Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 205 Posts
Beauty and eyes and beholders.

I'm a pretty handsome guy. My wife thinks so, too. Not everyone else shares that view either.
 
Indeed. The difference is you really only need to convince one person, while the auto business is a popularity contest, I am afraid.

I have owned six Jeeps: two Grand Cherokees and four Wranglers. this new Cherokee makes my skin crawl every time I see it.

I need to see my therapist...
 
I have seen several reactions to the Cherokee. Women seem much more likely to like/love it than men.

If you hate it, I can see that you can't imagine how anyone could love it. I can't imagine anyone hating the PT Cruiser or loving the Honda Element. Yet, some do, and I guess I can't deny reality like some people here can.
 
One of my clients, an import luxury carmaker, launched a hideous sedan in 2008.

They had all kinds of reasons for bringing that ugly car: it stands out they said, it is "innovative", it is a more "expressive" design, it "shows our vision forward", it is "revolutionary", etc., etc. Every automaker rationalizes whatever they bring to market, no matter how ugly it is. I just looked at it and thought "OMG, that thing is ugly"; but there was nothing anyone could say out loud.

That sedan has sold in half the numbers of the previous generation. People inside the automaker now finally accept that the car is ugly, but they are now stuck with it for the full cycle of the product and they seem at a loss as to how to fix it.

The saving grace of this Cherokee is that it will be difficult to compare its success to the old Cherokee's.

You can make a car attractive, you can make it ugly, or you can make it controversial. The simple fact is, the "attractive" design will always be the easiest one to sell.
 
Aldo, the TL is the best looking car in that bunch, and that is saying something. I MUCH preferred the previous TL to the current one.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
Aldo said:
One of my clients, an import luxury carmaker, launched a hideous sedan in 2008.

They had all kinds of reasons for bringing that ugly car: it stands out they said, it is "innovative", it is a more "expressive" design, it "shows our vision forward", it is "revolutionary", etc., etc. Every automaker rationalizes whatever they bring to market, no matter how ugly it is. I just looked at it and thought "OMG, that thing is ugly"; but there was nothing anyone could say out loud.

That sedan has sold in half the numbers of the previous generation. People inside the automaker now finally accept that the car is ugly, but they are now stuck with it for the full cycle of the product and they seem at a loss as to how to fix it.

The saving grace of this Cherokee is that it will be difficult to compare its success to the old Cherokee's.

You can make a car attractive, you can make it ugly, or you can make it controversial. The simple fact is, the "attractive" design will always be the easiest one to sell.
I hear you.... but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.........


I personally think......this is one of the ugliest cars on the road.......




and yet it is the NUMBER 1 selling suv here in the US.
 
Aldo said:
One of my clients, an import luxury carmaker, launched a hideous sedan in 2008.

They had all kinds of reasons for bringing that ugly car: it stands out they said, it is "innovative", it is a more "expressive" design, it "shows our vision forward", it is "revolutionary", etc., etc. Every automaker rationalizes whatever they bring to market, no matter how ugly it is. I just looked at it and thought "OMG, that thing is ugly"; but there was nothing anyone could say out loud.

That sedan has sold in half the numbers of the previous generation. People inside the automaker now finally accept that the car is ugly, but they are now stuck with it for the full cycle of the product and they seem at a loss as to how to fix it.

The saving grace of this Cherokee is that it will be difficult to compare its success to the old Cherokee's.

You can make a car attractive, you can make it ugly, or you can make it controversial. The simple fact is, the "attractive" design will always be the easiest one to sell.
Honestly there are many ugly cars selling like hot cakes and it's not that their competitors are much worse in fuel economy, technology etc. . I also believe that "quirky ugly" ones are in a much better position than "plain ugly" ones.

For instance I would place the Liberty in the second group, just saying...
 
UN4GTBL said:
Aldo, the TL is the best looking car in that bunch, and that is saying something. I MUCH preferred the previous TL to the current one.
Yup. That is executive arrogance for you. The previous TL was a simple yet elegant, timeless design, the car sold really well and executives got smug: they'd show us how to do it even better and launched the current car.

Of the previous design, 9 out of 10 people will tell you it is attractive; of the current one the split is more 50/50. Sales speak for themselves: the current TL is selling at roughly half the levels of the previous one.


CJDsalespro said:
I hear you.... but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.........


I personally think......this is one of the ugliest cars on the road.......




and yet it is the NUMBER 1 selling suv here in the US.
It is, but you need to see it in the broader context of where it is coming from and where it is going. CR-V has DOMINATED its segment for years; it is now barely keeping ahead of Escape, with Equinox slowly closing in.

The bottom line is: the challenge for OEMs is to come up with designs that are ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE (e.g., Kia); NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HALF while the other half hate it. Doing so only splits their chances of success right off the gate.
 
Aldo said:
Yup. That is executive arrogance for you. The previous TL was a simple yet elegant, timeless design, the car sold really well and executives got smug: they'd show us how to do it even better and launched the current car.

Of the previous design, 9 out of 10 people will tell you it is attractive; of the current one the split is more 50/50. Sales speak for themselves: the current TL is selling at roughly half the levels of the previous one.


It is, but you need to see it in the broader context of where it is coming from and where it is going. CR-V has DOMINATED its segment for years; it is now barely keeping ahead of Escape, with Equinox slowly closing in.

The bottom line is: the challenge for OEMs is to come up with designs that are ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE (e.g., Kia); NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HALF while the other half hate it. Doing so only splits their chances of success right off the gate.
I have a very hard time viewing the Escape as attractive either (just me of course).
 
Aldo said:
Yup. That is executive arrogance for you. The previous TL was a simple yet elegant, timeless design, the car sold really well and executives got smug: they'd show us how to do it even better and launched the current car.

Of the previous design, 9 out of 10 people will tell you it is attractive; of the current one the split is more 50/50. Sales speak for themselves: the current TL is selling at roughly half the levels of the previous one.


It is, but you need to see it in the broader context of where it is coming from and where it is going. CR-V has DOMINATED its segment for years; it is now barely keeping ahead of Escape, with Equinox slowly closing in.

The bottom line is: the challenge for OEMs is to come up with designs that are ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE (e.g., Kia); NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HALF while the other half hate it. Doing so only splits their chances of success right off the gate.
And I think that is the most balanced way to put it.
I personally just inserted my jab. I obviously don't like the Cherokee's appearance. It seems like an otherwise good car though. A lot of people, seemingly especially women, seem to have a positive reaction to the Cherokee, but there are also a great deal who do not. The "balance" as it were is not favorable. The upside is, it's no where near as bad in terms of reception as the Aztek or other cars. Point is, as you already made it, the end result is - the car may achieve decent sales just fine, but by opting for a design that fails to resonate with so many people - they are going to reduce the sales from what they could have been.

I don't think there is getting around that part. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (we've been over that), there are a lot of people who like this design (covered as well now), but there is also an undeniable quantity of people that strongly dislike the look. So I'm going to settle on - not a failure, but it's potential will be stunted a bit.

But, back to it, there IS positive response out there, so there is evidence to suggest it's not going to bomb. It'll do ok. And - if this customer likes the new Cherokee - great! She should buy it. I want to see it do decently, then I hope when they refresh it, they'll streamline it and make it a bit more universal.

unverferth said:
I have a very hard time viewing the Escape as attractive either (just me of course).
Or the Equinox, for the Rav 4. I do, however find the Hyundai and Kia flavors to be quite unoffensive to my eyes. Some aspects of them remind me of something Chrysler might produced in the pre-DCX days.
 
the challenge for OEMs is to come up with designs that are ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE (e.g., Kia); NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HALF while the other half hate it.
True for Toyota and Hyundai and other huge automakers who are dominant in their key markets. Not so true for the little guys like Chrysler, Suzuki, Subaru, etc who are always struggling to be counted in with "the majors."

No Chrysler brand is in the top five American brands, which as far as I recall goes: Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, Nissan.

Chrysler, with its perennial 12% or so market share, discovered that the "30% love it, 70% hate it" rule works for them in most cases.

Let's say they created a midsize car and 80% of Americans loathed its looks, but 20% felt they HAD to have it. They'd bust their market share wide open -- because Chrysler's share of the midsize market is tiny.

It's the opposite of minivans, where Nissan can afford to be ugly because they have no sales anyway.
 
DaveAdmin said:
No Chrysler brand is in the top five American brands, which as far as I recall goes: Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda, Nissan.
Worldwide and brand wise , but Chrysler LLC is ahead of Nissan in the US and nip and tuck ahead of Honda the last time I looked.
By Model, they lead or are near the top in several segments, Minivans, Wrangler, Ram. So they do have some things going for them. ;)
 
Aldo said:
Yup. That is executive arrogance for you. The previous TL was a simple yet elegant, timeless design, the car sold really well and executives got smug: they'd show us how to do it even better and launched the current car.

Of the previous design, 9 out of 10 people will tell you it is attractive; of the current one the split is more 50/50. Sales speak for themselves: the current TL is selling at roughly half the levels of the previous one.


It is, but you need to see it in the broader context of where it is coming from and where it is going. CR-V has DOMINATED its segment for years; it is now barely keeping ahead of Escape, with Equinox slowly closing in.

The bottom line is: the challenge for OEMs is to come up with designs that are ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE (e.g., Kia); NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HALF while the other half hate it. Doing so only splits their chances of success right off the gate.
Can't agree.

There is solid evidence that polarizing designs worked better than "ok for everybody" ones.

As a matter of fact when designers are too much worried with having everybody not to hate the new design they just come up with very uninspired and conservative designs. They play it safe but they end up being lost in the crowd.
Instead there are many cases of succesful cars which polarized opinions:

- porsche panamera
- kia soul
- mini countryman
- toyota prius
etc.
 
Yes, but they are not dominant in any fields other than Wrangler and arguably minivans.

Recent Chrysler examples of polarizing designs that worked:

1994 Ram
Neon
PT Cruiser

Some polarizing designs from the past:

1957 cars (all of 'em)
Any Exner Imperial
Early Valiants
Oh, heck, any Exner car...
 
jazz77 said:
Can't agree.

There is solid evidence that polarizing designs worked better than "ok for everybody" ones.

.
FYI; market research is what Aldo does for a living. He cannot divulge his ID, his company or his clients, but if he says the data shows something, you can take it to the bank.
That means you are free to disagree, but that's your opinion, not based upon data.
 
DaveAdmin said:
Yes, but they are not dominant in any fields other than Wrangler and arguably minivans.

Recent Chrysler examples of polarizing designs that worked:

1994 Ram
Neon
PT Cruiser

Some polarizing designs from the past:

1957 cars (all of 'em)
Any Exner Imperial
Early Valiants
Oh, heck, any Exner car...
The problem is, polarizing doesn't mean the same thing for every car. The initial reception of the Ram, Neon, PT Crusier, or 300 to my recollection was positive, most critics lauded the distinctive styling. While many individuals appreciate the styling, the mainstream consensus has been far less positive than those vehicles enjoyed. (And of course Neon, and PT Cruiser later suffered do to other issues).

One might argue the Caliber was a polarizing design. But there is another thing, it's possible to by distinctive with out being polarizing. As I recall - many auto critics praised the 98 and up LH designs. Calling the Chrysler versions absolutely gorgeous. And at the time, the big grille style was quite distinctive. The cars sold pretty well in their prime.

It is very possible to achieve more universal assessments of distinctive beauty. Chrysler has proven it can win pretty universal appreciation with out having so many under the "hate it" category.

But I digress, this thread isn't really about that. We all know where we all stand on the Cherokee at this point. My initial vote was that it would not bomb, but would fall short of what it's sales potential might have been. I am sticking to it. If it turns out that after they are ramped up, they still can't meet demand. I have already announced that JRS and CDJSalespro get to serve me crow.
 
Aldo said:
You are letting your sales profession cloud your senses. Actually, I have yet to show the picture of the Cherokee to anyone and have them like it :thumbsdown:
I don't know; now, when I see the Cherokee, I think, "that will probably be my next vehicle". When I first saw it, I was shocked; but it really grew on me. I've never owned or seriously considered a Jeep before. So, while others may not like it, especially first look, many will.
 
DaveAdmin said:
Yes, but they are not dominant in any fields other than Wrangler and arguably minivans.

Recent Chrysler examples of polarizing designs that worked:

1994 Ram
Neon
PT Cruiser

Some polarizing designs from the past:

1957 cars (all of 'em)
Any Exner Imperial
Early Valiants
Oh, heck, any Exner car...
Ha! Yes and the Dodge pickup design was something like 26 years unchanged, so they had no place to go but up.
Even today, the Dodge Ram is edgy and gaining market share and it is still, love it or leave it, but the competition copied it and made it more mainstream.
Edgy can still be beautiful, ugly... remains unfortunately, still ugly...except to that 14% in the survey who likes the look.
In the past that 14% would mean a 2% win for Chrysler, however when they publicly state they want 250,000 annual sales, that 14% doesn't carry the weight.
Once inside the car, you forget the appearance and color and quirks, as long as those do not override your driving experience.
A quality, yet ugly car, can get moderate results over a mediocre, ugly car.
 
21 - 40 of 205 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top