Marketing the Corvette: What GM doesn’t get
01-24-2013, 05:54 PM
#61
Well the "taking-it-personally" is going on on both sides in this section. There seems to be a small group that takes any critcism of the design extremely personally - which is wierd given we are talking about a car...
I can't expect them to do anything, but I think they ahave not gone about it intelligently. Dave Hill already tried to shift the demand demographic with the C5. Remember all those European buyers he was going to lure into the car. For a number of reasons which include costs, vehicle size, taxes, and perception of quality (or lack thereof), this did not happen. The C7 plan sounds like a re-play of the same, with a domestic market wrinkle. I don't think it will succeed for many of the same reasons.
There are really only 2 ways to skin the volume-hurdle cat. One is to attempt to expand the market - which any business guy knows is damned near impossible in a mature industry, or (2) expand the production usage of the basic architecture. They did the latter timidly with the XLR, but that was a failure because they expanded to a brand new niche vehicle. My personal opinion is that they should expand the technology to Camaro and others, including a pure, basic sports car with a different name - something 30-somethings can really afford that would go up against the likes of the BRZ / F86 and similar.
I can't expect them to do anything, but I think they ahave not gone about it intelligently. Dave Hill already tried to shift the demand demographic with the C5. Remember all those European buyers he was going to lure into the car. For a number of reasons which include costs, vehicle size, taxes, and perception of quality (or lack thereof), this did not happen. The C7 plan sounds like a re-play of the same, with a domestic market wrinkle. I don't think it will succeed for many of the same reasons.
There are really only 2 ways to skin the volume-hurdle cat. One is to attempt to expand the market - which any business guy knows is damned near impossible in a mature industry, or (2) expand the production usage of the basic architecture. They did the latter timidly with the XLR, but that was a failure because they expanded to a brand new niche vehicle. My personal opinion is that they should expand the technology to Camaro and others, including a pure, basic sports car with a different name - something 30-somethings can really afford that would go up against the likes of the BRZ / F86 and similar.
They've kept and clearly improved the performance model. They appear to have improved the driving experience both from a steering feel and frame stiffness aspect. They've changed the tires to a specifically designed Michelin. They've apparently improved the cooling and aero. They've apparently improved the transmissions. They've apparently increased the MPG. They've kept a lot of the obvious Corvetteness about it. They've made a few body changes that they hope will have added appeal to a slightly younger, more international audience.
So if they built a separate BRZ-fighter, you think that would help? Maybe but then it might just compete with the Corvette itself and that still doesn't mean that OLD GUYS (btw, I'm in my late 50s) would like the Vette any better!
BTW, maybe this will be the BRZ fighter...
01-24-2013, 06:07 PM
#62
Race Director
BRZ - I was thinking about it mainly from a production standpoint. GM's primary challenge is speading fixed costs across as many units as possible. So you transfer a high volume line like Camaro over to the C7 architecture , and you introduce a compact sportscar on that same platform at an entry price in the mid-20s, with Ecotech / E-drive - with a resurrected neam (e.g. GTO, or whatever). So you have $20-$30, $30-$45, and the Corvette on top. These can look totally different from each other yet share architecture. You get lighter, better-driving cars and easier CAFE compliance as a bonus. Win Win. You also create a market of young buyers who can mature into the more pricey offerings. And no, I do not see a deleterious effect of this on Corvette sales.
There is no question that the pie is baked for the C7. I would not expect any changes for at least 3 years, and even those will be minimal. They will be plenty busy manageing the inevitable hiccups that will bubble up from all the new technology included in the new car. For me, none of this is a big deal. Most people's gripes are cosmetic - nothing a revised fascia cannot address. Nothing under the skin has to change. Or not. The aftermarket will step in.
Overall, the car is terrific as far as I'm concerned if it delivers in the key areas you highlight. What will make or break the brand is quality. This, and the perception of it, MUST improve.
There is no question that the pie is baked for the C7. I would not expect any changes for at least 3 years, and even those will be minimal. They will be plenty busy manageing the inevitable hiccups that will bubble up from all the new technology included in the new car. For me, none of this is a big deal. Most people's gripes are cosmetic - nothing a revised fascia cannot address. Nothing under the skin has to change. Or not. The aftermarket will step in.
Overall, the car is terrific as far as I'm concerned if it delivers in the key areas you highlight. What will make or break the brand is quality. This, and the perception of it, MUST improve.
Last edited by TTRotary; 01-24-2013 at 06:15 PM.
01-24-2013, 07:54 PM
#63
Melting Slicks
It's all in the new Feb/Mar Road & Track. Two articles. One on the C7 and the second a lengthy interview with Tadge on the C7, the competition, and Corvette marketing agendas.
Last edited by B747VET; 01-24-2013 at 08:01 PM.
01-24-2013, 08:11 PM
#64
Burning Brakes
Watch this video. Porsche really knows how to market a Car ! GM could learn a few things. And yes I like the C7, and C6, I sold my Porsche 911 GT3 to buy a C6Z06.
01-24-2013, 08:15 PM
#65
Melting Slicks
Actually, it isn't.
01-24-2013, 08:23 PM
#66
01-24-2013, 08:30 PM
#67
Watch this video. Porsche really knows how to market a Car ! GM could learn a few things. And yes I like the C7, and C6, I sold my Porsche 911 GT3 to buy a C6Z06.
http://youtu.be/7sWPHKU1XZU
http://youtu.be/7sWPHKU1XZU
The sad thing is when the kid grows up in 20 years the new 911 will look just like the one he saw when he was a kid.
01-24-2013, 09:41 PM
#68
Instructor
Member Since: Feb 2012
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a LOT of great posts in this thread!
I agree with this cat about marketing, but the moment he started with his "line up" of different Corvettes, the whole article went right into the toilet.
I don't think this guy knows what a Corvette is.
In two words - what is the Corevette?
A LEGACY.
I agree with this cat about marketing, but the moment he started with his "line up" of different Corvettes, the whole article went right into the toilet.
I don't think this guy knows what a Corvette is.
In two words - what is the Corevette?
A LEGACY.
01-29-2013, 10:22 AM
#69
Melting Slicks
I wish Delorenzo would quit typing.
I can't call it writing because it isn't. Writing requires intelligence and forethought. He seems to think that a company that sells 5 million vehicles a year should be throwing tons of cash at one that is selling 20,000 units.
He has the cart before the horse. GM doesn't want to advertise the Corvette and it's accomplishment because those accomplishments ARE the advertising. The Corvette shows that GM can build a car than competes with BMW, Jag, Aston, and F-cars.
And why spend the cash on Nascar and not the Lemans class win? Aside from the fact that more people see a single Nascar race than an entire season of American LeMans, there's the fact that people in the stands of a Nascar race have a prayer of buying a Malibu or an Impala. A Vette? Not so much. And for them there's that Pace Car out front.
As for his "marketing" ideas - if you think the Vette faithful howled about round tail lights, give 'em a glorified Solstice with a V6 and slap crossed flags on it. Bring on the torches and pitchforks.
A Mid Engined Corvette Chaparral for $175K? BWAHAHAH! Only if it's the Cadillac Cien.
Like I said - the man should just stop.
I can't call it writing because it isn't. Writing requires intelligence and forethought. He seems to think that a company that sells 5 million vehicles a year should be throwing tons of cash at one that is selling 20,000 units.
He has the cart before the horse. GM doesn't want to advertise the Corvette and it's accomplishment because those accomplishments ARE the advertising. The Corvette shows that GM can build a car than competes with BMW, Jag, Aston, and F-cars.
And why spend the cash on Nascar and not the Lemans class win? Aside from the fact that more people see a single Nascar race than an entire season of American LeMans, there's the fact that people in the stands of a Nascar race have a prayer of buying a Malibu or an Impala. A Vette? Not so much. And for them there's that Pace Car out front.
As for his "marketing" ideas - if you think the Vette faithful howled about round tail lights, give 'em a glorified Solstice with a V6 and slap crossed flags on it. Bring on the torches and pitchforks.
A Mid Engined Corvette Chaparral for $175K? BWAHAHAH! Only if it's the Cadillac Cien.
Like I said - the man should just stop.
04-02-2018, 10:07 AM
#72
Le Mans Master
Wow! You’ve dug deep for this one...
04-02-2018, 12:11 PM
#74
Melting Slicks
Peter De Lorenzo at Autoextremist.com has posted his insights on Corvette marketing or lack of. For those who don't want to click on a link, here is what he said, but you will not see some of the concepts for more versions of the Vette which in some cases look stupid.
For others, here is the link:
http://www.autoextremist.com/
By Peter M. De Lorenzo
"...The 2016 Corvette Stingray. Not to be confused with the current car, this will be the entry level Corvette that the non-boomers are clamoring for. And no, you won't find any reptilian nightmare design influences here either. Imagine a car with a footprint longer, wider and lower than the discontinued Solstice/Sky twins but with a fresh design that would harken back to the original Sting Ray (the name was two words back then), with Corvair Monza SS concept overtones. Available in a roadster only (that means no hardtop, removable or otherwise), this car would have a Twin-Turbo V6 with 375HP, 7-speed manual (only) gearbox, 50-50 weight distribution, a driving dynamic profile tuned to aggressive-fun and a target curb weight of 2,800 pounds. And round taillights, of course. Price? $39,995 base. And with minimal option packages available it would come in at $49,995, fully loaded..."
For others, here is the link:
http://www.autoextremist.com/
By Peter M. De Lorenzo
"...The 2016 Corvette Stingray. Not to be confused with the current car, this will be the entry level Corvette that the non-boomers are clamoring for. And no, you won't find any reptilian nightmare design influences here either. Imagine a car with a footprint longer, wider and lower than the discontinued Solstice/Sky twins but with a fresh design that would harken back to the original Sting Ray (the name was two words back then), with Corvair Monza SS concept overtones. Available in a roadster only (that means no hardtop, removable or otherwise), this car would have a Twin-Turbo V6 with 375HP, 7-speed manual (only) gearbox, 50-50 weight distribution, a driving dynamic profile tuned to aggressive-fun and a target curb weight of 2,800 pounds. And round taillights, of course. Price? $39,995 base. And with minimal option packages available it would come in at $49,995, fully loaded..."
04-02-2018, 12:38 PM
#75
Good heavens, the last post on this thread was 1/29/2013 until dug up from the grave today. It's more than 5 years old.
That article is so dated, it's not even worth talking about, and it actually wasn't worth talking about 5 years ago either. It was just a rant from an internet blogger, very similar to the all-over-the-map rants we see here.
That article is so dated, it's not even worth talking about, and it actually wasn't worth talking about 5 years ago either. It was just a rant from an internet blogger, very similar to the all-over-the-map rants we see here.
Last edited by Foosh; 04-02-2018 at 05:32 PM.
04-02-2018, 01:49 PM
#76
Le Mans Master
GM tried a "no frills" entry level C-5 they called it the Fixed roof coupe. It failed miserably.
Not every one likes the C-7 design,,,go figure.
The upper end "Chaparral" like Vette with mid engine has been on the drawing board for decades, we might see one soon.
Not every one likes the C-7 design,,,go figure.
The upper end "Chaparral" like Vette with mid engine has been on the drawing board for decades, we might see one soon.
04-02-2018, 03:19 PM
#77
Le Mans Master
Despite the whinings from a certain demographic, the Corvette isn't supposed to be "affordable by all".
Corvette is a premium product with premium pricing, for those who put a premium on performance.
Besides, GM already has a very good 'entry level' performance car -- the Camaro.
But you say you want a Corvette? It's simple -- work hard, save your money, and make life choices that allow you to achieve it.
Corvette is a premium product with premium pricing, for those who put a premium on performance.
Besides, GM already has a very good 'entry level' performance car -- the Camaro.
But you say you want a Corvette? It's simple -- work hard, save your money, and make life choices that allow you to achieve it.
Last edited by Kent1999; 04-02-2018 at 03:23 PM.
04-02-2018, 03:50 PM
#78
Wow, this thread was brought back from the dead!
Why should GM spend money marketing a product that markets itself? The Corvette is self explanatory. It is a car that needs no introduction. As the author of the article stated, even people who don't know much about cars know what a Corvette is. Besides, almost every time they make a commercial for the Corvette, they get sued by some pansy on the grounds that GM is encouraging breaking the law by underage driving or grossly exceeding the speed limit. Lawsuits cost money ON TOP OF what was already spent to place an ad for the super bowl.
At one time, I agreed with the author that GM should turn Corvette into a stand-alone brand, but the problem is that the Corvette only appeals to a certain number of buyers in a certain income bracket. So, if GM produces both front and mid engined variants, will they sell twice as many Corvettes; or will they sell the same number or marginally more at a much higher R&D and production cost? There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to turning a profit off of a product. Developing and bringing to market two or three iterations of the Corvette simultaneously may cost more than the market for the Corvette can provide for. Producing four different trim-levels of the same chassis (Stingray / Grand Sport / Z06 / ZR-1) may be the best way to create variety in the Corvette market. A basic Stingray can be purchased for about the same price as a top-range Camaro, and a ZR-1 can be purchased for around the same cost as a bottom-range Ferrari. (But will smoke the Ferrari)
I think GM is doing a good job with the car as it is. Every one of us is doing marketing FOR GM when we drive our Corvettes around town and some kid shouts, "Nice Vette!" from the sidewalk.
Why should GM spend money marketing a product that markets itself? The Corvette is self explanatory. It is a car that needs no introduction. As the author of the article stated, even people who don't know much about cars know what a Corvette is. Besides, almost every time they make a commercial for the Corvette, they get sued by some pansy on the grounds that GM is encouraging breaking the law by underage driving or grossly exceeding the speed limit. Lawsuits cost money ON TOP OF what was already spent to place an ad for the super bowl.
At one time, I agreed with the author that GM should turn Corvette into a stand-alone brand, but the problem is that the Corvette only appeals to a certain number of buyers in a certain income bracket. So, if GM produces both front and mid engined variants, will they sell twice as many Corvettes; or will they sell the same number or marginally more at a much higher R&D and production cost? There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to turning a profit off of a product. Developing and bringing to market two or three iterations of the Corvette simultaneously may cost more than the market for the Corvette can provide for. Producing four different trim-levels of the same chassis (Stingray / Grand Sport / Z06 / ZR-1) may be the best way to create variety in the Corvette market. A basic Stingray can be purchased for about the same price as a top-range Camaro, and a ZR-1 can be purchased for around the same cost as a bottom-range Ferrari. (But will smoke the Ferrari)
I think GM is doing a good job with the car as it is. Every one of us is doing marketing FOR GM when we drive our Corvettes around town and some kid shouts, "Nice Vette!" from the sidewalk.
04-02-2018, 04:04 PM
#79
Le Mans Master
Maybe this forum should have an expiration date for its threads. Milk goes bad after the expiration date and so do threads.
Seriously it might not be a bad idea for older threads to have some indicator that they are not current.
Seriously it might not be a bad idea for older threads to have some indicator that they are not current.
Last edited by Corgidog1; 04-02-2018 at 04:07 PM.
04-02-2018, 04:10 PM
#80
Safety Car
Member Since: Feb 2016
Location: Bainbridge Island WA
Posts: 4,980
Received 3,818 Likes
on
1,614 Posts
You mean like the date in the upper left corner?