RSS
Home
A Rose Still A Rose? Musing GM
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Today’s issue of “b,” the Baltimore Sun-produced daily tabloid, features a brief Associated Press article, “GM Still GM? Automaker considers name change as it reinvents itself.”
A University of Chicago marketing professor, Jean-Pierre Dube, is reported as saying “I’m not sure there’d be that much harm in rebranding.”
Given the unholy mess General Motors has become, I’d say ol’ J.P. may be right about that.
And even if things weren’t quite so bad for GM, I might still suggest a change. Afterall, the very name, General Motors, conjures images of jerky, black-and-white 1920s film footage, Rockefeller types in celluloid collars and walking sticks, as out of date as “Standard Oil” or silent movies.
Too many years of producing mediocrity has taken its toll and a name change may indeed be prudent, but I wouldn’t go public with a new name until I had a product I was sure deserved it. You don’t want to taint the introduction of a new brand by trotting out the same old “stuff” (and I’m being kind with that word) as before.
This is a perfect example of why it is so important to use PUBLIC RELATIONS and NOT advertising to build brand. The article notes that GM is “plowing ahead with its reinvention campaign. A new television ad called ‘Chapter 1’ promises a stronger and leaner company.”
To which, a nation grown so jaded as to actually have turned to stone, says, “You’ve got to be kidding.” Anyone age 30 or younger puts as much stock into TV ads as people are now buying stock with Bernie Madoff. Everyone knows that advertising is bought and paid for, so it has as much credibility as that "Brownie" guy after Katrina.
First you have to have some PROOF that what you are putting on the showroom floor is something GOOD. Where’s the celebrity endorsement, like (INSERT FAMOUS NASCAR DRIVER NAME HERE) saying in an interview how impressed he is with GM’s newest 4-wheeled invention…whatever it may be (preferably something that runs primarily on electricity, with as little gasoline as possible...whither the Stanley Steamer? A car that ran on water vapor?? How's THAT for green!)
Where’s the series of benefit car races featuring the new GM models, engines, suspension systems, whatever, that demonstrate enhanced performance? Where’s the New York Times cover story interviewing 10 auto industry opinion leaders about how the new GM cars represent a major “paradigm shift” in car making (and in a good way)? You want people talking about the new cars (if and when they ever get built) BEFORE you start running ads. Because as Al and Laura Ries note in their book, THE FALL OF ADVERTISING AND THE RISE OF PR, you use PR to BUILD brand and then advertising to MAINTAIN it.
When GM's ready, why not let the American public, the people GM exists to serve, choose their new name, their new identity? Let the winner receive a new GM car every four years for the rest of his/her life. Launch a social media campaign to cull people's ideas for the new name as well as anything else folks can think of to improve the GM line.
I agree, however, with GM company spokesperson Susan Garontakos’ comment that “it’s just too soon” to declare a name change. First, build the new product. Show how CONSUMER REPORTS thinks it’s the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Have the new line win a sea of car show accolades. Make a good product FIRST. Then attribute the name so that the positive energy will rub all over it like pureed bananas on a baby. Otherwise, risk being considered a joke…congrats, you just went from Studebaker to Edsel. Not good.
Related Articles:
Comments
Last Friday, Dec. 11th’s issue of The Daily Record features a very interesting column by Henry Fawell, a communications consultant for Womble …
I read an article in today’s Baltimore Sun, “Elves send letters from Santa—in Braille” that’s a wonderful example of …
