[Big Lebowski]

Not to be overlooked, I can't help but think that the drop in 2020 Camaros was greatly influenced by the introduction of the C8 Corvette and some of the drop in 2020 Camaros was likely captured by the C8 Corvette.

There are a lot of fans of the Corvette & Camaro (including me) who admire both for different reasons. C8 Corvette orders are so backed up you have people paying $40k over sticker, and some of those buyers were undoubtedly Camaro buyers. Not all, but some. Just my $.02

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

Not to be overlooked, I can't help but think that the drop in 2020 Camaros was greatly influenced by the introduction of the C8 Corvette and some of the drop in 2020 Camaros was likely captured by the C8 Corvette.

There are a lot of fans of the Corvette & Camaro (including me) who admire both for different reasons. C8 Corvette orders are so backed up you have people paying $40k over sticker, and some of those buyers were undoubtedly Camaro buyers. Not all, but some. Just my $.02

Oh I don’t know...... Camaros are attainable by people with pretty much any half decent job. You have to be in the next couple of tax brackets to buy a new Corvette, even the C7 started at about $55k but few if any were actually built like that. A 1LT with no options. You could get a new 1SS Camaro (before they brought out the LT1) with the same engine for $20k less. That’s a big difference.

Plus Corvettes were always special. Few people use them as every day drivers. People use Camaros as everyday drivers.

There’s definitely a difference in Camaro and Corvette buyers. Maybe not the buyers themselves sometimes but definitely the intent on how to use the car.

[cellsafemode]

it's less about cross shopping and more about the image and reputation that comes from not being the "1st child"

People can say they drive a mustang and that has a different connection than people saying they drive a camaro vs that they drive a corvette.

That's a big problem marketing-wise.

It doesn't matter that those people you're talking to are never buying a 60+k car.

The only time that really dived out of that negative connection was when the camaro was front and center in a major motion picture series. (and to a lesser extent, riding the coat tails of it's famous sister car the firebird during knightrider's run).

That's why i see the future of the camaro being a cuv like the mach-e. It retains the performance connection that camaro does have as name and puts it on a much more widely acceptable vehicle type ...vs creating a new name for the cuv or using one that had previously been associated with cars that were not marketing well to younger people.

edit: also, gotta remember, the camaro's avg age of owner is over 50. that overlaps well with the corvette. So the idea that the camaro is marketed to younger people and priced so they can buy it doesn't get reflected in reality. In reality, it seems it's marketed as aggressive and youthful so that older buyers can feel better about buying it when they can't afford to buy a corvette or a corvette is too pretentiously expensive for their liking. Obviously though, those people are deciding to spend their money on other cars. Throwing the camaro name on a cuv to capture them again has the same idea. It's not to win over the youngins directly... who by metrics do not seem to be buying these kinds of cars (at least new).

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Even if I accept that argument as sort-of working for the Camaro's case specifically . . . it doesn't explain the absence of advertising for mainstream cars such as the Malibu and the Fusion. Which goes right back to the only advertising people get to see is for SUVs and trucks.

Have you noticed that on Chevrolet's official website, the kinds of vehicles your cursor is closest to after selecting 'Vehicles' are the SUVs and the Trucks. No way is that by accident; it's subtly steering every online shopper to those kinds of vehicles.


Norm

I think it comes down to a situation where companies are fighting for better recognition among the vehicle types people already want to buy. What we keep debating here is spending money to let people know a car exists. You see ads for trucks and SUVs because people are tripping over each other to buy trucks and SUVs so the brands are going “pick me, pick me”. People aren’t tripping over each other to buy sports cars, so there’s no sense spending money to lure the 7 people who are.

The ads are there because people are buying them. Our conversations tend to stray towards “if only there were ads, people would buy them.” Nope.

[Big Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Oh I don’t know...... Camaros are attainable by people with pretty much any half decent job. You have to be in the next couple of tax brackets to buy a new Corvette, even the C7 started at about $55k but few if any were actually built like that. A 1LT with no options. You could get a new 1SS Camaro (before they brought out the LT1) with the same engine for $20k less. That’s a big difference.

Plus Corvettes were always special. Few people use them as every day drivers. People use Camaros as everyday drivers.

There’s definitely a difference in Camaro and Corvette buyers. Maybe not the buyers themselves sometimes but definitely the intent on how to use the car.

I've owned and daily driven Corvettes (8 months out of the year) since 2005. I've found most Corvette drivers and Camaro drivers, are VERY similar. While, I'll acknowledge the average Corvette owner may be a little older than the average Camaro owner (and therefore, likely more financially stable), the groups are very similar.

As for price, an entry Stingray C7 (and now C8) are cheaper than a ZL1 by a long shot. But apples to apples (entry to entry, loaded vs loaded models), I agree the Corvette is pricier. Now, even more so. A loaded STINGRAY costs as much as an outgoing Z06. Hard pill to swallow...that and they eliminated the third pedal.

Having said all that, the C8 has brought in a different crowd. That is good for the brand and the future of Corvette, but man, the forum snobbery is off the charts.

[Rock-It Man]

For internal combustion diehards, your forever car should be something with as little electronics as possible, so you can keep it alive with available parts. A 20 year-old 2016 Camaro will be a boat anchor when the ECM fails.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

For internal combustion diehards, your forever car should be something with as little electronics as possible, so you can keep it alive with available parts. A 20 year-old 2016 Camaro will be a boat anchor when the ECM fails.

Not necessarily, the enthusiast community can keep good things alive for a very long time. Here's a case point: the Amiga computer has been dead for over 20 years, yet there is an emulator for it that is still kept alive and current, and it's way better than my ultra expensive Amiga I bought back in 1996.

Of course I know an emulator for a small computer is not a car, this is just an example to illustrate that in 20 years these buses, communication protocols and hardware modules will probably be considered child's play to understand and easy to refabricate in a different form, even though the original chips and components may no longer be available.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

For internal combustion diehards, your forever car should be something with as little electronics as possible, so you can keep it alive with available parts. A 20 year-old 2016 Camaro will be a boat anchor when the ECM fails.

There are countless companies who rebuild and reprogram/reflash ECMs of cars from all years. They have all the proper equipment and factory software to do any ECM you need.

In 20 years they will certainly have all the equipment and software to refurbish the ECM or any of the other modules from a 2019 Camaro 2SS

[Road_Warrior85]

i see often about how advertising is just a waste and serves no purpose...

It is definitely too late to try to save the Camaro through advertising, I agree there.
But you cannot tell me that Dodge's 8 year old Challenger just all of a sudden became popular just because they put the Hellcat engine in it.
Dodge commercials were awesome, Theyy really pushed the octane and adrenaline, and they had the Fast & Furious series..... and they were pushing product placement on Fast & Loud as well.

That marketing and advertisement gave the cool factor to an old car. Now look at it.

The story that Chevy INTENTIONALLY made Camaro the best performing car, at the expense of everything else a car is expected to do, sounds plausible, but I have my doubts.
The notion that Chevy would intentionally sacrifice sales to please some purists is hard to buy into. Why intentionally throw in the towel to Ford and Dodge?


The Camaro did not blow up in 2009 because the world was so happy it was back. The Transformers movie line had a huge impact there.
Am I to believe that Chevy took that for granted and never accounted for that free advertising? Those movies fade out and so does the car.



Side note...
Chevy advertises SUV's and Trucks because that is where the profit margin is. It isn't about what the consumer wants or needs, its about what makes the most money. Those two sell the best, so why advertise? Or do they sell better because of advertising? ..... Mix of both, but either way, thats what GM wants to push, because they make more money per vehicle selling SUVs and Trucks than by selling cars,

[Martinjlm]

Why did Challenger / Charger sales take off? Because for almost two years, Dodge offered $199/mo leases on 5.7L models in major markets. A lot of people showed up at the dealership to take advantage of that. A few no doubt got upsold into a ScatPack.

As for “free advertising”? Not hardly. It’s called “product placement”, and GM Marketing paid a pretty penny to feature Camaro and a number of other GM products in the Transformer movies. Product placement is usually much more effective than advertising. I bet everyone here that’s of a certain age knows what model car Starsky and Hutch drove. Even though it’s been a dead brand for 20-30 years. Ford paid a lot for that.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Why did Challenger / Charger sales take off? Because for almost two years, Dodge offered $199/mo leases on 5.7L models in major markets. A lot of people showed up at the dealership to take advantage of that. A few no doubt got upsold into a ScatPack.

As for “free advertising”? Not hardly. It’s called “product placement”, and GM Marketing paid a pretty penny to feature Camaro and a number of other GM products in the Transformer movies. Product placement is usually much more effective than advertising. I bet everyone here that’s of a certain age knows what model car Starsky and Hutch drove. Even though it’s been a dead brand for 20-30 years. Ford paid a lot for that.

Everyone of that same age or maybe a bit younger also knows the Duke Boys drove a 1969 Dodge Charger. But Chrysler did not pay a dime for that -- when the show debuted it was a 10 year old car at a time when Chrysler could barely afford to keep the lights on let alone pay for product placement. Warner Brothers literally wanted that car so bad they pulled registration records for the state of California and went door to door offering owners offers they couldn't refuse for the Chargers in their garages.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior85

The Camaro did not blow up in 2009 because the world was so happy it was back. The Transformers movie line had a huge impact there.

The movie had a big impact, but the car itself was already a hit before the first movie.

GM debuted the prototype of what became the 5th gen Camaro at the 2006 Detroit International Autoshow with no public comment on whether they'd actually build it. That very prototype actually toured every Autoshow in North America that year to "gauge interest"...... it was off the charts. That summer after a ton of questions to other top brass at GM with the "no comment" response, Rick Wagoner said something to the effect of "yes we're in fact going to build the new Camaro - we're not brain dead"

The movie actually came out in 2007 - AFTER GM had toured the prototype and Wagoner let it out they're building it.

So yes the excitement for the car was already there before the movie. And would have been as strong even without the movie, as there were a ton of lifelong Camaro fans ( ) who didn't give a hoot about the movie who were THRILLED to see it's return.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

The movie had a big impact, but the car itself was already a hit before the first movie.

GM debuted the prototype of what became the 5th gen Camaro at the 2006 Detroit International Autoshow with no public comment on whether they'd actually build it. That very prototype actually toured every Autoshow in North America that year to "gauge interest"...... it was off the charts. That summer after a ton of questions to other top brass at GM with the "no comment" response, Rick Wagoner said something to the effect of "yes we're in fact going to build the new Camaro - we're not brain dead"

The movie actually came out in 2007 - AFTER GM had toured the prototype and Wagoner let it out they're building it.

So yes the excitement for the car was already there before the movie. And would have been as strong even without the movie, as there were a ton of lifelong Camaro fans ( ) who didn't give a hoot about the movie who were THRILLED to see it's return.

“As strong”? Probably not. I remember driving Thor (Fbodfather’s yellow CTF Camaro SS) on Daytona Beach before launch. I didn’t get “oooooh look at the Camaro”. What I got was “Bumblebee!!!!!!!!!!!!”

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by Number 3

“As strong”? Probably not. I remember driving Thor (Fbodfather’s yellow CTF Camaro SS) on Daytona Beach before launch. I didn’t get “oooooh look at the Camaro”. What I got was “Bumblebee!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Yeah that was AFTER the movie came out.

The summer of 2006 was a year BEFORE the movie came out and people were already crazy about the Camaro concept.