A Proposal for GM's Marketing and Product Development Teams

[The_Blur]

General Motors is in the most competitive market on Earth. The United States is a fierce battleground for automotive sales, and GM once dominated. Since that golden age of GM sales, many of those products have gone out of production and the market has changed.

What GM needs is a collection of products that actually fills the full line of competing products. This actually serves as a combined duty of marketing and product development.

Sales consultants at Chevrolet dealers are advised to preach to customers the value of GM service centers. Customers who regularly use the service center where they bought their car are much more likely to purchase the same brand at the same dealership. That's why our salespeople push oil changes and other service at the local store.

The same is true of cars. I recently started an unscientific poll here on Camaro5, and a disproportionate number of members here started with a "sporty" car. I allowed the members to define what they saw as sporty. This suggests that GM should investigate the probability that a person who has one sporty product later purchases another.

A second hypothesis is also worth noting with this poll. Since so many of them identified their first car in the comments, it is worth noting that they also drove GM vehicles. The results, therefore, indicate that members drove sporty GM vehicles.

This is where GM needs the most help. As marketing professionals, it is your responsibility to define the driving experience for your clientele. Since GM is not a niche market manufacturer, unlike Subaru and Porsche, GM can define all sorts of driving as different parts of its lineup. GM most glaring failure of marketing, in my opinion, is the advertising for the 2010 Camaro V6. Rather than demonstrating the sporty nature of the vehicle, it was advertised as a fuel-efficient vehicle. At 29 mpg (at the time), it's hardly competitive with actually fuel-efficient cars. The Camaro V6 was obviously a success immediately. There was no risk of failure with a car that hot, but the implications are that GM doesn't know how to properly market its products. This detachment from the customers is what set GM on its market share slide.

How do we fix it? The product people need to set priorities, which they probably already do, when making a product, and those priorities need to be religiously advertised by the marketing team. If you build a Z28 as a track car, then the priority is track performance. As a result, marketing should sell the Z28 as a track car. This seems obvious enough, but the guys that build cars and the guys that sell cars are clearly not talking. The product team needs to be in charge of this process. Let your engineers decide what they want to accomplish with each vehicle, and then have the sales team sell it as it was designed.

Now that we've discuss the priority of engineering great cars and sales following the lead, let's discuss what vehicles GM needs to engineer in order to support what your own sales techniques are telling you to do. GM needs to produce sporty cars at all segments in order to maintain long-term sales of sporty cars at higher end segments. As an enthusiast, did you really expect me to advocate anything other than sporty cars? Let's be real, though. The last great entry level sporty car was the Cobalt SS Turbocharged. It smoked the competition in every possible way, and it was loved by young drivers. It was a car that a lot of us wish GM still produced. The void it left behind was quickly filled by sales to competing brands. Did you really think by killing the SS-badged Cobalt that those people would go buy a Cruze LTZ or a Sonic RS? Those drivers wanted a sporty car that is affordable and still has all the trimmings. It didn't have to be the fastest car at the Nurburgring, but it did have to run with sporty compacts of similar price. In fact, it doesn't have to handle perfectly or be perfectly engineered as long as it is somewhat better than the competition. I know that's hard to swallow since GM's engineers are so outstanding, but the bar only needs to be high enough to convincingly beat anyone else in the same segment. Just by offering a unique performance model of an existing compact, the other Cobalt owners were inspired, upgrading their bumpers and spoilers to SS bodies. It created a whole market driven by a car that at the time was advertised as fun to drive. I don't actually want to say Old GM did something right before it died, but they did what I'm asking you to do. They advertised a car as fun and sporty.

To conclude, I'll bring it full circle. Most of your GM enthusiasts that work at GM will tell you they once owned a classic car that they built, raced, or showed. They affordably purchased a performance car that was advertised as a winner. Today, the most affordable sporty car in the GM lineup is the V6 Camaro, and that's too expensive. The Cobalt SS, on the other hand, priced near the bottom of the Camaro price range, featuring the outstanding LNF engine with a boast-worthy 260 hp. It was a monster, and it had leather seats and summer tires all for less than a well-equipped Camaro LT. Start the next generation of drivers with an early interest in GM, and they'll mature into other GM vehicles as they age. If you let them buy a BRZ or Si or whatever other garbage they'll think is great (due only to marketing), then they'll age and return to the same dealer that sold it to them after dozens of oil changes and find themselves driving an import. We don't want that. You've got to get young people inspired by your brand. You can only do that with cars that are financially attainable. Everyone wants a Lamborghini at 16. No one expects one. The Camaro is out of reach. As a 27-year-old college graduate with a respectable career, I won't be able to afford one anytime soon due to the costs of college, and that's above average. I have friends with more than double my debt. For us, the cars we buy with our new jobs (my Ensignmobile, if you will) represent our earliest investments in something we treasure, and we're going to buy based on what we probably had as a first car. You're lucky I had a Cobalt coupe, or I might be one more member of another less refined community. Now go out and get more passionate enthusiasts by building and selling the best cars in every category. It's up to you to build a sport trim of an existing compact (Cruze SS) and maybe sub-compact (Sonic SS), and then it's further up to you to market them as fun to drive. Keep up the good work, and expand your horizons.

I am available for further discussion.

[right to travel]

^^^word. To your point about marketing the car the right way and the gm's lack there of with the "it gets 29 mpg" see brz/frs marketing. small efficient 4 banger coupe. not in the same class as camaro true....but when it came out i never heard one word in the adds about the mpg. it was all about how freaking awesome it was to drive, and how sporty it was. fuel econ was irrelevant and still is. frs/brz= fun to drive and sporty. camaro= it gets 17/29 mpg(not really more like 14-16city and 23-26 hwy).


And dude its time to dump the bird!!!! officer pay= bad ass new car period!!! cant afford a new car anytime soon. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i know what you get paid and its definitely new camaro money just saying

[Silverlsinva]

Wow I love this post and i have to agree with everything said in it. When GM took away their sporty compact car entry and had nothing to replace it with i was shocked but i guess that is what bankruptcy does to a company that was overseen by the Govt at that time so sporty wasn't in the forefront. But still now Gm is doing great and still nothing sporty and cheap to compete with Ford or Mazda or Frs/Brz twins. Heck ford has two small sporty compacts ST focus and ST fiesta. I needed a small sporty car a few months ago and i did test drive the Sonic Rs and it was fine but it didn't give me the right feel or vibe, So i went and test drove a Fiat 500 abarth and it was amazing to drive and quite fine i was smiling the whole time during the test drive it was the car i was looking for and the Fiesta ST wasn't out yet to test drive so i bought the abarth and don't regret it at all. But i do think if the sonic RS had a lil more power and more edginess/rawness to it i might have gotten it. But anyways i hope that GM does come out with something soon even if late to the game it has to be the right price and performance to match.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by right to travel

And dude its time to dump the bird!!!! officer pay= bad ass new car period!!! cant afford a new car anytime soon. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i know what you get paid and its definitely new camaro money just saying

It would be Camaro money, but college is in the way. Someday, I'll have either a monstrous Firebird or an awesome new Camaro. I'm just not ready to buy more debt. This thread was inspired by that frustration that we college graduates share. When I pay down that debt, it's time for an upgrade!

[ssrs396]

So true! I bought a Mitsubishi eclipse turbo when they first very first came out and eventually owned a 3000gt which I really never liked as much. The eclipse was an awesome little car... torque steer and all. It was a hoot to drive, good looking for its time, inexpensive and easy to tune. I am not a "Mitsubishi Guy" but it is what was cool at the time and young men are the same now as they were then........they like good looking, inexpensive, fun to drive and tunable cars. Hell it could be a coupe version of a volume car which would help keep the price in check. But as long as it is good it will sell.

I know there is a huge market for gas friendly vehicles and it seems this generation has been hypnotized about being green, throw in high gas prices and it seem like a great marketing strategy and I am sure it is, but not for all segments. All my son and his friends talk about are Camaros, mustangs, wrx's, sti's, frs, and brz and such. As much as I like the camaro there is a part of me that would love a small chevy that reminds me of the spirit of that first eclipse.

[KMPrenger]

Good Post!

Surely GM should realize all this, but I agree...sometimes their marketing is good but most of the time I think to myself "why didn't you mention this...or show that??" I feel like I could produce a better commecial sometimes.

You mention the Camaro V6 and I agree completely. Watching the BRZ/FRS commercials make them look awesome and exciting to drive. Now just imagin a Camaro V6 commercial just like that, and then at the end they slap something up on the screen that says "ALL THIS......AND 29MPG!!!" It would be icing on the cake. To make it more clear I think the mileage should be mentioned in the ad, but they need to focus more on the excitement of the car, and then hit the watcher with the MPG bonus at the end.

Your logic about getting them young is more than just good logic....it should be ESSENTIAL. I can't believe GM doesn't have a Cruze SS or Sonic SS/RS or something similar. The progression from entry level sporty car, to mid level sport car to high end car should be there...and right now they are missing a very important piece of that pie.

[ssrs396]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Good Post!

Surely GM should realize all this, but I agree...sometimes their marketing is good but most of the time I think to myself "why didn't you mention this...or show that??" I feel like I could produce a better commecial sometimes.

You mention the Camaro V6 and I agree completely. Watching the BRZ/FRS commercials make them look awesome and exciting to drive. Now just imagin a Camaro V6 commercial just like that, and then at the end they slap something up on the screen that says "ALL THIS......AND 29MPG!!!" It would be icing on the cake. To make it more clear I think the mileage should be mentioned in the ad, but they need to focus more on the excitement of the car, and then hit the watcher with the MPG bonus at the end.

Your logic about getting them young is more than just good logic....it should be ESSENTIAL. I can't believe GM doesn't have a Cruze SS or Sonic SS/RS or something similar. The progression from entry level sporty car, to mid level sport car to high end car should be there...and right now they are missing a very important piece of that pie.

You are so right!! I love my V6 LS Camaro and it seems there is no marketing push for what I think is a lot of car for the money. I mean 323hp is nothing to sneeze at. In fact one of the reasons I got the V6 was the power was pretty good considering it was a V6 and it wasn't long ago V8s were putting out this power. Add the fuel efficiency and its a win/win.

I had a 350z once and I love my Camaro compared to it. Then I added ZL1 wheels and tires and it completely changed the feel of the handling....I love it!

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by ssrs396

You are so right!! I love my V6 LS Camaro and it seems there is no marketing push for what I think is a lot of car for the money. I mean 323hp is nothing to sneeze at. In fact one of the reasons I got the V6 was the power was pretty good considering it was a V6 and it wasn't long ago V8s were putting out this power. Add the fuel efficiency and its a win/win.

I had a 350z once and I love my Camaro compared to it. Then I added ZL1 wheels and tires and it completely changed the feel of the handling....I love it!

You bought a monster of a V6. Not only does it have the power, but it also has the Camaro look. It's a gorgeous car, and it can fight with a lot of great imports. Ride it with pride.

[camaro-dreamer]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

This is where GM needs the most help. As marketing professionals, it is your responsibility to define the driving experience for your clientele. Since GM is not a niche market manufacturer, unlike Subaru and Porsche, GM can define all sorts of driving as different parts of its lineup. GM most glaring failure of marketing, in my opinion, is the advertising for the 2010 Camaro V6. Rather than demonstrating the sporty nature of the vehicle, it was advertised as a fuel-efficient vehicle. At 29 mpg (at the time), it's hardly competitive with actually fuel-efficient cars. The Camaro V6 was obviously a success immediately. There was no risk of failure with a car that hot, but the implications are that GM doesn't know how to properly market its products. This detachment from the customers is what set GM on its market share slide.

This is where I stopped understanding your post. GM does not nor should it define the driving experience of its clientele. The driving experience is dictated by the cars themselves. Basically, you ask your customers what they want. If possible and profitable, you make what they want for them. This is how good development works in the absence of external political pressures.

Small companies such as the one I run require meeting with customers, shaking hands, finding problems, and developing solutions. Larger companies such as GM can rely on historical marketing data, competitors' market data, and identify new solutions based upon those data. I think the shaking hands part of the business is no longer where it used to be.

In my experience, there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore. Whenever customers can find faster, better, and cheaper, they will jump ship every time. Companies like the big three can no longer rely on repeat customers if they are not truly offering the best product at the best price. Imports have come a long way in the market these days.

[Number 3]

Yep, you have it just a bit backwards. The first input is FROM the customer. The customer defines the vehicle they want and need. Marketing the interprets this within what I believe was called Market Segment Specification document. Engineering then works to determine how the vehicle can best meet those needs.

Marketing does not generally sit around without the VOC in hand, that is Voice of the Customer.

The very best at this interpret exactly what the customer wants and spices that up with a few things they don't even know they want and then translate that into a technical document that engineers can develop requirements around.

Yes, it is critical that the younger customer is addressed in this process.

But the process is not so nearly that easy in a company like GM or simply GM for that matter.

I have a bunch of stories on how GM has screwed this up over the years. Tooooo many stories.

[LOWDOWN]

Only slightly off-topic, but with a point:

In the early '90s, Dodge decided that, to be a serious player in the pick-up market, they needed to come up with a GREAT design (amongst other criteria). They finally built TWO prototypes, and then clinic'd them. One design was favored over the other by almost 2:1. That's the design they produced, right?

WRONG!

The folks who favored the "similar to Ford and GM" design were ambiguous about BUYING it. The minority, who favored the "BIG rig" look, wanted to buy one NOW!!!!! "When can we have it?!"

Dodge sales went from under 10% of the full-size truck market to almost 30% in short order after the RAM came to market...because the diehards DID buy it, just like they said they would, and in roughly the same percentage that started off as a "minority"!

Gathering the data, and PROPERLY INTERPRETING the data, are the keys. Sadly, it's in the interpretation step where things may get off-track...and there is a litany of examples where great data was misinterpreted or, by the time the vehicle got to market, became invalid or obsolete...

EDIT:

...and just because people SAY they "WANT" such-'n-such built DOESN'T mean they'll BUY it...manual transmissions in certain applications are a prime example of that.