Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjlm
I can give you the “MBA” response to this. The cost to launch a new brand is ridiculously more expensive than increasing awareness of an existing brand, so unless a brand is damaged beyond repair (Aztek), it is typically more cost effective to revive or in some cases reposition an existing and known brand name (Charger) than start all over with a new one. We’re talking magnitudes of ten. This is essential to the Ford strategy behind making Mustang, Bronco, and F150 umbrella brands. It’s easier to get traction with “F150 Lightning” than just “Lightning”. Same with “Mustang Mach E” instead of just “Mach E”. Mustang Mach E communicates that it is supposed to be sporty, not that it will look and feel like a Mustang coupe. They are expanding the use of known and well respected brands. GM overused this in the 80s and 90s when they slapped Cutlass on damn near anything with rubber tires.
There was a lot of lobbying in the Planning community at GM to call the performance sedan “Chevelle”. We lost.
|
Ok aside from the cost; I can see that a new, clean sheet product would cost considerably more to launch. Why doesn't GM see the long range aspect of a new nameplate. Many of the revived nameplates we've seen have had a relatively short life. If that shortened life of a product didn't prove to be profitable, then GM may have lost out on some of its investment. Choosing a new product and a new name that catches on in the market will only mean profit and good things for GM. I'm sure the resurrected "Impala" made some money for Chevy, but in the end it left the market as a tired and obscured product.
Chevy needs to have at least a couple of products that sparks imagination to its customers, and not just nostalgia. Nostalgia is nice, but at the same time the market has changed, and products will need to reflect this. Well at least that's what I think.............