+
November 5, 2009
GM and the Branding of Auto 2.0
Can GM reincarnate itself and write the next chapter of the auto industry? As its first 100-year long chapter comes to a close, GM faces a post-petroleum reality and consumer behavior that may be forever changed. Ironically, the “New GM” can look to a prescient part of its own history to guide the future: Saturn.
Saturn was positioned as a car company, not just a car. That was a huge distinction – implying a level of autonomy to design, manage, build, and sell cars in a fresh new way. It spoke to the ownership experience, not just the product. Consumers could feel good about their car and about the people behind the car. It was the mid-eighties and Saturn’s old-school service ethic was a revolution.The American auto industry proved it could create a passion brand based not on status, size, or muscle. Its allure was an ethos of honesty, folksiness, optimism, independence: Americana. This also meant the company was a bit anti-establishment in that it would succeed by bucking the traditions of the industry. The honest, no haggling, buying process positioned the brand as our advocate. It had to fight against type without denigrating its own. Saturn walked a fine line yet struck the balance between credibility and progressiveness. While I’m sure these tactics riled the other GM brands, Saturn blazed a maverick trail and made people proud to buy American.
But then GM began to dismantle the Saturn Company, pulling it into the orbit of the GM house of brands. In doing so, it stripped Saturn of its differentiation and neutered the brand. GM has now distilled its brands down to Chevy, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac. Yet the Saturn experience should tell GM that a micro-managing parent will again strip each nameplate of its uniqueness.
To credibly write the auto 2.0 rules, GM should allow each brand to operate as a separate company with separate offices and real autonomy. GM’s role could be that of the convener of ideas, facilitating the right amount of collaboration and competition.
In fact, the idea of simply being part of an ecosystem will likely define Auto 2.0. In the past, automakers could be detached from the fuel that powered its cars. They need only supply a gas tank and an opening to fill it. They were an island where part, technology, and raw materials came from subservient “vendors.”
But in a post-petroleum chapter, automakers can no longer afford to be detached from the fuel or energy suppliers. New standards for batteries, plugs, and charge station outlets throughout myriad global geographies won’t be as simple as gasoline. Technology to manage and optimize energy use will go way beyond our current telematics experience. All of this will take more of a Saturn ethos rather than the traditional, hierarchical mindset.
But, signs show GM falling back on old instincts and framing ideas that do anything but signal fresh thinking. Its 230 campaign, for example, positions the Volt relative to gasoline fuel economy (230 MPG), missing the opportunity to position the electric Volt as, well, electric. Gasoline never propels the car, yet GM decided to focus our attention not on the cost of the electricity, but the efficiency of the gasoline generator. I appreciate the fact that electric efficiency metrics have yet to be explained (kilowatt hours per 100 miles), but change takes education and someone must lead the way.
From a branding perspective, sweeping change is signaled by far more than making a logo green. It creates a historic opportunity to script the chapter for the next 100 years. I fear, however, that GM is not only missing the chance to learn from its mistakes, it’s also ignoring learning from its early Saturn success.
Originally posted on LOHAS "Trend in Green" Blog.
| Share this article |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
delicious |  |
|||
 |
stumble upon |  |
digg |  |
 |
newsvine | |
Post Comments
