Tell Bob Lutz What GM Must Do Now

With the Core Four divisions of Cadillac, Chevrolet, Buick and GMC, and with Bob Lutz back on-board, General Motors is now very much on its own.

They don't have the kind of partnership and help which Chrysler will be getting from Fiat and Washington is on-hand only to protect the public's huge investment in the company.

The new smaller, leaner GM corporation, with much less debt than before, now 60%-owned by the American people and newly-emerged from bankruptcy while cutting back on white collar employees by the scores, begs the question: What now?

Bob Lutz as he most likes to be ... the center of attention

Industry newspaper Automotive News ran a multiple-choice poll in Wednesday's edition, asking readers: How can Bob Lutz best help GM improve its marketing?

The answers supplied included these four:

• He should mimic Lee Iacocca and pitch GM cars in ads (16% answered yes to this choice as of 6pm Eastern time Wednesday);
• He should make sure that GM's marketing of its vehicles is consistent with their design (40%);
• He should be the public face of GM at auto shows (5%);
• He should carry out his new role in the background and yield the spotlight to younger executives (39%).

Lutz is no stranger to automotive marketing. In his many years in the industry, during executive stints at Ford, BMW, Chrysler and GM, he's often had a hand in marketing, promotion, advertising and sales.

He was there and had a voice when Ford's Explorer SUV and Merkur imports were first suggested, when the successful Chrysler "cab-forward" LH cars, Dodge Viper and Plymouth Prowler were put in-production and at GM he brought the "new" Pontiac GTO and Pontiac G8 from Australia to the US market, for better or worse, along with the Buick Lacrosse crossover and the sporty Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice coupes and Chevy Malibu sedan.

1993 Plymouth Prowler concept

While at BMW, where he worked on the original 3-Series, he dealt with the ad agency which developed the fabulous slogan, "The ultimate driving machine," a winner which Bimmer uses worldwide to this day.

After last week's Detroit press conference where he "unretired" and was named in-charge of GM marketing and advertising, Lutz told reporters that he has, to paraphrase, "(O)ften been a critic of our (GM) advertising, and maybe that's why I got this job. They figure if I don't like it, let's see if I can come up with something better."

Can he come up with something better than the "sale of the week" ads which many local dealer groups run, amidst a hodge-podge of regional and national TV, radio, Web and print ads which seem to have no cohesive message?

Lutz has been talking-up focusing on GM's styling and design, and the company has a strong history in that arena.

GM was the first car company in the world with a dedicated styling department, and the first car maker to produce a "concept car," the 1938 Buick "Y-job," overseen and built (and then driven almost daily) by the industry's first legendary designer, Harley Earl.

Regarded as the world's first "concept car," the 1938 Buick Y-job

There have also been many slogans throughout the years, from the memorable corporation-wide "GM - Mark of Excellence" to Cadillac's "Standard of the World." Should these be resurrected?

GM advertising has used both photography and artwork through the years, like the fantastical, exaggerated automotive renderings of Art Fitzpatrick and Van Kaufman, particularly of Pontiac's "Wide-Track" models of the '60s and '70s (later mocked by artist Bruce McCall).

But with still so many different kinds of cars and trucks, can GM find one theme which runs through their entire line-up, something which will wake-up the public?

Also, while Lutz says styling must be part of GM's new ad theme, are average buyers so concerned with their vehicle's appearance?

Artwork of a 1967 Pontiac Bonneville by GM's Fitz and Van from a GM print advertisement

Maybe style is a major factor for luxury car-buyers, but for most of us, aren't reliability and quality factors at least as important as looks? Don't bottom-line price and the overall "buying and service experience" trump snappy style? JD Power and Associates doesn't query consumers about "style," but about quality, dependability and value.

Certainly the somewhat bland, appliance-like styling of so many under-$30,000 cars tells us that a product's perceived worth is often more important than design.

So we put it to you: If you were Bob Lutz, how would you begin promoting, advertising and marketing (three quite separate disciplines) the new General Motors to the American public?

 

Follow Steve Parker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/autojourno

Comments

[CrazyTrain62]

It's plain that the divisions GM is keeping are the ones that sell trucks and SUVs which help their bottom line (except Buick which has volume in China). The fact that GM eliminated Pontiac, which made only cars, does not bode well for GM's necessarily car-focused future.

GM's division lineup *should* be:

Chevrolet - basic bread-and butter cars
Pontiac - performance cars, including the vette and all Zeta cars
GMC - all trucks
Buicks - nice SUVs
Cadillac - luxury cars and SUVs

The first 3 should not be the same division!

Chevrolet is now really the only division of the company. The answer is *not* to shift every product to Chevrolet.

If GMC is the next to be folded into Chevy I'm gone.

As a 40's male who's purchased 2 new GM vehicles in the last 8 eight years and who's owned a '68 and a '70 GTO I'd think I'd be an important demographic.

Please Mr Lutz - get GM to do one thing right and bring the G8 ST to the US as the GMC Denali ST. GM needs an alternative to a light truck that delivers better mileage towards stiffer CAFE standards.

Keep the G8 - as a Buick, and get rid of front-wheel drive.

Differentiate the brands from one another. Focus on quality rather than pricepoints. And make cars that people will want to own 30 years from now.

Sincerely,

A guy who remembers all his parents' beautiful and powerful Pontiacs from the 60s

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

Great comment! And great and lucky that you had parents who knew which cars to buy ... '60s Pontiacs are one of my 'specialties' when it comes to my general automotive knowledge.
But big trucks are always going to be a huge part of GM sales, just as they will with Ford (their F-series truck has been the best-selling vehicle in the US, month after month, for almost 50 years).
We may be the only country in the world which buys as many pickups as we do, but a lot of them really are used as 'work trucks.'
Why not fold GMC into Chevy? I think it'd save the corporation a lot of money ... they'd continue using the same assembly lines but lose the market, advertising, promotional and dealer costs of GMC. Why is that wrong?
Thanks again!
Steve

[Rogo99]

Why can't the engineers, marketers, and designers at the American companies buy a fleet of all the popular and hot-selling Korean brands, Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, BMW's MB's, Volvos, and the luxury brands from the Japanese manufacturers, cut them open, see what makes them tick? Then do real focus group research, find out what the potential customers really want, and why, and build comparable cars right here. How is it that Honda redoes their lineup every three years like clockwork, but GM let their bread and butter cars (Cavalier, Sunbird) go without any real changes for 10-12 years? Oh yeah, there was no profit in that, only in the SUV's and trucks. They tried with Saturn, trying to be different, now they're all but gone, and that innovative plant in Tennessee is now building what? SUV's! Arrogance, internal (engineering vs. marketing) strife, and just plain lack of caring have contributed greatly to the demise of the American auto. In the late 50's and early 60's, Chevrolet by themselves had over 20% market share. PS-I'm driving a Ford Focus, I think one company finally has it right.

[noaxe397]

The best way for Bob Lutz to help GM would be to re-retire. The era of the Great Man auto executive is over. The days of cigar chompin', fighter jet flyin', whisky drinkin', climate change denyin' are as dead as the dinosaur. Lutz's schtick may have worked well in the go-go 90s when 16-17 million cars a year were being sold (and profitably, too) but today's car buyer and today's consumer is too sophisticated and too financially savvy (and strapped) for his antics to work.

Time for Lutz to get off the stage. The American auto industry has failed because the same people tried to do the same thing year after year even though the consumer and the market changed. Proof? There would be no GM today if Rick Wagoner were still in charge. That's not me sayin' that; that's Wagoner sayin' that.

While we all look for some comfort and security in this Great Recession, harking back to the good old days of tail fins, muscle cars and the any-color-­as-long-as­-it's-blac­k attitude of Detroit execs is not the answer to the industry's problems.

[Ben6768]

"Certainly the somewhat bland, appliance-like styling of so many under-$30,000 cars tells us that a product's perceived worth is often more important than design."

One of the things GM needs to do is put the same care and thought into ALL cars, regardless of cost.
A bad vice of Detroit up to now has been to think that as price lowers, so does the taste level of customers.
Volkswagen has the Golf, looking as cool as the top of the line Phaeton.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Volkswagen has the Golf, looking as cool as the top of the line Phaeton."

But it's still a Golf... and nothing will deflect from the fact that you are still not driving a BMW or a Porsche, let a long a really stylish car.

In the end... every dollar they put into the looks has to come from the engine compartment and other vital parts. I don't know if people realize that, but if you want more, you have to be willing to pay for more.

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

The perception and reputation with too many of the German cars is that, even if they are sold as "high-value," when it comes to parts, service and repair, the buyer often feels that no matter what they paid for the car, they actually bought a "luxury" auto.
Steve

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

That's a great point - for far too long, Detroit has been perceived as "punishing" buyers of their economy cars, while even some of the early Asian imports included then-Detro­it-options like rear-window defoggers and high-quality interiors as standard equipment. Seemingly small things like that went a long way towards establishing the imports as "high-value" cars.
Steve

[unitron]

I'm not in the market for one, so my opinion doesn't carry much weight, but I would like to see Cadillacs looking like Cadillacs again.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go chase kids off the lawn and yell at clouds.

[marijam]

Be first to market with a clean diesel pickup truck that gets great gas mileage.

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree such trucks would be sales and environmental winners. Unfortunately, Detroit won't be selling full-size clean diesel pickups anytime soon. Several were supposedly planned for 2010 but the truck-makers have announced that the industry and worldwide recession have put those plans off for an undetermined time.
Steve

[KillTheMessenger]

Bob, we need five more muscle car models. Pronto! At least one needs to have the back seats removed and replaced with a heated water bed with champagne bottle holder... so the "guys" can have their fun with all the girls that just love to get into a muscle car with a stranger!

[sheeple723]

I don't think that you focus on styling (although this may be a factor that gets the buyer in the door). It seems to me that people want a car that is adequately styled - that having good styling will not help as much as having "offensive" styling will hurt you. I personally do not have a problem with how many of the domestic cars are and have been styled, and I don't think this would be high on the list of complaints about domestic autos. There have been some hiccups there (Pontiac Aztek), but you could say the same for foreign cars as well (Subaru Baja, Honda Element, Scion XB box van thing).

What needs to happen is a perception change on the supposed negatives aspects of domestic autos. I think side by side comparisons would help. I though a really effective commercial recently was VW's comparison of their Jetta diesel vs. a hybrid, and how the diesel gets better MPG and actually sounds/drives like a normal car. Something to just get people in showrooms to test drive new cars would help as well. I kind of like Ford's Drive One slogan - it doesn't promise anything verbally, just that you should get to a showroom and see for yourself. Above all, have one cohesive message for all of GM, and do not use slogans that are catch-phrasy or meaningless (Ex: Dodge - Grab Life by the Horns - what does that even mean in the context of a

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

The marketing company which "invented" comparison auto ads that named the competitors, AMCI, has traditionally done much of their work for imports. It'd be nice to see them do more work for the domestics, making the kinds of points you mention. AMCI is capable of doing it, but with their marketing budgets cut to the bone, whether Detroit can afford the work remains to be seen.
Steve

[RobinSeattle]

What GM would have to do to get me to buy one of their cars again is pretty simple, but they sure have seemed awfully incompetent at delivering:

1. Make mechanically sound cars with excellent fit and finish and that get at least 40mph to the gallon (or better yet, forego using petroleum based fuels altogether).
2. Don't leave us with the feeling at the dealership that we somehow got screwed on the price and/or loan.
3. Don't shaft your customers when they take a car to be repaired at a dealership by suggesting unnecessary repairs or charging through the nose for them.

Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

[dwatkins9]

The notion that styling doesn't matter much to average buyers couldn't be more wrong. At first, GM couldn't give away the new GTO, despite its being a very fast, hot car, because it looked like grandma's grocery-getter. The only people who think that styling doesn't matter are the people who do indeed think of cars as transportation appliances. It is little exaggeration to say that styling is everything, as Harley Earle well knew.

A relative of mine wanted a Prius, back when they were in short supply. I suggested that she consider the Honda Civic hybrid instead. She declined, because the Civic hybrid looks like every other Civic - people can't tell that you are environmentally virtuous just by looking at it, as they can with the Prius. I myself bought a Chrysler over the competing Toyota product because I thought that the Chrysler looked sharp and the Toyota plain, despite the fact that I was sure that, considered merely as a transportation appliance, the Toyota would be a better, more reliable car. The Chrysler has indeed broken with some degree of regularity (all minor stuff, it must be said), but I don't regret my choice.

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

The 'new' GTO failed, according to GTO fanatics, including the man who did the marketing for the original 1964 GTO, because it didn't look enough like a "real GTO" --- I don't think it was a 'grocery-getter' at all --- just not Goat-y enough for the GTO fans who wanted to buy one --- IF it looked right. Of course they never really did materialize as buyers, though, did they?
I think we're in a generation where the majority of car-buyers want 'appliances' ... people like you (and me) are, I sometimes fear, in the minority. If "average" buyers wanted real style, they'd demand it. Most don't.
Steve