Anybody can build a safe car nowadays, and it is expected that a car can last 100,000+ miles

Umm, no, not really. I want 100K trouble-free miles, not just any 100K miles. This is where Toyota shines btw.

“Toyota = Quality”

[scooby_doo]Barwooooo?[/scooby_doo]

Toyota has done a really good job at diluting that message over the last decade. Their attempt to boost profits by squeezing suppliers caused a hit to their reputation for reliability, they had to replace thousands of engines because of oil sludge, they’ve been panned (relatively speaking) in recent years by Consumer Reports for reliability problems and in the buff books for making boring cars, and people really don’t like the experience of buying from a Toyota dealer.

There are reasons why Toyota’s market share plateaued in the US well before the market collapsed last year. I bet if you asked a thousand Toyota owners to describe the brand in one word, “Quality” wouldn’t crack the top ten and you’d have at least a couple unflattering answers. I bet anything the top response would be “Eh, OK.”

Honda still has that reputation for quality. Subaru is inspiring the kind of owner affection Toyota used to have. Hyundai has amazing value. But none of those can describe Toyota, not anymore.

Want to talk about old slogans and jingles? Name one current Toyota that would inspire you to sing “I love what you do for me”, or exclaim “Oh, what a feeling!” Tell me you could use those with a straight face about any Toyota today.

I’d like to see Ford get a little sharper with their advertising, but give them some credit. Mike Rowe is a brilliant choice for a spokesman. Denis Leary’s spots for the F-150 are light years better than anything from Chevy, Dodge or Toyota. It’s not even close.

And I think there’s something to be said for the regular owner talking about how much they like the car or its features in a time like this. Five years ago something like the current car commercials wouldn’t have worked at all. But today, when there is so much distrust for corporations and their promises, putting a regular person in a car and talking about how great it is might be more effective at getting consumer’s attention and beginning to win their trust. Introduce it with a recognizable, inviting and friendly voice like Rowe’s – that’s not great advertising but it might be the most effective message for the times.

This applies to other generic factors, like branding based on safety. Anybody can build a safe car nowadays, and it is expected that a car can last 100,000+ miles. Beyond that, what is Toyota selling differently from Honda or Nissan or Ford?

Toyota has no branding, just a reputation that people confuse with branding. The truth about branding is that it’s an easy way to pigeonhole your company to build certain cars and nothing outside those lines. Why would any automaker limit themselves like this is beyond me.

RF,

Nothing!? Ford has shed and/or is in the process of shedding Nasser’s PAG legacy including Land Rover, Jag, Aston Martin, Mazda, and Volvo to focus on Ford and Lincoln brands. (Mercury may be the beneficiary of state franchise laws, otherwise, they too could be on this list.) Taurus was resurrected to be the flagship sedan nameplate. President Obama is driving a Ford branded hybrid and Ford was first in line, with the attendant press coverage on the Fed’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program.

“Big Al” may not yet be ready to claim his CEO of the Decade award, but you’re beginning to sound an awful lot like Sen. Shelby.

Funny you mention the Ford difference. I was to assume that the Ford difference was trying to be just like Toyota and Honda…because that’s who they mention in all of their ads. So much for being different…

I think this is spot on. I also think it extends to other automakers besides Ford.

We’re living in a time when models have become brands unto themselves, which is why Ford has so many selling points – one for each model.

It doesn’t seem so long ago (to an old guy like me) that Olds was selling several different cars called Cutlass. The model was more important than the brand.

I know lots of people who swear up and down that Ford makes great trucks, but lousy cars. I don’t wish to argue the point, one way or the other. The more important thing is that no one should be thinking this. It’s a brand failure if Ford’s “truck cred” doesn’t permeate the entire family of self-propelled vehicles.

I know people who would consider a Mustang (having wanted one since ‘64) but would never look twice at a Taurus. There is no overall brand identity, so even if people like one model, that doesn’t mean they’ll consider anything else in Ford’s lineup.

I also agree with RF that most of GM/Chryco loss of market share probably isn’t going to Ford. More like to Toyondisandai.

Actually, Apple is considered to deliver the best end user experience unique to the marketplace and is considered to have the most educated consumers in the marketplace as well because of how they reach their customers versus how their competition reaches their customers. It’s pretty hard to argue otherwise.

The “superior” alternatives to, for example, the iPhone involved clunky bricks of crap that could technically do far more on paper (for example Windows Mobile) but required a disproportionate amount of effort to bring about any sort of relevant usability (download a bunch of unsupported 3rd party software.) On the PC front, Apple opened retail stores that offer classes educating people about their product, vs. the PC approach which is honestly “keep em stupid.” (Why do you think there’s so much demoware and bloatware of software no educated consumer would want?)

This is actually relevant to Ford… my last 5 experiences with Ford dealers, it was miserable- every negative stereotype of car buying I could imagine. Now that Ford has improved their product, they need to work on how they interface with the customer. They need to differentiate buying a car so that you don’t feel like such a victim.

They need to make the Ford line into the [reliable] US version of VW. Affordable, well-built, non-fugly, peoples’ car.

Then use that mass engine’s success to turn Merc into the US Acura/Audi analogue.

And then turn Lincoln into the US Lexus/Bentley analogue.

-None of which they will do making Fugly, crappy cars with designs better left in the 70’s.

–
The other day, a friend described to me the [branding] aura of a ‘51 Mercury back in the day. -Where the hell is that ethos today?

Perhaps he’s wrong and Ford will little by little gain the same kind of word of mouth alongside CR and JD Powers doing the real marketing grunt work for them. Only time will tell.

It is funny as if the reason why the denied the Uncle Sugar loans matters to much of any one except those with axes to grind w/ Ford.

And the real marketing power brand power behind Toyota and Honda is excellent package deals. You make next to no compromises to drive one. This is in contrast to nearly every other manufacturer except perhaps new Ford and maybe some new models here and there with other brands.

If you want to call these models, fine, but that doesn’t mean they’re not brands. They are, and as a matter of law. If you don’t think so, try selling a Mustaeng sports car and see what happens.

The absence of a strong brand umbrella hinders but does not foreclose the introduction and growth of successful models. How strong was the Ford brand when the Taurus was first introduced? How strong was the Chrysler brand when the PT Cruiser came on the market? Or how about the Chrysler mini-van on the heels of the company’s near bankruptcy?

Fusion is a good example of a brand that is building equity. The first generation car was solid but didn’t stand out against its leading competitors. In Fusion’s segment, good enough isn’t. The just introduced second generation car does stand out. Its grille is an eye catcher. The 41 mpg hybrid is sending a message that this car is special. And sales have bumped up into the top three. While sales of numbers one and two are tanking.

In time, Fusion may come to stand for the great American mid-size. Just as the once meaningless “Camry” now stands for the unbreakable Japanese mid-size. “Great American” has considerable persuasive power for lots of people. At a minimum, it’s enough to get them into the dealership to “drive one.” And given the likely futures of GM and Chrysler, “Great American” is a brand attribute that Ford vehicles may soon have to themselves.

I expect that the next Focus will do the same thing. And the growing strength of the other models in the Ford line will support the Focus brand.

Ultimately this is a bottom up strategy. The model/brands will build the brand umbrella, Ford. Which will stand for American cars as good as the competition. That’s enough to put the individual brands in play. After that, it’s Focus versus Golf and F-150 versus Tundra. If the products keep improving at the furious rate we’re now witnessing, that’s all Ford needs.

I think you’re trumping up variations in current advertising lines and then confusing them with a wavering central message.

Ford’s message was — and is — Drive One . . . drop your pre-existing notions and drive one, dammit.

Why drive one?

Quality, safety, green cred (hybrids) . . . those lines built on the central message by pointing out some reasons to try a Ford.

And now we have Drive the Ford Difference. Same game. Why drive one? Because Ford is different. The base message is the same . . . drive one.

I’ve never quite understood your obsession with narrow and unwavering brand positioning as savior. I think that is really much more important to brand managers and advertising professionals as a point of principal than it actually is to the common man. Especially for a product like cars, that have plenty of distinguishing characteristics and don’t need the artificial separation brands supply. People are smart enough to hear that Ford has quality vehicles, and that Mustangs are fun to drive, and that Fusions are a smart pick with good mileage, and that F-Series are tough, and that Ford vehicles are safe . . . and not drop into a fugue state and forget Ford exists.

Ford Australia also suffers, although has been improving. The Falcon has been widely regarded as a much better car than the Commodore for years, yet the Commode has constantly outsold it. The latest FG Falcon has been doing much better though.

Perhaps Fords domination of the V8 Supercars over the last year or so has something to do with it, who knows.

/Aussieness

What do you think the definition of Brand really is?

Robert has this dead to rights. Unlike GM and Chrysler, who’ve more or less nailed marketing (if not product planning or building decent cars), Ford can build a good car, but is singularly clueless about how to sell it unless it’s a product (Mustang, F-150) that sells itself. Their non-efforts surrounding the D-Platform and Lincoln are so bad it’s textbook.

—————————————–

I think marketing is sometimes over rated. These aren’t small unknown companies to begin with. So, it’s more or less products selling themselves. Just look at 1st gen xB.

The real catch is to make the product/brand consistently competitive for a very long time to make it reach that “sell itself” stage.

TTAC seems to think that a lack of a clear branding identity equals failure, but I think what Ford is doing here is smart.

But first, what brand honestly has a ‘clear’ branding identity? Honda can’t decide whether it wants to build fun to drive, reliable cars, or out-eco Toyota. Nissan can’t decide whether it wants to be fun to drive (Altima, Maxima, Z) or economical (Versa, Cube, Sentra.) Hyundai… the Genesis… the Accent. BMW was sporty, but how do you explain the X6? Same with Porsche. So the entire idea that you need religious brand adherence really doesn’t ring true anymore as companies try to relocate their niche.

And hence, there’s where Ford is smart. Ford’s mantra right now in all of its advertising campaigns is “we build good cars.” That’s all it needs in this economy. They don’t eschew sport, luxury, efficiency, or any particular demographic… they’re trying to indicate their cars are good enough at all of them, but at the end of the day they’re stating that their cars are of good quality- that’s what you get when you buy Ford. I don’t think the consumer zeitgeist right now can tolerate the same level of BS you saw 5 years ago depicting a certain ‘lifestyle’ with each product.

And frankly, the new generation of Gen-Y buyers are not fooled by brands. They may be loyal to a particular manufacturer or company, but more and more, people lump brands such as Toyota and Lexus together, Nissan/Infiniti, etc. I don’t expect a Taurus to drive like a Mustang, but I expect the same levels of quality. That’s how future car buyers treat these.

Brakes that feel like mashed potatoes and fade after two hard stops are a FoMoCo hallmark.
–
With the SHO, just like on the Mustang GT, one has to purchase an optional “performance package” to get the good brakes.

The SHO’s “performance package” also includes performance tires because Ford pulled a Chrysler and decided that standard all-season tires were good enough for their 365hp “Super High-Output” $37K sports sedan.

This is the crux of “marketing” that the Big Three seem to have forgotten about. For instance, Toyota’s “ask someone you know” marketing slogan is quite powerful because it acknowledges the fact that brand reputation is largely spread by word of mouth and personal experience. All the posturing and empty promise-making in the world won’t enhance a brand’s reputation for any significant length of time if those promises aren’t backed up by quality product. Far too many people these days seem to think that “marketing” is just an exercise in whitewashing consumers into thinking whatever the marketers want them to think.

Ford’s problem, frankly, is the fact that its design and marketing departments seem to be completely disconnected from each other. The engineers seem to design lots of vehicles that aren’t clearly aimed at any market niche – and the marketers don’t seem to know what to do with those vehicles once they appear. Why, for instance, does Ford have the Edge, Explorer, Escape, and (until recently) Taurus X? These vehicles all seem to overlap the same market space to a large extent, and Ford doesn’t seem to have the foggiest clue as to how to market them. Heck, the Freestyle/Taurus X was a half-decent wagon that died simply because Ford built it but then didn’t put any sort of marketing effort behind it.

On top of that, Ford has a nasty habit of letting many models go far too long between redesigns (i.e., Ranger, Focus, Escape, Crown Vic, etc). Why? Well, they had to redesign the F-150 and Explorer, right?

First Ford is no different than any other car company right now. I don’t think any car company can really pull off more than two brands. One regular car line and one upscale. Thats what Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are doing don’t try and reinvent the wheel.

Second the cars speak louder than the marketing. I doesn’t matter how much you market a message. GM always blasted out that they made more cars with over 30 MPG than any other car maker. The reality is that generally their cars got worse mileage and the public didn’t buy the message. GM can and has advertised the hell out of improved quality or sportiness or whatever and ultimately the public ain’t buying it over the years. Marketing luxury or sportiness or whatever is secondary and almost irrelevant to the product.

Think about Toyota I really can’t think of their current tagline. Years ago they had Oh what a feeling or You asked for it you got it toyota. I don’t ever recall them advertising specifically beating you over the head repeatedly about their quality. They came to them via the product.

Just pick each market segment you want to be in and engineer the best basic car or truck for that segment like Toyota and Honda. Make your upscale brand distinctively upscale from there. Now fiddle around with marketing. The last is the least difficult to do. Ford seems to be pulling off the difficult stuff.

So, it seems that the first place to start is to eliminate those negatives. Ford sorta seems to be doing that. Complaints about the interior of the first-gen Fusion have been answered in the second-gen, and so on.

I say “sorta” because, as a former SHO owner (1992-2002; yeah, I liked the car) the one thing that really cheesed me about the car were the inadequate brakes. The original discs were made of cheap metal that was guaranteed to warp after one of my trips to my mountain house in West Virginia. I found a SHO specialist in my area who sold me some higher-quality discs that tolerated the heat. But adding bigger discs in the front was a fairly elaborate job of replacing the spindles as well as the discs and the calipers. Now, I see in the C&D test of the new SHO, that FoMoCo has the same brakes in the hot version of the car as in the grandmom version . . . with predictably sorry results. C’mon guys! Why build a car that hits 60 mph in 5.2 seconds that doesn’t stop worth shit? How much money are you saving by doing that? What’s the hit on your “brand equity” from that “saving”?

It’s this kind of thing that speaks “Old Detroit” and has gotta go. “Old Detroit” thinking was to give customers a lot of flash and then cut corners where you didn’t think they would notice. Trouble is, people do notice . . . and it reflects badly on the brand.

The Toyota people recognize that lots of car buyers are not “buying excitement” they’re buying an appliance, just like a fridge. Those are the people who live and die by the CR ratings.

So, that’s a good place to start. So, Ford, if you’re doing a “performance sedan,” like the ‘10 SHO, do it right. “Performance” in a car means going, turning and stopping!

Fun to drive does not sell enough to sustain a mass-market marque. I don’t know what Ford needs to concentrate on, but fun to drive is not it, not if they want to sustain marketshare.

Put it this way: Mazda treads on fun to drive and can’t crack the minor leagues (which is why the 6 got softened somewhat), while Honda’s abandoning of it hasn’t hurt their mainstream sales one bit.

I don’t envy their position, if for no other reason than attempts by a domestic marque to play the reliability card (which, truly, is what you must play to win in this market) are met with sheer skepticism. After all, if you bought a car with the AXOD transmission, what would you have thought about “Quality is Job 1″?

You’ve either seen that ad, or you have no idea what I’m talking about.

The WoW ad for the Tacoma was good. I have to admit, I liked the Tacoma ad where the asteroid hits a little bit better though.