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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only two things bother me about this commercial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that SAAB has shed the shackles of General Motors they are getting on with the business of re-building the brand.

Two weeks ago they announced (NYT’s 6/22/10) that they have hired a new head designer who has said that: “We want to return to the Saab DNA.” Just last week they announced (Media Post 6/29/10) that they were ramping up marketing investment, going back on TV and in print with a new campaign.

After years of being part of GM where the SAAB brand was neither appreciated nor nourished it appears to be getting it’s footing back. The SAAB brand has always stood for independence and a willingness to break convention.  SAAB has always had a devoted group of loyalists, some of whom played a vocal role in the brand’s most recent resurrection, PGM (Post General Motors).  Historically, SAAB has had all the foundation stones of a great automotive brand; a point-of-view, good interesting product, a genuine enthusiast group willing to proselytize, a group of loyal owners and marketing that conveyed its essential character.

As part of the GM stable of brands, SAAB’s essential character became a barrier to increased sales volumes.  “Different” didn’t mean special or unique, it became “quirky” or “weird.”  As we all know, very few people buy “quirky” or “weird.”  So SAAB product became less distinct, not necessarily bad, just less unique.  SAAB’s marketing also became more expected, more traditional.  Consumers were subjected to campaign after campaign that hung its hat on the idea that SAAB also makes jets…as if that was ever what the car company was about.

Last week this all changed.  SAAB started marketing in earnest again asking us to “Change Perspective.”   Here’s the European version of the television commercial (the US version is not yet on YouTube):

This commercial is like a breath of fresh air,  SAAB is returning to its roots but in a cool contemporary way.  Well produced, interesting to watch, the music is great (“The time is now” by Asha Ali) and it’s on strategy: “When you have a different perspectives on things, you don’t end up with just another car, you end up with a SAAB.”  Got it.

The website is equally as engaging as you learn more about SAAB’s perspective on driving, safety, power and fuel.  All seamlessly connected and speaking from the same position:  SAAB has a different perspective, uniquely Swedish, but relevant to the world.  I can’t wait to see the print.

Whenever you do something this fresh and different in the automobile business it will be subjected to the naysayers who scream for something more conventional. Can’t you hear the cries for more sheet metal?

SAAB should ignore them.

Well done SAAB, McCann Erickson Detroit and Lowe Brindfors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at Chevrolet point by point.

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

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

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

The fourth point should be relatively simple to execute.

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

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.

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

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…

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.

There has already been plenty written about the impact of this on Toyota’s brand reputation.  It certainly is going to set them back, some pundits say it’s a “speed bump” for Toyota, others say the situation will effectively “kill” the Toyota brand.  I suspect that the “truth” will be somewhere in the middle, the Toyota brand has been damaged, it will take a good deal of time and effort to recover, but it will recover.

Rather than debating the current health of the Toyota brand, I’ve been thinking about the discipline of branding in the automotive category and what its practitioners can learn from Toyota’s experience. Certainly the need to manage the media and to do so in a transparent way is critical.  Time is of the essence, the internet can take your reputation and spin it out of control in a heartbeat.  Beyond the crisis management learnings, I think that we are seeing the danger of having a brand that is based solely on rational underpinnings.

Toyota’s reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability is a completely rational positioning.  Combine that with bland design and you have automobiles that many in the industry deride as “appliances.”  Consider your refrigerator.  It sits there, does its job remarkably well, demands no attention at all…unless it breaks and then it’s a disaster.  Sounds like a Toyota.  As long as nothing goes wrong with your refrigerator, you will probably remain likely to purchase the same brand again, if you have problems you will defect to another brand.  Ultimately, this is how Toyota will measure the strength of its brand…how many customers defect.

Unfortunately for Toyota, it is very easy for customers to defect from a brand that makes a very rational promise that is subsequently broken.  Bullet proof quality and reliability is a wonderful promise until you break it and you have nothing else to act as a backstop while you solve the product problem.

The backstop for some brands is an emotional connection and promise that is made along with a rational promise.  Volvo’s safety positioning is a classic example of both rational and emotional components working together.  Volvo certainly has all the engineering and technologies (rational) that support the promise of a safe car but it also promises us the peace of mind (emotional) of knowing that we’re keeping our loved ones safe:

Volvo is certainly not immune to product quality problems but their customers don’t immediately defect at the first sign of trouble.  Volvo customers will give their brand a break because they believe in their hearts that their Volvo keeps their family safe. Talk to anyone who has owned more than one Volvo and you will feel their commitment to the brand first hand.

Subaru is another example of an automotive brand that is built on both emotional and rational promises.  Nothing could be more rational than the benefits of all wheel drive but that’s not all that is at the core of Subaru.  Subaru promises to help people live their lives the way they want to and in return they “love” their Subies:

How about this for carrying the emotional promise of the Subaru brand to the retail level:

Subaru has certainly gone though a few rough patches from a product point of view but their loyalists have signed on for something bigger than dependable all wheel drive, they share an emotional bond with the Subaru brand and its community.

There are other automotive brands that have connected emotionally with customers. Mini, and Audi are good contemporary examples.

I think it’s interesting that three of the brands with strong emotional connections mentioned so far (Subaru, Mini, Audi) came through this last recession with strong sales and share gains.

Historically Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Chevy, SAAB, Saturn, Honda, Cadillac and others have had strong emotional components to their positionings.  Unfortunately, for these brands it seems less true today.

Toyota has never been a brand that people connected to in an emotional way. Toyota customers aren’t passionate about the brand, they have always been rational about purchasing Toyota quality and reliability.  When quality is lacking and reliability questionable, there is nothing left, there is no overriding reason to stay with Toyota.  In a category where quality and reliability have become virtually a given, consumers were well aware that they had options and they quickly helped VW, Ford and GM have an excellent January.

Toyota has proven something that many of us responsible for marketing automobile brands have always known…the most powerful and durable automotive brands are those that are clearly positioned with both rational and emotional underpinnings.  The brands that stand for something and connect with their owners emotionally create enthusiasts and tribes of loyalists around them.  These brands’ customers give them a break when things don’t go quite as planned.

Admittedly, no amount of emotional connection is going to overcome Toyota’s serious product issues, but I do think that it buys you time and gives you a chance to make “good” on your brand promise.  It also creates the possibility of your loyalists defending your brand, there seem to be precious few actually defending Toyota.

In the “new normal” US auto industry with sales in the 11MM-13MM range, the successful brands will be those that create an emotional connection with their customers.  The lack of this emotional connection has left mighty Toyota vulnerable and opened the door to its competitors, including Volkswagen which has unabashedly stated its goal of being #1.

It will be interesting to watch Volkswagen.  In Ad Age on August 24th, as their agency review was getting started, Tim Ellis (VW CMO) said:

“Our goal of rapidly increasing our volume in a mature market requires the Volkswagen brand to evolve into a more relevant mainstream choice,”

I hope that becoming a “more relevant mainstream choice” doesn’t result in VW making more mainstream (sic boring) products and losing the emotional power that the brand has historically leveraged.

After all, no one loves their refrigerator.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The run up of luxury segment volumes over the last 10-15 years has been extraordinary making Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus commonplace. In the early nineties these brands fought to break through the 100M unit level, in 2008 each sold over a quarter of a million vehicles.  It’s hard to feel that your car is special when you see it coming and going at every intersection.
2. The recession has altered Americans’ sensibilities regarding luxury. The Wall Street Journal reporter Matthew Dolan was interviewed and commented that Americans have moved from “conspicuous to careful consumption.”  He went on to say that “the luxury of the past is not the luxury of the future.”
3. We have a new generation of luxury segment purchasers entering their high earning years and they have different perceptions of BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Lexus than their parents do.  This generation dismisses Mercedes-Benz as another generation’s car in the same way we dismissed Lincoln and Cadillac thirty years ago.  They now look at Cadillac and think it’s pretty cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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