Publishing 2.0: Marketing 2.0 Can’t Fix Bad Products
Mike Masnick
· 3 years ago
Huh? I don't get it. If they're selling what people don't want to buy, people won't buy it. But... people *are* buying what GM is selling. Yes, GM is having some problems, but to say that there's a general consumer distate for GM's products is disproven easily just by looking at the number of cars GM sells.
You and I may not be fans of their products, but to suggest that consumers don't want GM vehicles because a few folks put together negative ads is a huge jump.
chartreuse
· 3 years ago
GM blew it by not responding to critics. They should have HIGHLIGHTED the hateful ads and said, "These folks don't like us. They obviously don't know about our Hybrid and Envirometally friendly cars." And then led to a link with info about their Hybrid cars.
If you put consumers in charge of a broken, old brand all they will do is tell you that it’s broken and old.
Great line (probably the best I've read from you ever) but the brand isn't broken and old. Only the perception of it is. They had a chance to dispell that and didn't.
Scott Karp
· 3 years ago
Most of GM's products ARE inferior -- they are poor quality compared to Toyotas and Hondas and/or they are gas guzzlers that are turning off more and more people as the price of gas goes up and environmental consciousness spreads.
I live in the DC area, which is certainly not representative of a lot of the country, but you don't see ANY GM vehicles here -- this market has basically abandoned them, and a brand/image makeover is NOT going to change that. Only a complete overhaul of their product line and product quality has a prayer of saving them.
Ulrich Tekniepe
· 3 years ago
It’s not about "facing the reality of consumer distaste for your products". They had 40 and more years for that. While GM incl. Chevy lost half of its US market share (peak in 1962: 52 %, today 26 %) they should have realized that distaste. They didn't have a clue. They built cars that couldn't compete with Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Sales prices told the people, "we don't want to sell this car to you, we want to get rid of it". They spent billions on advertising and imagined their Chevys would be loved. And what happened to the minds of the target audiences? They built their own chevy brand image. That's what we see in the customer-made commercials. Rule: brand image belongs to the customers and target audiences because it lives in their minds. And if you have a bad product, and bad brand management, and bad advertising, and smart competition over decades ....
Fraser
· 3 years ago
IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER because you can’t sell what people don’t want to buy.
By empowering the people GM can show that they listen, that they're responsive, etc. And this will enable them to sell. Although the time horizon for this is large for a company of GM's size, it can be done.
Great comment by Chartreuse - a perfect way to handle the situation, and GM even had the mechanism to do it instantly: their corporate blog. However, I disagree about the brand. It is broken and needs to be fixed among many other things. You should also know that in this case perception is reality.
Scott Karp
· 3 years ago
By empowering the people GM can show that they listen, that they’re responsive, etc. And this will enable them to sell.
Fraser, with all due respect, that is so much Web 2.0 huey. People buy because they want the product, not because the company "listens" and empowers them to muck with their ads.
If GM really wants to show that they're responsive, they don't need 2.0 publicity stunts, they need to make BETTER CARS!
All Comments
You and I may not be fans of their products, but to suggest that consumers don't want GM vehicles because a few folks put together negative ads is a huge jump.
They should have HIGHLIGHTED the hateful ads and said, "These folks don't like us. They obviously don't know about our Hybrid and Envirometally friendly cars." And then led to a link with info about their Hybrid cars.
Great line (probably the best I've read from you ever) but the brand isn't broken and old. Only the perception of it is. They had a chance to dispell that and didn't.
I live in the DC area, which is certainly not representative of a lot of the country, but you don't see ANY GM vehicles here -- this market has basically abandoned them, and a brand/image makeover is NOT going to change that. Only a complete overhaul of their product line and product quality has a prayer of saving them.
By empowering the people GM can show that they listen, that they're responsive, etc. And this will enable them to sell. Although the time horizon for this is large for a company of GM's size, it can be done.
Great comment by Chartreuse - a perfect way to handle the situation, and GM even had the mechanism to do it instantly: their corporate blog. However, I disagree about the brand. It is broken and needs to be fixed among many other things. You should also know that in this case perception is reality.
Fraser, with all due respect, that is so much Web 2.0 huey. People buy because they want the product, not because the company "listens" and empowers them to muck with their ads.
If GM really wants to show that they're responsive, they don't need 2.0 publicity stunts, they need to make BETTER CARS!