Volvo has, since the ’70s all but owned “safety” in the automotive segment. Not a bad place to be…do you know anyone who’d prefer an unsafe car?
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. (more…)
We wouldn’t expect one of the buff books to have a comparo between the 2011 Corvette and the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee but in marketing circles there’s an active discussion going on comparing their new advertising.
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. (more…)
Jeep is introducing the 2011 Grand Cherokee and it seems it is quite a vehicle:
“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. (more…)
Now that SAAB has shed the shackles of General Motors they are getting on with the business of re-building the brand.
Two weeks ago they announced (NYT’s 6/22/10) that they have hired a new head designer who has said that: “We want to return to the Saab DNA.” Just last week they announced (Media Post 6/29/10) that they were ramping up marketing investment, going back on TV and in print with a new campaign.
After years of being part of GM where the SAAB brand was neither appreciated nor nourished it appears to be getting it’s footing back. The SAAB brand has always stood for independence and a willingness to break convention. SAAB has always had a devoted group of loyalists, some of whom played a vocal role in the brand’s most recent resurrection, PGM (Post General Motors). Historically, SAAB has had all the foundation stones of a great automotive brand; a point-of-view, good interesting product, a genuine enthusiast group willing to proselytize, a group of loyal owners and marketing that conveyed its essential character.
As part of the GM stable of brands, SAAB’s essential character became a barrier to increased sales volumes. “Different” didn’t mean special or unique, it became “quirky” or “weird.” As we all know, very few people buy “quirky” or “weird.” So SAAB product became less distinct, not necessarily bad, just less unique. SAAB’s marketing also became more expected, more traditional. Consumers were subjected to campaign after campaign that hung its hat on the idea that SAAB also makes jets…as if that was ever what the car company was about.
The last twenty-four hours has been full of articles, blogs, tweets, surveys, all questioning the wisdom of the folks at Chevrolet who were apparently seeking to remove “Chevy” from the brand’s lexicon (NYTs 6/10/10). Predictably, people were shocked and the Chevrolet folks accused of varying levels of insanity, some even questioning their patriotism.
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. (more…)
When I first saw this Acura commercial it got me thinking about what constitutes “old news” versus something relevant and important:
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? (more…)
An article in the April 2nd edition of the New York Times was headlined: “Despite Expansion, Mini Says It’s Still a Niche” and confirmed something that had occurred to me at the New York Auto Show.
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. (more…)
The big news in automotive marketing this week was that Joel Ewanick is leaving Hyundai and going to head up marketing at Nissan. Hyundai won 2009 marketer of the year under Ewanick’s leadership and the company implemented the breakthrough Hyundai Assurance Program.
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? (more…)
Amid all the drama surrounding GM, every so often I see something that strikes me a smart. In Geneva, Cadillac announced it’s aspirations for Europe (WSJ 3/8/10 Sub required, NYT 3/2/10).
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.”
It has a feeling of inevitability attached to it, but still, I can’t help but feel let down. For years many of us have held up BMW as the example of a car company that understands its brand and sticks to it. That all just changed. BMW is no longer the manufacturer of The Ultimate Driving Machine, according to this commercial “at BMW, we don’t just make cars, we make joy.”:
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.
