From: Kent Spaulding (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 09 2000 - 11:13:09 PDT
Now I have to assume that you are joking... the insight and the prius are prime
The prius and impact are NOT ELECTRIC. The PT Cruiser, Focus, and the Beetle are
gasoline powered cars - and are stylish. That's why they sell. Where's the
hybrid PT Cruiser? That would be saying something... but rather the hybrids are
butt ugly with ridiculous names and positioning. They are over-priced small cars
that are built in limited quantities because the automotive industry want to
appear sympathetic to consumer demand for efficient cars, without pissing off the
oil industry... it's simple.
Let's look an eletric that hit the market a few years back, chevrolet impact. Do
you want to drive limited range 25K 2-seater that you have to wait 18 months to
get without a test-drive that is called the impact? Please.
But, we do agree that marketing cannot be proven to drive sales - and yet
marketers responsible for campaigns like the iMac and the New Beetle (same
person, now) pull in the big bucks. Of course, who couldn't sell those designs?
Which is right back where we started... electrics and even hybrids are not
designed to have mass-market appeal.
As an aside, the Focus and New Beetle were designed by the same man - go figure.
> In a message dated 9/9/00 10:10:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << Fair enough - after posting I thought "well, duh, gasoline is convenient,
> and so are SUVs. That convenience is worth the trade-off to a lot of
> I was really after the point that the oil and automotive industries use
> psychological ploys to maintain the Joe and Jane Publics' belief that
> electric cars are not desirable.
> in other words, if joe and jane public don't want electric cars, it's due to
> "psychological ploys"? i wonder why toyota and honda would invest so much in
> development and advertising to introduce us to the prius and insight? i
> checked out the insight, with hybrid elec motor/gas engine, at a local honda
> dealership. demand is so high and availability so low that they were
> charging between $23 - $25 k for a $17k car. ford intro'd the focus last
> year, running between $15 - $17 - though not electric, and "liesurely" in
> pick-up, it's cute. demand is high, as it is for the bug and the pt cruiser
> and all the new (do you people read magazines?) little cars intro'd lately.
> as will be for outback-style sport-ute wagons, as evidenced by the BMW's
> foray into that market.
> i have trouble with the concept that advertising drives buying, rather than
> the other way around. marketing is about finding out what people want,
> getting that info to advertising, then go go go. Not the other way around,
> as you seem to think. car advertising is BRAND advertising - why a ford
> truck and not a chevy truck - not "hey buy a great big hunk o' steel and
> pollute." even though profits are high on suv's, i see tons on the showroom
> floor and on used car lots - indicating some degree of market saturation.
> there's a fork archived bit i wrote - had to be two years ago - about the
> intro of two new LEXUS suv models. i couldn't believe the market then would
> support so many luxury suvs. it has, but for how long? big offroad vehicles
> are what people want now, but i suspect a trend for average-car drivers is
> developing for cheaper "disposable" cars, like bugs and focuses, the kind
> their owners or leasors will trade in every two years for new and shiny. on
> the keeper side, or for people with $$$$$$, performance cars will reign.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 09 2000 - 11:23:21 PDT