Positioning guru Al Ries wrote a wonderful article back in 2005 about "The Sad and Unnecessary Decline of Saturn." How the automaker fell prey to parent General Motors' strategy of expanding the brand instead of expanding the brand's market share. The article was one of those where you say, "I thought of that all along. Wish I had written it myself." So paste this link into your address bar and read it. ( http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=46746 )
Even though Al Ries stole my thunder, the strategy point needs repeating for marketing managers in all kinds of categories, and I've tried doing that in my speech called "Walking Through The Brand." And I wonder if anybody really gets it. Since I don't expect to be getting a call from GM, Ford or Chrysler at any time, I suppose I can take aim at them here.
Automakers, especially of the American variety, have been the world's worst marketers when it comes to understanding what their brands are all about. In their rush to capture market share they have rushed to judgment about what people want in a car, trying to fulfill the desires of everyone...from the small, "green" car to the guzzler SUV. As Ries says, they have expanded the brand instead of expanding market share.
Sure, it's quality and style and all that stuff that sell a car. But, like a house, a car is still a symbol of one's worth, self-worth and salve for the psyche. But now, in the present state of auto affairs, you can own a Cadillac and be from a somewhat lower economic strata, or you can be a SUV sportsman without touching a hunting rifle, or a GPS-guided luxury car owner. Or all of the above. Ad infinitum.
There are a few notable exceptions. A Hummer comes to mind immediately. Yet with Saturn, who has "broadened its portfolio" to include a larger sedan and an SUV, the brand's promise has been blown out of the proverbial tailpipe.
And so has Cadillac's, among others. The venerable Cadillac brand provides little psychic reward for owning one. So now, the old saw of "its the Cadillac of....(put a category name here)" no longer applies.
What do you think?
Link
2 comments:
My two cents worth on Detroit's misunderstanding of their position in the consumer's mind is that Motown has always been perceived as style and power, and historically the Big Three traded on that successfully. Sadly, in the past two decades senior management has ignored the value of perpetuating that consumer perception. Best example of how to exploit that perception of "style and power" is the birthing of the Mustang in 1965. Even though the introduction of the Mustang positioned it as fast and sporty, the overwhelming majority of the 250,000 units sold the first year were delivered with straight sixes under the hood! And you'd never have convinced the owners of these neutered Mustangs that they didn't have the latest and greatest from Motown.
Today, that example is reborn in the Chrysler 300C Hemi-head. The style is balls-out unique and the perception of hemi power is not lost in the minds of the majority who choose the milder V-6 engine.
The lesson here is: "Style" is absolutely necessary to the Motown pedigree. "Power" is also important, but for practical purposes its perception must be deftly managed within the classical framework of "positioning."
In the mistaken belief that the majority of consumers preferred Toyotas and Hondas, Detroit began to copy their foreign competitors' styling and product claims, inadvertently helping bland styling and lackluster power to gain greater acceptability. "Quality" came to be perceived as the defining product feature in consumers' minds. What the Big Three should've done was to reshape their "style and power" themes into smaller packages targeting a more varied and fragmented marketplace.
Most of 'em have still have not figured it out....go figure.
All very true. But this is a rather sad statement about us:
"But, like a house, a car is still a symbol of one's worth, self-worth and salve for the psyche."
Post a Comment