MarketingDoctor.tvPeople Buy Brands Not Companies
Syndicate
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: GM and Kraft
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: GM
Loser: Kraft
WINNER:
Folks, General Motors has been getting a lot of flack for backing away from advertising on Facebook.
GM became a symbol –at least last week—of a company going against the social media trend and thinking for itself. In other words, GM is asking the question, if Facebook doesn’t work for them, why should they use it?
For some this was negative, but I think it shows great strength.
This is the new GM, leaner and stronger and very competitive. Leaving Facebook behind because GM couldn’t justify the ad dollars in terms of results was the best advertisement for the company as truly a world beater again.
One other thing to consider, Facebook was never going to have as big a news week as this past week with its historic IPO. Did GM basically ride those coattails to get the best publicity to show that its new global marketing approach is streamlined, smart and taking a hard look at how best to spend advertising dollars.
No surprise then that they have also decided that they will not be advertising during the Super Bowl this year. They are a brand actively looking for value and my guess is that they will be keep delivering it to their customers.
LOSER:
When a global giant makes the kind of mistake that Kraft just made, what can you say?
I'm shaking my head in disbelief. I really am. Kraft has just decided to rename its global snack business Mondelez.
Folks, it took them four months and it's no joke. The company said the name is a combination of the Latin words "world" and "delicious".
It's worth reprinting a few paragraphs from the Associated Press story on the decision:
The four-month odyssey of how "Mondelez" was picked — and how it was received — illustrates the great pains companies take to come up with powerful names for their businesses, products and services. For them, it's akin to parents obsessing over a name for their newborn: it's a moniker that sticks for better or worse, so it better be good.
"You have to generate thousands of ideas, even if it's just for a cookie," said Nik Contis, the global director of naming at branding company Siegel+Gale.
That's just what Kraft did after it decided to split into two publicly-traded companies — one for its North American grocery business that makes products like Oscar Mayer and Miracle Whip and the other a bigger company to focus on selling snacks worldwide.
It
was clear to executives at Kraft's Northfield, Ill., headquarters that
the name of the snack business would have to appeal to a global
audience. So the world's biggest maker of sweet snacks started the
arduous process of picking a name in November by soliciting suggestions
from its 126,000 employees.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: Too much cleverness can be a brand killer
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Spirit Airlines and Yahoo (CEO) and
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Spirit Airlines
Loser: Yahoo (CEO)
WINNER:
Folks, the worst thing a brand can do is refuse to apologize.
Your Target Market will forgive many things but a persistent inability or unwillingness to say sorry can be fatal to a brand.
Spirit Airline's CEO, Ben Baldanza, was reminded of this after a week of refusing to apologize and refund money to a dying Vietnam War vet.
Why is he the winner?
Because after a week, Baldanza did the right thing and not only that he apologized robustly --no half-hearted sorry for the Spirit CEO.
His statement didn't pull any punches:
"Sometimes we make mistakes. In my statements regarding Mr. Meekins’ request for a refund, I failed to explain why our policy on refunds makes Spirit Airlines the only affordable choice for so many travelers, and I did not demonstrate the respect or the compassion that I should have, given his medical condition and his service to our country."
The bottom line is that it is never too late to apologize and the bigger and bolder and more sincere your apology, the better.
Don't only say sorry; really mean it and in meaning it, your brand will become better.
LOSER:
Everybody probably takes some liberties with their resumes, trying to cast their experience (or lack of it) in the best light.
But folks, what Scott Thompson, CEO of Yahoo, seems to have done goes well beyond the pale: apparently he never received a degree his resume, SEC filings and official company bio have claimed that he did.
He says he's sorry that this issue has prevented the company from moviing forward, but so far no one has been fired and Yahoo seems to be muddying the water with a lengthy review.
This is a case, if the allegations are true, that sorry won't fix. Thompson will have to go and Yahoo will have to explain how he was hired in the first place and why the person they will replace him with and the policies they institute are worthy of trust and will restore the brand.
Perhaps there are some people out there who think it doesn't matter that he might have lied about his resume --but my position is that brands --personal or corporate-- must be solid. Lying isn't the way to get there.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: It is never too late to apologize.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Couric (Online) and Nutella
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Couric (Online)
Loser: Nutella
WINNER:
Folks, most people who had a terrific broadcast platform would rest there: but most people aren't Katie Couric.
Couric, who's syndicated daily show is going to start this fall on ABC, is going online for her fans.
That's the idea behind a digital series she, ABC News and Yahoo launched May 1.
Couric is going to do what she does best help her fans cut through trends and fads.
Actually, it's a fascinating decision...She's giving her target market and possibly new target markets a taste of the Couric brand while simultaneously expanding her reach on a new medium and building momentum for her show's fall launch.
Great brands seek new points of contact and fresh ways of building relationships with their audience. Couric has done it again.
LOSER:
Brand damage seldom happens overnight.
That's what's happened to Nutella.
Sure, you could say that the 3 million dollar class action settlement in California was a one off and even silly. But I'd say there's more.
Here's the story. A woman in California sued Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, for promoting the chocolate spread as being "healthier than it actually is."
People might say that it's ridiculous that a consumer would assume a chocolate spread was supposed to be a healthy option, but here's the point: brands need to be true to themselves and I think Nutella was "fudging" here (excuse the pun).
Fact is, Nutella is promoted as "an example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast." but has the properties of a candy bar.
This is a classic example of overstating the facts and when brands do this for long enough, the facts eventually catch up.
It might seem like a spectacular event, but this lawsuit and settlement --and the resulting bad press-- simply didn't happen overnight.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: Brands need to stick to just the facts.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Coke and
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Coke
Loser: Oreo
WINNER:
Folks, sometimes a company needs to be the voice of reason when it comes to defending its brand.
This is what happened last week to Coca Cola after a New Zealand woman's death was laid on its doorstep.
The woman died of a heart attack at 30 and the news story that flew around the world was that drinking Coke killed her.
Not a great headline especially when Coke has been battered through the years by the health brigade, implicating the soft drink in everything from stripping the paint off cars to obesity.
But Coke did the right thing, they defended themselves without sounding defensive. You might not be able to retract the headline --and my guess is that "Coke killed a woman" is going to percolate down into urban myth-- but you can inject some common sense.
Turns out the woman was drinking up to 2.6 gallons of Coke a day (not to mention smoking 30 cigarettes). Coca Cola pointed out that drinking too much water is fatal and supported the coroner's findings that that there were other factors too (like the woman not seeking proper medical attention long before the fatal heart attack).
Some brands are lightning rods for certain kinds of media attention. Coke and McDonald's will probably always battle health claims. The key is knowing when to push back.
After all, many devoted Coke drinkers have lived to a ripe old age!
LOSER: I've talked about the cross-border branding problem before, but this week Oreo's botched breast feeding tie-in has underscored the issue like nothing before.
Basically, a concept for a South Korean ad that had a nursing baby holding an Oreo cookie seems to have gone viral.
Two issues: 1) what works for a brand in one country won't in another. In the past this wasn't such a problem but with the Internet, an image or concept that's shocking to another market will likely hit that market and the blowback can hurt the brand; 2) is this an Oreo viral campaign gone wrong?
Let's tackle #1 first. Folks, this one's an obvious problem for brands with a complicated solution. The problem is that multinational brands must play to different tastes to get pickup in different countries but sometimes doing this can really offend other consumers of the brand. The solution is almost always going to be case-by-case and means brands need to tread even more carefully, knowing that a single mis-fire in one country can stain the brand worldwide. One rule of thumb is this: stick to the core message of the brand and the key benefits delivered and you probably can't go too wrong.
#2 is something we don't know about. The question is how did this supposeduly preliminary concept get out? If it was leaked as part of a viral campaign, you have to ask yourself why the lunatics are running the asylum. After all, in the key market, the US, combining Oreos with breast feeding is obviously totally wrong headed. Yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity --this is it.
The lesson, if this is viral, is for Oreo to immediately institute a much tighter approvals process. It might seem too cautious and boring, but preserving a brand's value demands keeping the creatives in line!
Startups can shock. Mature brands need to avoid shock at all costs.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: Mature brands can't afford shock.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Ford (Lincoln) and Ball Parks
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Ford (Lincoln)
Loser: Ball Parks (Peanuts)
WINNER:
Ford's our winner this week. Why?
Their commitment to the Lincoln brand. Despite declining sales in recent years, the company understands that brands have deep value and if you can find a way of tapping that value, it is always better than throwing a brand away.
So how are they planning on doing this? By getting fresh blood in the form of a major new designer Max Wolff who seems to understand the Lincoln brand.
Here's a bit of the story from The New York Times (and the link):
With just 5.5 percent of the luxury car market and an aging customer base (average age: 65), Lincoln needs to attract buyers from other brands.
“This position is unique,” Mr. Wolff told me when I caught up with him and Ford’s global marketing vice president, Jim Farley, at this week’s New York International Auto Show, where a gleaming “ruby red” Lincoln MKZ was on display a few feet away. “I was hired to reinvent a storied brand,” Mr. Wolff said. “I had a blank canvas. Jim hired me to be a provocateur. A chance like this probably comes along only once in a lifetime.”Lincoln is indeed storied within design circles. When Ford recently acquired a rare Continental Mark II from 1956, Mr. Wolff had the car moved to the new Lincoln design studio in Dearborn, where it served as inspiration for a new generation of Lincoln designers. In 1956, Lincoln sold the Mark II for a then-exorbitant $10,000, about the same price as a Rolls-Royce and twice that of a Cadillac. Fewer than 3,000 were built. A model once owned by Elvis Presley sold at a charity auction in 1999 for $250,000.
The most iconic Lincoln design may be the 1961 model, considered the masterwork of the legendary designer Elwood Engel, which was seared into the American consciousness as the car in which John F. Kennedy was riding when he was shot in Dallas. It shared with the Mark II an elegant simplicity that was a sharp departure from Detroit’s recent taste for flamboyant tail fins. The 1961 Continental has attracted a cult following and has been featured in numerous films as well as the opening credits of the HBO series “Entourage."
"I look at the 1961 Continental and I see beautiful proportions, great details, elegant restraint, with just the right amount of chrome,” Mr. Wolff said. “In that sense, there are some similarities. If you look at the MKZ, you’ll see some of the same craftsmanship and detail, but it’s very simple. There’s not a bit of added surface language. It’s refined and elegant. But we’re not reimagining the past. It’s not a retro look. We wanted to break the mold. It’s provocative for Lincoln, and we believe it will change people’s perceptions.”
LOSER: Many baseball ball parks are banning chewing (or smokeless) tobacco --probably not such a big leap (after all, remember those old-fashioned "No expectorating" signs meant to stop the spitting-inclined?).
But peanuts? Can this actually be happening in America?
Apparently it is.
I’m the last person to make light of serious medical conditions, but the recent trend to ban peanuts at baseball parks because of people with peanut allergies has forced me to ask the question: “Are the inmates running the asylum?”
Not yet. So far, the move has been restricted to peanut-free seating, but Fenway banned peanuts for an entire 226-person section and the effort is growing to institute a complete ban.The argument by the anti-peanut people is that even the smell of peanuts can drive allergic reactions --wafting aromas of roasting peanuts are forbidden.
My sense is that this is lawyer-driven thinking on the part of ball parks --trying to stave off the inevitable law suit-- rather than comprehensive and commonsense marketing that remembers the old take me out to the ball game spirit of baseball and insists on the rights and experience of the majority.
Sure, peanut allergies have doubled in a decade in the US. But we're not talking about a school where people with peanut allergies have to attend. We're talking about a voluntary activity and the fact that being overly cautious for a very small number of voluntary attendees deprives baseball and the vast majority of fans of an integral part of the experience.
Fuggedaboutit!
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: Brands need to take into account all opinions and feedback but ultimately must be governed by the majority --not the minority.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Mega Millions and Pink Slime
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Mega Millions
Loser: Pink Slime
WINNER:
The winner this week offers a simple lesson in branding: when you sell something that people want, you don't need to do much to promote it --they will come to you.
That's what Mega Millions teaches us.
Fact is, that's what the lines waiting to buy a chance at half a billion dollars told any marketer last week.
Despite the outrageous odds against winning, human beings are drawn to the lottery. The bigger the jackpot, the more people come out of the woodwork to buy their chance.
From a marketing perspective, the promoter of Mega Millions must simply get out of the way. In other words, the branding must be straightforward (what can be more straightforward than naming your product exactly what it is --a chance to win mega millions?).
Next, the distribution must be there and almost nothing is as efficiently and widely distributed as these lottery tickets.
Bottom line: it's something people really want, has an attractive price point, clear branding and universal distribution with no supply chain problems.
LOSER: Pink slime has been in the news but anyone with an ear to the ground, a finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, should have seen this one coming a long time ago.
After all, people like Jamie Oliver and others (what about Fast Food Nation or Supersize Me?) have been drawing attention to processed meats for years.
Now the slime really has hit the fan and there's brand fallout.
One of the makers of pink slime, AFA Foods Inc., of King of Prussia, Pa., has filed for bankruptcy protection and directly blamed the pink slime controversy for it.
According to Matthew Enis, an editor at Supermarket News, “Almost every major supermarket chain has ordered their suppliers to stop using the ingredient in ground meat products sold to their stores”
Enis went on to say:“Unlike most other major meat suppliers, AFA wasn’t very diversified—no pork or chicken or steaks. Ground beef is pretty much all they do, so this was especially difficult for them.”
I want to stop right there. "Ground beef is pretty much all they do..."
That's poor branding. Why? Because a crisis like the outcry over pink slime doesn't just come out the blue. It might seem to, but there is almost always a warning, in fact, lots of warnings that smart brands heed and adapt to before things really go wrong.
First of all, as far as I can tell the pink slime industry or as they would call themselves the "lean finely textured beef" industry never took action to protect themselves or explain wy what they produced wasn't as bad as everyone said it was. They couldn't, you say, because it really is bad.
But fact is, if you take a closer look at almost any meat preparation, you're sure to turn a lot of stomachs. The entire industry is premised on people not taking that closer look --as are many finished product industries (at some point in the production process, processed dairy whips are said to be blue).
The lesson here is that the writing was on the wall for pink slime a long time ago and some action needed to be taken before the firestorm. It's possible that nothing would have helped, but from a company and brand perspective, it's better to take action and if necessary diversify out of the problem business before it's too late.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY-- Do you have a "pink slime" issue lurking in your business?
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Tommy Hilfiger and Belvedere Vodka
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Tommy Hilfiger
Loser: Belvedere Vodka
WINNER:
The winner this week is a simple testament to the power that is unleashed when two great brands come together.
I'm talking about Tommy Hilfiger's role on American Idol.
Talk about a great way for a brand that has terrific visibility but is struggling ratings-wise (American Idol) to harness another great brand that can use some access to a new demographic.
For Hilfiger, even if Idol continues to struggle despite him, it doesn't matter. His brand has been re-enforced by being seen as coming to the rescue and offering the best image consulting in the biz to a mass audience. He gets exposure while also re-enforcing brand equity.
Remember this comes after the negative coverage he received by ABC News regarding factory conditions. That story could have snow-balled out of control if Hilfiger hadn't immediately enacted a clear and decisive response that acknowledged and addressed the issue --again, excellent brandsmanship.
Well done!
LOSER: What can I or anyone else say about Belvedere Vodka?
The company has created a firestorm by making an offensive ad that manages to link the darkest side of alcohol and human behavior while simultaneously making fun of a horrible crime.
If anything has shown how devastating guerrilla marketing can be, it's this Belvedere debacle which saw the vodka company offer an ad that looked like it was depicting a rape and turning it into a joke.
There's a reason viral marketing is called viral -- after all, virus in the original Latin means poison. Yes, viral marketing can spread fast, but it spreads fast because it is potent and possibly poisonous.
All publicity is not good publicity and while the company name has been heard by more people than ever before, Belvedere Vodka, a supposedly premium vodka, has demoted its brand from the top shelf to the bottom.
It's hard to see what the company can do now other than slowly rebuild itsimage without triggering this episode every time. The company has responded quickly with the CEO making a statement, but, fact is, every time Belvedere is mentioned from here on in, this episode will almost certainly be remembered.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY-- Guerrilla marketing can spell disaster marketing if you're not careful.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Tide and AT&T
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Tide
Loser: AT&T
WINNER:
When people consistently steal your branded product because it is exceptionally easy to sell on the black market, you know you have brand equity that counts.
Folks, I'm talking about Procter & Gamble's legendary laundry detergent Tide and the supposed nationwide crime wave of Tide stealing.
There's question now of just how widespread this crime wave is, but there isn't a question that even if this were proven to be an urban myth, the myth tells us about just how established Tide is and reminds us about P&G's legendary marketing ability.
Even in tough times, the company is careful to protect brand equity and that really pays. An FBI agent commenting on the Tide crime wave story said that the reason why Tide gets stolen is because its brand value makes it sought after currency on the street.
In fact, some of the fact-checking on the Tide story after it went viral last week revealed an even more interesting fact. Tide stealing has been going on for an awfully long time.
As CVS spokesperson Mike DeAngelis said, "Theft of Tide is not a new issue in the retail industry.
Especially if you care about your brand but one of your customers is angry enough to take you to court.
Unfortunately, AT&T not only didn't do enough to make Mr. Matt Spaccerelli happy with his service, they rubbed his nose in his unhappiness by refusing to pay the very modest sum the judge decided upon when Spaccerelli won the case against them.
Wow! Talk about poor brand management (the company reversed itself at the end of the week but in my opinion the damage is already done).
This wasn't a case of a company defending itself against an unfair judgement. Spaccerelli wasn't taking them to the cleaners, he only wanted his money back and court costs.
But by dragging its feet instead of settling --or, let's face it, just being reasonable and letting Spaccerelli out of his contract in the first place which was all he wanted-- AT&T ended up drawing a lot of unwanted attention to their data "throttling" procedures. These procedures apparently mean that even though you might have an unlimited plan, it's not really unlimited because it can be reduced if AT&T chooses to.
There's nothing more to say. This is just brand management at its worst. End of story.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY-- Brands should never pick fights with their customers!
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Coke/Pepsi and Tebow
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Coke and Pepsi
Loser: Tim Tebow
WINNER:
Coke and Pepsi have done it again.
I'm talking about how the soda makers responded to what could have been a brand damaging debacle with confidence, speed and clarity.
Here's what happened (because the soda makers did such a good job with their response you might not have even heard of this one):
Basically, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer watchdog group, found low levels of a potential carcinogen, a chemical called 4-methylimidazole, in some samples of both Coke and Pepsi. The chemical was apparently a result of the caramel coloring manufacturing process.
The Center petitioned the FDA to ban the use of the caramel.
Even though the FDA itself announced that a consumer would have to drink hundreds if not thousands of cans of soda every day to even cause concern, Coke and Pepsi acted.
They announced that they would change the process by which the caramel color was manufactured. End of story.
Why does this make them the winner?
Because they didn't dawdle, they didn't get defensive, they were able to weigh the pros and cons and clearly --and I believe correctly-- recognized that not to take action against the perception of a carcinogen in their sodas would end up hurting their brands.
Brands need to act with this kind of decisiveness and great brands --brands that endure the test of time-- usually do act this way.
Yes, folks, I'm speaking about Tim Tebow and how it looks like even the possibility that Denver might win Peyton Manning has the town ready to bid last season's celebrity QB goodbye.
Here's how one Denver sports columnist, Brad Schmid, put it: "Tim Tebow led the Broncos to their first division title and first playoff win in more than five years. Yet I am as ready as anyone else to throw Tebow overboard for the first free-agent Hall Of Fame quarterback who happens to saunter into town."
He's not alone. A majority of Denverites (Denvernians?) seem ready to grab Manning at the expense of Tebow.
What explains this? It's that inflexible rule of sports branding, namely if you perform your brand gets stronger. Sure, there are other factors that can make you stand out and generate affection and there are many great performers who fail in the personality department, but the bottom line is usually performance.
That's why Tiger Woods has maintained his brand status despite all predictions to the contrary. Here's a longer take on the Tiger Woods situation with another link to a analysis of how performance brands work.
Fact is, Tebow won, but he never triumphed. Yes, he brought Denver to its first playoff win in five years, but the Super Bowl eluded his grasp. He performed marvelously, but the perception is that he faltered and that's what matters here. He's not a proven performance brand. Until he is Peyton Manning will win every time no matter how colorful Tebow is.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY-- Great brands act decisively.
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Rush Limbaugh and GM
Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |
|
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Winner: Rush Limbaugh
Loser: GM (The Volt)
WINNER:
Rush Limbaugh the man who rarely, if ever, apologizes has actually done so --and the speed of this apology puts him in the winner column.
Fact is, the bread and butter of his kind of talk radio is controversy and hurling abuse is part of the brand.
But in the face of an advertiser revolt and the reality that he had gone too far even for his audience, Limbaugh has moved quickly and publicly to deal with the crisis he created.
You know you've gone off track when your most devoted sponsors reject you.
Sleep Train, who has been with him for 25 years, pulled its support. It's not just about the money --though that's obviously a big part-- it's about what the decision says about your brand.
Sleep Train and others could obviously put up with a controversial Limbaugh in the past, but going after Fluke was different. It was meanspirited and even, arguably, not conservative (where were family values in the suggestion that people pay to watch sex?).
So while Limbaugh has taken some important action, he probably needs to do more. The next step might be bringing Fluke onto his show and apologizing to her on air, if she is open to it.
In that way, he can make amends and do even more to address the damage he has done.
The danger with veteran media personality brands like Limbaugh is that complacency can creep in, meaning that what should never be said, is said, whether because it's been a bad day or things simply have gotten out of control in front of the mic.
Again, the apology is a good start but it needs to be fortified by a little soul and brand searching.
Last year, GM predicted sales of 10,000 in 2011 and 60,000 in 2012. Guess what? Only 7,671 Volts sold in 2011 and so far this year only 1,626.
Now the company is idling the Volt production line. Good reaction, but where was the marketing common sense in all of this from the start?
After all, anyone should have been able to tell GM that at $33,500, the Volt's price point was simply not going to prove attractive to most Americans.
But what about the savings at the pump? Fuggedaboutit. With increased fuel efficiency and much lower price tags, many cars still retain the advantage in consumers' eyes.
Bottom line, you simply can't create demand and GM should know better.
And remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY-- You simply can't create demand.