Too much time…

June 14, 2010 · 5 comments

Did you see the New York Times article where — believe it or not — there was a memo circulating around GM HQ instructing their employees to “communicate our brand as Chevrolet”?

In other words…NOT as “Chevy.” Good grief.

How would your organization like to have a nickname…a BRAND, for goodness sakes…as universally known as Chevy is for Chevrolet?

My friends at Chevrolet dealerships know a lot more about this than I would ever claim…however, it seems to me this is another example of a big corporation removed from its customers and the good people who sell and service their products in cities everywhere.

An op-ed piece in the Times said yesterday the memo was a “rough draft,” and that GM had “backtracked.” Yet, it also noted Alan S. Batey, vice president for Chevrolet sales and service, was one of the two executives who had signed the original memo.

I wrote in “Collapse of Distinction” that we spend more time thinking about brand building and positioning — in part — because it’s often more interesting and easier to do that, rather than working hard to enhance experiences for customers. I think that’s exactly the case here.

If executives at Chevy are spending time sitting around contemplating whether or not their classic, historic nickname deters the building of the brand…they’ve got too much time on their hands.

My simple suggestion to them would be that their efforts would be better spent working with their dealers to create and execute the steps required to deliver “Ultimate Customer Experiences” ® to the customers and prospects of Chevrolet.

Not a bad way for ALL of us to spend a bit more time…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • http://www.rebelbrown.com Rebel Brown

    Mornin Scott

    I laughed as I read this post. I see this kind of behavior in my turnaround clients so often. In most cases, I think it's less about too much time on their hands and more about deer in the headlights syndrome…. they've been caught in BIG Gravity, crashed and burned and are no so overwhelmed they can't see clearly. They are so focused on trying to get things back under control that they do silly things – just to feel like they have control. I can just hear the conversation…

    Marketing Exec: Our brand has an 'old' image in the market, so let's change the brand. Let's return to the original, to our roots. That will show the market we're serious about bringing back the old and trusted GM.
    Other execs: That's a great idea, it will demonstrate that we're serious about change….

    Blah Blah. You'd be amazed how often I find turnarounds doing similar things – the first thing they ALL want to do is “rebrand” – which usually means a new name (or variant of the current name), new colors and a new logo. Their logic goes something like this: With a new brand we are now a new company and everyone will see we're changing. We can leave our failure behind what that old name and those old colors.

    Sigh – that is such OLD SCHOOL marketing but its a status quo approach that is so ingrained in corporate DNA.
    ATT did the same thing with their new tagline – you wrote about that one too.

    It's tough to step out of the status quo and kneejerk reactions that are a) easy to accomplish and b) give a semblance of control. It's even harder to step up and face the real issues – like our products are out of date, our processes are behind the times and we need major change in the fundamentals of our business.

    The facelift is an easy and safe way to look different. Problem is that it's still the same company underneath. A full body change out is whats called for – but that takes a clear srategy, committed leadership and a lot of market expertise – and it takes listening to customers.

    Let's just hope that GM (and Chevy) finds a way to evolve into that new company – before they become a permanent dinosaur with a new logo on their tombstone.

    Great post as always my friend!

    reb

  • http://twitter.com/Harechevy Ccole@HareChevy

    Scott I could go on and on about this subject and did the morning the memo was posted by the Times. Needless to say my bosses and I were less than thrilled. I instantly emailed the second name on the memo. I have been told that the memo was meant to remind employees that when talking to emerging markets make sure and stay consistent with the Chevrolet name. I could go on and on and on and on and tangents upon tangents pop up. Not sure if the decision was the higher ups who signed it or the new ad agency they hired but either way it was a very poor decision to say the least. GM has made huge strides recently so Im extremely puzzled at this as alot of what seemed to plague this memo was exactly what I was congratulating them on just weeks prior. Hopefully this was just an isolated brain fart and the kudos they have earned will keep up with more movement in the proper direction. nnChris TheisennDirector of Digital CommunicationsnHare Chevrolet (but our website is http://harechevy.com and we arent changing it)

  • http://topsy.com/trackback?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmckainviewpoint.com%2F%3Fp%3D2112?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention http://mckainviewpoint.com/?p=2112utm_sourcepingback — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]

  • BrianYanish

    It's great when companies listens to the EXPERTS talk and not the customers. What's next, don't say GM, it has to be General Motors. And we gave the money, why????

    Brian

  • http://www.rescuemarketing.com/blog/ Mark Riffey

    We've chatted about this already, but it just hit me that there once was a 'Chevy II' (aka Nova). My dad has an old employee-only anniversary lamp from Chevrolet that has historic Chevrolet stuff on the shade (dates, milestone accomplishments). “Chevy” is all over it.

Previous post:

Next post: