New Ford Campaign Has Right People Talking

As reported by The Associated Press, Ford plans to go out next week with a new ad campaign to rev up talk about its brand.

I really like Ford’s go-get-’em approach. “We have momentum. Let’s build on it, now!” That’s what I’m hearing.

One can’t help contrast Ford to GM here.

Look at Ford. They’re going out with ads spotlighting various features of their vehicles – capless refueling, the Sync entertainment system, built-in refrigerators (that’s a new one for me, and I’ll take one of those!) and ambient lighting. They’re talking about what makes their vehicles special.

GM, on the other hand, well, their big talk right now is all about a 60-day money back guarantee. They’re not talking about the wonders of GM vehicles.

As Laura Ries rightly points out, a money-back guarantee doesn’t exactly send the intended message. See her post GM & the Implication of the Opposite for more on this.

Look Who’s Talking
Another big… wait… huge… no, wait… gargantuan difference between Ford and GM is who’s doing the talking.

For GM, it’s their chairman, Ed Whitacre Jr. Umm, Ed who?

For Ford, it’s someone just like one of us. Word is that Ford’s new spots feature actual owners/drivers of the brand’s vehicles. Even better, the comments are completely unscripted. According to The Ford Story blog, the people featured didn’t even know Ford had anything to do with the filming or that they might be used in commercials.

You can see the Ford commercials for yourself if you’d like.

I’ve got to hand it to Ford and their social media whiz kid Scott Monty. They really get it. I mean, who would you be more influenced by: big auto executive Ed What’s-his-name or a real guy or gal, someone who seems just like you and people you know?

This is the new marketing world we’re living in. Ford appears to be in the right gear. GM seems to have stalled somewhere along the road. Those who closely follow GM’s marketing, please correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m not sure if Ford has truly arrived. The competition remains intense. The challenges have not faded away. Ford is still in a fight. But we’re seeing more and more positive signals indicating Ford is turning the corner, such as the 25 percent of Ford Flex crossover sales coming from people trading in a foreign brand.

Ford has a long way to go yet. But… and I think it’s a big but, they’ve got the right people talking.

What do you think? Do you see things as I do, or have you some other thoughts? Please weigh in. Would love to hear from you. Thanks for stopping by.

Saturn: The Power to Surprise?

Many observers were keen to see what Roger Penske and his automotive group could do with its own car brand.

Now with Penske pulling the plug on plans to acquire Saturn, we’ll never know.

Or will we? Some insist Penske is still working hard behind the scenes to find the right partner to continue making Saturn vehicles and that a deal with GM could be on again in a matter of weeks. That’s likely wishful thinking, if you ask me. But surprising things can happen.

One wonders then if it’s still plausible for another player to emerge at this late stage, a player who might be looking for a way to enter the U.S. market.

Chinese automakers come to mind.

So does Hyundai-owned Kia Motors, which has a very small toe in the U.S. and is certainly driving to take a greater share.

We have already seen Kia aggressively going after Saturn’s dealerships. By moving into existing or already closed Saturn stores, Kia takes a big shortcut in the substantial time it takes to set up a successful retail network. And Saturn’s got a good one, one that’s well known for its customer-friendly approach.

My question is: why doesn’t Kia go for the whole enchilada and acquire Saturn? After all, Kia is a bit like Saturn, isn’t it? Both have their share of brand zealots. Both were born out of the idea to offer affordable quality vehicles. Both have sought to raise quality levels and deliver higher value vehicles.

Saturn, consistently ranked in the top ten of J.D. Power & Associates’ Customer Satisfaction Index, just might rub off positively on Kia, which usually is at the bottom of this same ranking.

Kia wants and needs to connect with customers in the U.S. Saturn would be one route to do just that.

Why wouldn’t this deal make sense? Would the two brands simply compete with one another? Are the two brands complementary… too complementary? Or, could Kia develop and execute a business model under which both brands could flourish?

Just seems to me that Kia could build greater consumer awareness and confidence by taking Saturn into its orbit.

I’m not an automotive guy, and perhaps it shows… so please share your insights and views and help me understand.

Thanks for stopping by the On Brands blog.

GM on the “New GM”: Brand Champ or Chump?

The automotive industry is back in the spotlight this week on Brand Champ or Chump.

And how could it not be after today’s historic announcement of GM filing for bankruptcy?

We saw this coming. In fact, we’ve been hearing about the impending bankruptcy for many months now. And GM has had time to prepare for this day.

So, I was curious. How would GM handle the announcement? What would the beleaguered auto giant say? And, almost more importantly, how would they say it?

I went to gm.com to see for myself.

I saw nothing about the big news on the home page, so I went to the News area of the site and saw the GM news release on the filing and a statement from the GM board of directors. I also stumbled across a video on “reinvention” and a link to the GM restructuring site.

I skimmed, scanned, read carefully and listened. Did GM say some of the right things? Sure. I can agree, reinvention is good, and so is leaner, greener, faster and smarter. No arguments here.

However, I had to ask myself: “What’s missing? Why don’t I feel any better about GM’s future or a future in which I might actually find myself behind the wheel of a GM vehicle, beyond the obvious, that is?”

Two words: No passion.

I feel GM said a lot of the right things. But I didn’t like how they said them. To me, the message came across too matter-of-factly.

I was looking for something else to come through: some emotion in what clearly is an emotional event. I wanted to see some passion behind GM’s words, some indication that we mean what we say and we care about what we mean to say!

I like GM’s emphasis on reinvention. As they say, “reinvention is the only way we can fix this, and fix it we will.” I also like GM’s reflection that this is “not about going out of business, it’s about getting down to business.”

That’s the kind of determination that wins me over. But hearing these messages in a video from a professional voice over talent is one thing; hearing it from top GM leadership or GM people at any level for that matter is quite another.

I don’t like kicking anyone when they’re down. I want GM to succeed. But I feel the automaker missed an opportunity today.

Was today just too tough? Perhaps GM gave its best given the nature of the announcement?

Or, perhaps, GM could have exerted its messages more forcefully and passionately and sent stronger brand signals of hope and inspiration to those they care about, to those they need to win over.

It’s usually not what you say; it’s how you say it. And for this, I have to call GM’s announcement today a Brand Chump.

Do you agree or disagree? Are GM’s brand communications around its bankruptcy filing and the “new GM”:

1. A brand champ?
2. A brand chump?
3. Somewhere in between?

You decide.

Poor Pontiac

As many know, GM has announced that it will phase out the Pontiac brand.

So, what has led to Pontiac’s demise? What went wrong?

Pontiac was once a successful brand. In fact, many still feel great loyalty to it.

I was listening to a radio talk show just this week that addressed GM’s decision to cut Pontiac. Caller after caller came on the air to share their Pontiac stories. They were clearly fans of the brand, as they knew it. They shared their stories. A few spoke of falling in love with their Firebird, GTO or Grand Am, all models built around the simple notion of high performance.

And that’s where GM seems to have gone astray with Pontiac. The idea got lost. Somewhere along the way, GM decided they could essentially sell Chevrolets under the Pontiac name. They also decided that they could expand the range of models and be everything to everyone. Pontiacs were no longer Pontiacs, but Chevrolets in disguise.

Oh, and the Pontiac Chevrolets competed against the actual Chevrolets.

Tell me, please, what is the point of competing against your own brand for the exact same customer?

What’s even more baffling is why GM would mess with the essence of the Pontiac. Why would they stray from the core idea underpinning the brand? Why would they mess with the brand character?

Even when GM tried to bring back the GTO, they failed. Why? That car wasn’t accepted as a true Pontiac and it didn’t perform like one either. Ford brought back the Mustang with success. Why? They stayed true to the spirit of that brand.

In my view, GM should have stuck with a smaller range of true high performance models under the Pontiac name.

Now, mind you, the sport car market is saturated. It’s a different car game from when Pontiac was at its heyday. Even if GM had recommitted to the true Pontiac brand, they might not achieve the same level of dominance they once enjoyed in the market. But they might still have a winner at some level, and they might still be relevant to a segment of car enthusiasts. They might have been able to adapt and carve out their own share of the market.

What’s the brand lesson here? Stay true to who you are. Deliver on the promise. When you stray from the core idea, you erode the brand’s value. When you try to say you are something you actually aren’t, you aren’t going to fool anyone. And when you forget who you are, you’re doomed.

GM may have just announced its decision, but the automaker actually pulled the plug on Pontiac a long time ago.

Brand Neglect Drives Failure

I just read an outstanding piece by Olivier Blanchard, principal at BrandBuilder Marketing, on the mistreatment of brands by lousy CEOs.

See Blanchard’s blog post: Killing America’s brands, one lousy CEO at a time (It’s a bit lengthy, but worth the read).

In this piece, he rants against ineffective leadership at Chrysler and GM, whose CEOs, he says, have focused to their detriment on aggressive cost-cutting, efficiency and short-term results in favor of rebuilding the brands that once made them successful. As a result, the downfall of these auto giants have accelerated.

I think Blanchard’s point is a good one. Too often, business leadership focuses more on short-term profitability (making the numbers). By doing so, they may be running the business, but they’re not managing the brand.

A brand management mindset is different. Brand management rises above profit and loss and focuses instead on value. And value wins customers, long-term revenues and opportunities for growth. Managing costs and production efficiencies may create value in the short-term, but you can only squeeze so much juice out of a lemon.

As Blanchard says:

“Repeat after me. No major brand ever rose to a position of market dominance by focusing on cutting costs.”

Perhaps it’s no coincidence then that Ford appears to have emerged as the best positioned among Detroit’s Big Three.

We see a lot of positive chatter about Ford these days.

One reason, no doubt, is that Ford is the one American auto-making giant that hasn’t asked for any loan money from the federal government. By doing so, the company seems to have claimed the position as the soundest, most dependable and most likely-to-stick-around American automaker.

That’s not to say they won’t ask for support. And by no means is Ford out of the woods. They still face an uphill climb. Their situation is still precarious.

But Ford seems to have gotten it right on many other fronts. And a large part of this seems to come down to the right mindset – a brand management mindset.

You can see it in the words of Ford CEO Alan Mulally himself. When asked about Ford’s healthier financial position vis-à-vis its Detroit rivals, he mostly talked about the value of the Ford brand. And he told the story about Ford’s focus and work over the past few years on ensuring that every new vehicle in the future was best in class in quality, fuel efficiency, safety and value.

And it seems as if the brand is performing. Ford is a recognized leader in safety and in recent reviews has received high praise for reliability and quality, including from the impartial magazine Consumer Reports. In fact, Ford’s reliability and quality is now said to be on par with Toyota and Honda.

Ford has also made meaningful progress on fuel efficiency, with a greater number of hybrid models this year and plans to replace almost half of its models in today’s showrooms with environmentally-friendly fuel efficient hybrids by this time next year. Ford already boasts the most fuel efficient SUV on the market.

Ford has had its share of cost-cutting and efficiency efforts, don’t get me wrong. But compared to its Detroit rivals, Ford seems to have put a lot more emphasis and substance behind its promise of being there with the quality vehicles people want.

Delivering on your promise is the ultimate test of  your brand. That’s where respect comes from. It’s where brand fans come from. It’s where long-term revenue comes from.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens with all three major American auto companies, but Ford’s brand management mindset may be giving it the edge.

As Blanchard says, one must drive your business forward with a focus on building the brand, on creating and pleasing customers. One must manage the brand, not just the profit and loss columns.

I’m certainly no expert on the American auto industry, so help me out.

Do you think Ford has set itself apart with a better focus on its brand, or are other factors at play?

Why does Ford seem better positioned at this moment to succeed than its Detroit rivals? Or is it?

Do you think Blanchard is right about CEOs failing because of brand neglect?