Every Tier 2 brand aspires to be in Tier 1.  Audi set the target years ago to become a Tier 1 brand and some would say that it has achieved that goal.  More recently Cadillac has made no bones about the fact that it wants to be a Tier 1 brand and has set it sights on BMW.  Infiniti is striving to make it into Tier 1 and Jaguar would like to return.  The fact remains that only Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus have achieved the volume, credibility and prestige to be true Tier 1, everyone else is Tier 2:

That said, I think the goal of becoming a Tier 1 brand may be a fool’s errand in today’s luxury segment.  It made sense almost 20 years ago when Audi set that as the target but does it really make sense today?

Tier 1 is full of accepted conventions that must be present in order for the brand to be truly Tier 1.  For example, in the Tier 1 world, all dealerships must be exclusive and should be Taj Mahals built to reflect the prestige and loftiness of the brand they represent.  In these Taj Mahal dealerships, customers must be served lattes, have a customer experience befitting their level of success and certainly not have that experience sullied by the presence of mass market product or customers.  In Tier 1, as defined today, manufacturers must offer three sizes of sedans, at least two cross-overs, a sports car as well as a tuner division that churns out high performance model variants.  In traditional Tier 1, it is essential to have a D-segment (think MB S-Class, BMW 7-Series, Audi A8) sedan that represents the brand’s ultimate execution of a luxury vehicle.  It’s pretty rarified air up in Tier 1, but if you can get there, profits and volumes are huge.

Here’s the rub, the whole Tier 1 paradigm has been built around the baby boomer generation and I can’t help but wonder if the conventional thinking about Tier 1 runs the risk of taking a manufacturer down a path that will be less relevant in the future.  There’s a new generation of luxury car buyers coming into the market that are forming their own opinions about what “luxury” means, what connotes prestige and what brands they will value.

What’s interesting about the new generation (call them Millennials if you like, they’re the children of the boomers) is that their view of luxury is being shaped by experience that has included the Great Recession and its re-jiggering of peoples’ sensibilities, high unemployment particularly for their age group, the broken promise that they will do at least as well as their parents not to mention technologies that are changing the way they communicate, collaborate, research and ultimately act as consumers.

All luxury brands recognize that their future depends on younger upcoming luxury car buyers, but the goal of Tier 1 and its conventions risk throwing them off track.  This new generation of luxury car buyers may not need a Taj Mahal dealership or even a latte. They’ll need a product and experience that fits their sensibilities, not their parents’.

I think the future of luxury rests with the next generation and if I were introducing a new luxury entrant or re-building a luxury brand I would focus all of my energy on understanding how Millenials will define luxury and what I need to do to satisfy their requirements.

The luxury segment is going to go through a transformation and becoming a “Tier 1” brand with all its trappings represents “old luxury.”  The long-term winners will figure out how to become the new generation’s luxury brand without losing their existing customer base.  Fortunately, boomers are consumed with the need to be perceived as youthful and forward looking, so chances are if their kids think something is cool, they will too.

The naysayers (me included) were wrong. The Cayenne has gone on to be the brand’s biggest seller and I think it’s fair to say that the 911 just keeps cruising along as one of the world’s premier sports cars. One of the reasons that the Cayenne did not damage the Porsche brand was that Stuttgart was incredibly clear that the Cayenne would be the “Porsche of SUVs,” in other words, a high performance SUV. Jeff Zwart (a Porsche factory driver as well as commercial director) directed, participated in and produced this Cayenne introductory video for Porsche:

Road to Cayenne

Obviously, the sole purpose of this video was to establish the Cayenne’s performance credentials and lineage.  Porsche successfully expanded volume by introducing a product true to the brand’s core values and marketed it successfully based on those values.  In fact you could argue that Porsche is doing exactly the same thing with the Panamera (introducing the “Porsche of four door sedans”).  We could debate whether the world needs another high performance sedan given Audi’s S models, BMW’s M series and Mercedes-Benz AMG models, but so far Porsche Panamera sales indicate that from a product point of view, Porsche judged the market well.

Porsche has successfully proven that it can expand volume by carefully developing line extensions that reflect the brand’s core value of performance.

So why, would they allow their latest marketing campaign to go so far afield?  What would possess them to feature the iconic 911 and the very successful  Cayman in communications designed to demonstrate that they are not “just” high performance sports cars, rather they are excellent everyday drivers:

[youtube]O-Lq3mHgNOI[/youtube]

Do the marketing folks at Porsche really think that a perception of a lack of everyday utility is holding back sales of 911s? Really?

Sounds like research run amok.

I hate to clue the marketing guys in, but the 911 and Cayman are not good everyday drivers. They’re not great in the snow, they don’t offer much room for luggage or bags of cement, nor do I envy that child that had to get in the back seat of the “school bus.” I will give them “getaway car,” after a long day at the office driving home in a Porsche would be sweet.

Seems to me that the designers and the engineers have done a very good job of defining the 911 and the Cayman. To quote an old BMW headline, the 911 and the Cayman are “The epitome of truth in packaging.”  They are not particuallry utile but they are great looking and big fun to drive.

The essence of clear positioning is knowing not only what you “are” but knowing what you “are not.”  The 911 and the Cayman “are not” good everyday drivers and they are not particularly utile.  They “are” however, high performance machines that offer a very special driving experience.

I do recognize that a lack of utility prevents people from buying 911s and Caymans, but that’s the way it should be and marketing shouldn’t be trying to change it.

In the never-ending quest for volume, they may squeeze a few more units out of the 911 and the Cayman.  The real question is, will it be worth it?

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.

If you happened to be watching the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day, you may have seen Cadillac’s new campaign, its first from new agency Fallon.  The new campaign is the first for Cadillac under the aegis of Joel Ewanick who gave the business to Fallon shortly after his arrival last year.  The campaign seeks to clearly position the brand by “taking hold of red blooded luxury” according to Don Butler, VP Marketing, Cadillac.  Mr. Butler went on to define red blooded luxury as “dramatic, passionate, glamorous, daring, a whole new approach to the luxury category.”

Here’s the introductory commercial:

Strategically, I think this work is smart.  I like the idea of setting up the other Tier 1 luxury marques as “blue-blooded” (cold, aloof, distant, rational) and juxtaposing Cadillac’s “red blooded luxury” (passionate, glamorous, dramatic, daring).  What this very effectively does is take the traditional Tier 1 luxury marques’ reputation for prestige and turns it against them.  Who wants to drive the same car as that couple “celebrating” their anniversary!

I also think the execution hits on a “truth.”  The Tier 1 luxury segment competitors have lost their personality and charisma.  BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Lexus seem less exclusive, more ordinary and alike than ever before.  The luxury segment buyer is ready for something new and different.  To an extent, Audi is capitalizing on this opportunity, but they are walking a fine line because they desperately want to be a blue blood too.

Cadillac seems to be willing to thumb its nose at the traditional notion of Tier 1 luxury and not worry if it ever passes the “country club test” (What will they say at the club when I drive up in a Cadillac?).  Good for Cadillac.   There’s a whole new generation of luxury car buyers coming into the segment, who look at the current Tier 1 brands and don’t want any part of them.  That’s Cadillac’s opportunity (see my earlier post on this topic).

Here are a couple of the introductory print executions:

All in all, I like the “red blooded luxury” positioning and the campaign.  The product photography is beautiful and takes full advantage of one of the most dramatic designs in the business.  This all bodes well for the Cadillac brand.

The only risk that I see is that it will be easy to allow the “red blooded” positioning to turn into a performance story.  If it becomes only about performance then I think Cadillac will have missed the opportunity to separate itself from its Tier 1 competition.  For example, this commercial is also part of Cadillac’s new campaign:

What happened to the “passionate, glamorous, daring” part of the red blooded luxury positioning?  What I see is a nicely executed performance spot. Without the “passionate, glamorous, daring” part of the positioning, “red blooded” could easily become a performance focused idea that makes Cadillac just another high performance luxury segment entrant.

The campaign has only just launched so it will be fascinating to see where Cadillac and Fallon go from here.  I hope they succeed in telling the whole “red blooded” story because with the “passionate, glamorous, daring” piece, Cadillac could become “The New Standard of the World.”   Without it, Cadillac will be just another performance footnote in the history of a segment that has repeatedly raised the performance bar.

When General Motors was going through bankruptcy many industry observers were surprised that Buick would be one of the four brands that would be part of the new company (along with Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC). The explanation was that the Buick brand was very successful and respected in China. What was left in the “un-said” was that Buick was a basket case in the United States.

Since coming out of bankruptcy there has been lots of discussion and coverage regarding Chevrolet and Cadillac but relatively little about Buick.  Chevy represents 70% of the company’s business and certainly warrants attention.  No one was really surprised that shortly after arriving, Joel Ewanick hired Goodby, Silverstein & Partners to help re-build the Chevy brand.  Cadillac, the company’s luxury brand also seems to garner a lot of attention.  With bold designs, terrific new products, another new agency (Fallon), the folks at Cadillac believe that they are in a position to finally break into the Tier 1 portion of the luxury segment.  Marketing for Chevy and Cadillac has been stepped up and through November sales are up 18% for Chevrolet and 38% for Cadillac.  All good.  There’s also quite a bit of anticipation for the Superbowl as one or both of these brands will launch new campaigns in the big game.

While Chevrolet and Cadillac seem to grab the headlines, Buick has been quietly going about its business and making unexpected progress in the US market.  In fact, Buick is the fastest growing GM brand; it is also the fastest growing automotive brand in the United States with sales +54% year to date.

It would be easy to attribute Buick’s success entirely to product, after all the new Lacrosse and Regal are pretty darned impressive (see my earlier blog post) but that would be unfair to the marketers.  The folks responsible for marketing at Buick continue to find interesting ways to let us know our expectations of Buick are misplaced and that we should think of the brand differently.

This starts with the television advertising that clearly establishes an unexpected competitive set for Buick:

A Buick that looks like that and is competitive with the Tier 1 luxury brands is certainly unexpected, even if the executions are pretty standard fare for the industry. I also find the tag line  ”Its the new class of world class” a bit ham-fisted, but it’s on-point.  That may be the best part of this TV it’s on-point.

On the “more interesting” side of the ledger is Buick’s Moment of Truth website for the Regal.  In the spirit of creating a conversation around the Regal, Buick has created a website that sources consumers, enthusiasts, critics and anyone else who comments on the Regal and publishes what they say both good and bad.  The result is a website that is full of good information and leaves you with the sense that Buick is operating in a very transparent fashion.  I give the folks at Buick high marks (see earlier blog post) for being willing to accept the “risk” that they might be criticized in favor of presenting an objective view.

Most recently, Buick has embarked on another interesting marketing approach. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Buick has partnered with MSN to underwrite “a new Web-only travel series on MSN that promises to give an insider perspective on American cities” called “Re: Discover.”  It would be easy to dismiss this as just another product placement effort, but that would sell it short.

Re: Discover is all about really good and interesting content, not Buick.  Local people from a number of cities (LA, Chicago, New York , Miami so far and more to come) talk about their city, their favorite places to go, things to do and why they love living there.  The videos are interesting, fun to watch and I’m sure that a number of local businesses are going to find their customer base growing. Obviously, Buick is hoping that target consumers will enjoy the content and appreciate that Buick made it possible.

Who would ever have expected Buick to compare itself to the best manufacturers in the business, or create a website where critical comments are published or form a partnership with a media outlet where the car is not the star?

Of course, no one expected Buick to be the fastest growing automotive brand in the United States either.

Sales have been improving.  November was strong with most companies showing significant gains and one, Hyundai, blowing past everyone else with a +46% increase over same period year ago.  Some marques like Audi are predicting that they will achieve new sales records in 2010 and break the 100,000 unit mark for the first time.  It looks like we’ll finish the year at about 11.5MM units, up about a million over 2009.  Next year sales are expected to improve to 12.8MM.

The LA Auto Show was up beat; there were a number of new and exciting products shown (my personal favorite was the Audi quattro concept).  The sense of the industry moving forward was palpable; it was good to be there.  Then of course there’s GM’s successful IPO, where investor interest was so strong that the share price exceeded everyone’s expectations.

Even more important, the industry has made important progress during the worst recession within memory.  Given the widely held view in 2008 that we were entering a “new normal” with significantly lower industry sales, manufacturers took steps (some with taxpayer help) to reduce production capacity, which has led to dramatically lower inventories at the dealer level.  In turn, lower inventories combined with better product quality have led to lower incentives and higher margins.  Some manufacturers (BMW, Fiat) are even attempting to encourage consumers to order cars and wait for delivery as Americans become accustom to lower inventory levels and the idea that the car they want won’t be on the lot.

Sales on the rise, higher margins, lower inventories, Americans ordering cars, what’s not to like?  Nothing, all good news, until…

Last Thursday when Michael Robinet of IHS Automotive predicted that:  ”U.S. automotive industry sales could top 17 million by 2015.”

I couldn’t help but think of the current Bud Lite campaign, the one where guys are behaving in a relatively reasonable fashion until they are confronted with a quantity of Bud Lite:

17 million sales!?… Here we go.  Here we go as an industry, losing our minds and acting irrationally.  Using the MDIBTYD method of sales forecasting.  VW has made no bones about its goal of being the largest global manufacturer and I’m certain others would like to prevent that from happening.

We all know what happens.  Sales forecasts increase, production is increased, inventories increase, use of incentives increase and margins decrease.  The real shame is that all the progress that the industry has made in the last couple of years could easily be erased if we chase volume.

I understand the importance of volume given high fixed costs.  I also recognize that predicting sales and production is a high wire act and I don’t mean to diminish the difficulty of those deliberations.

But it does seem to me, that the industry’s default position has been to chase volume.  I hope that this time we restrain ourselves and consider the possibility that slower more deliberate growth, will result in stronger higher margin businesses that are better prepared for the next downturn.  Another happy outcome would be stronger brands and a customer base that is not built on the backs of the bottom feeders looking for commodity pricing.

Let’s hope that when the MDIBTYD forecasting method is being used, that cooler heads prevail.  Here we go….

As we watched Laura Soave, Fiat’s head of marketing, introduce the Fiat 500, I couldn’t help but lean over to a colleague and say “Fiat is taking Volkswagen’s US positioning.”  The presentation was full of “Italian passion” which might have been code for a youthful, fun, engaged approach to driving.  Here’s a video/ad:

“Fiat. Life is best when driven.”  Wow, that sounds an awful lot like “On the road of life, there are passengers and there are drivers. Drivers wanted:”

I recognize that there are differences between the two, for example VW hung its hat on German engineering to support “Drivers wanted.” We don’t know what Fiat will do from here, but it is clear that they are positioning the 500 as fun, young at heart and for those engaged in life and driving, the core elements of VW’s past positioning.

Good for Fiat.  It’s a good positioning and it’s available!

VW has forsaken a strong brand positioning in favor of “mainstreaming” their brand so they can chase volume in their quest to become the largest global manufacturer. Read my earlier post on this topic.

VW’s loss may prove to be Fiat’s gain.

“The company plans to triple annual U.S. sales of VW, Audi and Bentley models to 1 million units annually by 2018 as part CEO Martin Winterkorn’s drive to overtake Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. and become the world’s largest automaker.”  Automotive News 9/18/09

Based on the VW brand’s 2009 sales (213,454), volume in the US will almost quadruple: “By 2018, VW wants to sell 800,000.”  Automotive News 1/19/09

800, 000 is a heck of a lot of cars for VW.  Especially considering that VW’s biggest volume year in recent memory was 2001, when it sold 355,648 units (in the 1970′s VW did sell roughly 500,000 units).  Many industry experts have questioned the wisdom and even the possibility that VW might sell 800,000 units in the US.

Volkswagen believes that it can sell 800,000 cars in the US by specifically developing vehicles to meet Americans’ tastes: “VW has concluded that price-sensitive U.S. consumers simply aren’t willing to pay for the extras found in a mass-market European sedan.” Automotive News 7/5/10

Consequently, the “new mid-sized sedan, which will be built in Chattanooga, Tenn., is supposed to be bigger and cheaper than the Passat that it replaces… VW wants to make its Passat replacement competitive with the mid-sized segment stalwarts — the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Ford Fusion — and thereby boost sales sharply.” Automotive News 7/5/10

This strategy is also evident in the new 2011 Jetta, which has been de-contented to make it price competitive with the Japanese.  The 2011 US version of the Jetta will have drum brakes in the rear and a torsion bar rear suspension.  The interior has also been cheapened to enable it to reach a competitive price point.  The European Jetta has been dumbed down to meet the needs of the “price sensitive” US customer: “European buyers will get a more costly and more upscale version of Volkswagen’s new Jetta sedan than North American customers.” Automotive News 11/1/10

This approach is being mirrored in the Company’s US marketing. When recently searching for a new advertising agency, the VW CMO offered the following rationale: “The Volkswagen brand needs to inspire our base of enthusiasts as well as reach out and captivate those in mainstream America.”  Automotive News 8/18/09

So, Volkswagens will be more mainstream in the US, larger, less expensive and less European, more price competitive with the Japanese marques.  While I am tempted to go on a rant about the dilution of the VW brand and the dangers of chasing volume (see my earlier blog post), let’s skip all that, and ask a simple question:

Why buy a Volkswagen that is designed to be competitive with the Japanese when you can buy the more reliable, better built products from Japan (or Korea or the US)?

Below is the latest JD Power IQS study results:

Note that Volkswagen is third from the bottom, ranked 31st out of 33 marques. Honda is 6th,  Nissan is 15th, Mazda is 19th, and even after everything it has been through Toyota is 21st, well ahead of VW.  A customer could also look at Ford (5th) and Chevrolet (14th).

Of course part of VW’s answer to the question is that the VW brand has a certain cachet that the Japanese or US brands do not.  I think that this has been true, customers (me for one) have been willing to overlook the quality issues which have plagued VW for years because they thought they were getting something special, a German engineered driver’s car.  Customers have also paid a premium for the privilege.

But now we learn that US customers are getting the de-tuned versions of the European products.  American VWs are tuned to American drivers’ tastes, rather than the more demanding European “standard.”

This “mainstreaming” of the VW brand may lead to increased volumes for VW but it will also result in increased commoditization, the Jetta’s loss of independent suspension and disc brakes may seem wonky to some, but those technologies dramatically effect how the car handles. If my new Jetta handles just like the Civic and the Corolla, I might as well buy either of them; after all they’re better built than the Jetta.

In the final analysis, this does come down to the brand and what the brand stands for, what its promise to its customers is. “Mainstreaming” the VW brand may generate volume but it will inevitably weaken the brand.

I recognize that ad campaigns come and go, but a brand’s positioning should be consistent.  In 1995, VW’s US management and their agency perfectly captured the core of the brand when they said:

“On the road of life there are passengers and drivers.  Drivers wanted.”

Not so much anymore.  Not mainstream enough.

“The annual global industry sales leader for 76 years.”

Headline on GM’s website

“Toyota ends GM’s reign as leader in global sales”

New York Times, April 24, 2007

“VW Group has declared its intention to become the global leader, overtaking Toyota by 2018”

Fortune 10/11/10

GM may have been the leader for 76 years, but we all know how that worked out.  The quest to be the global leader in sales drove Toyota to the breaking point where it lost its legendary focus on quality and reliability.  The result?  The biggest series of product recalls in history, allegations of unintended acceleration, thousands of lawsuits, and a decline in brand perception that will take years to recover.  Now Volkswagen has set its sights on the global sales crown and some are questioning the wisdom of the company’s leadership.

You can’t spend much time working in or around the automobile industry without feeling the relentless pressure of needing to sell more.

The problem that auto manufacturers face is that their business has extremely high fixed costs.   Unlike “variable” costs that go up and down based on the amount of vehicles produced, fixed costs remain the same regardless of volume.  Fixed costs include all the developmental investments, labor expenses and the costs of the factories themselves.  With such high fixed costs, the more vehicles the manufacturer can produce, the lower the cost per unit and the better the margin.  In short, higher volumes equal higher profits.

So bigger is better?  Maybe.

The performance of the automotive brands in Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands 2010” study might lead to another conclusion.  Interbrand’s study uses 10 principles to assess “brand strength” and ultimately places a “value” on the brand.  Ten automotive brands made the list of the top 100:

What’s interesting is that the brands that made the list fall into two distinct camps; big volume global brands and relatively small global brands.  Brands with 3.5MM or more in unit sales: Honda, Volkswagen, Ford, Hyundai, Toyota.  Brands with less than 1.3MM in unit sales:  Ferrari, Porsche, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW.

Particularly interesting is that while the biggest volume brand, Toyota, is the most valuable automotive brand, the second and the third most valuable are from the small volume group (Mercedes-Benz and BMW).  Obviously there is more to an automotive brand than just volume.

Another way to look at the brands is assess their level of “definition” versus one another as well as volume:

One thing that the “small” brands have in common is that they are among the most well-defined and understood automotive brands.  Consumers clearly know what to expect from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Ferrari and Audi.  They are also specialty manufacturers, all in the luxury segment with relatively clearly defined target customers.  The strength of their brand definition makes up for what they lack in volume.

In contrast, the big volume, mass market, brands are not as tightly defined.  They market an exhaustive range of vehicles in multiple categories to virtually every customer segment imaginable.  These brands are “big tents” that by virtue of their broad range of vehicles and customers, are very difficult to tightly define.  What these brands lack in definition they make up for with volume.

So both approaches can result in strong, valuable brands.

But despite this fact, the pressure to increase volume is relentless on all manufacturers and often results in decisions that inevitably undermine the credibility of their brands.

For the smaller more tightly defined brands the desire to increase volume tests the brands’ elasticity.  For example, Volkswagen, having purchased Porsche wants to dramatically increase sales by expanding the product line to include smaller cross-overs and more affordable sports cars.  At what point is Porsche, no longer Porsche?  BMW has recently said that it will develop and produce front wheel drive cars.  After 35 years of teaching us that The Ultimate Driving Machine means rear wheel drive, the opportunity to enter new segments and expand volume (while also helping to meet CAFE standards) is just too hard to resist.

The high volume brands have a different set of issues.  Incentives are the bane of the volume brands.  Over the last decade, we have taught consumers to “buy the deal.”  The need to drive volume led to prolific use of incentives on an on-going basis that in turn led consumers to buy based on price…the ultimate commodity market behavior.  Lack of brand differentiation and increasing recognition that today’s vehicles are consistently high in quality will inevitably lead to lower margins and profits as every manufacturer competes on price.

Despite the “proof” offered by Interbrand’s study, that brand value is not solely dependent on volume, and that brand building does matter, the industry seems to chase volume at all costs.  Has anyone ever been present in a meeting where the decision was made to reduce incentives and shift the money to brand building?

What’s an automotive marketer to do?  Here are a few suggestions.

If you happen to have a relatively small volume but well-developed brand recognize that:

• You shouldn’t chase volume for volume’s sake.  Your brand’s value derives from the fact that it clearly stands for something, not simply volume.
• Your brand does not have limitless elasticity.  At some point you will stray too far and reduce your brand’s leverage (BMW and Porsche need to be careful).
• Taking care of your brand’s clear positioning is every bit as important as increasing volume and it will require on-going investment.
• You can’t rest on your laurels, you must continually re-educate consumers as to your brand’s values (Mercedes-Benz has obviously learned this lesson, all of its current communications are reaffirming the brand’s core values).

For those who have large volume brands that are less clearly defined:

• Recognize that building your brand is essential if you are to break free of the commodity like behaviors of the competition and command respect.
• A stronger brand identity will increase your leverage, margins, and ultimately sales.  Despite all Toyota’s recent troubles, it still commands higher margins and customer loyalty than its competitors.
• Figure out what you stand for and stand for it. Don’t excuse a lack of brand definition by saying that you compete in too many segments and have multiple customer types.   Unlikely that you will be the only company that offers something, but you could be the only one that stands for it (other companies offer quality and reliability, but Toyota stands for it).
• Invest in brand development. Consider the possibility that investing in your brand may make more sense than throwing more money at incentives.

As an industry we need stronger, better defined brands to push back against our self-inflicted commoditization.  In the “new normal” automobile market, the best brands win.  With Toyota and Honda slipping, Ford and Hyundai could very well be the next industry juggernauts if they can tighten up their brand identities.

By the way, if you ever have been part of a meeting where it was agreed to reduce the incentive budget and increase the brand-building budget, I’d love to hear from you!

This is a wonderful commercial, it’s big, emotional and engaging. Before seeing it, I was certain that I didn’t want an EV, now I’m less certain, and I know for sure that I want to help that polar bear.  I admit that this commercial makes me think about Nissan a little differently; I’m not yet convinced that the company stands for “Innovation for all” but it’s a start.

Nissan has struggled over the years to establish a brand identity for itself. Automotive marketing history buffs can probably trace the issue back to the decision to change Datsun to Nissan in 1981.  In 1986, after a transition period, the brand was officially Nissan.

Since that time Nissan has struggled in the shadow of Toyota.  While Toyota steadily built a reputation for quality and reliability and smashed sales records, Nissan labored as the number two Japanese brand.  Nissan’s brand identity has never been clear and I suspect for many people it’s an simply an alternative to the better established Toyota.

The manufacturers in the vast middle of the market struggle with brand identity partially because they offer vehicles in so many different segments for so many different target customers.  The brands in the vast middle (Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Chevrolet) find it difficult to define themselves because they must appeal so broadly. It’s tough to have a strong focused differentiating brand identity when you must appeal to everyone.

This lack of brand identity didn’t seem like a huge issue when the automobile business was selling 17 million units a year and Detroit was consistently on its heels with lousy products (relative to the Japanese) and uncompetitive pricing.  Even if Nissan didn’t get as many customers as Toyota, they got enough.

But the “new normal” sales level is in 11-13MM unit range.  Ford and Chevrolet are offering terrific products at competitive prices.  Hyundai and Kia have come out of the recession on tear, offering more terrific products, excellent pricing and growing reputations.  The fact is, it’s hard to buy a bad car in today’s market at any price point. So, if quality isn’t much of a differentiator anymore, what is?  Pricing? Potentially, but no one wants to put the incentive needle in again.

Design and styling will always be a one of the differentiators, although many would argue that in the “vast middle of the market” designs are pretty conservative because they have to appeal broadly (there’s that broad appeal problem again).  If not design and styling, what?

In the “new normal” market for vehicles; brand identity and marketing are the essential differentiators.  Creating leverage for your brand is critical in this hyper competitive marketplace.  Nissan clearly recognizes the importance of creating brand leverage, Jon Brancheau, VP Marketing,  said in Automotive News that they were:

“trying to figure out an intelligent way to consistently express the brand.  We have focused on individual models…But it hasn’t laddered up to help halo the Nissan brand. So strategically, we’re headed down a path to come up with a way to express ourselves and the Nissan brand in a consitent method.  The idea revolves around innovation…Innovation has always been what the Nissan brand is about.”

So Nissan is putting a stake in the ground, they’re going to stand for “innovation.” Here is the first commercial in the campaign, as well as a few others:

I admire Nissan for having the courage to stand for something.  If the Nissan brand can stand for “innovation” then they will have a leg up on their competition.  After all, Toyota has taken a hit from allegations of unintended acceleration and no other player in the vast middle of the market has a very well defined brand.

I’m not sure that consumers will give them credit for innovation at first, it seems like a bit of a leap. But over time, if they are consistent in their communications and show us why they are an innovative company our opinions will change.  I know that my opinion of Nissan has already shifted a bit based on that polar bear.

Nissan recognizes the potential of a strong differentiated brand and has obviously invested heavily in its new campaign, but more than anything, brand building requires time and commitment.  It will be interesting to see if they see it though.

We couldn’t think of any and we began to talk about what a mistake that was.  We were able to rattle off a number of instances, where great automotive brands walked away from positioning or taglines that perfectly encapsulated their brands.  Mercedes-Benz left behind “Engineered like no other car in the world.”  Volkswagen threw away “Drivers wanted.”  Chevrolet moved away from “Heartbeat of America.”  A few months ago, BMW, one of the most consistent marketers in the industry, looked as if they were moving away from “The Ultimate Driving Machine” in favor of  “Joy.”  In the case of BMW, this has been hotly denied and “TUDM” still appears at the end of the ads but it has certainly been demoted.

Why does this happen?  Why does it seem so difficult for marketers to realize that they have a real asset that needs to be protected and nourished?  A lot has to do with the constant pressure to increase volume and the find something new to “take the brand to the next level.”  The other factor is the constant churn of marketing management and agencies.  New marketing leadership needs to demonstrate that it is moving the business forward and that means doing something new.  Every agency is genetically coded to do something “new and unexpected” to burnish their reputation.  Bringing back an old idea can also be seen as a copout.

So it struck me this morning when I read an article in Advertising Age where Joel Ewanick was interviewed and he said that Fallon (Cadillac’s new agency) had developed the brand’s soon to be introduced tag-line: “The new standard of the world.”

Here’s what’s fascinating, that slogan was developed in 1908, shortly after Cadillac won the prestigious Dewar Trophy for excellence in manufacturing.  The original line was simply “Standard of the world.”  The line may never have been a “tag-line” in advertising but it was certainly part of the company’s logo and therefore used from a marketing perspective:

This makes it different from Mercedes-Benz new global campaign, which uses an idea from the company’s archives,  “The best or nothing” (Das beste oder nichts). This statement was first written by Gottlieb Daimler but until now was not used for marketing, so they haven’t brought back an old idea.

I think “The new standard of the world,” admittedly with a slight modification, may be one time where an agency and its client has had the courage to look back and rather than reinventing the wheel (pun intended), acknowledge that something done before perfectly captures the essence of their brand and be willing to re-introduce it.

Good for them.  “The new standard of the world” already positions Cadillac more clearly than it has been in decades.  It will be interesting to see where they go from here.

Please comment if you can think of any other instances where an idea has been resurrected.

So why would one of the most well-regarded progressive luxury automotive brands in the world make the silly mistake of blatantly copying their nearest competitor?

A few weeks ago I was in the UK and I happened to walk by Leicester Square in London and was excited to see an Audi display in the park. I went over to have a look and discovered that the display was part of the UK’s introduction of the A1.

The display was called “AreaA1″ and it was getting a lot of attention from Londoners.  It was the first time I had the opportunity to see the A1 in person.  It’s a wonderful car and I hope the folks at Audi of America make the decision to bring it to the US.  It was so crowded, that it was hard to get a picture….at least a good picture:

However, I turned to the other half of the display and was profoundly disappointed by one of the key AreaA1 marketing ideas:

What you’re looking at is an Audi “Art Car” painted by Damien Hirst. The “art” was fantastic (my photography is not) but it still left me wondering “why?”  Why would Audi commission an artist to paint a car when their most direct competitor did it first and has done so many times.  Why would Audi copy BMW?  Why would a brand that has worked so hard to earn a seat at the Tier 1 luxury segment table do something in marketing that screamed “look at us, we’re just like BMW!”

According to Wikipedia, a BMW was first used as a canvas in 1975 when French racecar driver and auctioneer Hervé Poulain commissioned Alexander Calder to paint a 3.0CSL:

Since 1975, BMW has commissioned 17 different artists to create “art cars.”  I think it fair to say that by now BMW “owns” the concept of art cars in the luxury segment. Wikipedia even has an entry entitled “BMW Art Cars.”

That isn’t to say that other luxury marques should not somehow participate in the arts. After all, Mercedes-Benz famously commissioned Andy Warhol to create a series of artworks.  But Audi, one of the industry’s most innovative and progressive companies should find its own way of connecting to the arts, not simply copy BMW.

Unfortunately Audi of America fell into the same trap when it sponsored Art Chicago in 2007. Audi introduced the Audi RS4 Art car created by Brazilian-born Pop artist Romero Britto:

When a competitor has consistently over time used a particular tactic and has become well known for it you can’t differentiate your brand by doing the same thing. You will simply communicate that you are just like the other guys and probably do more to build their brand.  You don’t build a distinct and special brand by copying a competitor.

Having said that, Audi UK’s art car was subsequently auctioned off at Elton John’s charity event for about $525,000, the proceeds will go to the Elton John Aids Foundation.  That might be the only good reason for Audi to copy BMW marketing.

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!

Brilliant work by Scali, McCabe, Sloves took Volvo from the choice of professors in tweed jackets to the boomer choice for family hauling. The Volvo wagon was a staple in the suburbs on both coasts.  Volvo was even featured in the movie “Crazy People” where Dudley Moore played an ad man who decided that being honest was a good idea and suggested that Volvos were “Boxy but good:

While the brand became part of popular culture and owned safety, it has struggled with that one-dimensional view for years. Volvo has its loyalists who love the brand and it’s products but it also has more than its share of detractors for whom the truth of “boxy but good” was a real barrier to purchase.  The challenge has always been how do you retain and nurture the safety reputation while also convincing a broader swath of the car buying population that the brand is cool and emotionally appealing.

This challenge is not exclusive to Volvo.  Mercedes-Benz and BMW have also worked hard to get “beyond” their reputations for engineering and performance respectively.  The fact is that all these brands represent safety, engineering, performance, quality and luxury at very high levels.  That said, when you’re lucky enough to “own” a reputation for one of the category’s real drivers, then it’s an asset you need to protect.

But it’s difficult.  In Volvo’s case they have wanted to be respected for more than safety and conservative styling because they needed to appeal more broadly to sell more cars.  Over the years they have improved the styling, offered a number of performance variants, expanded beyond sedans and wagons to include crossovers and convertibles.  Yet, consumers, their perception of the brand and sales have not responded in kind.  Part of the problem is that its safety position is so strong and so rational.  Safety is critical and incredibly important to consumers but it is also not cool or sexy.

I believe that when you “own” a positioning, particularly a primary driver, you must “speak” through that lens about other topics or you risk creating dissonance with consumers.  I think this is why Volvo’s efforts to convince us that they have performance credentials have seemed to fall on deaf ears.  Performance conflicts with our expectation of safety.

Recently, Volvo has been running a campaign that I think has found an appropriate “voice” that allows the safety brand to get into more emotional areas without confusing us. The idea that there is something called a “Naughty Volvo” allows the brand to go a little beyond safety without asking us to re-jigger our entire perception of the brand.  I think we all like and accept that people can be a little “naughty” from time to time without losing their essential character.  I think the same holds true for Volvo:

While I like the “naughty” commercials, particularly the ascending levels of naughtiness, I must admit that Volvo’s recent effort to isolate Europe’s “naughtiest” city really got me thinking about the brand a bit differently:

What a nice way to communicate that there’s something unexpected about Volvo. Throw a party in multiple cities with the car at the heart of it, invite all the right people, give them an opportunity to be a little naughty and see what happens.  A good combination of young, cool, contemporary, fun, a few good natured national stereotypes, and just a bit of naughty results in Paris being crowned the “Naughtiest City” in Europe.

What’s the point?  Everybody has a naughty side.  Including Volvo.

Got it.

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.

“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.

First what happened to the Jeep brand?  Where is the go anywhere do anything in a Jeep idea?  Isn’t that an essential part of the Jeep brand? AutoWeek seems to think so, in their review of the vehicle, they reference the fact that the Grand Cherokee can “rock crawl with the best them.”  I recognize that the vast majority of SUV owners never go off-road, but knowing that you can take on anything in a Jeep seems an essential part of the brand’s promise.

The second thing that created dissonance for me was learning that the Grand Cherokee was built on the current M-Class platform from Mercedes-Benz.

“A lot of the new five-seat, two-row Grand Cherokee chassis is shared with Mercedes’ next-generation ML-Class SUV – a byproduct of development that began under the DaimlerChrysler regime.”  AOL Autos 7/11/10

It turns out that the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee was “imagined” and “drawn” when Daimler owned Chrysler.  While I’m sure the Grand Cherokee was conceived and ultimately built in America, they chose to use a platform originally engineered in Germany.

Let’s not debate whether the advertising is factually accurate; I’m sure it follows the letter of the law.

The problem is that when you wave the flag in advertising and ask us to emotionally rally round it because this Jeep is American made, it feels a little smarmy when you learn that it’s not exactly the case.

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.

Last week this all changed.  SAAB started marketing in earnest again asking us to “Change Perspective.”   Here’s the European version of the television commercial (the US version is not yet on YouTube):

This commercial is like a breath of fresh air,  SAAB is returning to its roots but in a cool contemporary way.  Well produced, interesting to watch, the music is great (“The time is now” by Asha Ali) and it’s on strategy: “When you have a different perspectives on things, you don’t end up with just another car, you end up with a SAAB.”  Got it.

The website is equally as engaging as you learn more about SAAB’s perspective on driving, safety, power and fuel.  All seamlessly connected and speaking from the same position:  SAAB has a different perspective, uniquely Swedish, but relevant to the world.  I can’t wait to see the print.

Whenever you do something this fresh and different in the automobile business it will be subjected to the naysayers who scream for something more conventional. Can’t you hear the cries for more sheet metal?

SAAB should ignore them.

Well done SAAB, McCann Erickson Detroit and Lowe Brindfors.

The D-segment of the luxury market is tough.  The best luxury manufacturers in the world bring their best technology, design and engineering to the table and the result is the world’s best 4-door sedans: BMW 7-Series, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Lexus LS, are perennial best sellers.  It’s tough to break-in, Audi has struggled for years to build volume in the segment with its A8 despite having what many would say is the best product.

So what makes Hyundai think they can introduce the Equus into this rarefied air and succeed?

Let’s get one thing out of the way.  From a product perspective, the Hyundai Equus will be a very able competitor to the best luxury sedans in the business.  Hyundai has demonstrated that they build exceptional quality cars at multiple price points, the most recent being the Genesis, a near to mid luxury entry.  The Equus is already getting good reviews and at $55,000 will offer D-class luxury at a very reasonable price.

The issue for Hyundai is not the product or the price.

Already critics are saying Hyundai cannot compete with the Tier 1 luxury marques; Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, BMW and arguably Audi. Hyundai announced that they would not open a separate luxury franchise; instead they will sell the Equus in their existing showrooms. This announcement was met with cynicism.  Traditional thinking says that a Tier 1 luxury brand needs its own stand-alone franchise/stores, and that luxury customers, particularly in the D-segment, want to be coddled in Taj Mahals built as shrines to their brand of choice. Luxury customers certainly don’t want to be shopping for or servicing their cars in the same place as mass-market customers…e.g. a Hyundai dealership.

This conventional thinking assumes that the only way Hyundai can succeed in the luxury segment is to follow the Lexus model and become a Tier 1 luxury brand.  I think Equus will be a success and will re-write the rules of D-Class luxury.  Hyundai won’t be a Tier 1 luxury brand; they will be a new form of luxury.

Americans’ perception of luxury and prestige is changing.  Some argue that the near collapse of the financial markets and the recession have changed our sensibilities forever.  Last year, the Wall Street Journal reporter Matthew Dolan was interviewed and commented that Americans have moved from “conspicuous to careful consumption.” He went on to say that “the luxury of the past is not the luxury of the future.”

Hyundai will certainly take advantage of these changing sensibilities but that’s not the only reason they will succeed.   There has always been a segment of the car buying population that wanted the engineering and quality of the luxury segment but wasn’t interested in the “prestige” image.  These folks didn’t want to overtly make a statement; they were looking for something subtler, something that made sense to them. The traditional trappings of Tier 1 do not drive them, they are looking for a quality product and a reasonable value. For years they bought Audis and thought that they had a made a “smarter” choice than their peers who bought Mercedes-Benz, BMW or Lexus.

Changing perceptions of luxury and an ample number of people interested in a quality luxury automobile but not in the “badge” marques will offer more than enough opportunity for the Equus.  This combined with Hyundai’s increasing reputation for quality, some decent marketing and reasonable pricing should be more than enough to gin up floor traffic for the Equus.

But that’s where the battle will begin for Hyundai and the Equus, it will either succeed or fail based on what the customer experiences as they walk into the showroom.

These consumers are not the traditional Tier 1 D-segment customers and they won’t worry that they are going to a Hyundai store to look at a $55,000 luxury car.  I think they’ll get beyond that fact that their luxury car is in the same showroom with a model that starts at less than $10,000.   I don’t think they’ll mind sitting in a less sumptuous lounge while they’re waiting for service and probably won’t care if espresso isn’t available.

What will make or break the deal is how they are treated when they walk in the door.  If they are greeted by a knowledgeable professional who is well trained and can accurately sell the virtues of the Equus versus its competitors in an interesting and informative way, that will be a good start.  If the showroom is bright, uncluttered and the product conveniently on display that will help.  If they see a customer lounge that is comfortable and clean with free Wi-Fi and a decent high definition television that will create the right impression.  In short, if they see a customer focused environment, staffed with quality people who are focused on the customer’s needs, I think they’ll fore-go the usual Tier 1 frills in favor of a top-notch vehicle at a reasonable price delivered and serviced by competent pros.

The only question for Hyundai is can their dealer body deliver that customer experience.  Recently I was at my local Hyundai store with my son who was in the market for a car.  The salesman that helped us knew little about his own products let alone the competition.  All he talked about was the 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty, the Assurance program and the price.  We had to go outside to see the car we were considering and there was no offer of a test drive. That won’t fly with a D-segment car.  The dealers are going to need to significantly up their game.

If they do, I think Hyundai has a good chance of succeeding with the Equus and possibly becoming Mathew Dolan’s “luxury of the future.” But it’s not about “becoming” Tier 1, nor is it about providing the traditional trappings of “prestige” automotive brands. It’s about recognizing that there’s a new sensibility, a new perspective on luxury and meeting the expectations of these customers. It’s a great opportunity to re-invent a piece of the luxury segment.

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.

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).  I still think the campaign deserved high marks for breaking new ground and attempting to make the fact that it was a brand from Japan important. Unfortunately, the campaign was panned by the automotive marketing community, blamed for anemic sales, resulted in the agency getting fired and ultimately resulted in a much more traditional approach to communications.

In the years that followed, Infiniti communications bounced from expected campaign to expected campaign without ever establishing a clear identity for the brand.  Infiniti was relegated to Tier II status in the US luxury market.  Tier I luxury brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus are considered more prestigious, have higher levels of customer loyalty, higher resale/residual values and not surprisingly have better established brand identities.

It’s been unfortunate for Infiniti because they have consistently offered well-engineered products with some very distinct designs. The product has delivered on Tier I expectations but the brand’s reputation or image did not.

I was glad to see Infiniti stand behind its current “Brush-Stroke” campaign because for the first time since “rocks and trees” I think they are beginning to make the brand something special.  Here are some recent commercials:

And a couple of print ads:

The use of the Japanese sumi-e painting style is a nice way of connecting the brand to Japanese culture and sensibilities while adding a distinctive executional element.  I don’t find the tag-line “Inspired Performance” particularly, forgive me….inspired.  But it is clear and I get the message.  The brand’s Facebook Fan page and the Twitter posts are also consistent strategically as was their NCAA basketball sponsorship of “Inspired Performances.”   Put it all together and Infiniti is a uniquely Japanese performance luxury car with the full measure of technology and features that you would expect.

With this campaign, Infiniti is re-establishing its roots in Japanese performance.  I don’t think that this campaign is going to win any advertising awards (if that happens to be how you measure success) but I do think it is on strategy for this brand, and is well executed.

More importantly, if the manufacturer and the dealers are serious and really do commit to this campaign for five years I think they have a real chance of establishing a clear Infiniti brand identity and perhaps even making it into Tier I.