I blame Marketing!

There's an interesting article in Advertising Age that places some of the blame of today's economic conditions on marketing. Before that sounds too far fetched, I think Rance Crain has a point, certainly in the example of General Motors he used. I think many of us have made these points with all of our clients at some point in time only for them to fall on deaf ears.

The money quote:

Citigroup wanted consumers to buy as many of its financial services as possible. But from a marketing point of view, this was impossible. Consumers didn't associate any of those financial services with a "bank." The perception Citigroup tried to create in consumers' minds was at odds with what a consumer perceived a bank to be.

General Motors tried to create an auto supermarket in every Chevrolet dealership. Any kind of car or truck a consumer might want to buy, they could find in a Chevy showroom.

Even worse, every other GM brand tried the same strategy. Any kind of vehicle you might want, Pontiac had for sale. So did Olds. And Buick. And Cadillac.

Both of these two companies had fundamental disconnects between their product strategy and their marketing strategies. In GM's case, they needed to crank out millions of cars to help pay for their investments in things like engines and powertrains. But instead of creating unique vehicles for each division, they made a few tweaks here and there and shoved a new nameplate on them. Of course consumers are not morons and saw right through it.

In my mind a brand is a promise. What makes Pontiac's promise any different than Chevrolet if they essentially offer the same thing? How does one buying one's insurance from Citibank benefit the consumer?

Ironically I have a bad feeling about Toyota. I've always been surprised at how willing they have been to mimic the former Big Three. The brand's reliability has managed to keep it out of trouble. But it doesn't take anything more than one well-publicized incident to cause a problem.