Archive for the ‘automobiles’ category

Audi Says “Haudi!” to Excellent Customer Service

June 1st, 2010

Your brand is much more a function of what you do than what you say about yourself.  And there’s no more powerful way to affect your brand–either positively or negatively–than through your customer service.

I’ve been driving my Audi A4 Cabriolet–very happily–for seven years.  When I bought the car, the dealer–The Audi Exchange in Highland Park, IL–asked if I wanted my license plates on the front and back or just the back.  I hadn’t realized that the latter option even existed, but they pointed out that front plates weren’t required in Illinois.  As someone who generally prefers a very clean look, I took the “back only” option.

Unfortunately, at some point over the past several years, the city of Chicago–where I often go for both business and recreational reasons–started ticketing vehicles without front plates.  But when I recently asked the Audi Exchange to install my front plates, I was initially told that the installation bracket that would be required would cost about $280.  When I explained my situation to the service manager and pointed out that I wouldn’t have been charged for the bracket had I had the front plates installed when I bought the car, he smiled and said, “That’s a fair point.  Okay, the brackets are on us.”

That was it. No haggling.  No complaining that I’d bought the car seven years ago.  No running to the general manager for approval.  He simply did the right thing and treated a customer fairly.  In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be newsworthy, but in an age when so many companies fail to empower their employees to make decisions that will make customers feel truly valued, this experience was a very refreshing.

The result is that I’m more loyal than ever to Audi in general and The Audi Exchange in particular.  In fact, I’m so loyal I might even write a blog post about it!

GM’s Mr. Ed Has No Cred

April 30th, 2010

I think it’s fair to say that for decades General Motors has been fairly widely perceived as an ineptly-managed, money-losing manufacturer of unattractive, poorly-performing vehicles.  Moreover, most of its executives–from Roger Smith (memorialized in “Roger and Me”) through Rick Wagoner (memorialized not only for taking a private jet to the 2008 congressional hearings but for being so bad at his job that the President of the United States effectively fired him)–have come across as being woefully out-of-touch with the desires and morals of the American consumer.  If any company is in dire need of an image makeover, it’s GM.

The good news is that–thanks largely to the legendary and recently-retired Bob Lutz–the designs and quality of their vehicles are greatly improved.  The bad news is that sales haven’t responded as positively as had been hoped.  And I think one big reason is that the company is doing a lousy job of telling its story to the public.

What’s worse, their latest TV commercial is a serious step backward.  The first problem is that the star of the commercial isn’t their new technology or stylish new designs, but Chairman Ed Whitacre.  While the jury is still out on the job he’s doing leading GM out of bankruptcy, the jury is in on the charge that he reinforces every possible negative stereotype about GM.  And the verdict is: “Guilty!”

If GM’s message is that it’s transformed itself into a hip, exciting, state-of-the-art innovator, it couldn’t have picked a worse spokesman than a largely unknown 68-year-old in a Brooks Brothers suit and a monotonous Texas drawl.  In 1981, Lee Iacocca was the exact right person to star in Chrysler commercials; Chrysler’s stability was very much in question, and  car industry legend Iacocca gave the company instant credibility.  In 2010, Ed Whitacre could be the exact wrong person to star in GM commercials; America knows little about him, other than that he looks and sounds like just another out-of-touch GM executive.

And what makes the situation dramatically worse is the revelation that Mr. Whitacre’s boasting about GM’s repaying its government loan is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. For Mr. Whitacre to bless–let alone star in–this commercial raises huge doubts about both his judgment and his ethics.  So at a time when GM desperately needs to rebuild its long-eroding credibility, this ad could–and perhaps should–send GM’s brand equity plummeting to an all-time low.

GM founder Alfred Sloan once infamously said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America.”  If that’s true, then I think I speak for all Americans when I say that Mr. Whitacre needs to remove himself from GM commercials, and maybe from its executive suite as well.

How Do I Like Kia Now? Don’t Ask.

April 20th, 2010

I don’t know about you, but I didn’t like Kia’s latest TV commercial when it debuted on the Super Bowl, and I don’t like it any more now.  After almost three months on the air, this spot still makes no sense to me.

First of all, the kid-oriented but rather bizarre characters are irrelevant at best and distracting at worst.  If their role is to reinforce the kid-friendliness of the car, showing them cruising the Las Vegas strip and partying in a bar, with monotonous rock music blaring throughout the commercial, pretty much defeats that purpose.

Second, other than demonstrating a push-button ignition, the spot does little to showcase the car or whatever pseudo-innovative features it presumably has.  Having seen the spot several (i.e., way too many) times, I still struggle to recall what the car even looks like.

Finally, the spot does a horrendous job of brand identification.  You never hear the names of the brand or the model, and you only see them a few times, and very briefly at that.

But none of this is surprising.  With the notable exception of Southwest Airlines, companies focused on selling products on the basis of low prices rarely deliver creative or strategically sound advertising.   And while customer surveys indicate that Kia’s vehicles are  actually  a pretty good value, their advertising is no bargain.

Hey, Kia–How do you like me now?

CarMax Ads Dramatically Stupid

March 2nd, 2010

I’ve never been a fan of CarMax’s advertising campaigns, but their current effort hits a new low. It’s so bad that no one has bothered to put it on YouTube, which means that I can’t give you a link to view any of the campaign’s ads. It’s probably just as well; asking you to view these ads is tantamount to someone handing you sour milk and saying, “Here–Does this taste funny to you?”

If you’re fortunate enough to not have been assaulted by these ads, here’s what you’ve missed: each ad features a different dog or other animal watching a CarMax commercial and turning toward the camera; when the image freezes, a harsh musical chord is struck, and the words “Dramatically smart!” are splashed across the screen.

Duh, gee, I get it; they’re telling us that becoming a CarMax customer is a dramatically smart thing to do! Why, however, is dramatically less clear. Even though I’ve probably seen at least 10 of these commercials, I honestly cannot recall a single thing that is said about CarMax or why you would want to give them your business.

There is nothing the least bit clever or engaging about any aspect of these commercials, and they were executed as poorly as they were conceived. (For example, once the image is frozen, it seemingly takes forever before the words “Dramatically smart!” appear.) It is absolutely astounding to me that the marketing powers-that-be at CarMax could have determined that these ads would interest or in any way impress prospective customers.

As I often ask whenever I see a major corporation with such ill-conceived advertising, “If they’re this clueless when it comes to advertising, what other things are they getting wrong?”

The only thing that makes sense about these ads is their use of dogs, as this campaign is a real woofer. (I know, that was a predictable joke, but thinking and writing about this campaign has apparently dulled my own creative senses. Woof!)

Toyota PR Efforts in Need of a Recall

February 6th, 2010

The public relations challenge currently being faced by Toyota is perhaps the greatest one faced by a major corporation since the Tylenol catastrophe in 1982. But while Johnson & Johnson deservedly received rave reviews for its forthright and expeditious handling of their situation, I have been far less impressed with Toyota’s response to date. In particular, I don’t think they’re giving the public the sense that they’re moving as quickly as possible to fix the cars on the road, or that they’re passionately determined to discover and address whatever flaws in their manufacturing processes allowed these problems to occur in the first place.

I give Toyota USA president Jim Lentz good marks for making himself available to the media, but low marks for his performance in front of the cameras. He comes across as a nice, mild-mannered, slightly nervous guy, and I don’t think that’s what consumers want to see. I think they want to see a leader with a passionate sense of urgency. Imagine how Lee Iococca–in his prime–would have handled this. I’m pretty certain he would have left viewers thinking, “Wow! There’s going to be hell to pay at Toyota until every single problem has been fixed, and I don’t think we have to worry about this situation ever happening again!”

In much of his Today Show interview with Matt Lauer, Mr. Lentz came across as a politician who had been coached–as he surely was–to not give any direct answers. While I realize that he has to be careful of what he says for legal reasons, that’s hardly an approach likely to build trust with your audience. What’s worse, in other parts of the interview he ignored this coaching and made self-incriminating statements without appearing to realize it. For example, he acknowledged that Toyota had known about one problem since October, but he didn’t go on to say what they’ve been doing to address the situation since then. As a result, he left the viewer with the (presumably inaccurate) feeling that Toyota simply ignored the problem–and put its customers at risk–for several months.

On February 5, Toyota uploaded a video to YouTube showing Mr. Lentz at a Toyota dealership announcing that repair parts are now being delivered to service departments. There are several problems with this piece. First, Mr. Lentz looks very unnatural walking through the service area, awkwardly gesturing repeatedly with his left hand like he’s dribbling an invisible basketball. Second, behind Mr. Lentz we see dozens of Toyota cars being repaired for unrelated problems, which doesn’t exactly reinforce the notion of Toyota’s high quality. And third, the video ends with a repairman making a repair to a faulty accelerator pedal. Inexplicably, there’s no narrator to explain what he’s doing, and he looks rather unsure of himself as he installs a part that presumably will correct the problem. It would be nice if there were a straightforward, impressive “before and after” demonstration, but there isn’t. In fact, I was left wondering, “Is that the fix? Seriously?”

Don’t get me wrong; Toyota is in a no-win situation, and it’s going to be difficult for them to look good no matter what they do. But an effective public relations effort can minimize the damage currently being self-inflicted upon the brand equity they’ve worked so hard to build over the past several decades. Unfortunately, the quality of their damage control is not much better than the apparent quality of their accelerator pedals.

The Bad Samaritan

September 15th, 2009

Have you seen the TV commercial where a guy picks up a stranded taxi driver and drives him to a service station? It seems like the kind act of a Good Samaritan, until the jerk driving the car decides to show off by taking an alternative route with numerous tight curves that allow him to bounce his poor passenger around in the back seat like a rag doll. The car owner’s snide smile and obnoxious behavior is essentially saying, “Hah, hah!  I drive this really hot car and you’re just a poor schmo driving a broken down taxi!”

The ad’s intent is presumably to demonstrate how impressed the taxi driver is with the car’s handling, but instead it just leaves you feeling sorry for the guy–and hating the guy who just gave him the joyride.

But this commercial isn’t just obnoxious; it’s also ineffective, and in three ways. First, in the “action footage,” the car appears to be going about 20 mph, which hardly wows the viewer. Second, the car’s design is squat and boring, which is a bad fit for the “hot car” positioning this ad is inexplicably shooting for. And third, it does a lousy job of communicating the brand. (The manufacturer is Suburu, by the way, although I’m still not sure what the model is even though I’ve seen the commercial at least six times.)

Effective marketing communications call attention to the brand, make you feel good about that brand, and impress you with what the product can do for you. This commercial fails miserably on all three counts.

If Suburu really wants to be a Good Samaritan to consumers–and its shareholders–it should park this commercial in the garage.

Taurus: A Hot Car By Any Other Name

September 13th, 2009

Ford CEO Alan Mulally made an executive decision over a year ago to resurrect the Taurus brand. While that might not be a mistake per se, what was a mistake was attaching that brand to a very stylish high-performance car that sells for up to $47,000.

The Taurus was a fairly strong brand over 20 years ago, as the then-stylish car won many design awards and for a time was the largest-selling car in America. However, for many years following its late 1980s heyday, the Taurus brand was attached to a series of uninspired models that, despite frequent deep discounts, sold so poorly that the brand was eventually unceremoniously retired.

Thus, while there is certainly some equity in the Taurus name, I suspect it has as much negative equity as positive equity. While I find the new design quite attractive, I would be much more interested in it if it had a new name that was as impressive as the vehicle itself.

Moreover, this seems to be a major opportunity lost for Ford. At a time when Ford, like its domestic competitors, is desperately trying to convince consumers that it has learned from its error-prone past and is now making better cars than ever before, why look backward and associate yourself with an era when your reputation was at or near an all-time low?

Under Mr. Mulally’s leadership, Ford has been by far the most successful of the Big Three U.S. car manufacturers from a financial standpoint, and was the only one of the three to avoid a government bailout. But Mr. Mulally’s financial instincts appear to be much greater than his marketing instincts. Thus, while the attractive new Taurus may experience some degree of success, I have to believe that it would achieve considerably greater success with an attractive new name.

In other words, when Mr. Mulally mandated that the Taurus name be brought back from the dead, someone at Ford should have had a better idea.

GM: Does Better Advertising Signal a Better Company Tomorrow?

June 3rd, 2009

I just saw the first ad from the new General Motors “Reinvention” campaign, and I have to admit that I’m surprised–and impressed! (Check it out for yourself: www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=general+motors+reinvention&aq=.f) Whether it will ultimately prove effective is impossible to say, as the odds are certainly not in GM’s favor. But if the refreshingly candid approach taken by this ad is any indication of the attitude that resides within the halls of this once-great company these days, I’d say their odds of making a successful comeback are greater than I would have thought.

The goal of this extremely well-written ad is to convey that GM gets it–that they realize they need to make big changes, and that they’re determined to get back on track. It begins with one of the most brutally candid lines you’ll ever hear in advertising:  “Let’s be completely honest–No company wants to go through this.” The challenge is for GM to admit they need to change without being overly apologetic, as it’s essential that this ad inspire confidence.  Upon first viewing, the ad seems to strike the right balance. Rather than simply saying “We messed up,”  it takes a subtly-but-significantly different tack by saying that things that made sense in the past do not make sense today. In doing this, GM reminds us that they were once a great company that made smart decisions, which suggests that perhaps they can once again be able to attain that level of greatness and intelligence. In short (althought the ad doesn’t say this), “We’ve done it before and we can do it again.”

There are some other verbal gems in this 60-second ad created by the Deutsch, Los Angeles ad agency, including, “This isn’t about going out of business. It’s about getting down to business. Because the only chapter we’re focused on…is Chapter One.”

As someone who has ranted several times about GM and its advertising during the past few weeks, it’s hard for me to believe that I just wrote the above paragraphs. And it’s clearly naive to think that a 100-year-old company plagued by decades of mismanagement is suddenly on the right track simply because of a well-written new ad campaign. Still, something tells me that the badly-damaged aircraft carrier that is GM is not only going to stop taking on water, but it just might start turning itself around as well. Either way, it’s going to very interesting see what Chapter Two holds.

Great. Marketing. Insight.

May 20th, 2009

One of the best TV commercials I’ve seen in a long time is the new “Beach” ad for the Honda Insight hybrid. If you haven’t seen it, please be my guest: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWhwc7WHv1U&feature=PlayList&p=0364860689DAABF2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=24

Everything about the ad is smart, which makes particular sense given that–in my opinion, anyway–driving a hybrid is a very smart thing to do. (My wife drives a Toyota Prius.) The visuals are very clever and engaging, and the background music is wonderfully infectious. In fact, it’s so good I had to find out more about the song. It’s title is “Honey Tree,” and the musician goes by the name of Mostar Diving Club.

Honda got everything right: The car looks great, the name is strategically appropriate, the tagline –”The hybrid for everyone”–nicely reinforces the car’s relatively low price, and the “clean and green” logo is–pardon the pun–a natural. Add it all up, and not only are you aware that there’s a new hybrid in town, but you come away feeling it features state-of-the-art technology and is fun to drive.

Were this a General Motors car (yeah, right!), the ad would surely focus on attacking the Prius. But it’s a Honda, and so it focuses on selling itself–and quite entertainingy at that. After all, when you’re smart enough to develop a product that has a good story to tell, you don’t need to resort to trashing your superior competitors.

How’s that for great marketing insight?

GM: Godawful Marketers

April 6th, 2009

Is it any wonder GM is about to choose between going bankrupt and becoming a ward of the state?

Smart companies use their advertising to creatively persuade you that their innovative products can solve your problems; dumb companies use their advertising to try to fool you into thinking that their imitative products are as good as their competitors.  And really dumb companies take cheap shots at their competitors.  The latest Chevy ad sets a new low–which is saying something, by the way–by comparing several of its vehicles to Honda’s on mileage and then poking fun at the fact that Honda also makes lawnmowers. The smirk on spokesman Howie Long’s mug is pathetic, leaving you wondering (a) why Chevy is feeling so cocky, and (b) why it thinks unfounded cockiness is an appealing trait.  Incidentally, this ad falls on the heels of a Chevy truck ad in which Mr. Long belittles an innovative feature on a Toyota truck.

As any marketer worth his or her salt knows, companies that aren’t clever enough to find something positive to say about themselves will resort to saying something negative about their competition.  Detroit has been taking potshots at their overseas competitors for years, and for virtually all of those years Detroit’s market share has continued to plummet.  Hmmmm…Does anyone else see a pattern here?

As a taxpayer, the last company I would want to own is General Motors.  On the other hand, if Honda were to become available…