There are certainly plenty of questions on all sides of the issue.  Are Toyotas safe? Are Toyota’s designs faulty?  Did Toyota hold back information?  Is Toyota evil? Is NHTSA just “a lap dog” for the auto manufacturers and simply trying to cover its you know what?  Were our elected officials just grand standing for their own benefit? Is the Federal Government going after Toyota because it owns a big chunk of GM and Chrysler. Are these allegations of Toyotas run amok the creation of lawyers and their clients who see the deep pockets of Toyota?

I’ve come to the opinion that we are worrying about the wrong things. Don’t misunderstand me, if Toyota has committed some act of malfeasance then we should prove it and Toyota should bear responsibility, but in the meantime have we missed the most important point?

This past Thursday the Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined: “Toyota Complaints Surged After First Recall.”   In this article it reports a variety of NHTSA data and discusses the most recent Toyota UA incident in San Diego that took place the day before.  It also reports that: “Toyota’s troubles are raising anxiety in the auto industry that Congress will enact a new round of regulations proposed by safety advocates.”  The article goes on to say that “About 95% of auto accidents are caused by driver error, according to a 2005 NHTSA study.  About 2% of accidents are caused by problems with the vehicle.”

Talk about misplaced emphasis.  We’re going to further regulate the auto manufacturers, increasing their costs which will then be passed on to their customers so that we can reduce infinitesimally the number of accidents that today, without regulation, only represent 2% of accidents!?  Doesn’t it seem more fruitful to work on the big number, the 95% that are due to driver error?

What would happen if we took all the time and money that the regulators will spend developing, enacting and policing new regulations on the manufacturers and used it to make us better drivers? What if we made it a requirement that all drivers go to driving school where they learn how to manage their vehicle in critical situations?  What if we actually make Americans better more skilled drivers, so they make fewer mistakes?

95% of accidents are caused by driver error.  Enacting legislation that would require us to be more proficient drivers, thereby reducing driver error, would seem like a better way to make a significant difference in the number of accidents.  The “safety advocates” need to work on the real cause of accidents.

Allegations of  UA and the media furor around it virtually destroyed Audi in the United States.  Audi was vindicated eventually, with UA and the unfortunate accidents associated with it attributed to driver error.

Toyota is now “in the barrel”  with the politicians and media all intimating that there is some sinister plot at work.  There’s a lot at stake.  If there have been genuine misdeeds then let’s prove it beyond a question of a doubt and hold Toyota responsible. If indeed, driver error was the issue, I hope that the media and our politicians will be as quick to acknowledge the fact as they have been to hoist Toyota on its petard.

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section below and here’s the letter:

“Holman Jenkins is 100% correct in “Trial Lawyers vs. Toyota” (Business World, Feb. 26).

I taught at BSR Advanced Driver Training at Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia for about 20 years, teaching counterterrorism, motorcades, racing, high performance driving and car control techniques. Almost invariably, unintended acceleration was a major problem caused by the driver thinking he is on the brake rather than the gas in an emergency situation. His foot is planted firmly on the gas and his brain is firmly in panic mode and therefore his brain function is zero.

As far as braking, many drivers come completely off the brakes when the ABS kicks in since the perception is that something is wrong with the brakes. Also, many drivers do not brake hard enough.

The majority of accidents are caused by the driver, not the vehicle. In America we teach drivers to pass the driver’s test, not how to drive a car. We want a risk-free world and we’re not going to get it.

Toyota’s problems are more examples of the power of suggestion and mass hysteria then they are of faulty electronics.

Yes, things can go wrong mechanically, but that is very rare, and most of the time it is the driver’s fault. However, we rarely take the blame or the responsibility when we do something wrong; it’s blame the other guy and sue.

The press, politicians and public are all blaming Toyota for faulty equipment, yet there is plenty a driver can do when faced with an emergency. Most drivers really aren’t that skilled. Airline pilots are required to practice emergency maneuvers every six months, yet driving is far more dangerous than flying. Most drivers have no clue about what to do when something does go wrong. How frequently does the average driver practice for emergency situations?

As another driving instructor has said, “A meteorite hitting your car is an ‘accident,’ everything else is driver error.”

Miriam Schottland

President

DriveLab

Washington”

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.