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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it.

“The newest generation of Jeep’s iconic luxury SUV can still rock-crawl with the best of them, but it looks a whole lot nicer doing it, both inside and out.”  AutoWeek  7/5/10

The new advertising is impressive and seeks to re-invigorate some distinctly American values:

Let’s face it, as Americans we are feeling a little down.  The worst recession in generations is a big part of the problem.  Nagging unemployment, a recovery that is sputtering and concern over the looming deficit are not helping.

So I think Jeep’s strategy of appealing to values we all hold dear makes some sense. What American isn’t proud of our heritage as a “nation of builders, craftsmen, men and women for whom straight stitches and clean welds are a matter of pride.”  We built the railroads, invented the airplane, built the Empire State Building, and created the original Jeep.

The idea that “the things that make us American are the things we make” strikes an emotional cord.  A cord that makes us feel proud, and right now a little pride would help.  The Jeep Grand Cherokee is something we can all be proud of because it was “imagined, drawn, carved, stamped, hewn and forged here in America.”

Powerful stuff, beautifully executed, leaves the viewer saying “yeah, bring it on.”

Only two things bother me about this commercial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankfully, as the day wore on, Chevrolet made an effort to explain that it had been mis-understood (see the press release) and that the memo leaked to the New York Times had been “poorly worded.” Unfortunately for the folks at GM, this whole incident has just added fuel to the fire for those folks who want to find fault with every thing the company tries to do.  If you take the GM folks at their word, what they were trying to do really isn’t crazy.

At the heart of this dust-up is a real issue.  How to most effectively manage a global automotive brand.

Here’s a video of Alan Batey explaining that indeed “Chevy” is just fine but that “Chevrolet” is the global brand:

Put aside Mr. Batey’s understandable defensiveness and his desire to assure us that “Chevy” is OK.  The issue is that Chevrolet is now sold in more 130 countries around the world, that it sells twice as many vehicles outside the US as it does within and that the brand is relatively underdeveloped in newer areas of distribution.  The folks at GM think it would be a good idea if they referenced their brand consistently around the world and they have decided that it is “Chevrolet.”  They’re right, their brand’s name should be consistent globally.  “Chevrolet” it is.

I think the folks at Chevrolet are struggling with how to best execute a global brand.  On one hand they want to be known as one thing throughout the world, on the other they have a “local” market where “Chevy” is a powerful cultural connection to their brand.

The mistake that so many automotive manufacturers make is to conclude that their brand must be the “same” everywhere and this often turns into a global advertising campaign.  Mercedes-Benz just announced that it is starting a “global campaign” (“Mercedes-Benz Plans new ad push.”  WSJ 6/10/10).  BMW launched it’s global “Joy” campaign earlier this year.  Invariably this top down approach to marketing is only marginally successful because it ignores local market sensibilities and assets (see earlier blog post).  For example, BMW’s “Joy” is not an adequate substitute for “The Ultimate Driving Machine” in the US.

With this in mind, here are four guiding principles for managing a global automotive brand:

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

Let’s look at Chevrolet point by point.

Ever since the bankruptcy, GM has been promising that they will focus on positioning their four remaining brands.  This job has yet to be done for Chevrolet. Representing 70% of the New GM’s revenue, this body of work needs to be done right and I’m sure the new VP of Marketing is focussed on the task.  Until the Chevrolet strategic underpinnings are agreed, there is no brand, global or otherwise.

I am hopeful that the acknowledgment that we love “Chevy” is recognition that local market sensibilities are important and that “Chevy” is an asset to be leveraged, at least in the US.  This iconic American brand holds a special place in the hearts of many Americans and a lowest common denominator global campaign would do it such a dis-service.

The dust-up over “Chevrolet” vs. “Chevy” rightly belongs in point number three.  From a corporate identity point of view, “Chevrolet” is the brand and it will be used consistently through out the world.

The fourth point should be relatively simple to execute.

So, while the “Chevrolet” vs “Chevy” discussion has been entertaining over the last day or so, it really isn’t all that important.  What’s important is that they get the brand’s strategic positioning locked-in and recognize the importance of leveraging local assets in the markets where they exist.  At that point Chevrolet will be well on the way to becoming a powerful global brand.

I immediately thought to myself “Good for them.”

Infiniti from the very beginning has had a difficult time establishing a brand identity and finding a way to execute it in communications. Introduced in 1989, Infiniti was Nissan’s response to the introductions of the other Japanese luxury marques, Acura and Lexus.  The original Q45 was a sporty performance alternative to the Lexus. Unfortunately, Infiniti got off to a rough start when it introduced the car and brand with the infamous “rocks and trees” campaign created by its agency Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos.

The “rocks and trees” campaign sought to present Infiniti as the result of the unique Japanese culture and sensibility.  The campaign attempted to make its Japanese origin an asset, similar to the way that the German brands have used their ‘German-ness.’  The Infiniti ads were very different than any automotive company had ever done (they didn’t even show the car initially).  I still think the campaign deserved high marks for breaking new ground and attempting to make the fact that it was a brand from Japan important. Unfortunately, the campaign was panned by the automotive marketing community, blamed for anemic sales, resulted in the agency getting fired and ultimately resulted in a much more traditional approach to communications.

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

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

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

And a couple of print ads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

Generally speaking I thought the advertising game within the game was just OK, not great.  Within the automotive segment, six manufacturers stepped up for the Super Bowl:

As I said in an earlier post, the tough part about advertising in the Super Bowl is that while the football game is the primary draw, the advertising contest comes in a close second.  As an advertiser you have to be willing to do work that will stand out and entertain because the very next day the “results” of the ad contest will be published in USAToday.

I always watch the Super Bowl hoping that one or more of the automobile manufacturers will break out of the category mold and amaze us.  Here’s my take on the automotive commercials, from best to worst:  

I think Audi was the automotive standout this year.  A lot of industry veterans would have lined up to say that advertising a diesel on the Super Bowl was a waste of money because Americans don’t like diesel. As they have done for the last year, Audi takes on America’s perception of diesel.  Audi recognized that Americans are interested in being environmentally responsible but at the same time find the “green movement” a bit over the top.  The “Green Police” was a nice idea with enough oomph to do well in the ad contest.

Volkswagen’s “Punch Dub” commercial was the second best automotive entry. While it was a little bit more of a traditional car commercial, I thought it was fun to watch and did a nice job of illustrating the breadth of the VW product line with the warmth and humanness that we’ve come to expect from VW.  The Stevie Wonder ending was a master stroke.

I know that Hyundai’s ads introducing the new Sonata will be criticized by the advertising industry as “expected.”  Despite being more traditional category commercials, I think that they did a good job of making specific points that communicated an overall sense of quality engineering.  Better quality paint than Mercedes-Benz and the idea that the car is “handmade”   spoke to quality while the film itself made the product look terrific.  These ads won’t win any advertising awards, nor did they do well in the ad contest, but they got their message across and the product looked great.

The Dodge Charger commercial was certainly a departure from the category norm, particularly for Detroit. Some have said that they thought advertising the Dodge Charger (high performance/in-efficient) seemed out-of-step with current societal sensibilities. Perhaps, but I was left wondering if the notion of the “hen-pecked” male was even more out-of-step.  I hope that there is a segment of the male population who will identify with this commercial and go buy a Dodge Charger to affirm their manhood.

I sincerely hope that Kia’s execution appeals to young families as intended. While entertaining, I found the commercial silly and didn’t learn anything.

Honda’s ad for the Crosstour seemed forced, although I got the point that it offered a a level of utility in a sporty package.

Overall, my take is that VW, Audi and Hyundai made good use of their Superbowl investment, the others did not.

He posits that one of the issues with “branding” as a marketing discipline is that we lack an agreed-to definition, which subjects it to interpretation based on circumstances or agendas.  He closes by saying that agencies and marketing services firms need to more tightly define branding:

“If we don’t address this, we could be perceived as an industry made up of people who don’t know how to define what it is they’re not supposed to do.  As Grouch Marx would have told us, ‘These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.”

Leaving aside the issue of agency credibility, the automotive industry needs to dedicate itself to building or re-building its brands. Manufacturers who do will succeed in the hyper-competitive “new normal” automotive marketplace, while those who don’t will languish.

The automobile business has traditionally had a shaky relationship with the idea of “branding.”  Programs designed to define or position the “brand” are often perceived as the “soft” part of automotive marketing.  This perception is in contrast to the marketing specifically designed to drive traffic to the stores or in industry parlance “make the doors swing.”  Often manufacturers feel that they have to choose between “branding” and “retail” and more than often than not they choose retail.

I think that part of the problem with the discussion of “branding” in the automobile business is that it most often devolves into a discussion of advertising, as in “this is a brand ad, that is a retail ad.” Brand ads are the ones that attempt to speak to a company’s “values” whereas retail ads feature “product, place and price.”  This either/or conversation is specious and has led the industry to it’s current situation, products that are perceived more like commodities and customers who focus on pricing.

Let’s be clear, in the “new normal” automotive market the traditional brand vs. retail discussion is a path to commodity status, decreased sales, decreased profitability and the loss of already weak brand equities.  The truth is, every successful automotive competitor will do both jobs, build brand leverage and make the doors swing.

The marketing conversation needs to start in a different place and I agree that it needs to start with a definition of what we mean by “brand.” While I’m sure there are more complicated answers to the brand definition question, I would like to suggest that the automobile industry would be well served by a simple approach.  A great automotive brand is a promise made and kept.

Nothing new here, right?  The idea that a brand is a promise made and kept is as old as the hills.  Defining what we mean by brand is pretty straightforward, the hard part is figuring out what a particular brand’s promise(s) is/could be and then making sure that it is “kept” at every consumer touch point consitently over many years.

Certainly the execution of a brand promise is more complex than ever, there are literally thousands of consumer touch points (ranging from the internet all the way through to the dealer salesperson). That’s why it is so critical to make a commitment to a promise(s) and not waver from it.  Our industry has several notable brands that lost sight of their promise and have been forever weakened (Volvo is a great example, even mighty Mercedes-Benz is not as well defined as it once was).

Toyota is currently battling a product quality issue that has resulted in recalls and the extraordinary step of stopping production and sales of eight models.   This is an assault on Toyota’s promise of quality and reliability.  How Toyota handles these recalls will define their brand going forward, will they handle their customers in a high quality, trustworthy (reliable) fashion?  If they do, they will build their brand, if they don’t they will break their promise to their customers and the brand will be weakened.

The brand promise should drive everyones’ behavior, from the dealer’s Service Tech all the way to the CEO (including agencies and other vendors).  Everyone is responsible for representing the promise and keeping it.  Of course, marketing must be charged with making the promise clear and demonstrating that it is kept.  All of this is easy to say and very difficult to implement given the overwhelmingly complex marketing environment we all operate in.

But it is impossible to implement if the brand’s promise changes or is subject to revision based on short term needs.  The automotive industry is guilty of thinking that its brand promises are adjustable. This is like saying to your angry significant other whom you told that you would be home at 7pm and you’re 45 minutes late: “I didn’t really mean 7pm, I meant around 7pm so I’m really not late.”

Promises consistently made and kept build trust, promises broken destroy cedibility.  Automobile manufacturers need to get clear about the promises their brands are making and then create alignment with all constituents responsible for keeping the promise.

The companies that dedicate themselves to making a brand promise and keeping it will be the long-term winners in the “new normal” automotive marketplace.  Those that don’t will be destined to commodity status with pricing as the only differentiator.

Lexus is concerned that their customers are too old and they are not appealing to the next generation of luxury car buyers.  A reasonable concern.

Lexus appears to be addressing this concern in the usual way that automobile manufacturers do.

First,  you add product to your line-up that is designed to meet the requirements or interests of the new target group (after all, they’re very different from the current customers),  then you lower the cost of entry into your franchise (they don’t have as much money as the current customers) and finally use marketing to convince the younger target that your brand is cool (at least cooler than they think it is).

Unfortunately, this approach always has the same result, you may succeed in selling a few more cars to the new target group but you leave your current customers confused and your brand weakened.

The Automotive News article even quotes Jessica Caldwell from Edmunds.com who says: “Lexus was really strong, but they have lost their footing….BMW is the ‘Ultimate Driving Machine.’  We’re not really sure what Lexus is.”  I agree with her. The overheated luxury segment experienced so much growth in the ’90s and early ’00s, that many of the luxury marques that were fortunate enough to have clear positionings in the beginning were weaker and less distinct at the end of the run-up.

Lexus now finds itself competing in a segment that has a third less volume than it did a year and a half ago.  Volume growth is going to come from a hard fought battle for share-of-market with the best in the business: Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Infiniti.  As Lexus moves down market into the “near-luxury” segment, more competitors will enter the fray:  Acura, VW, Volvo.  Every single one of these manufacturers is making well-designed and engineered, high quality vehicles.  More than ever, a manufacturer’s brand reputation is a key differentiator.

Now is the time for Lexus to pause and carefully consider its brand values rather than simply expand its product line to appeal to a new target group’s preferences.  What is at the heart of the Lexus brand? A few things come to mind: unsurpassed quality, comfort, quiet, sophisticated, conservative.  Rather than trying to expand what Lexus stands for, now is the time to re-focus attention on the core values of the brand and make sure that everything they do comes from that core.  Let those values drive product offerings, dealer experience and marketing.  Find a way to make your established core values relevant to a new audience.  That’s how you take an established brand and avoid “tarnishing” it.

The essence of good positioning is knowing what you are….and what you are not. Trying to be all things to all people is the death knell for a brand like Lexus.  It won’t be a question of “tarnishing the image,” Lexus won’t have an image.

If Lexus follows the industry’s well worn path to volume growth, another great automotive brand will be allowed to whither away.  In 1989, Lexus re-invented the luxury car business and established a new brand.  It was an incredibly expensive and difficult thing to do, but they did it and they did it right.  I hope they realize how easily all that good work can be undone.

In the meantime, I’ve got my BOHICA t-shirt on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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