April 4th, 2006
Marketing 2.0 Can’t Fix Bad Products
Everybody’s buzzing about GM’s handing over control of its ads to consumers –- and about the outpouring of negative consumer-created GM ads. And EVERYBODY’S missing the point.
Mainstream media and marketing think that GM screwed up by ceding control of its brand.
The blogosphere and Web 2.0 fanclub think GM did the right thing by embracing consumer control and drinking lots of web 2.0 koolaid.
The REAL story here is that GM’s products are fossilizing dinosaurs and no amout of marketing 1.0 or 2.0 is going to save them from extinction.
All GM did was accelerate the process of their outdated products going down in flames through the “hyper-efficiency” of 2.0 — as Umair puts it:
This is life at the edge. This is why the edge is hyperefficient. Companies with largely obsolete products and strategies suddenly face huge selection pressure when they shift to the edge; they have to begin learning how to adapt, or they die.
But to give GM credit for any intelligence here is completely wrong — Mike from Techdirt:
It’s happened so often that they must have expected it. In fact, by then being open about it, GM is getting even more mileage from this campaign, and making it appear that they are more open to listening to those who disagree with them.
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing, it’s about facing the reality of consumer distaste for your products. GM empowered the public to discuss how bad its products are, and that’s what the public did — did GM expect this or should they have shut it down? — IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER because you can’t sell what people don’t want to buy.
If you put consumers in charge of a broken, old brand all they will do is tell you that it’s broken and old.
Powered by 
Design by 
Scott Karp seems to miss the point again. No one I’ve read so far seems to have mentionned Mastercard’s very similar Priceless campaign, though. This is your classic “blank: 50$, blank blank: 100$, blank blank blank: priceless” premise, except you fill in the
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ….
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!
abspielt“. Das passt in das Bild eines unaufhaltsamen Untergangs. Schuld haben übrigens nicht die Japaner, auch wenn sie die Decke von den Schlafenden gezogen haben. Sondern die, die weitergeschlafen haben. Weitere interessante Links:can’t fix bad products Church of the customer blog Kommentare [0] |
[…] Source: http://publishing2.com/2006/04/04/marketing-20-cant-fix-bad-products/ […]
So the topic of the day seems to be a whole bunch of broo-ha regarding GM’s new make-your-own-Chevy-ad campaign. Umair sums up pretty much what I think about this.Scott Karp seems to miss the point again. No one I’ve read so far seems to have mentionned Mastercard’s very similar Priceless campaign, though. This is your classic “blank: 50$, blank blank: 100$, blank blank blank: priceless” premise, except you fill in the