Comments on: The Name Game – Brand Equity and Chrysler http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/ Chrysler, car, and other discussions by Allpar contributors Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:07:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Jeremy Mutz http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/comment-page-1/#comment-49363 Jeremy Mutz Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:12:45 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/#comment-49363 I don't agree that Chrysler products have been junk. What I do see as problematic is the practice of ending production of successful vehicles, and vehicles that have had the initial bugs worked out of them, in favor of successors that are yet to be proven in the marketplace. This is not a new practice: recall how the Valiant was dropped before the Aspen / Volare were ready for prime time. The Neon was dropped in favor of Caliber, right at the worst time when gas prices were going up, where Chrysler really could have used a good small sedan, one with the initial problems (head gasket, mainly; the 3 speed automatic was quite reliable from what I've heard) worked out. Ford has had alot of success with the Focus recently, an aging design; the Neon could have provided Chrysler with some badly needed sales over the past 12 months. Also unfortunate, the Breeze was killed when it was scoring at the top of the quality rankings; the quality was never exploited like it could have been. The successful PT Cruiser nameplate seems to be heading in the same direction. It has alot of name recognition; if Chrysler has anything to equal icons like the Mini or the new Fiat 500, which are small cars that sell for a premium, it is the PT. As the HHR has shown, there is still a market for that sort of car. Perhaps even better than reintroducing the Plymouth name would be to revitalize the PT as a range of cars: the orginal, a true wagon (squarer rear roofline, factory wood-look trim), ragtop, coupe. Let it stand somewhat apart from the other Chryslers: the current headlights and grille really detract from the design more than they tie it to the rest of the brand. Perhaps use a waterfall grill, a la Airflow to allow it to be unique, while it reflects Chrysler's heritage. I don’t agree that Chrysler products have been junk. What I do see as problematic is the practice of ending production of successful vehicles, and vehicles that have had the initial bugs worked out of them, in favor of successors that are yet to be proven in the marketplace. This is not a new practice: recall how the Valiant was dropped before the Aspen / Volare were ready for prime time. The Neon was dropped in favor of Caliber, right at the worst time when gas prices were going up, where Chrysler really could have used a good small sedan, one with the initial problems (head gasket, mainly; the 3 speed automatic was quite reliable from what I’ve heard) worked out. Ford has had alot of success with the Focus recently, an aging design; the Neon could have provided Chrysler with some badly needed sales over the past 12 months. Also unfortunate, the Breeze was killed when it was scoring at the top of the quality rankings; the quality was never exploited like it could have been.

The successful PT Cruiser nameplate seems to be heading in the same direction. It has alot of name recognition; if Chrysler has anything to equal icons like the Mini or the new Fiat 500, which are small cars that sell for a premium, it is the PT. As the HHR has shown, there is still a market for that sort of car. Perhaps even better than reintroducing the Plymouth name would be to revitalize the PT as a range of cars: the orginal, a true wagon (squarer rear roofline, factory wood-look trim), ragtop, coupe. Let it stand somewhat apart from the other Chryslers: the current headlights and grille really detract from the design more than they tie it to the rest of the brand. Perhaps use a waterfall grill, a la Airflow to allow it to be unique, while it reflects Chrysler’s heritage.

]]> By: anthony http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/comment-page-1/#comment-49251 anthony Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:07:16 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/#comment-49251 Norm i hate to agree with you but you are absolutely correct. Plymouth will not save Chrysler, but the demise of plymouth showed the narrow thinking that permeates the hierarchy of management. Let's take the Neon, In auto form a piece of junk that the transmission died in roughly 40- 45,000 miles what did chrysler do about it, nothing. The stupid wind down rear windows two generations nothing, the rough idling engine, that sounded like it came out of a caterpillar nothing. This is just one car and we can see the symptoms of idle neglect. If we discount our vehicle and flood the fleet market with it and give employee pricing to everyone we will meet our sales quotient. This is how these clowns are doing business. Give a lifetime warrantee but have so many loop holes that no one will ever get a claim. Please, let's wake up these boys don't have the guts to reinvent the wheel. until they do nothing will change, until they realise that cheaper, and cheaper only makes your car cheaper then we won't have any thing new. Chrysler needed quality products yesterday. I do however agree that this name jumping is rediculous allan mulally got it right when he brought back the taurus and sable name plates at ford. Maybe Chrysler will learn to fix the problems in the vehicles and keep the name, and promote the improvements, and stop letting the bean counters win. Generations of shoppers will flock to a quality product. But if you build junk you will spend many a generation trying to win new customers with discounts and fancy financing only to lose them after the note is paid or the lease is finished. Norm i hate to agree with you but you are absolutely correct. Plymouth will not save Chrysler, but the demise of plymouth showed the narrow thinking that permeates the hierarchy of management. Let’s take the Neon, In auto form a piece of junk that the transmission died in roughly 40- 45,000 miles what did chrysler do about it, nothing. The stupid wind down rear windows two generations nothing, the rough idling engine, that sounded like it came out of a caterpillar nothing. This is just one car and we can see the symptoms of idle neglect. If we discount our vehicle and flood the fleet market with it and give employee pricing to everyone we will meet our sales quotient. This is how these clowns are doing business. Give a lifetime warrantee but have so many loop holes that no one will ever get a claim. Please, let’s wake up these boys don’t have the guts to reinvent the wheel. until they do nothing will change, until they realise that cheaper, and cheaper only makes your car cheaper then we won’t have any thing new. Chrysler needed quality products yesterday. I do however agree that this name jumping is rediculous allan mulally got it right when he brought back the taurus and sable name plates at ford. Maybe Chrysler will learn to fix the problems in the vehicles and keep the name, and promote the improvements, and stop letting the bean counters win. Generations of shoppers will flock to a quality product. But if you build junk you will spend many a generation trying to win new customers with discounts and fancy financing only to lose them after the note is paid or the lease is finished.

]]> By: Norm Bagley http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/comment-page-1/#comment-48523 Norm Bagley Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:52:11 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/#comment-48523 I've said it before, when the end of DCX first became evident, and I'll say it again now: Plymouth is gone, and it makes no sense to resurrect it. Maybe it never should have been killed off, but it was -- end of story. Toyota and Honda manage to compete with extreme success throughout the entire automotive spectrum with only 3 and 2 divisions, respectively. Why do so many people believe that Chrysler can't do the same? Muscle cars once came out of the same divisions as economy cars (e.g., a GTX and a Valiant, a Charger and a Dart). Yes, establishing a brand identity is important -- but if you have well-designed products of high quality, that's what's going to sell cars. What, exactly, is Toyota's brand identity? Could you easily describe it, without lots of time to think? And yet, they're on track to become the world's number one auto maker. I've been a Mopar fan for more than 20 years, so I appreciate Plymouth. It has an amazing heritage. But I think what Mopar fans often forget -- or just plain refuse to acknowledge -- is that the Plymouth brand doesn't mean a thing to anyone other than Mopar fans. I don't believe for a second that there are masses of people out there thinking, "If only they brought back Plymouth, I'd trade in my Honda (or Chevy, or Hyundai, or whatever) and get one. Dodge just doesn't do it for me." If you are among those who feel it's that important to bring Plymouth back, my guess is you're already driving a Chrysler or Dodge, which means that if it DID return, all that would happen is you'd trade one Chrysler brand for another, which does the Company no good at all. Great styling, a good buying experience, reliability that's the best in the world -- that's what will help Chrysler grow and flourish. Not Plymouth. Not Plymouth! I’ve said it before, when the end of DCX first became evident, and I’ll say it again now: Plymouth is gone, and it makes no sense to resurrect it. Maybe it never should have been killed off, but it was — end of story. Toyota and Honda manage to compete with extreme success throughout the entire automotive spectrum with only 3 and 2 divisions, respectively. Why do so many people believe that Chrysler can’t do the same? Muscle cars once came out of the same divisions as economy cars (e.g., a GTX and a Valiant, a Charger and a Dart). Yes, establishing a brand identity is important — but if you have well-designed products of high quality, that’s what’s going to sell cars. What, exactly, is Toyota’s brand identity? Could you easily describe it, without lots of time to think? And yet, they’re on track to become the world’s number one auto maker. I’ve been a Mopar fan for more than 20 years, so I appreciate Plymouth. It has an amazing heritage. But I think what Mopar fans often forget — or just plain refuse to acknowledge — is that the Plymouth brand doesn’t mean a thing to anyone other than Mopar fans. I don’t believe for a second that there are masses of people out there thinking, “If only they brought back Plymouth, I’d trade in my Honda (or Chevy, or Hyundai, or whatever) and get one. Dodge just doesn’t do it for me.” If you are among those who feel it’s that important to bring Plymouth back, my guess is you’re already driving a Chrysler or Dodge, which means that if it DID return, all that would happen is you’d trade one Chrysler brand for another, which does the Company no good at all. Great styling, a good buying experience, reliability that’s the best in the world — that’s what will help Chrysler grow and flourish. Not Plymouth. Not Plymouth!

]]> By: Jeremy Mutz http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/comment-page-1/#comment-47487 Jeremy Mutz Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:59:02 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2007/07/25/the-name-game-%e2%80%93-brand-equity-and-chrysler/#comment-47487 I think the people at Chrysler and Cerberus do care about what the customers and Mopar enthusiasts think. The new TV ads are great. They celebrate the heritage of the company (the Chrysler one shows the 1924 B-70, Airflow, first power steering, Imperials, and 300's) while showing what Chrysler has to offer today. We have not seen ads like this since the 300M came out. They are a far cry from the ads with Dr Z and the one where they blow up a Dodge Spirit. The new warranty is certainly a response to what customers and enthusiasts are demanding. Chrysler knows they have to improve interiors and quality. The new cross-over SUV's should be very competitive, and should avoid the mistakes made with the Sebring / Avenger. Speaking of names, I'm not sure if I like the name "Crew," but that may not be the actual name. "Adventurer" would be nice. Names are important, but only to the extent that they connect with the present buyer. Hornet works for a car because the recent "Cars" movie makes the name relevant. Roadrunner and Duster would still connect with people. Valiant might work because alot of people have great memories of that car. Would it have been better than "Avenger" or Sebring"? I don't know. I'm seeing alot of Avengers/Sebrings on the road in Florida. New Yorker or Imperial might yet be viable as a LWB LX/LY car. If there is a market for Town Cars ands limos why shouldn't Chrysler get a peice of it? It could, with something above the 300C, yet not something 14 inches taller than a 300C. Not enough people have memories of Desoto, Fury, AMX, or Javelin to make the names strike a cord. I would like to see Plymouth come back; but realistically, the three current brands are probably enough to cover the market. Dodge occupies the space that Chevrolet or Toyota or Ford does. Chrysler, hopefully, will compete on the level of Lincoln or Lexus or Cadillac. The main thing is the product; simply putting the numbers "300" on the cars didn't ensure success. Great design did that. Who really is excited by the name "Acadia" or "Enclave"? GMC and Buick will sell those SUV's because they are great vehicles. A truly great car will sell, whether it is called Sebring, or whatever. I think the people at Chrysler and Cerberus do care about what the customers and Mopar enthusiasts think. The new TV ads are great. They celebrate the heritage of the company (the Chrysler one shows the 1924 B-70, Airflow, first power steering, Imperials, and 300’s) while showing what Chrysler has to offer today. We have not seen ads like this since the 300M came out. They are a far cry from the ads with Dr Z and the one where they blow up a Dodge Spirit. The new warranty is certainly a response to what customers and enthusiasts are demanding. Chrysler knows they have to improve interiors and quality. The new cross-over SUV’s should be very competitive, and should avoid the mistakes made with the Sebring / Avenger. Speaking of names, I’m not sure if I like the name “Crew,” but that may not be the actual name. “Adventurer” would be nice.

Names are important, but only to the extent that they connect with the present buyer. Hornet works for a car because the recent “Cars” movie makes the name relevant. Roadrunner and Duster would still connect with people. Valiant might work because alot of people have great memories of that car. Would it have been better than “Avenger” or Sebring”? I don’t know. I’m seeing alot of Avengers/Sebrings on the road in Florida. New Yorker or Imperial might yet be viable as a LWB LX/LY car. If there is a market for Town Cars ands limos why shouldn’t Chrysler get a peice of it? It could, with something above the 300C, yet not something 14 inches taller than a 300C. Not enough people have memories of Desoto, Fury, AMX, or Javelin to make the names strike a cord. I would like to see Plymouth come back; but realistically, the three current brands are probably enough to cover the market. Dodge occupies the space that Chevrolet or Toyota or Ford does. Chrysler, hopefully, will compete on the level of Lincoln or Lexus or Cadillac. The main thing is the product; simply putting the numbers “300″ on the cars didn’t ensure success. Great design did that. Who really is excited by the name “Acadia” or “Enclave”? GMC and Buick will sell those SUV’s because they are great vehicles. A truly great car will sell, whether it is called Sebring, or whatever.

]]>