
By now, we’re all very familiar with the accepted reasons for the necessity of an auto bailout: expensive union contracts, executive opulence, and poor management. However, I think there is one more to add to the list: a total branding and marketing failure.
I mean, had the companies just sold more cars, they could have avoided the mess that they’re in. While GM and Ford were struggling and giving up market share, Toyota’s numbers continued to grow.
I think there are a few fundamental branding issues that contributed to the overall decline of our domestic automakers.
- Wrong message. For the past decade, the US automakers have been obsessed with pushing and selling bigger while foreigners have been selling smarter. Whether it was SUVs or Trucks, the overall theme of the big three’s campaigns have been the domineering nature of their vehicles rather than their practicality. For years, you’ve seen Toyota selling vehicles based on great mileage and excellent ratings, while Ford, GM, and Chrysler failed to ever zero in on these benefits.
- Stagnant brands. Has your perception of Ford changed over the past decade? I know mine hasn’t. To me, it represents a company that makes pretty cheap and unreliable smaller cars, but has some great SUVs and trucks. As the market has been shifting toward cars over trucks, Ford needed to change this perception, but it did nothing to do that. It could have been as drastic as a new logo (like Pepsi) or a simple, consistent new message in their ads. Overall, Ford’s lack of commitment to changing the connotations associated with their brand hurt their sales numbers.
- Number of Brands. How many brands are encompassed by GM? Four? Five? Six? Try eight. That’s right, one company trying to successfully sell eight unique brands. How can GM create a unified, smart message when they’re trying to market brands as different as Saturn and Hummer? In a viability plan submitted to the government, GM recently announced that they would halve their brand count to four. However, that is still one more than its top foreign competitors, Toyota and Honda. Ford also is shedding its excess foreign brands to try and focus on just three core brands. Ford and GM having to market so many unique brands causes each brand to suffer, as they have to fight for resources and attention from the parent company. It’s just simply too hard and inefficient to successfully market more than a half dozen distinct brands; Toyota and Honda understood this fact long ago, but the domestics just kept growing their repository of different logos.
While many things contributed to the failure of the auto industry, I think more attention has to be given to the above points and the total mismanagement of their brands and marketing. The domestic automakers typify the type of companies that deserve to die in a recession: bloated, stagnant, and blind. Unless they make some real changes in their branding and marketing, the bailout will only delay the inevitable. Are there other marketing and branding follies by these companies that have caught your eye?
#1 by Steve - March 2nd, 2009 at 14:00
I am not an American auto industry apologist. In fact I haven’t bought an American car in over 20 years. And no I’m not proud of that.
There are some inaccuracies in your arguments.
1. Wrong Message. While it’s true that US automakers have been pushing bigger is better so have foreign competitors. Size creep has been going on for the past 20 years. A Honda Accord in now considered a FULL SIZE car by the EPA. It’s in the same size class (interior volume) as a Mercury Marquis. An original Accord two door could probably fit inside an Accord of today. Let’s not even talk about the Toyota Landcruiser, Nissan Armada. Also, the last time that any of the manufacturers really touted gas mileage was during the last fuel crisis. Now the perception (i.e. the brand) of the US automakers; yes it is one of big, gas guzzling, lousy cars and trucks.
2. Stagnant Brands. The market has only started to shift back to cars with the advent of $4.00 gas. Pick-ups and SUVs accounted for at least 50% of the market. Name me one large scale manufacturer who is going to walk away from selling a product that makes up 50% of the market. But yes I do agree that by and large their brand messages have been stagnant but a new logo isn’t going to fix that.
3. Number of Brands. The problem is that GM is really a holding company that tries to act like one big brand. Nobody buys a GM, they buy a Chevy, a Cadillac. Maybe if GM let the brands be the brands and let them have a distinct message it would take care of number one and number two. The problem isn’t so much that there are too many brands it’s that they do to the brands they buy what they did to the brands they already had. An example being Saab or Volvo or Land Rover or…,