On the identity of cars and manufacturers

". ." (xllx) 08/12/2013 at 20:06 • Filed to: oppositelock, thoughts

2

8

Many car manufacturers started off with an idea of how their cars should look like. Colin Chapman famously believed in simplicity and lightness, Jaguar was supposed to deliver affordable luxury, Mr Honda wanted to make enjoyable cars, while Ettore Bugatti was all about achieving perfection.

Some manufacturers on the other hand created their identity by building great cars of a certain kind. They've been shaped by the environment that they've been forced to function in, or just found a great recipe that they've stuck to ever since. That''s why Fiat excells at making small and simple city cars, BMWs are about driving pleasure, people from Alfa Romeo know how to inject soul into the dullest of automobiles, and Tesla simply can't be matched for the way their brand attracts knobs.

Then there are carmakers that never bothered to develop a personality in the first place. Toyota, Opel, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Rover, KIA, Hyundai. They're all just corporations, nothing more and nothing less. Their only goal is to make money, and for that they need to fill any market niche they think will be profitable as quickly and cheaply as possible. There's no greater idea and no sort of car they wouldn't create as long as they believe it'll bring money. To be honest, it's hard to blame carmakers for that approach. To those run-of-the-mill car companies a segment that they're not in only means that there is a segment they aren't making money from.

Apart from a handful of true petrolheads people don't care about stuff like brand character. To them, the idea that there is some sort of greater notion behind making cars is preposterous. "A car? I want it to be comfortable, easy to drive, good on fuel, and spacious. What's the point of making cars? The point is to give me a motorised box that takes me home from work." - you'll hear. That's why brand identity may seem like a thing of the past.

But is it really? On one hand we have those who have long forgotten who they're supposed to be. MINIs suffer from incurable megalomania, Volkswagen seem to have forgotten to make anything that's affordable ("people's car" my arse), Chevrolets are more Korean than American, Lancias are about as luxurious and sophisticated as sloppy joes, and even French cars don't break down nearly as much as they should. But then, on the other side, even despite the increasing number of manufacturers who decide to abandon their creeds, there are those who dilligently stick to what they believe is right. You still can't buy a Land Rover that's not at least vaguely competent off-road, a Lamborghini that's tame and slow, or a Lada that's any good. This either means that those brands are unable to adapt to the ever changing market conditions and customer expectations, or that there is a way to stick to what you believe in and still make money. I think that's the optimistic thought I can leave you with.

But what are your opinions on the subject? Do you believe that a proper brand needs a proper identity? Or do you think that sticking to such nonsense just gets in the way of profits? Who do you reckon has strayed the furthest from what they once were and who has stubbornly stuck to their guns? I'm looking forward to hearing what your thoughts on this topic.

Group B-raaaaaaaaaap! > . . 08/12/2013 at 20:07

1

+1000 for the "Tesla Knobs" crack. Spot on!

RMudkips > . . 08/12/2013 at 20:14

0

It's my opinion that brands should stick with their ethos and be able to market it. That's why Volvos are iron fortresses and Ferraris are red and soul stirring. However, this IS a pretty awesome age for cars, and with that comes experimentation. Lamborghini building an SUV concept? Nissan making an insane Juke model? Toyota actually building the GT86? Brands have to experiment in some ways; that's how new great ideas are formed. They can't all be good, but there are gems. The reverse effect of not experimenting much is pretty terrible, Lancia's staid image relying solely on its golden age is why no one wants a new Delta. If they made a super model again, maybe we'd be excited, maybe not. Car makers have to try different things once a while to see what sticks and what doesn't, otherwise we all might as well be stuck in the 80's.

. . > RMudkips 08/12/2013 at 20:29

1

I think manufacturers have to find the right balance between wild experiments and sticking to what they know and do best. Less established brands should focus more on surprising the customers with something entirely new, while those who already have a great range can focus on polishing their products to perfection.

I think the S-Class Mercedes and 911 Porsches are both great examples of what evolutionary design can accomplish. There were few leaps of faith in the history of those models, and yet they manage to stay on top.

RMudkips > . . 08/12/2013 at 22:05

0

True. Evolution and revolution can lead to great things, especially with the 911, heck, if not for revolution, we wouldn't have super insane Turbo specials.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > . . 08/13/2013 at 07:39

0

It may not seem like it, but Rover had a clear brand identity back in the day. They build solidly made and solidly engineered cars, cheaper than Jags but more prestigious than your Austins and Morris'. They were also occupied a slot similar to BMW now; the cars of aspiring middle-management types.

Then the 70s came, and after that the rebranding as the budget marque of the MG-Rover Group.

In its twilight years, Rovers were bought almost exclusively by the elderly.

Pay heed Buick and Lincoln, lest this happens to you as well.

. . > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 08/13/2013 at 07:43

0

I think it's far too late for that warning. For Buick at least.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > . . 08/13/2013 at 07:54

0

Maybe, but it's possible to do something about it. It just takes money that the General doesn't really want to spend.

What would do them a world of good is a proper luxury version of the upcoming Chevrolet SS. Make something comparable to the CTS, but leaning more towards the Jaguar end of the spectrum of comfort vs hardcore. Oh, and make it look good.

Then, if Cadillac finally get round to making a Ciel, Buick could do a competitor. Even better, they could jump the gun on that.

Buick could bring back the concept of American luxury motoring. I think that might work.

RS Hole, I forgot my password for 8 months > . . 08/14/2013 at 09:40

1

I think Subaru has the strongest identity of any current car manufacturer that you see daily.

AWD (with the exception of the BRZ) and flat engines.

They have also built a reputation for reliability, safety, rally success, outdoorsy people, animal lovers, etc.

Love. It's what makes a Subaru, a Subaru. :P