If GM Has a Brand, It's General Misery

"How Detroit drove into a ditch" is the headline of an article in the Oct. 25 issue of The Wall Street Journal. When the most respected business publication in the world writes a 2,000-word article on the problems of the U.S. automobile industry, you have to assume it knows what it's writing about. Especially since the author of the article is the Journal's former Detroit bureau chief and a man who is writing a book about America's car culture. I wonder. Nowhere in this entire article is a mention of Detroit's failure to build powerful brands. Rather the blame is placed almost totally on problems in the factories. "Detroit failed to grasp -- or at least to address -- the fundamental nature of its Japanese competition. Japan's car companies, and more recently the Germans and Koreans, gained a competitive advantage largely by forging an alliance with American workers." That's why Japan's car companies are successful? They forged an alliance with American workers? (It's nice to have happy, intelligent, productive employees, but to credit them with building a successful car company is stretching it a bit.) Lacking personality It seems to me that the fundamental nature of Detroit's Japanese competition is its ability to build brands. Toyota stands for reliability, Scion for youth, Prius for hybrid, Lexus for luxury. But what does Saturn stand for? Or Chevrolet? Or Pontiac? Or Buick? Or Cadillac? It's not for lack of trying. In 2007, the U.S. automobile industry spent $4.6 billion on advertising. That's 3.3% of total U.S advertising spending and 5.9% of total U.S. network TV spending. For all that money, you might think the U.S. automobile industry would have done a lot of brand building. I wonder. Take a recent 12-page Saturn insert with the headline "Rethink." Each of Saturn's five models encouraged automobile prospects to doing a little cogitating.

If GM Has a Brand, It's General Misery

Featured Stories