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.

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.

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.

After an incredibly tough 2009, consumers seem to be coming back.  For the first time in recent memory, Americans’ perception of domestic automobiles seems to be on the mend (Business Week 4/23).  Ford’s bet that Americans will buy smaller, fully featured automobiles looks like it may pay off.  GM’s product plan created by soon-to-retire Bob Lutz is leading a resurgence for the General.  Hyundai and Kia, supported my excellent product quality, have taken advantage of recessionary sensibilities and grown share of market.  Audi , Subaru and Mini have come out of the recession on a tear.

On the other side of the ledger, Toyota continues to struggle with recalls and concerns about quality.  This has led to unprecedented incentives by Toyota and the predictable response by competitors to match them.  So a good number of consumers who had been sitting on sidelines during the recession have come back to dealerships looking to for a good deal.  After 2009, it’s a relief to see traffic in the stores but at the same time if the incentives continue that will not be good for the industry long term.  In 2009, some progress had been made at reducing the use of incentives, but the moment Toyota jumped in to defend its franchise, that opened the floodgates again.

So the good news is that customers are returning to the stores, but are they coming back for the right reasons?

Coming out of a deep recession, it makes sense that price point will be critical.  But eventually, consumer confidence will return and what, other than price, do we want consumers to consider?  What will create preference and support higher margins?  This seems a good time to step back and evaluate the current state of our automotive brands and evaluate them against a new generation of potential prospects.   Our industry’s brands are not what they once were.

Many once great automotive brands have been allowed to slip into an amorphous state.  In the 90’s as manufacturers chased volume and sought a bigger share of the then expanding pie, it was no longer enough to stand for one thing, they needed to be more things to more people.  This led to communications that were less clear, less defined and the process of weakening great brands began.

If you doubt the veracity of this statement, look at the luxury segment of the category, Volvo, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, SAAB were once clearly positioned brands that stood for something.  Many among us can still rattle off these brands’ core values.

• Volvo—safety
• Mercedes Benz—engineering
• BMW—performance
• Jaguar—design and performance
• SAAB—individuality
• Porsche—performance sports cars

For a long time the majority of consumers gave these brands credit for these values despite product and communications that seemed to go in other directions.  But now the problem has come to roost, there’s a whole generation of prospective customers that don’t know what these brands stand for, they weren’t alive when the seminal advertising that positioned these brands was running.

What to do?  Here’s a suggestion, form a small team of senior level marketing folks (independent consultants, agency partners) who are talented, understand brand building and the automobile business.  Make sure they are willing to commit themselves to genuinely understanding your brand in all its glorious detail and let them loose.  Tell them you want ideas that will clearly position your brand to a new generation of car purchasers who are a blank canvas.  Ask them to execute the idea across all media channels.  Ask for ways to use social media to create communities around your brand that take advantage of the enthusiasts who understand your brand so that their knowledge can educate the new generation.

Consumers are coming back into the stores, but most are coming back to get a good deal.  Manufacturers and their agencies need to re-build their brands.  With younger customers, they need to build them for the first time.  Incentives train people to buy based on the deal and consider the products commodity-like.

In a category where it is now difficult to buy a “bad” vehicle, the threat of commoditization is very real.  A strong desirable brand is the only thing standing between a manufacturer of differentiated products and a supplier of generic transportation.

Please let me know what you think.

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.

In New York last week I saw the new Mini crossover, the Countryman, for the first time in person.  All the Mini design cues are present in the Countryman and I think you’d be hard pressed to say that it wasn’t part of the Mini family.  But I was struck by how “big” it seemed, it didn’t seem small and taut the way all the other models do.  Part of the difference was that the Countryman’s ground clearance is higher, so its stance is really quite different than the other Minis.

This got me thinking, at what point does a marque go too far and begin to lose its essential character?  Has Mini gone too far with the Countryman?

I suspect this is a little like losing your hair.  Little by little your hair recedes, almost imperceptibly, you make little adjustments as you go, thinking no one will notice, until one day you end up with comb-over and people are snickering behind your back. Little by little automotive brands seem to lose their way.

I suppose this is the ultimate judgment call in the automotive branding business.  All manufacturers feel the relentless pressure to grow their business and increase volume.  One way to do that is to create products that enable you to enter new segments.  Sometimes companies get this right and other times not.

Porsche, the archetypal sports car company, introduces the Cayenne to howls of protest from the “purists,” sells a ton of them and for a number of years could claim to be the most profitable manufacturer in the world.  Clearly a good business decision and it seems not to have diminished the brand.  One of the reasons that I think the Cayenne did not hurt the Porsche brand is because at the time it was introduced, no one was making a high performance SUV.  With the Cayenne, Porsche filled an unmet need…some folks wanted an SUV that offered real performance creds and Porsche led the industry from its traditional strength.

I think the Panamera will be a different story.  I don’t think the world is waiting for a Porsche 4-door sedan.  There are already terrific high performance sedans,  Audi RS6 & S8, Mercedes-Benz AMG models, BMW’s M5 & Alpina B7.  Porsche is following a well-worn path with the Panamera and it will be just another performance sedan.

VW and its much-maligned Routan is a good example of a product that stretched a brand the wrong way.  VW wanted to add a people mover to its line-up.  The wonderful VW Microbus Concept proved too expensive to produce so VW struck a deal with Chrysler and the Routan is the result.  A perfectly serviceable vehicle I’m sure, but very little VW character:

Had VW been able to produce the Microbus it would have been more distinctive and reflective of the Volkswagen brand.  Instead the Routan competes with every other plain vanilla Japanese entrant and is struggling.

BMW, inarguably the best-defined brand in the automobile business has just announced that it will develop a front wheel drive platform and market front wheel drive cars.  Again, howls of protest from the enthusiast circles that rightly point out that the Ultimate Driving Machine has been based on several principles not the least of which was rear wheel driven handling and perfect 50/50 weight distribution front to back.  But there are good reasons to have a FWD in your product portfolio, particularly when you need to develop smaller more fuel-efficient models to meet CAFE standards.

Here’s the tough thing about having a well-developed brand, you can’t be all things to all people.  Some things fit and others don’t. When you do things that conflict with your brand’s core values or principles it diminishes your brand.

Is the Mini Countryman going to weaken the Mini brand?  Probably not, but what about the next variant?

Porsche Cayenne OK?  What about Panamera?  Feels like the Porsche brand doesn’t have that much elasticity.

Volkswagen Routan?  VW’s stated company goal is to become more “mainstream”  and increase US volumes dramatically. I guess Routan is mainstream, but I’m not sure that “mainstream” and strong brand go together.  It will be fascinating to see the new sedan built in the Chattanooga factory, will it still have essential VW character or will it be “mainstream?”

BMW and front wheel drive?  Maybe most people won’t know or care that the car is front wheel drive, but the legions of people who bought into BMW’s rear wheel drive rationale will be wondering what it means for the Ultimate Driving Machine.

It seems like growth is the enemy of automotive brands.  Little by little, the never-ending pursuit of volume forces companies into segments and compromises that make their brands less distinct, less clear.  Without question you can sell a few more cars, but is it worth it?  Would you be better off creating a new brand?  It’s a good question to ask as you consider each new segment and new product. If you take the question seriously and really consider the strength of the brand an important consideration then you can avoid becoming a comb-over brand.  A brand that has rationale for what’s doing…but it isn’t fooling anybody.

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

After a number of high profile failures to enter the European market in a big way, the folks at Cadillac want to be a niche player and are willing to accept the lower volumes that go along with such a strategy.  By keeping volumes low, and presumably margins high, they expect that they can be profitable from year 1.

I think this strategy is sound and will succeed.  Cadillac’s current design language is unique and appealing.  There has always been a segment of the automotive market that is interested in something different and Europe is no different than the United States in this regard.  In Europe where Mercedes-Benzes, Audis and BMWs are common and cover a multitude of uses including taxis, rental cars, executive cars and the vehicles of choice for captains of industry, there is an opportunity for something “different.”

For example, in a part of the world where station wagons (called “Estates” and sometimes “Avants”) are enormously popular, Cadillac has a terrific entry in the CTS Sport Wagon.  Ironically, in the U.S. the CTS Sports Wagon is expected to be a niche product at best, I bet it could be the brand’s best seller in Europe.

Here’s the challenge for Cadillac in Europe.  Quality.  European luxury car buyers have become accustomed to a very high quality standard and expect it to be met.  If Cadillac can meet this expectation, then I think they will be a successful niche brand and could probably expect measured year over year growth.  Long-term, they will need to figure out how to offer a diesel, but initially I think they can get the ball rolling without one.

The industry needs more niche brands and I’ll bet Cadillac can have a very nice piece of business in Europe, as long as they keep their volume aspirations in check.  Ultimately, that may be the biggest challenge of all.

Please comment below, I’d love to 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.

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.

It was ironic that virtually every manufacturer was talking about EVs in one form or another, yet the much less fashionable technology…diesel…took home the Green Car of the Year prize.

Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the electric cars and concepts are fascinating.

Chevrolet showed us a production version of the Volt and spoke about the fact that there would be no “range anxiety” because of the small motor that would generate electricity to charge the batteries. Audi showed the E-tron, an electric version of the R8 with an electric motor poweringeach wheel and delivering supercar performance. BMW’s “Vision” concept demonstrated where “Efficient Dynamics” might take the brand. Mini has been testing electric cars on America’s roads and had an example at their stand.

EVs are being talked about as if they will solve global warming, reduce our fossil fuel consumption to zero and generally save the planet. EVs are the messiah of automotive technologies.

Here’s the problem, electric cars are expected to represent maybe 10% of sales by 2020. At that sales rate it’s hard to imagine the technology as a game changer from a fuel consumption or global warming perspective.

At least we have the folks responsible for selecting the “Green Car of the Year” to provide a reality check. For the second consecutive year, a diesel-powered vehicle was selected as green car of the year. Why? Clean diesel is a practical and “green” approach to transportation. It offers 25-30% better mileage, it emits less CO2 and particulate emission is now comparable to gasoline-powered technology. Today’s clean diesels meet the most stringent pollution standards and are sold in all fifty states.

The Audi A3 TDI is a terrific example of the modern clean diesel and a worthy “Green Car of the Year.”

Modern clean diesels are readily available, offer the possibility of reducing fuel consumption by a third and emit less C02 than gasoline engines. Maybe after we’re done talking about technology that won’t make a difference for another 20 years, we’ll start to talk about one that can make a difference tomorrow.

I know it’s not fashionable, but we need to change Americans’ perception of diesel because it makes sense.

No one expects that the automotive industry will achieve the heady sales levels of the early part of this decade.

“By 2013, car and truck sales in North America will rebound to the new normal rate of 15 million to 16 million units”  Automotive News 8/5/09

At best, we will attain a “new normal” of 15-16MM units in 2013.

That means that competition for customers is going to be tougher than ever and no one’s business is going to grow just hanging on to the industry coattails.  Historically the manufacturers have reacted to these types of circumstances by using incentives.  These tactics artificially inflated sales earlier in the decade, pulling sales forward and contributed to the most recent “correction” that has pummeled the industry.  Using short-term incentives to steal share is not the answer to long-term prosperity, it’s merely a tactic that gives a franchise a quick shot in the arm.  Establishing a brand’s immutable points of difference and creating consumer affinity for it, is what creates value over the long term.

Last week, BusinessWeek published a piece by Ed Wallace about GM making the same mistakes; in it he made the case for branding:

“True, people want a “deal” when they buy a new car. But more important, they want to buy something exceptional….The automotive selling process, done right, has little to do with negotiation: It has everything to do with building value in the vehicle.”

It’s about time the industry took “branding” seriously.

You only need to look as far back as the last eighteen months to see the power of an automotive brand.  Subaru and Mini have survived the recession and some would argue have flourished under incredibly difficult circumstances while virtually every other manufacturer suffered.

The automobile industry has not made building and nurturing its brands a priority.  There are some exceptions like Subaru, Mini, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes Benz and Jeep.  But generally speaking investing in the brand has been the first thing cut by automotive marketers when things get tough.  The brand investment gets cut in favor of marketing efforts that will “make the doors swing.”  Frankly some of the above-mentioned brands have weakened in recent years, but clearly the marketers in charge of them have historically recognized the leverage created by a well-understood brand.

The first step toward having a well-understood brand is being able to clearly articulate it.  This is not a tagline or even a series of “core values,” both these approaches seek to summarize a brand.  The first step is a complete and full articulation of the brand, several pages perhaps, that explain its history, beliefs, behaviors, accomplishments, failures and contributions.  This document seeks not to summarize a brand’s essence but rather to capture it in detail; it describes the brand’s character, what makes it authentic.

The process of writing it down is critical.  A consultant friend used to say that: “nothing exists until it is spoken.”  In this case, if you can’t write this document about your brand, then you don’t have a brand.  Often it can help to have an “outsider” write this document, if you allow that person full access to your company and your people.  Either way, you need to articulate your brand in depth and in full, as it should form the underpinnings of all that you do.  It should drive communications, your use of social media, dealer experience and everything in between.

With this document in hand, you are ready to leverage your brand and give your customers the experience that will differentiate you from the competition.  Without it, you’re grasping at straws, hoping that somehow everything comes together.

In the hyper competitive “new normal” market of 12-16 million units, “guessing and getting lucky” will not carry the day.

As an industry we’ve lost sight of our great brands.  In some cases companies have gone bankrupt or been acquired and a brand disappeared, in others a world war got in the way.  Studebaker, Cord, Horch, MG, Triumph and countless others have evaporated for a variety of reasons.

Today, as Detroit goes through an unprecedented upheaval, there will be more brands lost.  Saturn, a once very special brand, will go away.  So will Pontiac and Hummer.  We can only wonder what will happen to brands like Jeep.  Brands that stood for something, had a point of view, and marketed products that reflected a certain perspective.  Brands that developed a loyal following because they stood for something!  They weren’t for everybody, and that was OK.

As discouraging as it is to see a great brand go away because of a structural change in a company, it’s worse to see brands die of neglect by the very people charged with protecting and building them.  Over the last 20 years we have watched a number of great automotive brands that automotive marketers worked very hard to create, begin to whither away.  The aforementioned Jeep is one, Volvo another.  Mercedes Benz, Jaguar, Land Rover, SAAB,  Lexus and even mighty BMW feel somehow “less” than they did even ten years ago.

What’s happened?  Expansion happened.  Chasing volume happened.  Brands that meant something specific and clear found themselves needing to be “more.”

For example, it wasn’t enough for Volvo to stand for safety.  They thought they couldn’t sell 200,000 units in the US based on safety alone, they needed to be more exciting, they needed performance added to their brand positioning.  I’ll bet if we asked someone at Volvo today, they’d love to be a 150,000 unit “safety” brand.

Mercedes Benz, while incredibly successful in the US, was once “Engineered Like No Other Car In the World.”  That wasn’t enough either, it always irritated Mercedes Benz that Volvo had grabbed the “safety” positioning when Mercedes Benz automobiles were at the time considered safer.  So they made sure that “safety” played a big role in communications for a period of time.  Oh, and then Lexus came along and engineered an exceptional car, so the long standing Mercedes Benz tag line wasn’t supportable any longer.  And as Lexus‘ sales grew at a meteoric pace in the early 90’s it was clear that Mercedes Benz could and must sell many more cars too.

All these brands saw an opportunity to expand volume and felt that their well defined positionings from the ‘70s and the ‘80s were “limiting.”  So they expanded their positionings and forever weakened their brands.  Consumers were once convinced that if they bought a Volvo, it would keep them safe.  They knew for certain that if they bought a Mercedes Benz they were buying the best engineered car in the world.  If you bought a Land Rover you bought a vehicle capable of going anywhere with an unparalleled level of luxury and utility.

BMW, while it has been the best of the bunch at sticking with their fundamental positioning of “The Ultimate Driving Machine,” has expanded so dramatically over the last ten years that it’s difficult to say it has kept its well honed differentiated competitive edge.

Here’s the truth about all of these brands.  They all make terrific products that offer fabulous engineering, safety, performance, luxury and prestige.  Historically, what differentiated these brands was where these brands started the conversation with consumers.  Mercedes Benz always spoke from an engineering point of view, Volvo from safety, BMW from performance.  As a owner you got a well engineered, high performing, luxurious and safe car but all of that within the brand’s differentiating perspective.  Unfortunately, today the differences in brand perspective are less identifiable.

So, where does this leave us?  It leaves us with a bunch of homogenized brands.  Brands that are not as leverageable as they once were.  Brands that are weaker.  The good news is that the baby boomers grew up when these great brands were established in the ‘70s and ‘80s, they still understand the fundamental positionings and keep them in the public consciousness.  The bad news, the baby boomers, who have fueled the expansion of these brands, are entering the phase of their lives where they won’t be buying as many cars.

Which finally leads to my real question, who will teach the next generation of automotive buyers what these great brands stand for?  Are we going to let these great automotive brands slide into a homogenized future where every car is a good car and they’re more alike than different?

There’s a whole new generation of automobile buyers entering the market and they don’t understand these great brands because the marketing over the last fifteen years hasn’t differentiated them.  Auto marketers and their agencies would do well to teach this generation what their parents already know….that there are differences between these automotive brands and that’s what makes them desirable.

This article in today’s New York Times got me thinking about BMW and its brand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/business/global/07iht-bmw.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

I think that just about anyone could argue pretty convincingly that of all the imported luxury marques, BMW has done the best job of sticking to its positioning over the long term.  Encapsulated by “The Ultimate Driving Machine,”  BMW has year after year developed and sold products that live up to this brand standard.  The marketing has also been remarkably consistent in supporting the brand positioning.

So it was encouraging to read in the NY Times that BMW is serious about maintaining its independence and at some level is rejecting the industry’s argument that “scale” is critical to success.  What a crime it would be if BMW ended up married to someone else, sharing parts and technologies and the products became less distinct.  I hope the same applies to their view of their brand positioning and marketing.

It seems like every imported automotive brand that established a clear and unassailable positioning in the ‘70s and ‘80s has allowed that positioning to become broader as they chased volume in the ‘90s.  The result…some sold  more cars, but at the expense of their clear positioning.  Consider Volvo, it owned “safety,” but that was too narrow, they couldn’t sell 200,000 cars in the US with such a narrow positioning.  I bet they’d be grateful today to “own” safety and be selling 125,000 units.

Here’s the part of the NY Times article that worries me:

“BMW is seeking its salvation in a new definition of premium cars, one that would emphasize to affluent buyers in the United States and Europe that its models are not just fast driving machines but can be configured to do less damage to the environment than much of the competition.”

I hope they’re careful, environmental issues are important, but BMW’s performance positioning is the heart and soul of the brand.  Expressing the environmental message as an integral part of performance is the opportunity, “not just fast driving machines” sounds like a broadening of the positioning and that will lead to a weaker brand.