I agree with most of what you say. You point out correctly: the large car market had been dying prior to the 2005 300C launch. Which goes to show that the right product can turn around a dying category when there’s sufficient imagination and vision. You also point out correctly that Chrysler needs to revolutionize the market. I couldn’t agree more. You have access to internal information those of us on the outside are not privy to. You and others kindly share whatever bits you can with an audience hungry for news. That’s the nature of the business. And we are grateful to all of you. So let me try to articulate how things seem from the outside looking in: people are up in arms about Chrysler in part because of the lack of product. But lack of product is only the start. For those on the outside, there is this mystifying new brand positioning that is either being inadequately articulated, or has been poorly conceived. Whichever the reason, the result is the same: this new brand vision doesn’t seem to be resonating with those who have become familiar with Chrysler over the years. And when people who have been brand loyal to Chrysler for decades don’t get this new brand positioning, the reaction appears to be to blame them for not getting it. Sorry, the burden for successfully communicating a new brand positioning lies squarely on FCA, not on the customers. Besides, it doesn’t matter who the automaker is, alienating your most loyal customers is never a good thing. Then there are these mythical products that were supposed to have been coming two years ago. From the outside looking in: they seem to be permanently floating somewhere in the future. Yes, we got Pacifica. And it appears to have been a fairly successful launch. But I can’t say I have seen a new brand positioning be articulated for Pacifica. Yes, Chrysler tossed the Town & Country name in favor of Pacifica; yes, Chrysler targeted Millennials instead of Baby Boomers; and yes, Pacifica front-end styling looks closer to 200 than to 300 or to prior minivans. But none of that amounts to a new brand positioning. Those are just decisions Chrysler made to give Pacifica a good chance of success, and they worked. So we are still waiting to see this new Chrysler brand positioning be properly articulated. But if FCA believes that launching a bunch of new products in specific segments with styling that resemble each other amounts to repositioning a brand, it is up for a crude awakening. And after FCA totally screwed up Fiat’s N.A. relaunch, there’s legitimate reason for those on the outside to now be concerned about Chrysler. FCA should be ramping up its new vision for Chrysler brand now, before it launches all these upcoming new products. It should be helping us understand why we should care about this new vision for the brand, how it benefits us, and why we should want to buy its upcoming products. Take this for whatever is worth: for better or worse, 300 is now the face of Chrysler. In consumers’ minds, however 300 gets treated Chrysler gets treated. Given this close connection between 300 and Chrysler, FCA should be leveraging 300 to help us understand this new brand vision. Instead, all we see is 300 —and by extension Chrysler— get neglected, discounted, decontented, discounted some more and neglected again. And that’s precisely how many long-time Chrysler customers themselves feel treated.