Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Sorry again but they aren’t stupid, they just have data that would suggest a TV commercial for a car with very limited appeal would be ineffective. You see they have data on why people buy Camaros, but more importantly why they don’t. And Therein lies the problem. If you have data that says people do buys Camaro because it’s the best performance car in the segment, but don’t buy because the visibility is bad (thanks Ed Wellburn) no cool TV commercial will convince someone to go “ohhhhh I thought visibility sucks but The Rock says it’s a cool car in that new commercial so I’ll buy one anyway.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjlm
I’ll co-sign all of this, including and especially the part about working with and around some truly brilliant people in Powertrain development and Vehicle development.
|
I couldn't agree more about the lack of class in baseless and unfounded name calling.
As to the highlighted part, however, I beg to differ. One fundamental function of targeted ads is exactly to bridge such gaps in perception, these well-known shortcomings of the Camaro design aren't inherently fatal. You are grossly underestimating the herd mentality that governs a large segment of this late 20th, early 21st century modern population.
Oh, and if GM really, really wanted the Camaro to succeed, they could've spent the budget allocated to the completely uncalled for redesigns on addressing these gaps. I think the Corvette is the only sports car GM wants to keep alive going forward.
This is a story similar to what I witnessed with Betamax vs VHS, Commodore Amiga vs IBM PC and many other examples. Clearly superior technologies can very easily lose out due to perceptions that could have been swayed effectively with advertising/marketing (inept financial management also contributing to their demise in some cases, but I have no idea whether or not that is applicable here).