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.

In USA Today’s Ad Meter, this commercial finished in the top third at 19th.  Of automotive commercials in the Super Bowl it was ranked 4th of 18.  Not a bad showing for the brand but it certainly isn’t getting talked about the way Chrysler’s “Imported from Detroit” spot or VW’s “The Force” commercial is.

I must admit, I felt a little let down.  The Super Bowl is such a huge platform and it demands that you have something important to say and that you do it in a different way. Chrysler understood this and is reaping the benefits.  Mercedes-Benz basically said that they have been building cars for 125 years and the newest ones are now available. Really?  Puff Daddy was enough to get noticed and for the car wonks among us there were lots of wonderful old MBs in the ad but that’s the best they good do with $6MM in airtime on the Super Bowl?

I’m sure the Super Bowl commercial reflects the push and pull of all the various constituents.  The agency folks want the message to be simple and easily understood, the company marketing people want it to be differentiating (125 years) and the dealers want to see product.  Check, check and check.

On balance, the commercial was solid, certainly nothing wrong with it, but it could have been so much more powerful.  Last year I came across some terrific videos from Mercedes-Benz that I think give a glimmer of what could have been:

Admittedly these are long form videos and it would be prohibitively expensive to run them on the Super Bowl as is, but with judicious editing you could easily make a :90 or a :60 that would have been much more impactful. Let’s see…125 years of company heritage and Puff Daddy… or the incredibly emotional true stories of people who believe that a Mercedes-Benz saved their lives.

The resulting commercial would not have met everyone’s requirements; you’d see only damaged product, and there are certainly other safe cars out there but the message would have been simple…Mercedes-Benzes save the lives of people like me.

Pretty powerful stuff.

See more of these “Impact” videos at Mercedes-Benz’ website.

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.

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.

Here’s the first commercial:

Already the pundits are criticizing the campaign.  Advertising Age has an article headlined “Criticism of the new Chevy theme runs deep” which does a very nice job of  chronicling the pundits’ negative opinions and I’m sure by tomorrow morning there will be more.

Much of the criticism stems from the idea that Chevy is trying to capitalize on “patriotism” or “American heritage.”  Other folks are implying that there is nothing new here, that in fact Campbell Ewald did this sort of work for Chevy for years and reference “Like a Rock” and “Heartbeat of America” as proof points.

Got it.  It’s true, the advertising is referencing the fact that the Chevy brand has long been a part of the fabric of America.  Indeed, many new babies came home in Chevrolets, many folks’ first cars were Chevys and yes, here in North Carolina I still see dogs riding in the back of Chevy pick-up trucks almost every day.  Is this “new,” no, but neither is Chevrolet.  Why is it that people, supposed experts, seem to think that Chevy needs to be re-invented, that it must be all new?

Chevrolet is an iconic American brand and what I see in this advertising is the brand trying to replace it’s stake in the ground.  It’s trying to remind us why it’s important and why so many of us care about it and feel connected to it.  It’s an effort to jump start the brand and it’s starting where it left off.

The real issue will be where they go from here with Chevrolet, because you can’t rest on your laurels or live in the past.

In the meantime, I think this campaign is a good start to re-establishing a great American brand.

Here’s the rest of the ads, I’d love to know you think.

“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!

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.

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.

That conclusion has always bothered me.  I’ve always thought that Mercedes-Benz had a its own brand of engineering, it wasn’t always “better” than anyone else’s (although often it is), but I always felt it was “different” and therefore uniquely Mercedes-Benz.  It always seemed crazy to walk away from one of the four or five true category drivers.  But in an effort to “broaden” the appeal of Mercedes-Benz, they gave themselves credit for engineering and assumed that all their customers and prospects understood the core of the brand.

After years of neglect, it seems to me that the marketers at Mercedes-Benz are returning to the brand’s authentic roots and regaining their focus on engineering. Here are two commercials that have been on-air recently:

I’m not for an instant suggesting that these are the most innovative executions in the world, but it does seem to me that they are strategically spot-on for Mercedes-Benz. These commercials speak from the position of engineering.  The E-Class commercial references that it is the “9th generation,” the product of “50,000 crash tests,” holds the “world record for longevity” and is “technologically advanced.”  While you’re watching the C-Class roll over in a crash test you hear copy asking “When you buy a car, what are you buying?” a few factoids later you hear “the deeper you look the more you see the real difference and the more you understand what it means to own a Mercedes-Benz…the engineering of Mercedes-Benz.

Keen observers may have noticed that Mercedes-Benz has been running print ads with relatively long copy full of facts and rationale that supports their engineering positioning.

I can hear some ad wonks saying that they have seen these commercials before and that there is nothing new about a long copy ad.  I would argue that these commercials do a very nice job of establishing Mercedes-Benz as a very special car company with quality engineering at its core.  It may not be new, but neither is the brand and it will work, particularly with the new generation of luxury car purchasers who don’t know Mercedes-Benz as well as their parents.

While Mercedes-Benz is getting back to their core values, they are not living in the past.  Their efforts to reach this new generation of luxury buyers through social media with the “Gen-Benz” online community and another program called “M-B Advisors” demonstrates that the Company is listening and learning.  The traditional advertising may be well, traditional, but the folks at Mercedes-Benz recognise that to truly build their brand for this new generation they need to create a dialogue and a community around the brand in a whole different way (MediaPost.com).

Mercedes-Benz is doing a very nice job re-establishing its brand’s core values and teaching a new generation of customers what their brand represents.  If they keep this up, and perhaps restore “Engineered like no other car in the world” maybe we can take this great brand off the endangered list.

This Acura commercial is about crumple zones and their ability to absorb energy in a crash while directing it around the passengers ensconced in a safety cage.  It’s a nicely executed commercial that provides people with information that gives them confidence that Acuras are safe.

But it isn’t new and it certainly isn’t exclusive to Acura.  Many of us would say that crumple zones are “old news.”

In 1952, Mercedes-Benz received a patent for a crumple zone in an automobile.  Up until that point rigidity was regarded as the key to protecting passengers in an automobile accident.  The 1959 Mercedes-Benz W111 series included crumple zones and was actively crash tested by the company.

I can still vividly remember the first time I actually saw a crash test.  It was at the Mercedes Benz Safety Center in the Sindelfingen plant outside Stuttgart.  I was amazed at the devastation created by a thirty mile an hour off-set crash.  Right then and there I learned the value of a crumple zone.

Today, every automobile manufacturer uses crumple zones to make their cars safer.

Yet here is Acura, using their version of a crumple zone to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

If every car has crumple zones, then what’s differentiating about Acura’s?

Not much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything “Old” Is “New” Again

By Curvin O’Rielly

In 1982, when I was a young creative director at BBDO in New York, I was asked to write an article about the automobile business for Magazine Age.

The article was well received. I even won an American Business Press award for it. The question is, has it stood the test of time?

Well, some of the details I included in the article are as dated as the wide ties we used to wear (the ones you’re saving, hoping they come back into style again), or the disco music we used to listen to (admit it; you boogeyed to disco), or the haul-ass iron we used to drive, the cars with more horsepower than their suspension systems and brakes could reasonably handle (unless they were well-engineered vehicles from Europe).

What’s still true about my article, unfortunately, is that the automobile industry is once again in deep trouble. This time, it’s poised at the abyss, owing in part to the economic tremors that came close to causing a complete meltdown. At the abyss, too, because it was smart (or so it prided itself) but then not smart enough. I mean, surely those at the wheel had to have seen all the danger signs on the road they were heading down, just as they had to have known they were racing toward a disaster of epic proportions.

That said, here are the observations I made 28 years ago, with some minor rewrites here and there.

•••

“Panic-Induced Mediocrity”

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s wrong, specifically?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••

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

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

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

Maybe we need that now. Truth instead of hype.

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