Brand Development

[skip0110]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss what automakers are doing for brand development.

Clearly, this is very important...look what brand development has done for BMW and Porsche, for example.

I'd say in recent years, Mazda has done some great brand development. Since they introduced the RX-8, they have really solidly positioned themselves as a enthusiast's car cumpany. Every one of their cars is one of the sportiest in it's segment, even the SUVs (the exception is the B-series, but that platform is so old, it's practially irellevant). It goes way beyond having a strong corporate face. Although that's important, I'd say it's only part of the deal.

Which is the most weakly defined brand? Well the Americans are pretyt bad at this. What exactly is a Mercury? They have strong corporate faces, but they don't have any unification.


Discuss.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Mercuries, like Buicks, are old persons cars, as the average driver age for them are both about 65+.
GMC is Americas redundant brand. All they are are re-badged Chevy trucks and SUVs. If GM was smart, they could cut spending greatly if they just axed GMC. They wouldn't have to even end any change any car production, just slap the Chevy logos back on, and they have one less branch that's bleeding profits.

 

[Joey D]

Back in the day GMC actually meant you got a better truck, they had better brakes and suspension. Now there is no difference like 3-wheel pointed out.

I think Caddy has grown leaps and bounds and so has Saturn, they are actually making car people want to buy. Also I think Hyundai and Kia have made a decent charge at winning people over.

 

[YSSMAN]

Which is the most weakly defined brand? Well the Americans are pretyt bad at this. What exactly is a Mercury? They have strong corporate faces, but they don't have any unification.


Discuss.

Well, I wouldn't say that we are the worst, however I think we need to reconsider how we align our brands in order to get the best from our products. Much of the problem comes from the back that we are running the given companies continually like it is 1957, not 2007, and thus the need for all of these separate companies is hard to fathom in modern times.

...That being said, problems are being addressed in some ways. General Motors has decided to cut models at the different divisions in order to better address the needs of the customers. Although Chevrolet will continue to be the 'value' and 'everyman' brand, companies like Pontiac, GMC, and Buick will be tied together to act as a single brand to prevent overlap.

...So, Pontiac will produce the smaller, more 'exciting' cars while Buick will produce larger and more luxurious models to appeal to the older crowd. GMC will obviously be the truck folks, however the only major overlap will be the Acadia versus that of the Enclave. This is all part of the reason why every time you see a Pontiac dealer, they have now been merged with that of Buick and GMC units...

The collective identity of a brand is largely defined by the products they sell, and depending on who you are talking about, we can see a wide spectrum of issues with a given company.

...Brands like Mercury, who has pretty much been the subservient spin-off of Ford in the past few decades really doesn't have much identification with the public outside of those looking for a rather generic sedan or small truck that serves as a stepping-stone to Lincoln. But as a brand that had once held a lot of promise with cars like the Marauder (the original) or the Cougar (again, the origional). But, things have gotten bad, and really don't seem to be able to improve in any reasonable amount of time...

This isn't an exclusive issue just to America though. Volkswagen was on what seemed like a never-ending downturn during the '90s, and the situation never really improved up until recently. Though millions of dollars in research and readjustment they have been able to improve their image as the 'cool' and 'value-packed' brand they once were, and thereby sales have improved in the US...

Meh, its a long topic, and I can't cover all my thoughts at once...

 

[skip0110]

GM has been doing a pretty good job of solidifying their brand identity lately. A few years ago, even Pontiac wasn't really clearly defined as a "sport" brand. Saturn is just starting their redefinition, with a lot of the new cars just barely in dealerships.

I thought I understood Mercury as the "import fighter" Ford brand, but now I don't know...

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

GM is beginning to use Saturn as Opel/Vauxhall America, basically. First was the Speedster-based Sky, and now the Astra may find its way here under the Saturn badge.

Not that I'm complaining
Bigger brand variety is always good.

 

[Joey D]

I thought the Speedster Sky was the other way around, didn't Europe get an American car under their brand name?

 

[YSSMAN]

I thought I understood Mercury as the "import fighter" Ford brand, but now I don't know...

To that I am not certain. I always thought Mercury was the Buick fighter...

GM is beginning to use Saturn as Opel/Vauxhall America, basically. First was the Speedster-based Sky, and now the Astra may find its way here under the Saturn badge.

Yes that is the case. We have used the Opel/Vauxhall models in the past, however this is the first time that they have been exclusively used in America without any kind of major redesign. We've had the Vectra for quite some time as the Malibu and G6, however the Aura is really the only direct-descendant in terms of style and performance.

But please take note, the Sky shares absolutely nothing with the Speedster (see below)...

The Sky is based on the Solstice, which in turn has a basic design structure (Kappa) that is based on the overall design of the Y-body (Corvette, XLR). The Sky took the majority of it's design features from the Vauxhall VX Lightning concept from a few years back, but obviously was toned down just a bit.

...The Opel GT in question is basically our Saturn Sky Red Line sold in mainland Europe, as they are all built in the same plant in New Hampshire. There have yet to be plans to sell the car in the UK, but I think you can get them imported. The big problem is that they cannot be converted to RHD...

So yes, ironically it is one of the few cars that America actually imports to Europe without any major intervention in design. I have no idea if they are selling well or not, but I would assume they are well-liked outside of the rather pitiful trunk space.

 

[harrytuttle]

Mercuries, like Buicks, are old persons cars, as the average driver age for them are both about 65+.
GMC is Americas redundant brand. All they are are re-badged Chevy trucks and SUVs. If GM was smart, they could cut spending greatly if they just axed GMC. They wouldn't have to even end any change any car production, just slap the Chevy logos back on, and they have one less branch that's bleeding profits.

There are a lot of problems with American brands, but the foremost of them is identity. Since the 1930's, as the US automakers consolidated themselves into the "big three" that they are today, platform sharing quicky gave way to rebadged clones. This created phenomenons such as all of Mercury's cars which were really Ford's, all of Plymouth's cars that were really Dodge's, and all of Oldsmobile's cars that were, um, crap.

As time goes by and as they refused to create separate identities between brands, people ended up going with whatever's cheaper, since they could clearly see that they're getting the same car. Eventually they ended up with entire brands and lineups that no one cared about because they're just buying it somewhere else, and the only people who do buy are those who grew up in a time when the brand actually meant something -- senior citizens. This further aggravates the brand image since only "old people" are driving the new cars. Buick is next to die off; they need another GS Stage 1, and this time it better not be another GTO clone.

VAG is the antithesis of this. Each sub-brand has a clearly defined identity, despite significant overlap between brands (although I have doubts as to whether this will last, given their current state of confusion). Ford seems to have a clue with Volvo/Mazda/Jaguar, but it's obviously in denial about it because the home brands of Mercury and Lincoln are suffering quite badly.

All of these brands have value. All of them could theoretically do well (even the dead ones like Plymouth and Oldsmobile...maybe even Studebaker) if cared for properly. It doesn't take much to keep things on the up & up, it just means not being lazy. It means not taking the cheap way out. It means looking at more than just the short term goal and focus on long term stability and growth (which is almost impossible for most Americans to come to grips with). It means I should be running car companies...