundai are not quite there yet.  I think that what they do with the goodwill generated by the Hyundai Assurance Program will determine if they build Hyundai into a brand that occupies a special place in consumers’ minds.

This latest commercial hints at where the brand could go.  Imagine if Hyundai could be the automobile brand that “always has your back.” Great products at fair prices and a company that’s looking out for you. There’s a powerful brand promise.

The hard part will be keeping that promise and making delivery against it part of the fabric of the company and its dealers rather than just a promotional offer.  If they can do it, Hyundai will become an extraordinary automotive brand that has gone beyond product quality and price to forge an emotional connection with their customers.  This emotional connection will differentiate Hyundai and give it remarkable leverage versus Toyota and Nissan.  Getting the Assurance Program done was a critical first step, but what Hyundai does next will be telling.

* Sales figures sourced from Automotive News’ Data Center

If you haven’t had a chance to see the documentary “Art & Copy,” you must.  Last night I saw it for the second time and enjoyed every minute.  If you have worked in the advertising business or are responsible for advertising on the client side it is well worth seeing.

It’s a chance to see some of the most talented people in the agency business talk about what makes great communications.  Hal Riney, Mary Lawrence, Jim Durfee, Lee Clow, George Lois, Jeff Goodby, Rich Silverstein, Dan Wieden and others talk about what they think represents great work and what inspires it.  They talk about great ideas: Braniff’s End of the plain plane, Apple’s 1984 and Think Different, Got Milk, Reagan’s re-election campaign, Nike’s Just Do It and VW’s Think Small among others.

At the end, these people and the work leave you inspired.  You’re reminded that at its best, advertising can change opinion, entertain, move people emotionally and to action.  Great work respects people and treats them decently.  Great work can build brands, companies and value.  Great work is really hard to create, get approved and execute, but when it all comes together, it can move mountains.

Here’s why we should be embarrassed.  The automotive industry was hardly represented.  Bernbach’s original work for Volkswagen was deservedly featured.  Other than that, a few Volvo print ads, a Rebel spot from the 60′s and Honda’s “Hate Something/Change Something” from the UK gets referenced.

As an industry we have interesting, exciting, cool, emotional and sometimes wonderful products. The industry has been the largest advertising spender for decades.  Virtually every American needs at least one vehicle.  Buying a car or truck is the second largest expenditure the average American will make in his or her lifetime so they pay attention. Automobiles and trucks inspire songs, traveling by car has inspired books and movies.  The auto industry has shaped America, literally.

So, with all this said, when advertising industry luminaries are asked to talk about great work that has made a difference, the only automotive work mentioned is an almost 50 year old campaign for a little German car and a couple of print ads that are 40 years old.  As an industry, we should be embarrassed.  Where are the great automotive campaigns that changed not only the fortunes of brands and companies but also inspired people?  There have been some, but they’re old.

With a few exceptions, the automotive industry’s work in the last twenty years has been dismal.  A few ads and maybe one campaign have been great. Honda’s Cog and Hate Something/Change Something commercials from Wieden & Kennedy London come to mind. VW’s Drivers Wanted campaign (Arnold) will probably stand the test of time.

At a time when the US auto industry is recovering from a cataclysmic shift.  After a year when sales dropped more than 30%, we are now entering a “new normal.”  Sales will be 12-14MM units per year for the foreseeable future and competition will be extraordinary.  At a time when manufacturers need differentiated brands more than ever, most are weak.

Now is the time for the manufacturers and their agencies to do the kind of work that builds and differentiates brands, engages people emotionally and builds value not only for the companies but also for their customers.

Let’s do it now, so that people are inspired to buy our products.  We’ll all benefit, the manufacturers, the agencies, the economy and the customers.

That way when “Art & Copy II” is in theatres near us, the auto industry will not only be featured, but also held up as an example of greatness.

Please let me know what you think….

Virtually every automotive brand is global.  Not every brand is marketed in every country but I can’t think of any that are sold only in their country of origin.  That means that every manufacturer must be concerned with what their respective brands stand for in each country in which they are distributed.  Obviously, it is in the manufacturers’ interest to have their brands positioned in the same way from country to country.  Customers and prospects should recognize the brands no matter where in the world they come into contact with them.

Of course the real world is not quite this neat and tidy.  Brands have developed in different ways in different countries, so for some manufacturers it’s a challenge just to get their colleagues around the world on the same page regarding the brand’s core values.  In my experience we do pretty well when we concern ourselves with the strategic underpinnings of the brand, where things fall apart is when execution of the strategy is considered.

There seem to be two basic approaches to execution, each with its own set of plusses and minuses:

1.  Agree to the strategic underpinnings of the brand and let the countries/regions execute, as they feel appropriate.

• allows for local expression recognizing cultural and societal differences which creates the possibility of much more powerful/effective communications at a local level
• gives local management authority over one of their most potent marketing tools
• more difficult to police or manage centrally and opens the possibility of strategic variation market to market
• more expensive as each country will execute for their own market

2.  Implement a global campaign that is developed and approved by headquarters. Allow for language/cultural variances where absolutely necessary but otherwise use the campaign as approved everywhere.

• virtually guarantees strategic and executional consistency
• easier to manage centrally
• less expensive, lower production costs, lower agency fees (?)
• assumes that the global campaign is culturally relevant in all markets
• often requires lowest common denominator execution

In recent years it seems that cost cutting and the desire for control of the brand message have driven many manufacturers to adopt the global campaign approach (most recently, Infiniti has just launched a global campaign and BMW’s “Joy” is a global effort).  While it is certainly cost efficient and enables central control, is it really the most effective way to go to market?

I guess the right answer is “it depends.”  In Infiniti’s case, its business is best established in the US market and it is being “launched” in relatively new markets in Europe and around the world.  Infiniti is a brand desperately in need of definition and focus in the US, let alone the newer markets, so I can see the wisdom in finding a brand positioning that applies not only to the US but all the other markets as well and attempting to execute it consistently.  There’s still the risk of the lowest common denominator communications but perhaps given Infiniti’s position that’s an acceptable downside.

BMW on the other hand is a well-developed brand and while I’m sure that some markets are better developed than others, it seems that there is strategic consistency throughout the world.  The executions may differ from country to country but the essence of the brand is the same.  I’m also sure that from time to time a market “goes rogue” and develops communications that are off the plot as far as Munich is concerned.  In an effort to avoid this problem, I can understand the appeal of a centrally conceived and executed global campaign.  But centralized development and control makes no sense when it requires that a strategically correct, well-established and powerful expression of the brand’s core values be forsaken in favor of a global expression that lacks its leverage and power.

With the new global “Joy” campaign, BMW relegated “The Ultimate Driving Machine” to a throwaway in the last seconds of the commercial.  The good news, they have a global campaign that is consistent around the world, the bad news they walked away from one of the most strategic and well-known positioning lines in the automotive industry.  While I appreciate that “The Ultimate Driving Machine” was a US-only expression, it is an idea that has clearly positioned the BMW brand for thirty-five years and helped to drive sales to levels that were unimaginable when that line was conceived. “Joy” may be a step forward for the rest of the world, but it is a step back for the BMW brand in the United States.

Every situation is different but I think several principles should guide our approach to global branding:

1. The strategic underpinnings and core values of an automotive brand must be consistent throughout its areas of distribution. The essence of a brand should not change from market to market.
2. It is far less important that the execution of the brand positioning be literally the same in every market. In fact, tailoring executions to culture and brand experience in the local market (assuming it is on brand strategy) opens the possibility of more powerful communications.
3. A good corporate ID program should be in place and guide execution. Use of particular typefaces and basic design standards are critical communicators of an automobile manufacturer’s design sensibilities and adherence to them globally will ensure an appropriate level of consistency without impinging on local messaging.
4. The sharing of production assets (e.g. photography & film) wherever possible makes perfect sense. This will save a few production dollars and ensure a level of executional consistency that is appropriate.

Adhering to these principles will not yield the lowest cost solution nor will it result in a single global campaign that looks the same in every market.  What will result is a brand that is strategically consistent from market to market while allowing for local market executions that are powerful because they reflect the sensibilities of that specific market.

Rigid adherence to the objective of having a global campaign results in dumbed down ideas that appeal broadly and sometimes results in the demotion of a powerful brand equity idea like the “The Ultimate Driving Machine.”  Fortunately BMW, left the door open to bring back “TUDM”, I expect they will.

The longest running and probably best known automotive industry positioning line has been thrown in the bin in favor of “Joy.”  I’m conflicted. On one hand, I’m shocked and I really believe that BMW has made a horrific mistake, but on the other hand, there are aspects of this new campaign that I like.

“The new “Joy” campaign ‘is a big departure for us,’ said Jack Pitney, vice president of marketing for BMW North America. ‘We hope to really add some humanity to our brand’ and show the diversity of its buyers,” — Wall Street Journal 2/15/10

In fact, what I like about the commercial is the humanity.  It’s fun to watch people enjoying life in and around their BMWs.  To see enthusiast communities enjoying their passions together.  To see all kinds of people, some even like me, joined together by a common bond created by a car.  It is truly what makes great automotive brands great, that sense of being part of something bigger than you are.

What I hate about this new campaign is that they walked away from “The Ultimate Driving Machine.”  Admittedly, BMW didn’t quite say they were walking away and they left the door open to bring it back.  What I can’t understand is why walk away from “The Ultimate Driving Machine” at all.  If they wanted to add humanity, add it, but keep the long standing tag-line, there is enormous equity in it and nothing that I see in any of the recent “Joy” advertising conflicts with it.  The Ultimate Driving Machine is a core equity of the BMW brand.

The other aspect that I find wrong-minded is this idea that “at BMW we don’t just make cars, we make joy.”  I’m willing to give BMW credit for making “The Ultimate Driving Machine,” after all it is a car company with a storied performance pedigree, but you overstep when you say you “make joy” (can’t you hear the strategy wonks saying that “joy” is higher in the benefit hierarchy?).  You don’t, you make fine automobiles, the joy comes from the people who bring your products into their lives. Are we to assume that our lives will be without joy or somehow less joyous if we don’t drive a BMW?

Saying you “make joy” seems a little like saying you’re funny, you either are or you aren’t and everyone around you knows which it is. BMW doesn’t make Joy, it makes The Ultimate Driving Machine and that should have been more than enough.

In its quest to be “more,” BMW will inevitably become less.  Too bad, I thought they were the one automotive company that truly understood its brand.

Generally speaking I thought the advertising game within the game was just OK, not great.  Within the automotive segment, six manufacturers stepped up for the Super Bowl:

As I said in an earlier post, the tough part about advertising in the Super Bowl is that while the football game is the primary draw, the advertising contest comes in a close second.  As an advertiser you have to be willing to do work that will stand out and entertain because the very next day the “results” of the ad contest will be published in USAToday.

I always watch the Super Bowl hoping that one or more of the automobile manufacturers will break out of the category mold and amaze us.  Here’s my take on the automotive commercials, from best to worst:  

I think Audi was the automotive standout this year.  A lot of industry veterans would have lined up to say that advertising a diesel on the Super Bowl was a waste of money because Americans don’t like diesel. As they have done for the last year, Audi takes on America’s perception of diesel.  Audi recognized that Americans are interested in being environmentally responsible but at the same time find the “green movement” a bit over the top.  The “Green Police” was a nice idea with enough oomph to do well in the ad contest.

Volkswagen’s “Punch Dub” commercial was the second best automotive entry. While it was a little bit more of a traditional car commercial, I thought it was fun to watch and did a nice job of illustrating the breadth of the VW product line with the warmth and humanness that we’ve come to expect from VW.  The Stevie Wonder ending was a master stroke.

I know that Hyundai’s ads introducing the new Sonata will be criticized by the advertising industry as “expected.”  Despite being more traditional category commercials, I think that they did a good job of making specific points that communicated an overall sense of quality engineering.  Better quality paint than Mercedes-Benz and the idea that the car is “handmade”   spoke to quality while the film itself made the product look terrific.  These ads won’t win any advertising awards, nor did they do well in the ad contest, but they got their message across and the product looked great.

The Dodge Charger commercial was certainly a departure from the category norm, particularly for Detroit. Some have said that they thought advertising the Dodge Charger (high performance/in-efficient) seemed out-of-step with current societal sensibilities. Perhaps, but I was left wondering if the notion of the “hen-pecked” male was even more out-of-step.  I hope that there is a segment of the male population who will identify with this commercial and go buy a Dodge Charger to affirm their manhood.

I sincerely hope that Kia’s execution appeals to young families as intended. While entertaining, I found the commercial silly and didn’t learn anything.

Honda’s ad for the Crosstour seemed forced, although I got the point that it offered a a level of utility in a sporty package.

Overall, my take is that VW, Audi and Hyundai made good use of their Superbowl investment, the others did not.

There has already been plenty written about the impact of this on Toyota’s brand reputation.  It certainly is going to set them back, some pundits say it’s a “speed bump” for Toyota, others say the situation will effectively “kill” the Toyota brand.  I suspect that the “truth” will be somewhere in the middle, the Toyota brand has been damaged, it will take a good deal of time and effort to recover, but it will recover.

Rather than debating the current health of the Toyota brand, I’ve been thinking about the discipline of branding in the automotive category and what its practitioners can learn from Toyota’s experience. Certainly the need to manage the media and to do so in a transparent way is critical.  Time is of the essence, the internet can take your reputation and spin it out of control in a heartbeat.  Beyond the crisis management learnings, I think that we are seeing the danger of having a brand that is based solely on rational underpinnings.

Toyota’s reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability is a completely rational positioning.  Combine that with bland design and you have automobiles that many in the industry deride as “appliances.”  Consider your refrigerator.  It sits there, does its job remarkably well, demands no attention at all…unless it breaks and then it’s a disaster.  Sounds like a Toyota.  As long as nothing goes wrong with your refrigerator, you will probably remain likely to purchase the same brand again, if you have problems you will defect to another brand.  Ultimately, this is how Toyota will measure the strength of its brand…how many customers defect.

Unfortunately for Toyota, it is very easy for customers to defect from a brand that makes a very rational promise that is subsequently broken.  Bullet proof quality and reliability is a wonderful promise until you break it and you have nothing else to act as a backstop while you solve the product problem.

The backstop for some brands is an emotional connection and promise that is made along with a rational promise.  Volvo’s safety positioning is a classic example of both rational and emotional components working together.  Volvo certainly has all the engineering and technologies (rational) that support the promise of a safe car but it also promises us the peace of mind (emotional) of knowing that we’re keeping our loved ones safe:

Volvo is certainly not immune to product quality problems but their customers don’t immediately defect at the first sign of trouble.  Volvo customers will give their brand a break because they believe in their hearts that their Volvo keeps their family safe. Talk to anyone who has owned more than one Volvo and you will feel their commitment to the brand first hand.

Subaru is another example of an automotive brand that is built on both emotional and rational promises.  Nothing could be more rational than the benefits of all wheel drive but that’s not all that is at the core of Subaru.  Subaru promises to help people live their lives the way they want to and in return they “love” their Subies:

How about this for carrying the emotional promise of the Subaru brand to the retail level:

Subaru has certainly gone though a few rough patches from a product point of view but their loyalists have signed on for something bigger than dependable all wheel drive, they share an emotional bond with the Subaru brand and its community.

There are other automotive brands that have connected emotionally with customers. Mini, and Audi are good contemporary examples.

I think it’s interesting that three of the brands with strong emotional connections mentioned so far (Subaru, Mini, Audi) came through this last recession with strong sales and share gains.

Historically Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Chevy, SAAB, Saturn, Honda, Cadillac and others have had strong emotional components to their positionings.  Unfortunately, for these brands it seems less true today.

Toyota has never been a brand that people connected to in an emotional way. Toyota customers aren’t passionate about the brand, they have always been rational about purchasing Toyota quality and reliability.  When quality is lacking and reliability questionable, there is nothing left, there is no overriding reason to stay with Toyota.  In a category where quality and reliability have become virtually a given, consumers were well aware that they had options and they quickly helped VW, Ford and GM have an excellent January.

Toyota has proven something that many of us responsible for marketing automobile brands have always known…the most powerful and durable automotive brands are those that are clearly positioned with both rational and emotional underpinnings.  The brands that stand for something and connect with their owners emotionally create enthusiasts and tribes of loyalists around them.  These brands’ customers give them a break when things don’t go quite as planned.

Admittedly, no amount of emotional connection is going to overcome Toyota’s serious product issues, but I do think that it buys you time and gives you a chance to make “good” on your brand promise.  It also creates the possibility of your loyalists defending your brand, there seem to be precious few actually defending Toyota.

In the “new normal” US auto industry with sales in the 11MM-13MM range, the successful brands will be those that create an emotional connection with their customers.  The lack of this emotional connection has left mighty Toyota vulnerable and opened the door to its competitors, including Volkswagen which has unabashedly stated its goal of being #1.

It will be interesting to watch Volkswagen.  In Ad Age on August 24th, as their agency review was getting started, Tim Ellis (VW CMO) said:

“Our goal of rapidly increasing our volume in a mature market requires the Volkswagen brand to evolve into a more relevant mainstream choice,”

I hope that becoming a “more relevant mainstream choice” doesn’t result in VW making more mainstream (sic boring) products and losing the emotional power that the brand has historically leveraged.

After all, no one loves their refrigerator.

He posits that one of the issues with “branding” as a marketing discipline is that we lack an agreed-to definition, which subjects it to interpretation based on circumstances or agendas.  He closes by saying that agencies and marketing services firms need to more tightly define branding:

“If we don’t address this, we could be perceived as an industry made up of people who don’t know how to define what it is they’re not supposed to do.  As Grouch Marx would have told us, ‘These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.”

Leaving aside the issue of agency credibility, the automotive industry needs to dedicate itself to building or re-building its brands. Manufacturers who do will succeed in the hyper-competitive “new normal” automotive marketplace, while those who don’t will languish.

The automobile business has traditionally had a shaky relationship with the idea of “branding.”  Programs designed to define or position the “brand” are often perceived as the “soft” part of automotive marketing.  This perception is in contrast to the marketing specifically designed to drive traffic to the stores or in industry parlance “make the doors swing.”  Often manufacturers feel that they have to choose between “branding” and “retail” and more than often than not they choose retail.

I think that part of the problem with the discussion of “branding” in the automobile business is that it most often devolves into a discussion of advertising, as in “this is a brand ad, that is a retail ad.” Brand ads are the ones that attempt to speak to a company’s “values” whereas retail ads feature “product, place and price.”  This either/or conversation is specious and has led the industry to it’s current situation, products that are perceived more like commodities and customers who focus on pricing.

Let’s be clear, in the “new normal” automotive market the traditional brand vs. retail discussion is a path to commodity status, decreased sales, decreased profitability and the loss of already weak brand equities.  The truth is, every successful automotive competitor will do both jobs, build brand leverage and make the doors swing.

The marketing conversation needs to start in a different place and I agree that it needs to start with a definition of what we mean by “brand.” While I’m sure there are more complicated answers to the brand definition question, I would like to suggest that the automobile industry would be well served by a simple approach.  A great automotive brand is a promise made and kept.

Nothing new here, right?  The idea that a brand is a promise made and kept is as old as the hills.  Defining what we mean by brand is pretty straightforward, the hard part is figuring out what a particular brand’s promise(s) is/could be and then making sure that it is “kept” at every consumer touch point consitently over many years.

Certainly the execution of a brand promise is more complex than ever, there are literally thousands of consumer touch points (ranging from the internet all the way through to the dealer salesperson). That’s why it is so critical to make a commitment to a promise(s) and not waver from it.  Our industry has several notable brands that lost sight of their promise and have been forever weakened (Volvo is a great example, even mighty Mercedes-Benz is not as well defined as it once was).

Toyota is currently battling a product quality issue that has resulted in recalls and the extraordinary step of stopping production and sales of eight models.   This is an assault on Toyota’s promise of quality and reliability.  How Toyota handles these recalls will define their brand going forward, will they handle their customers in a high quality, trustworthy (reliable) fashion?  If they do, they will build their brand, if they don’t they will break their promise to their customers and the brand will be weakened.

The brand promise should drive everyones’ behavior, from the dealer’s Service Tech all the way to the CEO (including agencies and other vendors).  Everyone is responsible for representing the promise and keeping it.  Of course, marketing must be charged with making the promise clear and demonstrating that it is kept.  All of this is easy to say and very difficult to implement given the overwhelmingly complex marketing environment we all operate in.

But it is impossible to implement if the brand’s promise changes or is subject to revision based on short term needs.  The automotive industry is guilty of thinking that its brand promises are adjustable. This is like saying to your angry significant other whom you told that you would be home at 7pm and you’re 45 minutes late: “I didn’t really mean 7pm, I meant around 7pm so I’m really not late.”

Promises consistently made and kept build trust, promises broken destroy cedibility.  Automobile manufacturers need to get clear about the promises their brands are making and then create alignment with all constituents responsible for keeping the promise.

The companies that dedicate themselves to making a brand promise and keeping it will be the long-term winners in the “new normal” automotive marketplace.  Those that don’t will be destined to commodity status with pricing as the only differentiator.

Lexus is concerned that their customers are too old and they are not appealing to the next generation of luxury car buyers.  A reasonable concern.

Lexus appears to be addressing this concern in the usual way that automobile manufacturers do.

First,  you add product to your line-up that is designed to meet the requirements or interests of the new target group (after all, they’re very different from the current customers),  then you lower the cost of entry into your franchise (they don’t have as much money as the current customers) and finally use marketing to convince the younger target that your brand is cool (at least cooler than they think it is).

Unfortunately, this approach always has the same result, you may succeed in selling a few more cars to the new target group but you leave your current customers confused and your brand weakened.

The Automotive News article even quotes Jessica Caldwell from Edmunds.com who says: “Lexus was really strong, but they have lost their footing….BMW is the ‘Ultimate Driving Machine.’  We’re not really sure what Lexus is.”  I agree with her. The overheated luxury segment experienced so much growth in the ’90s and early ’00s, that many of the luxury marques that were fortunate enough to have clear positionings in the beginning were weaker and less distinct at the end of the run-up.

Lexus now finds itself competing in a segment that has a third less volume than it did a year and a half ago.  Volume growth is going to come from a hard fought battle for share-of-market with the best in the business: Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Infiniti.  As Lexus moves down market into the “near-luxury” segment, more competitors will enter the fray:  Acura, VW, Volvo.  Every single one of these manufacturers is making well-designed and engineered, high quality vehicles.  More than ever, a manufacturer’s brand reputation is a key differentiator.

Now is the time for Lexus to pause and carefully consider its brand values rather than simply expand its product line to appeal to a new target group’s preferences.  What is at the heart of the Lexus brand? A few things come to mind: unsurpassed quality, comfort, quiet, sophisticated, conservative.  Rather than trying to expand what Lexus stands for, now is the time to re-focus attention on the core values of the brand and make sure that everything they do comes from that core.  Let those values drive product offerings, dealer experience and marketing.  Find a way to make your established core values relevant to a new audience.  That’s how you take an established brand and avoid “tarnishing” it.

The essence of good positioning is knowing what you are….and what you are not. Trying to be all things to all people is the death knell for a brand like Lexus.  It won’t be a question of “tarnishing the image,” Lexus won’t have an image.

If Lexus follows the industry’s well worn path to volume growth, another great automotive brand will be allowed to whither away.  In 1989, Lexus re-invented the luxury car business and established a new brand.  It was an incredibly expensive and difficult thing to do, but they did it and they did it right.  I hope they realize how easily all that good work can be undone.

In the meantime, I’ve got my BOHICA t-shirt on.

With 2009 behind us it will be fascinating to watch what each brand does with their piece of the most expensive advertising real estate in the world. The Super Bowl represents an incredible opportunity to reach the biggest television audience of the year.  Brands that have used the opportunity well, have in some cases changed their fortunes…Apple’s introduction of the Mac comes to mind:

Here’s the challenge with the Super Bowl.  The Super Bowl is not just the game that decides the NFL champion, it has become the crucible in which winners and losers are defined in the advertising business. USAToday will not only report who won the game, they rank the advertising gladiators. There’s a lot at stake for the agencies and their clients.

From the agencies’ perspective there is no bigger showcase for their work.  If your commercial is deemed one of the best then you have a happy client and a terrific new business credential.  If your commercial is among the worst then you have a client who wonders if they just wasted $3,000,000 and as an agency you’re embarrassed in front of your peers.

It will be interesting to see which of the six automotive manufacturers capitalizes on the the opportunity presented by the Super Bowl.  Which one will communicate something interesting and brand defining to the millions of people watching in a way that sends them running to their computers to watch it again on YouTube. Imagine if we had had the internet in 1984, we would have overwhelmed YouTube with requests for Apple’s 1984.

I hope this happens, the auto industry should be doing the kind of work that demands attention and gets people talking.  We market some of the most interesting and engaging products in the the world and yet the automotive advertising in the United States is so predictable.

So who will it be?  Who will do something big, bold and unexpected? Audi has done a respectable job in past Superbowls.  VW will be showing its first work from Deutsch.  In Europe, Honda’s work has been amazing (Cog and Hate Something, Change Something). Hyundai’s Assurance Program has certainly been a marketing coup for the company but the advertising will not carry the day in the Superbowl. Perhaps it will be Wieden’s first work for Dodge.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that one of the auto manufacturers will amaze us.

There are lots of reasons to let SAAB go.  It hasn’t made money in years.  It doesn’t sell enough cars to compete in the global auto industry.  GM has starved it for product.  It lost its uniqueness years ago.  It was really never “iconic,” just “quirky.”  The list goes on and on, and many of the reasons are very sound.

I hope that GM will allow Spyker to buy SAAB.  An independent company like Spyker could enable SAAB to reclaim its position as a niche brand with a unique product and a loyal enthusiast base.  We need a brand like SAAB to prove that interesting, well engineered products still have a place in the industry and can be successful.

In its effort to make SAAB appeal more broadly and therefore justify volume levels that would make it “viable,”  GM turned it into just another undifferentiated near-luxury entrant.  The world does not need another undifferentiated automotive brand and from that perspective I understand why people think SAAB should go away. SAAB would be yet another automotive brand that was once distinctive, chased volume using the MDIBTYD volume forecasting methodology and ultimately failed because it lost sight of the core values that actually made the brand “viable” in the first place.

This past weekend I watched ad after ad for auto manufacturers tell me about their respective end-of-year sales event and the extraordinary pricing that is available.  A sea of undifferentiated brands selling themselves on price.  I understand the need to have a good December and am supportive of promotion as one of the marketer’s essential tools, but if all we do is sell on price we run the risk of turning our products into commodities.

SAAB is important because it was once one of the industry’s most distinctive brands.  SAAB stood for something.  Good marketers know that when you consider “positioning” a brand it’s critical to know what you “are” but equally important to know what you are not.  SAAB was not for everyone, when it attempted to broaden its appeal it began to founder.  We need a brand like SAAB to survive and demonstrate that being different is OK, otherwise we’ll have an industry where only the big survive, the products are more alike than different and price will always be the deciding factor.

I hope SAAB makes it and becomes interesting and different again. Without brands like SAAB we’re a less interesting industry and another step closer to commodity status.

As reported in today’s Detroit News, Audi of America’s Johan de Nysschen called out the current political leadership for “falling in love” with electric vehicles.  He’s absolutely right, EVs and Hybrids have become the fashionable automotive technology and Washington’s choice for the future.

The only problem is that EVs won’t make a difference for two decades.  The New York Times reported that “plug-in hybrids would not have a significant impact on the nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030.” To be clear though, de Nysschen is not saying EVs and Hybrids are wrong or won’t play an important role in the future. What he’s saying is that Washington is picking winners and losers from a technology point of view rather than remaining agnostic, and he’s right.

Clean diesel remains the best near term technology available for reducing our dependance on foreign oil and CO2 emissions (the major cause of global warming), yet no one in Washington seems interested.  It seems that “diesel” is literally a dirty word.

There is no doubt that Americans harbor a negative perception of diesel based on experience and inadequate information.  If our government really wanted to serve the citizens, it would consider the facts of modern diesel technology and help dispel the myths. Modern diesel is as clean as gasoline, offers 25-30% better MPG and emits less CO2.  While we’re waiting for the infrastructure to develop and the financials to make sense for EV technology, Americans could be driving diesels and making a difference in oil consumption and global warming.

Diesel in America is a marketing problem.  We have to change Americans’ perception of diesel so that consumers can make the best choices.  I don’t want our government picking the technologies that will succeed, but I would like it to have a balanced perspective and ensure that the facts are available so that Americans can make the decisions that make the most sense to them.

It seems to me that being open minded about diesel technology should be easy for our politicians….

If they’d like to take on something hard, then they should consider abolishing the CAFE standards and putting in place a Federal tax on gasoline which has always been the key to getting Americans to drive smaller more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles.

General Motors Co.’s most recent marketing effort has taken off in the form of a 60-day return policy and a :60 second spot featuring Chairman Whitacre.

Both the automotive and communications industry pundits have had a lot to say about the commercial featuring Mr. Whitacre and I think it fair to say that most of it has been critical.  Bob Lutz’s defense of using Whitacre struck an odd cord when he said that “we were looking for was a highly credible spokesperson who would be a new fresh face” and followed up by describing Whitacre as  “the new guy in town. He’s tall, good looking, has impeccable white hair and has this nice soft Texas drawl and limps a little bit when he walks, which sort of gives him this old cowboy look.” (Advertising Age 9/10/09)

I’m not sure that did much to build his credibility, but I think we need to wait before we pass judgment on this marketing program.

In Automotive News on September 10^th, the Whitacre spot was put into context:

“The spot will set up a wider TV campaign featuring commercials about each of GM’s four surviving brands: Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac.”

We need to wait to see the brand commercials before we pass judgment.  If these commercials actually define these brands and begin to establish clear identities for each then I think the company is moving in the right direction.  I don’t think it is enough to simply say the products are as good as the other guys’ and there’s a fail-safe 60-day return program.   Americans need to know what these brands stand for.

The Whitacre spot may not be great, but if it leads to communications that begin to give the brands meaning and leverage then that will have been a step forward

The following article first appeared in BusinessWeek’s “Brand New Day” blog on September 7, 2009

Volkswagen has announced that it is looking for a new advertising/communications partner.  Chrysler has just announced that they are considering non-roster agencies for projects.  Bob Lutz at GM has said that the agencies for the remaining GM brands have six months to demonstrate that they have the chops to remain part of GM’s stable of agencies.  A rash of car companies re-evaluating their agency partners.

So what should these companies, or for that matter any automotive manufacturer, look for in an agency?

The next five years are going to be the most competitive in a generation.  The “new normal” annual sales volume for the US will be 14-16MM units, nowhere near the 18MM the market achieved a few years ago, let alone the 20MM+ some forecasters anticipated.   The “new normal” is a mature market where the fight for share will be intense, the risk of commoditization ever present and the winners will be those companies who recognize that the only thing standing between them and commodity status is terrific product and a carefully crafted brand reputation.

The “winners” will be those companies with clearly differentiated brands.  Those companies that make establishing and/or nurturing their brands a priority will see their share of market grow, those who focus only on retail will be treated like commodities.  Automobile manufacturers do need agencies that can manage the retail side of the business but more than ever they need to take brand building seriously.

So here are some suggestions on what to look for in an agency:

1. An agency must demonstrate the ability to build a brand over the long term. Look for relationships and case histories that span years not months.  Look for strategic consistency that is grounded in a deep understanding of the client and its customers.  Make sure that knowledge turns into core values that form the bedrock of the brand’s communications.  Look for the “red thread” that holds all the work together.  Ask 2^nd and 3^rd level questions about the company and its brand.

2. Look for a creative product that evolved over time to keep it fresh, but never wavered from the brand’s strategic underpinnings. Executional approaches should change to keep the brand fresh, interesting, and to reflect current consumer tastes and sensibilities but they should always speak from the brand’s core positioning.

3. Ask the agency to show you the work they’ve done that was a mistake for the brand. Any agency that has worked on a brand for long period of time has done work that missed the mark.  Ask why they feel the work was not appropriate and what caused it to happen, you’ll learn a lot about the agency.

4. If you ask for speculative work don’t expect to find a “silver bullet” in it, instead try to understand how they got to the work. First of all, there are no silver bullets.  It is extremely unlikely that an agency that has worked on your business for a few weeks will come up with an idea that will instantly establish your brand.  If it were that easy, your current agency would have done it already.  Instead try to understand how the people on the team think about problems and approach solving them.  Look for people who really want to dig in and understand your company and products.

5. Look for an agency that has very clear ideas on what it takes to build a brand in the incredibly fragmented media world we now operate in. Building a brand for boomers as young adults was an entirely different proposition than establishing that same brand for their children will be during the next five years.  The agency should have clear point of view on how to best use social media, the digital space and traditional media.  Not just the capability of implementing all media types but a clear perspective on how to use them to establish and build your brand.

6. Make sure the agency understands the importance of the retail side of the business and can execute against it. Managing the retail side of an automotive account is a huge and critical task; your new agency must have the chops to handle it.  On one hand they must understand the critical importance of the dealer network and the company’s relationships with the dealers, on the other they must have the operational skills to execute.  Most importantly the agency needs to help you balance the retail needs of the business versus the goal of establishing brand preference.

7. The agency team must have experience running automotive business. This does not mean that everyone on the team must be “car guys.”  In fact, it would be a mistake to hire a complete team of “car guys.”  After all you’re not expecting the agency to design and engineer products, you want them to help you sell them!  I would suggest that at least the team leader should have automotive experience.  What you don’t want to do as a client is spend your time teaching the agency the basics of the car business.  You need a leader who can focus the agencies efforts in the right areas, get the right agency talent in the right positions and work closely with you and your colleagues to develop business solutions.  The agency needs automotive experience so that it understands the issues you face and doesn’t waste time.

8. Hire people who you like and enjoy working with. Seems obvious, but don’t ignore behaviors that irritate you during the pitch.  If the agency is arrogant and doesn’t listen during the pitch process then you can be certain they will behave that way after you have hired them.  Ask the agency to involve key members of the team that will actually work on the business, but also recognize that no agency has a team sitting around waiting to work on a large automotive account.

Finally, don’t give the “brand building” side of the business lip service.  Historically most car companies talk about the importance of their brand but when things get tough, the brand budget is the first thing cut.  You can hire a great agency that is more than capable of helping you build your brand but if you underfund the effort or don’t commit to it, the best efforts of the agency won’t matter.

More than ever, having a powerful automotive brand will drive business in the hyper-competitive “new normal” US auto market.  Finding the right agency partner will be a critical success factor.