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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the latest JD Power IQS study results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so much anymore.  Not mainstream enough.

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

Headline on GM’s website

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

New York Times, April 24, 2007

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

Fortune 10/11/10

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

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

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

So bigger is better?  Maybe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So both approaches can result in strong, valuable brands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything “Old” Is “New” Again

By Curvin O’Rielly

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

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

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

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

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

•••

“Panic-Induced Mediocrity”

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s wrong, specifically?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••

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

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

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

Maybe we need that now. Truth instead of hype.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hyundai Assurance Program was a stroke of brilliance at a time when the economy and the auto industry were in a tailspin.  It basically gave consumers a no risk way to purchase a vehicle.  If you bought a Hyundai and subsequently lost your job, you could return the car, no questions asked.  Truly brilliant and it propelled Hyundai through the recession and out the other end.  Hyundai’s 2009 sales grew 8% and its share of market was up 1.1 points.  This performance earned it elite status as one of only three automobile brands (Kia & Subaru were the others) to increase volume in 2009, while the industry overall declined 21%*.

The Hyundai Assurance Program was an unqualified success in a tough marketing climate.  But now what?

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

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

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

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

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

* Sales figures sourced from Automotive News’ Data Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know what you think….

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment below, I’d love to know what you think…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.