GM's Logo on All New Cars

[mchastek]

Quoted from an article in the Detroit News (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/13/A01-149235.htm)


General Motors Corp. is going to stamp its corporate logo on every car and truck it sells in North America in an effort to better link its eight brands with the parent company.

The automaker, revving up marketing efforts to reverse declining sales, plans to use the logo first on a slew of important new vehicles such as the Buick LaCrosse and Pontiac G6.

The new badges will land on every 2006 model sold in North America across GM's eight brands -- Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Hummer, Saab, Saturn and Pontiac.

"Our own studies show that consumers place a tangible value on the General Motors name," said Mark LaNeve, GM's top sales executive.

Ford Motor Co. sells Ford-branded vehicles and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group sells Chrysler products. GM is the only major automaker that does not market cars or trucks under its corporate name.

The new initiative dovetails with GM's marketing strategy for OnStar and the StabiliTrak stability control system, which are pitched under the GM umbrella and will become standard equipment across the GM product line.

"The GM corporate name has a stronger public image than some of the brands that make up the company," said Joe Barker, with CSM Worldwide in Farmington Hills. "It tells consumers GM is backing this vehicle."

Do you think this is a good idea?

[DMD]

I think so many people are confused as to what brand is owned by GM, when there is good news in J. D.Powers and Associates or with the Harbour Report for example, just as there has been there has been for the last few years, having the logo tied to all the GM brands out there is a very good thing.

[mchastek]

I think that's an EXCELLENT point! I hadn't thought of that. It's quite amazing how much a little PR can do for a company, isn't it? The JD Power report sure boosted GM, it seems.

Welcome to the forum!

-Mark

[DMD]

I'm happy GM is finally thinking in terms of connecting all their brands together with a GM logo. I would have done that back in the 70's if I had been the head of GM but I don't work for them so I guess that's why it hadn't happened until now. LOL

If you are a maker of various items within the market. I think it is a really good idea to tie them together. A smarter more educated consumer can only benefit you in terms of you being able to differentiate your products from the competition.

Just think what other brands you might have purchased over the years if you were aware of the benefits derived between brands you had considered? Also yet another thing to think about is how much more pleasure you might have received from buying a product or products that might be better taylored to their specific wants and needs, based upon you as a consumer being better educated. A better educated consumer who buys the things they think are best for them, possibly could develop more trust between them and the brands they seek out to buy.

[kristi]

If you are a maker of various items within the market. I think it is a really good idea to tie them together. A smarter more educated consumer can only benefit you in terms of you being able to differentiate your products from the competition.


I agree generally, but disagree in this scenario. The purchase of brands that once stood for something on their own (i.e. Ford purchasing Jaguar for $2.5 billion back in 1989) can, and I believe has hurt the image of those brands.

Jaguars produced prior to their buyout by Ford are the ones I want--the ones since then feel like sleekly designed Tauruses with leather seats and wood dash in-lay. However, the general consumer who might not know about the buy-out could still believe that they're purchasing a good ol' Jaguar luxury vehicle unless there's a big Ford logo on the car somewhere. Suddenly, the mystique, pinache and elegance that would entice a buyer like me to want a Jaguar would dissipate. I would see it on par with hardy working vehicles with 90% less glamour, like the Ford F150 Superduty and the Ford Taurus.

Now seeing as that you were talking about GM in your post and not Ford, Saab's brand image did not necessarily stand for something as strong or alluring as Jaguar's did. So this point can be argued.

And lastly, to contrast my initial point, I support products made in the USA and companies who make an effort to do this. Putting a Ford or GM logo on a vehicle might appeal to those who carry their support for this movement all the way up to their second most major purchase--a car.

An idea: why not make "made in America" a marketing point, GM and Ford?

[mchastek]

An idea: why not make "made in America" a marketing point, GM and Ford?

Interesting idea, Kristi. What do you think of Chevrolet's "An American Revolution" campaign? Do you think that appeals to the Made-In-The-USA crowd?

[DMD]

"I agree generally, but disagree in this scenario. The purchase of brands that once stood for something on their own (i.e. Ford purchasing Jaguar for $2.5 billion back in 1989) can, and I believe has hurt the image of those brands."

In the case of Ford I think Ford has done two things to destroy any image Jaguar had as a separate independent premium car company.
(1) Ford took the Jaguar name and put the name on inexpensive cars that are no where near the luxury Jaguar once represented.
(2) Ford only slightly changed the bodies of the Lincoln LS and the Ford Taurus and than with the help of a decal on the front of the vehicle called the Ford product a Jaguar.

I firmly believe that If you have product that is differentiated from others that fall under your corporate umbrella in the market, if you tie them together with the same corporate badge as GM is planning to do, you are doing a great service to yourself. The best and biggest asset is educating the public. By educating the public you can demonstrate advanced technologies and principles that could help further differentiate your product in the minds of the comsumer from the rest of the market. You do that, and you'll be doing a good job at cultivating a climate of loyalty for your brands and your products.

Ford in no way has done anything close to enhancing either the Ford company or Jaguar. The only way to enhance Jaguar at this point and it will take a couple decades to do so, is if they focus on making Jaguar a brand to strive for again. Ford for signing off on this policy and Nasser for implementing it, I feel are most responsible for this dumbing down of the Jaguar brand. Both these entities are also responsible to gutting the image and respect Jaguar had. Now you can buy a Jaguar for about $30,000 to $35,000 dollars, alleged exclusively to buy into a brand that is middle of the road for pricing. The average American car buyer buys cars for $25,000, for ten thousand more you can get a vehicle from a brand that at one point was perceived as one of the levels of luxury in the automotive industry. That is sad Ford has "bastardized" the Jaguar brand. The only thing Jaguar has really gained from Ford's bastardization of the brand has been much improved quality overall. The only thing is, people for a few years now, have been staying away from the Jaguar brand because of the generic life Jaguar has attained. People know that Jags are just more expensive Fords and they know enough to ignore the sales ploys of the auto maker. It will take a long time and a good deal of product differentiation for Jaguar to head back to the separate path they forged for many decades when they were truely an independent auto maker. The only thing that should be binding Ford with Jaguar is money and a small level of the lesser componants they might be sharing. By this I mean everything but engines, and transmissions, and everyday parts that the driver would be coming in contact with every time they get behind the wheel. They could share substantial suspension parts provided the computer programming between the suspensions for both the Ford and Jaguar are quite different so people won't get the idea that the driving experience between the two brands are essentially the same.