There’s a Lincoln ad on the back cover of this month's Automobile mag. It’s a rear three quarter shot of an MKZ on an empty road in a moody landscape, parked in front of a train crossing. A five line poem referring to astronautical countdowns, racehorses at the gate and quivering arrows hovers above the barrier. The last line is a little unsettling: “Ready or not, here I come.” (Uh, you might want to wait for that train to blow by.) The ad raises an interesting question: does Lincoln’s marketing department have any idea who might want to buy their car?
An hour after contemplating the ad, I caught site of a huge toothy grill glinting in the winter sun. My first thought: I’ve unfairly dismissed the MKZ’ sex appeal. As the rest of the model’s mid-market metal hoved into view, I returned to my original assessment. But I was captivated by the driver. She was straight out of central casting. Harry? Send me a woman of a certain age with perfectly coiffed grey hair, wearing a twin set and pearls and half glasses attached to her ample neck by an elegant chain. The MKZ suited her like a dry martini.
Well of course it did. I didn’t need to face her withering stare in a focus group to know she and her not-so-hot-rod Lincoln were made for each other. Bargain basement snobs need apply. More to the point, she was definitely NOT the type of woman to sit in her MKZ in the middle of nowhere waiting for a train barrier to rise so she could hammer the throttle and disappear in a cloud of front wheel-drive rubber. I could easily imagine her tapping the wheel with a manicured fingernail, pursing her lips, looking at her watch, wondering about lunch.
I’m not saying this highly groomed battle axe was a “typical” MKZ buyer. I have no doubt Lincoln’s marketing department has discs of demographic data detailing the age, sex, income, location and belt size of their average customer– and Dame Edna’s not it. Even if she was, I’m certain there were long meetings on Madison Avenue and in The Glass House hammering out who the average Lincoln MKZ buyer should be– or who the average buyer thinks they should be– and it’s not her. Still, I’m beginning to believe automakers’ marketing efforts are more than a little misguided.
I discussed this idea with my local freelance marketing maven. Marketing be damned, I argued, it’s all starts with product, which begins with branding. Does it really matter how Detroit pitches a ride if it’s another one of those almost-but-not-quite-there products that doesn't conform to the brand's identity (if it even has one)? "Reach higher" sounds good to me, but how about making a car worthy of aspiration? He countered that there’s nothing particularly wrong with Detroit's brands or machinery. They just don’t know how to sell the metal. What successful person buys a Cadillac based on two-thirds of the self-evident truths identified by The Declaration of Independence– especially when its sold out of the automotive equivalent of K-Mart?
After realizing that not everyone shares my product passion (if they did, no one would buy half the crap I’ve driven), I’m beginning to appreciate his perspective. To wit: just inside Automobile’s cover, there’s a double-page spread with an Edge hovering over New York’s Hudson River (what is it with flying cars these days?). A couple promenades in the foreground. The woman is looking the other way. The guy is looking in the direction of the CG crossover– without actually seeing it. In the background, another couple is oblivious to the levitating automobile. The headline? “The Edge is never dull.” The body copy? “All-new Edge with attention-grabbing styling.”
Hang on; the Edge IS dull. Handsome yes; but dull. So what? Surely there are plenty of people who like that sort of thing. Surely Ford should identify what really makes the Edge unique and sell THAT. All this demographic obsession– where automakers shell out millions of dollars to identify a model’s “ideal” customer and get them to spill their subconscious desires– strikes me as an enormous waste of time and money. Why not just build something phenomenal and tell people about it?
In fact, the car industry is suffering from the same over-dependence on market research that led to Hollywood’s steady stream of po-faced rubbish. Of course, not ALL of it’s garbage– if only because of the law of averages is still in effect. But it’s clear that market research is filtering backwards into the design process, exerting more and more influence on what carmakers are building for whom. I’m not saying they should adopt the Field of Dreams strategy, but I reckon strong products from strong brands find their own market. Just look at the old folks clambering aboard Scion xB’s. How insanely great is that?
124 Comments on “Automotive Marketing: Bad Landing, Wrong Airport...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
FWIW During my long commute every day I see a lot of Zephyrs and they ususally seem to be driven by 30 something guys. But that’s surely a local phenomenon, as everybody gets a discount here, and many are probably company lease cars. Perhaps Ford had a “deal” too good for their mid-level managers to pass on. It’s a quick way to boost monthly sales on one particluar model.
What really cracks me up these days are the names that Ford seems to assign to their target customer. I really really don’t get marketing and never will, but do they have to create “Jane” and “Joe” and talk about them like they’re actually sitting in the room?
And, once again in my little piece of the world, the real world people that buy these vehicles are nothing like Joe (the 36.5 year old 6′ 1″ metrosexual with a black lab that he like to play frisbee with in the park on Sundays after stopping at Starbucks….) They’re just normal people in middle America.
I sell these for a living, and the MKZ is attracting exactly the type of customer Lincoln wants, maybe not the beautiful people in the ads, but the age and income demo is spot on. Just yesterday we had a young expecting couple trade their (his) ‘06 Mustang GT for an AWD MKZ. Last month I sold one to a couple in their early 40’s with 3 school age kids. Combined they made 6 figures. The MKZ is better than you think.
As far as the Edge goes, every saleman in the place has a list of people waiting for it. We have only gotten 1 so far and it lasted 2 days on the lot. Same with the MKX.
This may or may not be on topic, but I would like to see an end to nearly all marketing–in its current form anyway. I hate seeing ads that pitch a product as though it will change my life or somehow complete me. Don’t try to make me feel like a bad parent for not buying clorox wipes, etc.
I’d like to see all ads as spec sheets. Here’s the product. Here’s what it does. Take it or leave it.
The only exception is for funny ads to create brand awareness. I love funny ads, but I hate targeted marketing.
somewhat related:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38845
dwford:
Congrats on the sales! It's nice to know Lincoln's still moving the metal.
I'm a little confused about the "type of customer" Lincoln wants. Your first and second example seem very different in terms of their demographic profiles.
Who is the MKZ and Edge's target demo, and how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did Ford give its dealers/sales folk guidance on this? And if you have a moment, do you reckon these are the type of people who'd be turned on by a rising railroad barrier?
NICKNICK:
Two words: Consumer Reports.
I will agree that most of Ford's recent ads suck. How can they get people who have written Ford off back into the showroom when they don't show or describe the car and it's benefits??
I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic based on spending a year-and-a-half inside GM. Over-relying on market research has nothing to do with bad products and bad marketing. The problem is that, on the organizational level, these organizations just aren’t very smart. The people within them often are smart, but the organizations are not properly organized and operated to extract the best ideas and meld them to create focused, precisely targeted products.
Exec summary of the report that resulted:
http://www.truedelta.com/execsum.php
Just a couple of weeks ago a Ford product development engineer emailed me to report that this summary totally describes what he sees inside that organization.
On the ideal vs. actual customer, there are two possible explanations. First is that actual customers aspire to be like the ideal customer, and you want to target the people your customers want to be, not who they actually are. Second, this “active thirtysomething” target may just be a lazy cliche.
When I was inside GM they had to describe what each product was about, its “reason for being.” Many of these descriptions said something about being for “active professionals.” I pointed this out to one of the older designers, now retired. He joked that he wanted to design a car for lazy couch potatoes, or something to that effect.
the car industry is suffering from the same over-dependence on market research that led to Hollywood’s steady stream of po-faced rubbish
Great observation, one I’ve made myself a fair bit.
So, here’s my $0.02, regarding how this currently works:
There’s no denying that demographics lean towards preferred vehicles. What makes a demographic fall in love with, and buy lots of, a particular vehicle? What principal components define this vehicle?
If these components can be analyzed (note to engineers: Check out Principal Component Analysis, or Independent Component Analysis. Why don’t they teach these tools in marketing classes?) and focused on, the resulting vehicle will obviously be a tremendous success, capturing the target demographic.
So, let’s look at said demographic. Let’s try to figure out what these components are, and focus on them. This will result in a winning market strategy. This also has the intended consequence of “exerting more and more influence on what carmakers are building for whom.” (Well put, by the way.)
So, what’s the alternative? How would you tackle the problem?
I reckon strong products from strong brands find their own market.
Ah. How do you define a “strong product”? How do you come up with a reliable, reusable procedure better than the one above to continually review your definition of a “strong product,” specifically, one that’s better than the one above?
Hm. I wonder if that isn’t the marketing Holy Grail I’m describing above.
Blimey. In the time it took for me to type up my comment, Michael Karesh just answered my question with no less than a PhD. dissertation. Wow.
Michael:
Excellent work, but I don't see any significnt disconnect between your conclusions and mine.
You wrote "…tacit knowledge (knowledge that cannot be proven or even verbally expressed; a.k.a. judgment, expertise) must be effectively cultivated and applied. No amount of market data, design criteria, or common process specificity can eliminate this imperative."
If I read you right, you found that GM's teams were divorced from the product's overall gestalt. My contacts within several automakers tell me that focus group research is driving more and more product-related decisions at an earlier and earlier stage in the design process. This may not cause the problems you identified, but it certainly amplifies their effect,
A recent Edge commercial, depicts it driving on the edges of buildings,on just 2 wheels….wonder what that is supposed to convey to their target customer.
If that was pun intended….it wasn’t ‘punny’!
seldomawake:
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about…
Jeep is a strong brand. Its vehicles are inherently rugged, off-road capable and reasonably priced. Any diversion from that remit will [eventually and inevitably] mire the brand in the kind of deep trouble that requires serious winch work. If they build brand faithful products, the marketing suggests itself: vehicles surmounting conditions that stop lesser machines.
SMART is a new, yet extremely strong brand. Its vehicles are inherently small, stylish and fuel efficient. If they build brand faithful products, the marketing suggests itself: vehicles nipping around/parking in trendy urban locales.
On the flip side…
Chrysler is a weak brand. Its vehicles are inherently nothing. They range from cheap panel vans to bad ass blingmobiles to minivans to hairy chested sports cars to retro muscle cars. As they don't build brand faithful products (choose an indentity fer Chrissake), their marketing is all over the show. The web site doesn't even bother with a tag line.
Chevrolet is an ailing brand. Its vehicles are inherently working class, except when they ain't (Corvette, Tahoe LTZ). As not all their products conform to the brand proposition, their markeing seems a bit goofy and disjoined. An Aveo on top of the Empire State Building with "An American Revolution" running down the side of the page and body copy touting that it's larger than it seems? Huh?
In terms of branding creating product, here's the deal: if you have a strong brand, all design questions are easily answered– often based on the "tacit knowledge" of which Mr. Karesh speaks– without resorting to reams of [often misleading] real world data.
Jeep designer: what kind of seat should the Wrangler have? Answer: a seat that keeps occupants in place during extreme off-roading that's easy to clean yet comfortable enough for long trips to and from the trail, and no fancy electronics that can't take major abuse.
SMART designer: what kind of seat should the FourTwo have? Answer: a way cool-looking chair that's perched high enough to see around traffic and find parking spaces that's comfortable enough for traffic jams.
Lincoln designer: what's for lunch?
The disconnect between the woman driving the Lincoln and the rail crossing ad could be the magazine . If I’m trying to reach females, 35 to 54, I’m not running ads in Automobile. I’d like to the see the ads they’re running in Town and Country.
Of course, this might be a perfect ad. I’m going to have to find it and take a look. There could very well be an escapist fantasy this ad plays to which is not overtly middle-age mom, but hits a hot button therein. Every time I watch a focus group I end up being surprised. Every time, for the last 22 years. Ads you might think were boyish score well with women and, though much more rare, girl ads score with boys. It ain’t science. The marketing department only wishes it were.
I am an avid whitewater kayaker, which judging from SUV commercials is an inexplicably coveted demographic to car companies. I rarely see XTerra’s (or even SUV’s for that matter) at the river, so there’s a bit of a disconnect between the advertisers fantasy land and reality.
The “Active thirtysomething” is also a strangely coveted demographic, because I’m sure it’s only a fraction as big as the “Lazy thirtysomething” demographic.
Car’s are not marketed to real people. The marketers invent these characters like “Xtreme Sportzzz College Dude” or “Urban Hip Active Young Female Executive” and try to sell cars to them. No wonder real people aren’t buying them.
I saw an ad for the Honda Accord yesterday that was very simple: An Accord raises up and slowly spins around while, over soft Muzak, a narrator talks about the great resale value. Unless you have a really good idea (e.g. the multiplying VW Rabbits), it’s better to do a straightforward, boring ad than to try to be all hip.
This is my take on what makes vehicles desirable and therefore successful. The brands most admired/desired in this country are typically Japanese and German. (At this point in time.) Japanese and German automakers hold engineering above all else. A car is a machine afterall, not a “lifestyle statement.”
My knowledge of the cultures inside these successful automakers is limited, but I have to believe that they have not yet been engulfed by MBA disease. The decision making process inside the Detroit 2.5 is 100% University of Michigan MBA driven.
I’ve turned a wrench on enough different brands of cars and motorcycles to see a real difference. When engineering excellence is put first, it ultimately sells vehicles. Maybe the vast majority of BMW buyers can’t appreciate this (cylinder walls coated with silicon dioxide enbedded in a layer of nickel?) but they desire the vehicles anyway.
The only major motor manufacturer succeeding on image/lifestyle that is not backed by solid engineering is Harley Davidson (More lawyers than engineers. Ha!)
Robert:
I think I understand a little better now. To reiterate, you’re saying that brands should find the one thing that they can be great, really great, at, and do that one thing. Is that about correct?
Jim Collins in Good to Great calls this the Hedgehog Concept. In the more laid-back The Fifth Discipline, (possibly referred to by Michael Karesh in his summary?) this is called a Shared Vision. Whatever you call it, even if you don’t stick a fancy moniker to it, the concept is sound. Furthermore, this does seem in-line with the general tone of the deathwatches.
To me, armchair enthusiast and a professional in an entirely unrelated field, this seems perfectly intuitive. Makes good sense, if you will.
The denizens of Detroit corner-offices must know this. However, for some reason, even when assisted legions of marketers and high-level MBAs, many of whose paychecks I’d kill for, don’t see the way you (and, in fact, I) do..
Frankly, I’m predisposed to believe that people are competent, and that since they’re paid so highly, they must deserve it. Basically, they’ve got to be seeing something we’re not.
So, here’s my question: where’s the disconnect?
seldomawake:
Karesh nailed it: the organization is at fault.
GM is run by a Hardvard Biz School grad who never worked a day outside of GM. Ford is run by a man who forgot to kill all the lawyers first. Chrysler is run by.. who is it again? Further down the food chain, it's an impenetrable jungle of bureacracy. Period.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: America is home to some of the brightest and most talented car people the world has ever seen. If the companies they work for could just get the Hell out of the way , they'd produce products that would kick ass and be the envy of the world.
Oh wait; they already do.
Maybe its just me, but I can never take consumer reports too seriously. It seems that they take every car without an understanding of what that car is trying to achieve and who its target buyer is. I wouldn’t be surprised if they claimed “the 911 is short on grocery space”.
The Honda “parts in motion” ads, wherein the components of a Honda car roll and bang into one another, leading eventually to a picture of the car itself, is probably the most effective car ad that has ever been devised.
The sight of a a pair of windshield wipers “swimming’ across to the next component makes my poor old engineering heart yearn for a CAD/CAM project of my own.
The ad is clever, emphasises engineering content and grabs your attention in a most delightful way.
This ad did not make it to North America, so far as I know.
Which may be quite significant, given the huge divide in car ownership attitudes in Europe and America.
seldomawake:
Strong product/strong brand:
Porsche.
When you say Porsche, everyone thinks 911. Every vehicle they produce exibhits 911. The Cayenne was soundly hated by all Porschefiles until it came out – it seems to have won over most of them – but it had a 911 face and the very best 911 handling one can put in a 4000+lb vehicle. Now that it’s out, recognized, and mostly accepted, it’s developing a bit of its own look, but it’s still identifyable as a Porsche. The ad campaign was all about handling and performance with one added dimension – off road.
Yes, but great brands tell the engineers what kind of great products to build.
I don’t believe that. In a literal sense, it’s the executive branch that tells the engineers what to build, the brand just goes along for the ride.
“It’s a rear three quarter shot of an MKZ on an empty road in a moody landscape, parked in front of a train crossing………..she was definitely NOT the type of woman to sit in her MKZ in the middle of nowhere waiting for a train barrier to rise so she could hammer the throttle and disappear in a cloud of front wheel-drive rubber.”
A new commercial shows a Lexus accelerating down a runway to a spot where another car that’s being dropped will land and just beats it there to avoid being crushed but I have yet to see someone try that in the real world. I guess Lexus has totally missed its target demographic and is utterly doomed.
disgruntled:
Yes, but great brands tell the engineers what kind of great products to build.
chainyanker:
Your sarcasm misses the point. As, obviously, does Lexus.
The ad in question seems distinctly off-message to me, as is their recent decision to go chasing BMW M, Mercedes AMG and Audi S products. Maybe I need to see the market research…
There is often a tendency in these discussions to do the classic lob of the baby along with the bathwater, and to blame the master’s degree and the marketing department for the problem. There’s really nothing wrong with market research, and you can turn to successful organizations such as Proctor & Gamble for just one example of how well it works when it is properly executed.
The problem with market research is not in the concept, but in the willingness of management to overreach with the conclusions of the data. Market research has been abused in Detroit to the point of absurdity, with “badge engineering” its crowning achievement. The Big 2.5 are so cynical about the intelligence of the customer that they sincerely believe that marketing spin, by itself, is enough to sell products that are otherwise undesirable, when a supreme marketer such as P&G knows that the product also has to deliver on the expectation, even if it is as simple as a humble bar of soap.
Market research also assumes that customers actually know what they want well enough and deeply enough that they can articulate and express it to the researcher, and that posing the right series of questions will reveal it. But the reality is is that the average consumer has never given much thought to these products and has certainly never crafted a Weltanschauung that explains it.
Not that they should need to. While studies are useful, there is no demographic segment that particularly demands or likes poor NVH, cheap plastic, bad ergonomics, second-rate fit-and-finish, sloppy handling or supremely bad reliability. Some segments may place more emphasis on certain qualities than others — it’s unlikely that your average M3 buyer is as reliability-conscious as is your average Camry buyer — but there is some combination of qualities that everybody expects, even if they can’t quite rank it or express it accurately when quizzed.
The US variant of the Accord and the Camry make it obvious to me that both Honda and Toyota do an outstanding job of understanding their US customers and giving them what they want. You can bet that both firms also conduct significant amounts of market research and hold more than their share of focus groups in order to attain this understanding. But I suspect that they use those findings to create a better overall package, not to justify the use of antiquated designs or second-rate engineering. A well-designed product will both serve the market and offer sufficient engineering to exceed, not just meet, expectations.
The difference between the dropping the Lexus out of the plane ad to the Ford Edge advertisements is enormous. The Lexus ad just screams, this car is fast and we have so much money we’ll drop one out of a plane!* Make your own decisions about our car and decide if it is right for you.
The Edge advertisements are just so dull with their “ideal customer” shouting be like this person!
In Lexus’ case (and most European/Japanese) brands, the subtlety works.
K.
*I didn’t read the fine print to see if this was faked.
Robert:
Karesh did in fact nail it. It never ceases to amaze me what competent people, when organized badly, can do. He saw it, but for some reasons executives at these companies don’t. Where’s the disconnect? Again, it seems simple:
So the “focus and optimize” approach that you describe may be the way to fix things. On the other hand, you said it yourself: General Motors is, in fact, general motors. The company’s mission, the very reason for its existence, is to make general motors.
Even then, the answer seems simple, as you’ve indicated time and time again. For each of its eight brands, focus and optimize. Repeat if necessary. You’ll end up with eight highly specialized, highly desirable brands, each catering to a particular demographic.
This, as you mention, has got to be balanced against “sharing management, designers, workers, models, parts, marketing, etc.” When beancounters win, we get blah cars all around. When car guys win, we get the ‘vette (despite the interior).
Again, simple from our perspective. It should be even simpler for folks such as Mr. Lutz and friends — after all, they do live it day after day. So why isn’t it?
Is it just a very extreme case of “the devil’s in the details?”
This seems to be way off-topic at this point. Should this wait until your next deathwatch?
I find the use of Lincoln to demonstrate this point particularly apt. To me the Lincoln MKR concept is a perfect example of (flawed) market research or market fantasy filtering backward into the design process. Lincoln has had a brand identity in the past. I’m not so sure it ever was or should be peaky high performance turbo V6 machines. How do you rationalize changing Lincoln into a downmarket Acura + blingtastic-ginormous SUV?
On the other side, I think Ford’s focus on aligning the vehicle’s sounds (engine note, door closing, chimes, etc.) with a brand DNA is a good application of market research filtering back to design.
aakash,
I have to agree that that Edge commercial is one of the worst I’ve seen. It’s even worse than these lifestyle commercials because it is basically a 30 second play on words.
To Ford’s credit, I think the new Fusions commercials (with the camry/accord comparison) are very good ads. Even if you don’t think they were fair, the message is that other regular car buying people think the Fusion is just as good (or better) than the Camry Accord, so why not buy the less expensive one. Agree with it or not, it seems like a good way to sell the product.
Pch101:
Yes. As Bob Dylan put it: you gotta serve somebody. If market research is used to serve the brand's greater good, it can be extremely useful. If it's used to [un]define a brand, it's a cancer.
P&G is an excellent example of "best practice." But never underestimate the abilitiy of an ambitious exec to muddy the waters simply to justify their existence. Even some of P&G's products are guilty of needless, heedless brand extensions.
guyincognito:
Agreed. The MKR tells me nothing about the Lincoln brand, other than it's flailing about without [busta] rhyme or reason. While I'm no slave to retro, I sometimes wish some of these "lost" brands would simply re-issue a modern version of their last best car and start the evolution again.
cowbell:
"Even if you don’t think they were fair…" As an American and the publisher of a website called "The Truth About Cars," I have a very hard time indeed getting past that qualifier. Cheating is not the way Fordward.
In Re: marketing’s effect on selling cars, I have three words for you: “Days Go By.” After that commercial came out, there was not one kid I knew under the age of 25 who didn’t want a Mitsubishi Eclipse, and several actually eventually got one. No one cared about the 0-60 time, the lateral g’s, the sidewall rating, reliability, cost-of-ownership, etc. They just wanted a rolling club.
mistercopacetic:
It's critical to try to see these things in a long-term perspective. Killer ads and brand extensions (e.g. Cayenne) can create a dramatic short term lift. No question.
But as Mr. Leikanger has pointed out, a brand's ability to fulfill its promise affects its long-term viability. If I fall in love with an Eclipse, buy one and torque steer into a tree, I may not want another one. Ever.
The Honda “parts in motion” ads, wherein the components of a Honda car roll and bang into one another, leading eventually to a picture of the car itself, is probably the most effective car ad that has ever been devised.
This ad did not make it to North America, so far as I know.
Yes, a lovely commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyN9y0BEMqc
At 2:00 long ($$$), the commercial features a RHD EU Honda Accord wagon, and required hundreds of takes to get correctly as no CGI was used. So in its current incarnation, no go in NA.
The Ford comparison commercials are awful. The fact that they are trying to sell it on handling is the wrong way to go. Accord and Camry are both really good cars, their handling may not be as good as a freakin’ ALL WHEEL DRIVE Fusion, but that is not the only consideration you make when buying a car. How is the handling on the Fusion compared to the other members of this class- Altima, Passat and Mazda’s 6?
It would be great if Fusion could do a feature by feature, price comparison against an A4 or BMW. Demonstrating, how you get more for your money. Didn’t Nissan or someone do this – where the idea was you can buy our car and a boat!
Ford seems to be throwing everything against the wall – remember the Bill Ford commercials from a few months ago? The divorce commercial? The stupid Edge driving up a skyline? Don’t get me started on the newest Focus commercial.
Its the cars dammit and the inconsistent message reeks of desperation.
K.
Man..I sure hope that woman doesn’t read TTAC — ;-)
In fact, the car industry is suffering from the same over-dependence on market research that led to Hollywood’s steady stream of po-faced rubbish. Of course, not ALL of it’s garbage–
RF, I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you. As far as Hollywood movies are concerned, they are all rubbish and have been for at least the last 10 years. Even the most acclaimed ones substitute formulaic violence and tired old subwoofer soundtracks for creativity and thought.
I hope the car industry never gets as bad as Hollywood seems to be.
Hutton: I am an avid whitewater kayaker, which judging from SUV commercials is an inexplicably coveted demographic to car companies. I rarely see XTerra’s (or even SUV’s for that matter) at the river, so there’s a bit of a disconnect between the advertisers fantasy land and reality.
Regional differences might account for your perceived disconnect. I frequently take my sons mountain biking on a great trail that follows the shore of a North Texas lake. The locale is also frequented by wind surfers, fishermen (and fisherwomen) and hikers. The trailhead parking lot is dominated by XTerra’s, Wrangler’s, Liberty’s, RAV4’s, CR-V’s, Subaru Wagons, pickup trucks of all stripes, and recently Audi A3’s. What I don’t see many of are sedans (not even for the hikers), luxury SUV’s, bling-bling SUV’s or large SUV’s (e.g. Tahoe, Suburban, Expedition, etc.). Here at least, the sporty lifestyle vehicles are being utilized as advertised. Now I just need to go there more often as evidenced by my bloating belly and burgeoning buttocks.
Jazbo123 wrote:
As far as Hollywood movies are concerned, they are all rubbish and have been for at least the last 10 years.
That is quite the blanket statement. While there are lots of poor movies coming out of Hollywood, there have been many excellent movies in the last 10 years too.
I would say that Hollywood has a better percentage of hits than either GM or Ford.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Lincoln’s new spokeperson for the MKX is Amsale Aberra, a 52-year old fashion designer based in New York City. Her ads have started in urban and minority markets, but will start to move into general audience markets, for both print and TV, during the course of the year. I think Lincoln’s ad agency (Uniworld Group for this batch) has a pretty good idea who might be interested in this tall wagon-thing.
I am an “active thirty-something” (ATS?). I know LOTS of “active thirty-somethings”. They are all very similar to me.
My 95% of my “active” is commuting, working, and dealing with the kids. The only mountain biking I do (rarely) is on the walking trails through my neighborhood. No SUV needed. Never been kayaking(sp?) even though there is a business that provides the boats and a ride up river less than a mile from my house. Plan on it one day, will probably be a year or two if ever. Again, no SUV needed.
We own a 98 4 door sedan (4cyl, Japanese brand made in USA) and an 2006 SUV (US brand made in USA), just like most of the ATS’s we know, and like most in our neighborhood. My latest purchase was $25K ($30k sticker), which is still the most I’ve ever paid for a new vehicle. I guarantee I will not pay over $30K for any vehicle before I’m 50 unless I win the lottery. Some of my ATS friends have a van or double-cab truck instead of an SUV.
The auto nuts I know usually have a 3rd older sporty vehicle for weekend hoonery. The outdoor nuts have a boat or ATV, depending on where they go at 5am, the water or the woods. None have a true “lifestyle” vehicle unless it is a 3rd, older vehicle.
Very few of the ATSs I know change vehicles often, and none rush out to buy the latest thing. Most of them have at least one vehicle made in the 90’s. When the time comes to buy they do a little research, ask friends & co-workers, and go actually look at and drive several vehicles.
I’m willing to bet that I’m at least one-third of the market, which would probably the largest single segment except maybe the over 60 crowd right now. It seems like the market is so segmented that most of the ads are targeted at a 5% (or less) demographic, which seems like such a waste of time/money.
Honda seems to nail it because their ads are just like their cars: they offend no one and they wow no one. They present the product and talk about value and quality. And everyone who sees the ad understands. And they all stay on message.
Except for the occasional good one, most of the 2.5 ads are touchy-feely garbage. Normal people see through that and after a while the cumulative effect appears to be that there is little for them to sell besides an aspiration.
The Edge advertisements are crap. Show me what is special about this vehicle and why I should buy it. Show me the Vista roof, show me the interior quality and Ipod hookup.
The only ones worse are the bobble-heads from the Jeep compass ads, man those are awful.
As far as showing a product and letting it sell itself is concerned not many will do it because they are not confident in their designs to do so. The most recent instance I have seen where the product stands on its own is Apples iPhone that was just announced. There is nothing spectacularly ground breaking with what it does it’s how it does it. The reason it will sell for a premium and sell well because it does everything its competion does in a phone it just does it better, it’s the design stupid. Just like in real estate its location, location, location. In products it should be design, design, design
The car business should not really be all that hard. Take a look at what is being sold and from a design perspective fix it. Make an exterior shape that is not just comparable to the competition but leapfrogs it. And spend as much or more time designing the inside of the car as the outside. How people interact with the systems on their vehicles and the quality of those parts (interface and ergonomics) is very important. These are the things that you use most in your vehicle yet these tend to be the parts bin cast-offs and relegated to the least skilled designers. Take a page from good design such as Apple Inc. and use it to create better interfaces (the Jaguar concept and Volvo xc60 used a bit of this). Why not offer a HUD in a mainstream sedan as an option? What not use a touchscreen or touchplate instead of idrive, MMI or COMMAND?
While I like a pretty exterior on my cars and some recently have come from concept to production fairly well intact (Solstice) the concept interiors never make it even remotely and that is just a shame.
“How insanely great is that?”
Nice Steve Jobs reference, Robert. And also right on target. Because old geezers driving Scions also tend to own Ipods nowadays…
Cavendel:
The core idea: great movies got made DESPITE the Hollywood system, not BECAUSE of it.
The C6 'Vette is the automotive analog.
rodster205:
I recently watched a Camry ad that simply ticked off the boxes: looks, driving, reliability. Done. Unfortunately, most ad and auto execs are not brave enough to be timid.
Steve_S:
Spot on. The Edge should be advertising the Vista roof. That's it's Unique Selling Point. Fabulous.
Remember the old VeeDub Corrado ad, where they drop the Beetle out of the plane?
There should be more ads dropping things out of planes, IMHO.
Has anyone noticed that Dodge uses a V8 burble in their TV ads for cars with no V8 option? I noticed it first in an early Caliber ad and more recently for the Nitro. Is that artistic license or bait-and-switch?
Brendan:
Did you see the new Lexus IS (I think) ad where they drop one and the one doing the 1/4 on the ground barely makes it by? You would like that one, although I think it was dropped from a tether held by a chopper.
Is there more than one “Lexus accelerating down a runway” ad? The one I’ve noticed didn’t seem to involve dropping anything from an airplane but I wasn’t paying particularly close attention. What I learned from the ad I saw was that Lexus now offers an 8-speed automatic transmission.
That message – a new standard – came through loud and clear.
Pch: “Market research also assumes that customers actually know what they want well enough and deeply enough that they can articulate and express it to the researcher”
Absolutely. Most people don’t think deeply and creatively about what they want from the products they buy. A focus group will usually tell you that consumers want something incrementally better than what they’re familiar with now. If someone asked you what you wanted from your next washing machine, you’d probably say you wanted it to get the clothes a little cleaner, a little faster, using a little less energy, etc. than the one you own now. If the researcher prompted you enough, you’d probably express preferences about how to pour the detergent in. But if someone introduced a brilliant new design, you’d want that more than any of the features you told the researcher you wanted.
People in focus groups don’t design great products. A focus group for small cars wouldn’t have told you they wanted the original Beetle, but millions of folks realized they wanted one (despite its flaws) once they saw them.
Man..I sure hope that woman doesn’t read TTAC — ;-)
Or the one in the MKX commerical. Its a doosie!
You see a MKX drive down to a beach, a good looking female in a bikini top comes out. While the 1st person narration talks about her life and what she wants to aspire to, she pulls out a surfboard from the cargo hole. Then she says she’s already reached that, and three kids come out of the MKX. (awww)
Aside from the physical challenges of carrying 5 people and a surfboard within a MKX, that ad tells me that MILFs want this Lincoln Crossover.
That and Lincoln has no frickin’ clue what a Lincoln is supposed to be. Current and future products have a Chrysler 300/Navigator thing going and its pretty far off the Mark. (pun intended)
Oh, and if they’d just reskin the Town Car and put more interior/performance features in it, they’d be fighting off so many Gangsta-wannabes, upper-middle class families and Matlock fans at the dealerships.
You don’t need to whip up Ad jargon to bullshit people into thinking Lincoln is a great brand when you already have your strongest “brand” statement a luxury car can have. Who hasn’t had a Town Car Limo at one of the best times of your life? (wedding, prom, etc)
And why not make an ad saying that you can have that same happiness every day, in your garage to enjoy to and from work?
The damn car sells itself if/when it gets a new lease on life.
I don’t give a crap about car marketing, and I think that most people on site don’t, either. I don’t care what Saab “stands for” or whether “Subarus are for lesbians”. I just know that Saab offered the 9-2x for less than the WRX and with 0% financing and a more appealing design. I don’t have the kind of brand loyalty in this age of platform sharing and badgeneering that would lean me one way or another (barring an outstanding local dealership or mechanic).
I still wish I could bring myself to buy a 3-series (even a used one) without having to deal with the attitudes from everyone else–I’m 28. If I could debadge them without the ensuing bondo and paintwork, I would ;)