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

Here’s the introductory commercial:

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

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

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

Here are a couple of the introductory print executions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Nothing earth shaking here, nicely produced  and very product focussed, the commercials clearly make the point that the Cruze is a car that is surprising people. “Get used to more” is a nice line and a huge improvement over “Excellence for all.”   More than anything else the tone and manner sets these executions apart from recent Chevrolet work:

These commercials certainly make the point that the Chevrolet Cruze offers a lot versus the competition and is worthy of a look but they do not offer a big “ah ha” regarding the positioning of the Chevrolet brand.

It will be interesting to see where they go from here.

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.

“The spot will set up a wider TV campaign featuring commercials about each of GM’s four surviving brands: Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac.”  Automotive News, 9/10/09

The implication being that the brand advertising would clarify the brands’ identities. Almost three heads of marketing later, we still have yet to see an ad  or an idea that positions these brands clearly in the marketplace.  Three of the four GM brands have not put a stake in the ground telling us what they stand for (GMC is the exception and that work was done years ago).

Last week it leaked out that Chevy was going to have the tag-line “Excellence for all.” That idea has been roundly criticized as a strategy looking for an execution.  We used to describe an idea like this by saying its “strategy is showing.”  The point of course is that it lacks passion, emotion, bravado, something magical that makes you feel something about the brand, rather it’s as if research wrote the line. Chevrolet is truly one of America’s most storied and iconic brands, surely it deserves better.

Predictably the industry was quick to blame Publicis (Chevrolet’s new agency), I think that’s misplaced.

Ironically, exhibit number 1 in defense of Publicis is the new Cadillac campaign from Bartle Bogle & Hegarty.  Just announced yesterday, here are a couple of the commercials:

Nicely executed, nice music, mildly interesting to watch, but basically running footage. Certainly does not position Cadillac in a powerful way.  Another idea from another new agency that falls short of being something special.  There’s a pattern here folks.

BBH is one the smartest most creative agencies in the world.  They’ve done wonderful work for Audi in the UK so they understand automotive.  The New York office has done the work for Ally Bank (the old GMAC) which is very smart and very powerful.

So what’s going on at GM?  Two great brands in Chevrolet and Cadillac with scads of new, well-received product.  Two new agencies that are bringing huge levels of enthusiasm, smarts and creativity to their new client assignment.  And the result is….work that is “OK” at best and certainly doesn’t move the company any closer to clearly positioning its two best brands.

The good news is that on May 24th, GM’s new Vice President of marketing arrives and with him a new perspective on re-building these great GM brands.  Hopefully, soon after Ewanick’s arrival, we’ll be re-introduced to Chevrolet and Cadillac as brands that clearly stand for something…something we’d be proud to be part of.

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.

I think it’s great that they have repaid the loan and are showing progress, but this PR/advertising effort seems a little misplaced. Does GM think that we’ve forgotten that the taxpayers provided another $43B for which the government got stock and now owns 60% of the company?

It’ll be one thing when there’s a public offering, the government sells it’s stake and gets its investment back plus interest. That will be something to crow about. In the meantime making a big deal out of the fact that they paid us back roughly 15% of what we put in feels a bit like they’re trying to “sell” us something.

Rather than “sell” us that they’re succeeding, just get on with it, and when they’re no longer Government Motors, bring in the marketing guys.

In the meantime, marketing should be working on clearly positioning their remaining brands. That will help sales and create value for the shareholders.

That said, it’s a good time to pause and take a deep breath, because as so often is true, it’s not what you do but how you do it that matters.

Today’s New York Times has an article headlined: “With Toyota in trouble, rivals gain.” Manufacturers are offering incentives to encourage Toyota owners to come in their stores, trade-in their Toyota for a new whatever. Supposedly these incentives are not being widely advertised and dealers are being encouraged not to “try to take a predatory stance in this type of environment.”  According to GM and others, their dealers have requested incentive support.  Of course they wanted incentive support, there’s blood in the water.

There are a couple of good reasons to push back against this knee jerk reaction to offer incentives.

First, while it may be Toyota’s turn in the barrel today, next month it could be any of the competitors.  Today’s vehicles are incredibly complicated, with more computing power, millions of lines of code, electronic almost everything.  Every manufacturer will have recalls, most minor, but there’s always the possibility of something major. They’re all living in glass houses.

The second and more important reason not to immediately use incentives is that you don’t have to.  I have read article after article that has reported that Toyota values are dropping.  Dealers who have historically sold Toyota’s for $1-2,000 over invoice are selling cars at a loss.  So the customers who are now looking for an alternative to their Toyota, are people that paid full whack when they purchased it. These folks aren’t looking for the best deal, they are looking for the best car, one they can count on.  Now is the time to sell your product based on it’s merits, not the deal.

Detroit has long lamented that the need to offer incentives has crippled them financially.  Most have gone on record in 2009 saying that they were not going to use incentives as much.  So what happens when circumstances create an opportunity, they’re offering incentives!

The irony is that Ford and General Motors have really got their product act together, they are building excellent cars.  Cars that are capable of competing with Toyota. For the only time in recent memory Toyota owners might actually be “open” to another brand and the first thing we’re going to do is sell them a deal rather than selling them on the virtues of the product.

Toyota’s troubles are an opportunity for its competitors to build credibility and their stature as first tier manufacturers.  Unfortunately it seems that old habits die hard. The all consuming desire to drive volume today will prevent the companies and their dealers from behaving in a way that will build their reputations for the longer term.

That’s a missed opportunity.

By rebuilding the uniqueness of the SAAB brand they will be able to re-ignite the passion of their enthusiasts and build the business. SAAB will never be a quarter of a million unit business in the US but it can be successful.  Forcing SAAB into GM’s”success” model was the problem, now it has a second chance.

Congratulations to Mr Muller, Spyker, and SAAB loyalists everywhere. Finally, an automotive brand that will be coming back rather than disappearing.  Like Audi before it, bringing SAAB back in the US market place will be a labor of love and a “mission from God.”   Sign me up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind that my family has a long history with European imports.  In fact the last domestic product we bought was a 1986 Jeep Cherokee, just before the SUV craze really took hold.

Since that time we have had Volvos, a SAAB, a Mercedes Benz, half a dozen Audis and a couple of VWs.  For the last fifteen years my family has been happily ensconced in a series of Audis. As great as our experience has been with our Audis (we still have 2 in our household fleet) I thought it might be time for something new.

Growing up in my household, my sons could not help but pay attention to the automotive industry and both of them love cars.  So as I went through my deliberations concerning a new car, two conversations with my sons illustrated the change that is about to take place in the luxury segment.  The first with my then 22 year old, who when told I was thinking about a Mercedes-Benz, dismissively said “don’t buy a Mercedes-Benz, that’s an old man’s car.”

The second conversation, this one with my 25 year old, didn’t demean the possibility of a Mercedes-Benz, but concluded with “Dad, you should take a look at the Cadillac CTS, I think they’re cool.”

Now it was my turn to be surprised.  I admit that I have impressed by the design direction of Cadillac and I certainly recognize that the product is greatly improved but  ”cool” from a twenty five year old’s point of view?

For 30+ years we have watched the Europeans and Japanese recreate the luxury segment as the domestics lost favor.  Very few baby boomers thought of Cadillac or Lincoln as marques they wanted in their garage.  Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus have been their first tier luxury brands of choice.   However, the preeminence of these brands is being challenged.

There are three reasons why the “Tier 1″ luxury brands are under fire:

1. The run up of luxury segment volumes over the last 10-15 years has been extraordinary making Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus commonplace. In the early nineties these brands fought to break through the 100M unit level, in 2008 each sold over a quarter of a million vehicles.  It’s hard to feel that your car is special when you see it coming and going at every intersection.
2. The recession has altered Americans’ sensibilities regarding luxury. 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.”
3. We have a new generation of luxury segment purchasers entering their high earning years and they have different perceptions of BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Lexus than their parents do.  This generation dismisses Mercedes-Benz as another generation’s car in the same way we dismissed Lincoln and Cadillac thirty years ago.  They now look at Cadillac and think it’s pretty cool.

These three factors sound to me like the recipe for a sea change.  The “prestige” marques have become too common, Americans don’t want to show their wealth in an ostentatious fashion and new buyers are open to the possibility of “new” brands.  Audi is taking advantage of this shift.  I think VW, in a slightly different way, is well positioned.

Perhaps most interesting is the possibility of a resurgent Cadillac, could it become a new generation’s marque of choice?

The dealership had one car. It looked terrific. The salesman said that it was “more European in its styling” and I agree with him. No land yacht here. My one gripe was the “portholes” on the hood, if that is a Buick styling cue, it’s one they should let go (one man’s opinion).

Regardless of the “portholes,” it was hard not to be impressed by the car. If the 2010 Lacrosse is indicative of where they are taking the Buick product line then I’m already thinking about the brand a little differently.

As impressive as the product was, that was not the most interesting part of the dealer visit. I asked if I could drive the car and was politely told, I’d have to “wait my turn.” People were lined up to drive the new Lacrosse! The best news…they weren’t all 65 and older, quite a few were 10-15 years younger.

Based on one dealer visit and the crowd around the 2010 Lacrosse, perhaps the Buick brand is going to surprise us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bit of understatement came from Steven Rattner and was quoted in a July 6th article in Automotive News.  He went on to say that “There’s often a lag between perception and reality.”  He was referring to the “fact” that GM’s products  and product quality would surprise many people.  Based on JD Power’s most recent IQS study where both Cadillac (#3) and Chevy (#9) were well above industry average, he seems to have point.  GMC and Buick were just a couple of notches below average.  By the way, the GM brands are ahead of many well respected marques like Audi, Volvo, Subaru, Jeep and Mini.

So, as the new GM comes out of its speedy bankruptcy there seems to be general acknowledgement that it needs to deal with this “perception problem” which means that the marketers are going to get their chance to help change the fortunes of GM.

Another Automotive News article declared:  “The New GM needs marketing blitz, experts say.”  The question that comes to mind is what is the “marketing blitz” going to consist of.  There’s a body of opinion that says that GM should lower its prices to get people in the showroom where they will see the quality of the products and be compelled to buy.  Some folks are suggesting that the message should be “Come give us a chance and see what we’ve got, because we’re going to grow.”  Others are saying that GM needs to take advantage of a growing “new nationalism” and Americans’ willingness to buy American.

This sounds to me like Detroit pulling pages from its traditional playbook.  What happened to “re-invention.”

Clearly pricing needs to be competitive.  But I sure wouldn’t make pricing the focus of the communications.  There’s no news there, show me one American who doesn’t know that this is a great time to buy a car…particularly a car from GM!  I also think it’s true that many Americans would like to buy a domestic product, Ford seems to be capitalizing on this sensibility.

Pricing and appealing to nationalism won’t close the perception problem.  Consumers need to know why they should perceive these brands differently.  GM needs to step back, do a clear-eyed assessment of their brands’ positioning, make sure they are differentiated versus their competitive set, and then use communications to clearly establish these brands in consumers’ minds.

While they’re at it, management of the new GM needs to bring outside perspective and creative thinking to this strategic discussion: outside consultants, new agencies, new marketing people.  This body of work must be done quickly, it must be done well and then it must be executed.  You only have one chance to be “new” (sort of).

Rattner et al rejected GM’s financial plan and forced the development of a new one that they thought could work.  The same principle needs to be applied to the marketing plans.  There is no reason to suspect that any “re-invention” of marketing will take place without new input.

I understand the importance of getting people into showrooms and generating sales but doing it based on price or begging people to “buy American” is not a strategy.  Short term tactics are not going to change the perception of the GM brands.  Marketing needs to differentiate these brands and establish a long term platforms on which to build a loyal following for each.

We’re still waiting for signs of “re-invention,” signs that someone recognizes the need for new thinking.  The idea that pricing and begging will lead to an appreciation of the product and a shift in perception is more of the same.  Where is the “re-invention?”

This week it was announced that Roger Penske had cut a deal to buy the Saturn brand from General Motors.  What a terrific development for Saturn and the Saturn brand.

A few weeks ago I was with a GM marketing guy and he made the observation that “you can tell that finance guys made all the decisions about the future of GM, because marketing folks would have kept Saturn and Hummer.”

The point he was making is that a marketing person would have recognized the inherent value in the Saturn and Hummer brands.  It looks like Hummer is going to get a second chance with a new Chinese owner and it remains to be seen if Hummer can successfully navigate changing consumer sensibilities to build a solid and profitable business in the US.

Saturn on the other hand grabbed the brass ring.

Much has been written about how Hal Riney created a great automotive brand image for Saturn and how years of product neglect by GM made it impotent in the marketplace.  Most recently Saturn has gotten some new product which is highly regarded and that has helped immensely.  The Saturn distribution network has always been one of the industry’s best and now they have the Penske organization behind them.

Penske understands what it takes to be successful.  The fact that they bought the Saturn brand and distribution network while dodging the factories speaks volumes.  Saturn will now get product from any number of international manufacturers and not have to deal with the GM cost structure.  Sounds like suddenly Saturn may be able to do something it never could under GM…make a profit.

That’s great in and of itself, but here’s the thing I’m excited about.  This is a chance to resuscitate and reinvent the Saturn brand.  It’s a chance to make it the powerful force that it could have been years ago had it not been neglected.  What a great opportunity for all the people involved with Saturn and Saturn marketing.

As a marketing guy, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a more exciting automotive job than as part of the Penske team that will rebuild the Saturn brand.

Sign me up, rebuilding the Saturn brand would be a great gig.

Let me start by pointing out that I am not a GM basher.  I think the government was right to help and I want the company to succeed.

Having said that, the new GM advertising and website  (http://www.gmreinvention.com/) which seeks to convince us that there is a new company called GM and that it is re-inventing itself is lame at best and insulting to our intelligence at worst.  Here’s the new commercial/video:

If you go to the website, there are quite a number of interesting videos and lots of information designed to make the reader feel confident that this is a company that is changing and that it has a bright future.

Here’s what bothers me, the same GM team using the same agencies have cranked out another big production anthemic commercial and a bunch of videos…where’s the “re-invention” in that?

GM has long been criticized for its insular culture and Detroit centric view of the world.  GM is company that needs to throw open the doors and invite in new ideas, new ways of thinking, new influences.  And yet, what we have, after billions of taxpayer dollars is more of what we’ve seen before.

It seems like the only change that has taken place at GM is that the Federal Government called b_ _ _ s_ _ _ on their financial plans and demanded radically different ones.  The marketing hasn’t changed one iota.

I desperately want GM to re-invent itself, but to stand any chance of doing so they need to bring in new thinking and new ways of doing business.

Here’s the shame of it, GM has some terrific technologies, some terrific people and I’m sure they can create a future for the company.  The problem is the marketing,  “re: invention” shows up like anything but.