Customer Logins
Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
Customer LoginsMust all vehicles have leading-edge design and be fun to drive?
In the November 9, 2011 edition of The AutoExtremist, a respected blog written by veteran auto marketer Peter M. De Lorenzo, he discusses how Toyota lost its way (in the years leading up to and including 2010) and the lessons other OEMs can learn from Toyota's woes. By the end of the blog, De Lorenzo has mentioned several strategies which OEMs need to pursue to avoid Toyota's troubles. His major recommendations include:
- Building vehicles that "bristle with leading-edge design and exceptional, innovative engineering"
- Building vehicles that are "above all else flat-out fun to drive" (De Lorenzo's italics)
- Building vehicles "with integrity"
- Building vehicles that are "attuned to customers' needs and wants"
I would suggest that while all the above approaches are "nice" and certainly won't hurt an OEMs prospects, only the last two are necessary. There are examples of vehicles (sometimes many) that have been successful in terms of both volume and the bottom line which do not adhere to one or both of the first two strategies mentioned above.
Leading-edge design is certainly a plus (witness Hyundai now), but there are many successful models which do not even attempt to offer leading-edge design, including many midsize sedans. I can't recall ever hearing anyone say that the Toyota Camry (or the Toyota Corolla) is a design leader.
De Lorenzo says at least twice that successful vehicles need to be "fun to drive." In the sporty car segments this is certainly the case. Mustang, 3-Series and CTS shoppers certainly are looking for superior driving characteristics, but this buyer group comprises a small piece of the overall new car market. In many other segments, including major categories like midsize cars, fullsize pickups, small crossovers and small sedans, performance is secondary, if on the radar screen at all. I do not recall anyone saying he purchased a Nissan Altima, Chevrolet Silverado or Toyota RAV4 because it is "fun to drive."
But the last two strategies mentioned above certainly are important ones for an auto manufacturer to pursue. A vehicle needs to have integrity, which I take to imply that the product actually possesses those features and benefits it is purported to have. Integrity can also mean that the vehicle makes sense, that its "parts" fit together in one congruous whole. The exterior, interior, and performance all need to mesh with and reinforce the overall message the product is conveying.
And, most importantly, the product needs to provide value to the consumer. Value obviously will vary from consumer to consumer, meaning one thing to the minivan buyer and something quite different to the luxury sporty car buyer, for example. Over time the make/model combination within each vehicle category that offers the most value to the relevant shopper will emerge on top. Prior to straying off course earlier in the previous decade, Toyota provided value in many of its products by relentlessly reducing costs while maximizing benefits to the consumer. The latter frequently took the form of superior durability and reliability. These components of value had little to do with superior design or driving characteristics.
And, in De Lorenzo's defense, he does say that when Toyota focused on this value story, it was hard to beat. It was only when Toyota lost sight of this priority and succumbed to the tempting desire to be number one that it stumbled.
Posted by Tom Libby, PolkInsight Advisor, Polk (11.28.2011)