A couple of days ago, Edward Niedermeyer over at The Truth About Cars (TTAC) wrote a post titled “What’s Wrong With This Picture? Brand, What Brand?” The picture was the one shown below and was a linked to my original post reporting that Porsche had produced their 250,000th Cayenne. A pretty significant milestone.
True to the nature of TTAC (and one of the reasons I enjoy the site and participate) a spirited debate ensued in the comments from fellow TTAC readers. The opinions are fairly polarized and there doesn’t seem to be much of a middle ground – kind of a “love it or hate it” atmosphere. The most recent comment comes from TTAC’s founder, Robert Farago, in response to a post I had made refuting a statement that the Cayenne is the beginning of the end for Porsche. Robert said,
Branding relates to hard-wired human psychology. The tighter (simpler, more focused) a brand, the more powerful it is. Memorable. Compelling. That sort of thing.
The more it tries to do/be, the weaker it becomes. IBM was mainframe computers. Then laptops. Then consulting (”solutions”). Then extinct. (Ish.)
Pontiac? Buick? Yes, even Mercedes and Porsche. All these brands have lost/are losing their appeal. You can run but you can’t hide from basic human nature.
Here’s my response:
Robert,
I don’t disagree with you, at least not completely. However, I think a “brand” or “branding” can do/be quite a bit and still be “tight”. Most of what constitutes a brand, the sum of its parts if you will, are intangible.
According to David Ogilvy (one of the more famous marketers of my generation), “the intangible sum of a product’s attributes: its name, packaging, and price, its history, its reputation, and the way it’s advertised.” These are the things that define a brand.
In some ways, the whole Cayenne/Panamera argument reminds me of Apple as they started to evolve from more than just a computer company for graphic designers and digital artists. In the early days, Apple had a die-hard audience and core user-group that had eyes only for the Mac. As the company/brand grew and expanded, more and more product lines were added and their audience widened beyond just this core group of “purists”. This did not dilute the brand, it only served to make it stronger.
I think the Cayenne has added to the Porsche brand (through it’s performance characteristics and Motorsport achievements) and expanded on the good doctor’s original intent for the company. “I couldn’t find the
sports carSUV of my dreams, so I built it myself.”
As for Robert’s statement about Porsche having lost or losing it’s brand appeal, I know at least 250,000 people that would disagree.
Check out the original post on TTAC and let me know what you think. Post your comments here or post them there. I’ll see them either way.
Related Posts
Porsche Chooses a Diesel to Mark Production of the 250,000th Cayenne
Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid and Panamera Information
Porsche Cayenne Diesel
How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cayenne GTS
Torture Testing the Porsche Cayenne Transsyberia
[Source: TTAC, PorschePurist]
View Comments (5)
Is Ed the guy that said, "These cars are okay, but I like the older ones more because they're more vintage." On one of your posts a while back?? Because that logic seems no different than saying one loves trees because they "have wood in them". There's no passion or point to such an argument. The 997 today bears little resemblance to the 60's 911s. Is there an engine in the back? Yes. Is the 997 still rear-wheel drive? Well, sometimes. But the newer cars weigh almost twice that of the original icon. The engines are no longer air-cooled. Looking through the scrutinizing eye of a Porsche Purist and taking into account most of what people seem to expect from the perfect Porsche, Porsche currently produces no production models whatsoever that fall in line with what a Porsche "should be".
Hello, is this the leg factory? Yes, I'm calling to see if you have anything available for the classic 911 fans. What's that, you say? The 911 wasn't even original itself?? And Dr. Porsche himself said he basically made a super sporty VW Beetle and called it his own?? So there's nothing for the 911 fans to even stand on? Okay, thanks!
I'm all for passion towards a brand, but who do these people think they're kidding when they tell me a Cayenne or a 944 or Cayman isn't a "real Porsche" while juicing over their 911s? The only production Porsche -- and I'll say that again -- the ONLY production Porsche that was 100% designed from the ground up BY Porsche was the 928. This is a pretty well-known fact that a lot of people seem to miss, even though it's seen, plain as day in every comprehensive Porsche history book I've skimmed through -- 356s, 911s were VW-derived. 912s too, a la guilt from association. 914s and 924s were both failed VW projects Porsche took over. 944s and 968s were just the 924's next steps. Boxster designers cited the 356 as inspiration for their latest work, so I'll pretend to be the Spanish Inquisition and say they're guilty of being unoriginal as well.
So, if we're going to be technical about all this, and evaluate what a Porsche should be based solely from what Porsche has constructed all on its own, it would be a front-engine (oh, water-cooled, btw) rear-wheel drive sport coupe and the engine wouldn't be the famous flat six but instead a V-8. In case there are some 911 guys out there whose heads haven't exploded, it's also worth noting that 85% of all 928s had (and I hate hearing this one myself) automatic transmissions. Based off of this, the as yet un-released Panamera is more in line with what Porsches "should be" than the 997s!
What's my point through all of this? In the end, Porsche has made some great cars in its day, and continues to do so today. I'll go ahead and steal one of BMW's old slogans for their Z cars and say that cars like the 911, 951, 914-6, 928 GTS, GT2s, etc etc etc were all designed primarily to haul ONE thing (ass). The latest Porsche/VW projects have been designed to haul a few things -- and financially speaking, this has led to Porsche being VERY successful, in spite of harsh economic times. In fact, the Cayenne is Porsche's best-seller in North America. I say, if it helps fund more research to improve upon and refine the current and next gen 911s, what's to complain about? It all goes back to Porsche roots in the end.
And for those who argue they see Porsche as a brand that is severely weakening from introducing too many different models, I ask you this: "Are you sure you're not looking at BMW?" Not to say the Bimmer crowd ever set to compete directly with Porsche, but if you want to talk about watering down the brand, let's at least put forth a good example. BMW's market now competes with the hot hatch/compact crowd (1-Series), the sport sedan crowd (3-Series), the luxury sedan crowd (5-Series), the luxury coupe crowd (6-Series), the ultra-luxury crowd (7-Series), the middle-class soccer-mom crowd (X3), the upper-class soccer mom crowd (X5), the high performance car crowd (M3/6/Roadster), the soccer-dad-who-wants-a-crazy-looking-SUV-that's-practical-for-hauling-cargo-but-ridiculous-for-taking-friends-and-family-anywhere-as-it-only-holds-four-people crowd (The new X6), and half of the cars mentioned offer convertible options (soft top and converti-top). THAT is watering down the brand -- when your grand price range reaches from $100k + down to the low $33,000 mark, that is stretching quite a bit.
Someone show me a Porsche with an MSRP under $40,000 dollars. I'll save you some time -- there isn't one. The most basic Cayenne is $45,000 and a bare-bones Boxster is still almost 47,000 dollars. Even an entry level Porsche costs more than most people can save in a year's time. Porsche still carries a strong air of prestige with its name. Having only 4 different models in its lineup (or 3, if you don't count the Boxster/Cayman as different from one another), Porsche still maintains a very compact and focused brand that carries the name proudly and each model performs as one would expect it to: Do you want an entry level convertible that's balanced and sporty? They have a Porsche for that. Have six figures to throw around and feel like owning a track rat performance coupe? They have a Porsche (911 or a Cayman, if you're trigger happy for options) for that. Does your wife bitch that your Porsche doesn't hold your kids and groceries? Well, they have a Porsche for that, too.
@Andrew, While I mostly like your reasoning, I just wanted to point out that the beetle was designed by Dr. Porsche himself, so when he bases another car on it, well, its his own design after all.
So the 911 was simply iteration after iteration of a redesigned, more sporty economy car? Is that really much better?
Bored and started reading through your site again, John -- saw something in my rebuttal here that I meant to address but didn't.
@Nitro -- When I say Porsche, I don't mean the Doctor, I'm referring to Porsche as a company, a corporate entity. Dr. Porsche DID design the Beetle while working closely with a couple other people from Volkswagen. My argument was not there, it was simply that the 911 was based off of The People's Car; and since Dr. P didn't design the Beetle to be sporty and fast, or great in corners, the underpinnings for a great sports car weren't present from the beginning so much as they were an afterthought. Dr. Porsche said (can dig up quote if you really want) there were no cars in existence that he truly liked, so he built his own -- based off of the VW, which, according to his words, wasn't something he really liked. The rich history of the 911 is distilled into one potent and bitter shot of facts: It was based off of a non-Porsche(entity, not person) vehicle and the said vehicle's only half-way sporty saving grace was its RW drive train. That said, the oldest prototype 911s were also very unwieldy, and handled poorly due to their extreme lack of balance; they experimented with placing lead blocks in the front of the car as counterweights - if you heard this in the news but heard none of the brand names, you'd think that was a s*** car! That said, the evolution of the 911 is fantastic because it truly came up from nothing, but those who argue that it contains "pure sport" in its blood are simply fools.
@ Andrew,
Always glad to help relieve the boredom. I'm thinking of stringing a few of your comments together and turning them into a post all on their own. You down with that?