New Seniors

How many millions will the company spend to try and sell us on the concept of using a formal name? And if the marketing mavens are able to accomplish this, how many more Chevy’s, ahem make that Chevrolets, will be sold as the result of this effort? If vehicles don’t move out of dealer showrooms and into garages throughout America this will prove to be an exercise in futility that will ultimately cost the taxpayers, because it is our money that bailed out GM from pending bankruptcy.

According to The New York Times, a memo from the top brass at Government Motors to the companies marketing staff read in part, “ We’d ask that whether you’re talking to a dealer, or speaking with friends and family, that you communicate our brand as Chevrolet moving forward.” The directive went on to emphasize that successful brands focus on consistency, so the name becomes prominent and recognizable with consumers.

This decision seems to fly in the face of modern marketing practices. Today, companies are trying to make friends with consumers. Being more casual and using nicknames is an accepted way to build brand relationships with existing and potential customers. This is particularly important with cars and trucks, since a good part of the marketing effort is aimed at those who already own the brand to buy the same one when they buy again.

Considering the love affair Americans once had with what we drove, the GM approach appears to be putting the Chevrolet brand in reverse. If we liked our car, we referred to it by a nickname which indicated to others that we were proud to drive it. A Mercury was a Merc, an Oldsmobile was an Olds and, of course, a Chevrolet was a Chevy. Most people have a formal first name, but friends call us by our nickname. Maybe the Chevrolet marketing people should look at how they refer to their friends before changing the relationship Americans have with the Chevy name.

On top of this, there is more news coming out of Detroit. GM switched ad agencies. Firing an agency is common place, especially when things are not going well for a given brand, even if the relationship goes back to 1919. That’s what GM did with its Chevrolet account at the end of April. The advertising responsibility for what was once the best selling car in America was assigned to a French firm. This seemed strange.

After being on the job a little over a month, the Paris-based agency was ousted in favor of a in San Francisco agency, which is owned by an ad conglomerate headquartered in New York City. Does the craziness at GM stem from the need to quickly improve sales at the floundering car maker or is it because the government is now involved in the business, which adds to the confusion? What do you think?

You must be logged in to post a comment.