Say Goodbye To Aston Martin...

"pauljones" (pauljones)
03/13/2015 at 12:56 • Filed to: ArmchairQuarterback, Aston Martin, Charlotte, PaulJonesIsACurmudgeon, Opinion

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I'm not at all against the notion of expanding a brand by broadening its product portfolio and therefore its market appeal. In fact, I was one of the few people that cheered Porsche on they decided that they were going to create the Cayenne. They were honest about what they were doing and why they were doing it. They also created a brilliant product that well and truly was to SUVs what 911s are to sports cars. In other words, they created a vehicle that reflected Porsche's ethos of trying to be the best at whatever they applied themselves to. It was an honest, intentional, and well-thought-out move by a famous company.

This latest round of moves by Aston Martin, however, is anything but, and their childish little stereotype of their target customer - whom they have named "Charlotte" - is a perfect demonstration of this. It's shallow, it's not particularly well-thought-out, and quite frankly, it smacks of a bunch of middle-aged guys posting up their image of an ideal woman. Rather than try to innovate by bringing the unique traits of what makes Aston Martin beautiful to different segments of the automotive market, they are trying to simply create a brand new product, irrespective of how it fits into the brand, and then sell it to a market stereotype.

That's a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

I understand Aston Martin's need to expand, but having a bunch of middle-aged douchebags (seriously - look at those photos of Reichmann. What a douche.) sit in a room, think of their ideal woman, and then try to sell something specifically to women is just a bad way of going about it. When it comes time to selling to women, the first and most important thing is quite simple: stop treating them in a condescending, paternalistic manner. Understand that some women may have different product requirements than others, but few, if any, require that a car have specifically woman-oriented features; leave those shades of pink and those lipstick holders on the drawing board. Understand that some women view cars as cool and fun statements, while others view them as utilitarian tools. Recognize that fifty shades of pink are not functional or advertisable product features. Realize that every woman who purchases a car is coming from a different perspective. Some want style and performance. Some want economy and reliability. Some want practicality. And quite frankly, some may want a car just for the curve of the goddamn hood.

In other words, treat them as you would treat men. It's just not that hard.

Furthermore, the instant you try to create a vehicle that is for "Charlotte," and then you go and brag that it is specifically for "Charlotte," you're already painting yourself and your product into a corner. It may be the greatest product in the world that has a great deal of appeal to both men and women, but by trying to pretend it's aimed at women, you're not just being mildly condescending to women - but you're also planting the seed in the mind of 50% of the potential market that they won't want this product because it's a "chick car." Stop trying to create cars that are aimed specifically at men or specifically at women, and start creating cars that appeal to anyone who likes the unique characteristics that your cars bring to their respective market segments.

And, finally, if you're going to expand your product portfolio into different market segments - great. Take your brand identity, figure out what characteristics make it special, and then take those characteristics into account in your product development phase. Don't try to create a product in a vein that already exists. If "Charlotte" wants a fast, expensive, luxurious "Crossover GT," she's going to buy an X6, a Cayenne, or, hell, a GL-Class. Each have all the capability and theoretically "woman-oriented" features that you think your stereotype wants, and they all have better brand recognition and resale value to boot.

Why, then, should "Charlotte" give a rat's ass about your dumbass little DBX? Because you're pretending that you're piece of vaporware is going to make it into production with an electric motor in each wheel? News flash: That doesn't work well in the real world; there's a reason why you never see it. The idea has been tried in concept and discarded because it doesn't pan out well.

Bye-bye, Aston Martin. It was nice knowing you, but it seems that Marek Reichmann and Andy Palmer seem intent on burying you under a pile of sheer stupidity. I'll prepare a nice eulogy.

DISCUSSION (24)

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:02

I really fail how to understand that a large-ish company in 2015 doesn't understand the issue with designing a car around a very specific stereotype.

505Turbeaux > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:03

Just ask dodge how the La Femme did, and that was in a time where women were inherently pigeonholed into their roles.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:06

What that thing needs is a stonking great big V12 and height adjustable air suspension, just like the Mega Track.

Oh wait, that didn't sell well either.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:06

"I'll prepare a nice eulogy." Seems like you already did.

pauljones > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut
03/13/2015 at 13:07

Oh, the Mega Track. God how I want one of those, but would never, ever buy one.

pauljones > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell.
03/13/2015 at 13:08

For much the same reason that the Tea Party thinks that Global Warming is a myth: A handful of crochety old white guys.

pauljones > 505Turbeaux
03/13/2015 at 13:09

Honda did something similar with the Fit recently, too. It fared about as well. History: we either master it or it masters us.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:13

If I was a businessman and tried to pull shit like that my partner would tell me I'm being an idiot. It's a shame these dudes don't have the same luxury.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:13

But it has a relatively reliable Mercedes V12!

//continues making useless excuses

505Turbeaux > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:13

working in automotive advertising, I get asked about how to market to women on a weekly basis. The best answer, market to everyone and you will sell more cars to the female sex. When you try to market to a specific group of people, you lessen your appeal to the masses, or it utterly backfires.

Oh hi there Scion, brand of the hip youth! Seller to the old!

DrScientist > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:17

target-based marketing strategy is fairly common in several industries. typically it rears its head in a crowded market where the consumer has the luxury of choice. i believe the goal is to identify the key target, and ensure the product speaks to them.

this of course is a marketing strategy, not a business development strategy... or least that's how it should be. and even as a marketing strategy it lacks much to be desired. you pointed many of the shortcomings in this case above.

the output? aston martin reveals a donk at the geneva motor show.

and now to be petty: what the crap is that on your face? youve got red hair and are lucky you didn't get left in the woods as an infant. don't mock our decision to keep you around by sculpting those ginger face pubes into some sort of anchor formation.

Xyl0c41n3 > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 13:20

And this is why I love you.

Also, I love that my lipstick holder comment from your previous post on Aston Martin made it into this post. It gives me the warm and fuzzies. Heh.

But seriously, all of this is spot fucking on. Thank you.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 14:50

News Flash:

All products are marketed toward women. Acting as if acknowledging that fact is condescension is a complete mis-interpretation... people just aren't supposed to admit it publicly.

Aston's mistake is actually naming their posh female target, and admitting the narrow marketing target publicly, instead of paying empty lip-service to a wider scope.

Half of women make purchasing decisions for themselves.

The other half make purchasing decisions for others as well as themselves, via influence.

The concept of women being tacit poor victims by default state in this society, and down-trodden in this day and age, is flatly ridiculous.

The marketing push has been to push men into a corner of stereotypes about pickup trucks and barbecue grilles and power tools.... or otherwise morons who need women to make every other decision properly for them.

Men aren't supposed to choose the cars... they are supposed to choose the cars that their wives, girlfriends want, or perspective girlfriends might want.

And then they are told that they are sexist for it, and even if they aren't rude.... if they are polite, they are still sexist.

http://dailycaller.com/polite-men-may…

And what are men actually to do about it? If they complain, they are sexists. If they ignore women, they are being inherently misogynistic. If they capitulate... then it proves my point that women are running the show by pulling the strings, while simultaneously claiming to be the victims of it.

It is a nice racket if you can get it to work... and it is. Plenty of men have no problem with it, either. But equality is nowhere near as real a goal as control is, and spending money, and the objects of that spending, not just luxury cars, is just yet another aspect.

Aston Martin is just admitting that they know who chooses how the money is spent, either directly, or indirectly.

If the societal goal were truly about gender equality, this topic would not have even come up, because there would be no perceived slight about Aston Martin demeaning women by seeking to cater to women, which is self-defeating circular logic. There would be other topics to discuss.

Women don't want to be treated like women, because they claim that it isn't equal to being treated like men. Women don't want to be treated like men, because then they aren't being treated as they think they should be, for being women.

Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't, damned before one even starts, because it is already rigged.

pauljones > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
03/13/2015 at 15:14

All products are marketed toward women. Acting as if acknowledging that fact is condescension is a complete mis-interpretation... people just aren't supposed to admit it publicly.

I'll remember that next time I see an Old Spice commercial. More importantly - it's not about whether or not it's marketed to men or women. It's about how it's marketed, and the approach used. Aston Martin's approach isn't particularly intelligent or well-thought-out.

Aston's mistake is actually naming their posh female target, and admitting the narrow marketing target publicly, instead of paying empty lip-service to a wider scope.

No shit that's their mistake. That's the entire point. But it's only a symptom of the problem - the actual mistake at the core of it all is the view they took on women and their brand when choosing to market.

Half of women make purchasing decisions for themselves.

The other half make purchasing decisions for others as well as themselves, via influence.

News Flash: Men are no different.

The concept of women being tacit poor victims by default state in this society, and down-trodden in this day and age, is flatly ridiculous.

This, here, is something that you are projecting onto this argument. My original argument had nothing to do with women being victimized or down-trodden in any way, shape, or form. Rather, it had everything to do with Aston Martin's extraordinary marketing ineptitude.

Where the hell are you even getting this from, and moreover, what the hell does it have to with the original argument?

Men aren't supposed to choose the cars... they are supposed to choose the cars that their wives, girlfriends want, or perspective girlfriends might want.

No. Men and women are supposed to choose their cars based on the needs and their budgetary constraints. It's that simple, and it applies to both sexes.

And then they are told that they are sexist for it, and even if they aren't rude.... if they are polite, they are still sexist.

http://dailycaller.com/polite-men-may…

Aston Martin is just admitting that they know who chooses how the money is spent, either directly, or indirectly.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Remember my question above about where you got this and how this is in any way relevant to the original argument?

I'm going to take that one step further and say, quite simply, that this has nothing to do with the original argument whatsoever. Given that, I'm not even going to bother addressing it further.

Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't, damned before one even starts, because it is already rigged.

...And now you've just completely lost sight of the argument altogether. This is not an argument about men's rights. This is not an argument about women's rights. This is not an argument about gender equality. This isn't even an argument about your own level of understanding and view of such matters.

Here's what this is an argument about: The stupidity of Aston Martin's target and marketing approach, the stupidity of their product development approach, and the impending disaster that can be the result of poor marketing strategies and poor product development strategies.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 15:43

Making the argument that Aston Martin is stupid for profiling their typical demographic as a woman, and that it is exclusionary makes this a gender equality issue, and it sounds exactly like the gender equality arguments that radical feminists make.

'Don't single women out, because then they aren't being treated transparently and equally.', when the next sentence after that takes effect, is that women are being ignored and under-appreciated and taken for granted, and should be acknowledged.

Aston Martin KNOWS that describing a theoretical affluent woman demographic target that women want to ascribe as themselves in an idealized state...

*as well as that theoretical woman being an aspirational companion for their male target audience*

... will cater to their marketing goals, of selling Aston Martins to women, and to the men who want to associate with those women.

This is marketing 101, because it works.

Sell the car by appealing to the woman that women want to be, and the woman men want to be with.

It is no different than having a 1% physical specimen of a man advertising Old Spice. A physical representation of the man women are likely to want, and thus the ascribing the traits that the male audience wants to adopt to associate with those women.

The difference is, in a societal context, women are cast as both should-be masters when in control, and tacit victims when not in control.

Men in that same societal context, are cast as both arcane patriarchs to be supplanted, or morons that women should take control of and manage. Look at any pop-culture sitcom 'dad' in the last 30 years. The woman is the under-appreciated, over-worked, smart one... the man is the daffy moron who has no idea what he is doing, making mistakes and more work, while getting undue credit and concessions.

In a society raised on that paradigm since the late 1980s... of course luxury goods retailers, which is what Aston Martin is... (more than a car maker, they are a luxury goods maker. People don't buy Astons to be pragmatic and budget-minded.)

They are going to go for the WOMAN every time, and twice on sunday, because they want to be viewed as empowered... and they know the men will follow along as well.

They KNOW that if they do it the other way... women in that socio-economic segment will decide that their competitor is more fashionable, like a Mercedes, instead.

And if they feign non-bias... they won't have a marketing push, and others will do it instead, and get the sales.

This isn't about cars. This is about social psychology, as ALL MARKETING IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN... and pop culture and media is just another part of the same game.

If you think objective non-bias is at play in general, or works when applied.... you haven't caught on to the game being played for the hearts and minds.

pauljones > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
03/13/2015 at 16:30

In the immortal words of theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "this is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

And frankly, I have neither the time nor the patience to correct it. We're just going to have to agree to an end to this particular discourse.

Have a nice weekend.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > pauljones
03/13/2015 at 18:20

A nice weekend to you, as well.

But I must mention briefly the irony of your last comment, compared to your original case. Rationality in an irrational arena as one book end, and irrationality as an indecipherable argument rebuttal as the other.

Your original case seems to be for stark unemotional rationality, in an arena of manipulative psychology meant to over-ride or supersede rationality. If everything were purely rational, advertising in it's current sense would not exist beyond a simple index of available goods and services, with no impetus other than it's own publication.

Marketing manipulates psychology precisely in order to raise the likelihood of an influenced behavior, such as making a specific purchase beyond it's bare statistical likelihood. That is influence by the producer or their agent onto their intended, and targeted consumer.

Marketing's inherent goal is not rationality, it is manipulation for motivation toward a desirable result for the producer, not necessarily the target's best interest, or magnanimous general effect.

Then, at the end, you are quoting either an irrational, or a contextually irrelevant comment about being neither right, nor wrong. It is either mis-understood, or an obfuscation.

It is irrational to posit that a concept can exist while being both not right, and simultaneously not wrong, which empirically shouldn't exist, yet does. A concept either exists or does not, and once it exists, is either correct or is not. It is a pair of linked binary conditions.

Anything, even an individually posited concept, empirically must either not exist, exist and be right, or exist and be wrong. Even a psychological or sociological concept once posited into existence, cannot both be inaccurate ("not right"), and also simultaneously NOT inaccurate ("not even wrong"). Double-negative would establish actuality, and conflict with the first assertion.

pauljones > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
03/13/2015 at 20:06

For my response to this, refer to my prior comment and look up the history of the reference

Also, I'm a psychologist. And you're still not right.

Moving on to the next discussion.

Volvosaurus-Rex > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
04/06/2015 at 14:55

This sounds like a lecture from a marketing class, which I'm sure will disgust many people. This is why I like fast forwarding commercials on the DVR, because when you think about marketing it just makes you feel icky inside, even when some of that marketing is genuinely brilliant.

BrtStlnd > pauljones
04/06/2015 at 15:20

You were much more diplomatic than I would have been here. I've engaged BoxerFanatic in the past and unfortunately he reminds me of Jodark. Huge fundamental Christian who will never be open to any new information, he already knows it.

Also you're wrong about Aston. You are talking about one marketing campaign here... if they keep making gorgeous vehicles, they'll be fine.

pauljones > BrtStlnd
04/06/2015 at 15:54

It's actually genuinely the first time I've seen him do something like this. I've interacted with him before, and I've never seen him try to paint his situationally irrelevant ideology on someone's else argument like he did here.

As for looks, in my opinion, the brand has gone downhill since the advent of Marek Reichmann. I liked the One-77 and the new Lagonda, but overall, the styling changes he's made have been, well, unfortunate. The Vanquish's spoiler, the color combo options on the Vantage, and the God-awful fish mouth grille on the Rapide S are all evidence I would cite in favor of my argument. However, I do understand that aesthetic taste is far from universal. In my opinion, though, the simple beauty and elegance that made Aston Martins so special is fast disappearing.

BrtStlnd > pauljones
04/06/2015 at 16:00

http://jalopnik.com/this-might-be-…

pauljones > BrtStlnd
04/06/2015 at 16:30

Note, however, that that is the last of the pre-Reichmann era of cars, and prior to his oddball color schemes being introduced. Almost everything that Reichmann has touched, he's only made worse.

SukhoiRomantic > pauljones
04/06/2015 at 21:54

Ha. I bought Old Spice once when I was shopping with my girlfriend because she wanted me to try it. The ads were far more effective on her than me.