Share the post "2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid – No Wonder U.S. Auto Companies Need a Bailout"
If you had any question in your minds that U.S. auto manufacturers are completely clueless, the 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid from General Motors will certainly make it clear that these companies do not deserve a bailout.
At $72,000, the 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid is probably meant to say, “Look at me! I’m rich and I care about the environment. Aren’t I wonderful?” However, when I see this car, I think, “Look at me! I leased the heck out of this car and now the bank is foreclosing on my house, and I hate the environment but this car makes me feel a little bit better about it.”
The new 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid improves fuel efficiency by 50%. That means the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid gets a huge 21 miles per gallon! What do you think? Does GM deserve a bailout?
There is simply no doubt that U.S. automakers still don’t get it. There’s a reason why the Toyota Prius is growing more popular everyday and large SUVs are being traded in for smaller cars. Why can’t U.S. auto companies figure it out?
Update: The 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid has been named to the Yahoo! Finance Best and Worst of 2008 list as the worst car of 2008.
Image: General Motors
Share the post "2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid – No Wonder U.S. Auto Companies Need a Bailout"
Susan Gunelius
Susan Gunelius is President & CEO of KeySplash Creative, Inc. and Founder & Editor in Chief of an award-winning blog, WomenOnBusiness.com. She is a 25-year veteran of the marketing field and has authored 10 books about marketing, branding, and social media, including the highly popular 30-Minute Social Media Marketing, Content Marketing for Dummies, Blogging All-in-One for Dummies and Kick-ass Copywriting in 10 Easy Steps. Susan’s marketing-related content can be found on Entrepreneur.com, Forbes.com, MSNBC.com, BusinessWeek.com, and more. Susan is President & CEO of KeySplash Creative, Inc., a marketing communications company. She has worked in corporate marketing roles and through client relationships with AT&T, HSBC, Citibank, Intuit, The New York Times, Cox Communications, and many more large and small companies around the world. Susan also speaks about marketing, branding and social media at events around the world and is frequently interviewed by television, online, radio, and print media organizations about these topics. She holds an MBA in Management and Strategy and a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing.
Follow Me:
I’m more convinced every day that these guys put the “more” in moron. Did they actually reengineer the Escalade or just finally put some effort into the existing engine design to increase fuel efficiency. They obviously had no incentive to do so before, even when the writing was on the wall years ago that gas prices would continue to increase.
I wish we could just penalize the idiots directly responsible, but unfortunately everyone loses because of these jerks!
I work at GM and have got to point out the silliness of this post. Piling on is a great sport in Congress and in the blogosphere. The Cadillac Escalade 2-mode hybrid gets in-city mileage comparable to a four-cylinder Toyota Camry! In fact, the two-mode hybrid system is arguably the most advanced production hybrid system on the market. Go ahead and dump on 50 percent improvement in city fuel economy, but that is real. And for those who want a luxury SUV and decent mileage, it is a winner. By the way, Prius sales dropped 48.3 percent in November and Toyota says they are delaying US production at a new plant in Mississippi. http://tinyurl.com/6p9mdk Clearly, not everyone wants to drive a Prius. Or you can take the bus, We estimate the GM-Allison version of the 2-mode hybrid technology used in hybrid buses have saved more than 5 million gallons of fuel and almost 50,000 metric tons of CO2 since 2003.
Alan, Thanks for sharing your position. I have to respectfully disagree from a marketing perspective though. I have no problem with brand extensions, but U.S. auto manufacturers have proven time and again that they’re not listening to consumers or the market. If the Escalade hybrid gets the same mileage as a Camry, then you’ve proven the point that there is a need across the board to make cars more fuel efficient to reduce the U.S.’s dependency on foreign oil. Prices at the pump and the environment are only part of the picture from a marketing perspecive. Since manufactured price increases have dropped, so has demand in smaller and hybrid cars by price sensitive consumers. Cars are certainly not an inelastic product. However, I question investing resources and advertising dollars on a product that reduces fuel efficiency by 50% simply to match what other cars already do without that technology.
The writing has been on the wall for a long time, and U.S. car manufacturers continue to focus resources in brand extensions that can bring short term profits from high margins but don’t address the greater influences of the market in the long term. They got themselves into a mess once, and the problem won’t be solved without a new marketing strategy that delivers products the market demands. However, that also means a shift in stockholder thinking, which is a greater problem overall that affects every public company, not just auto makers.
I also don’t want you to think I’m trying to “pile on”. I write this blog simply to voice my opinions on marketing and branding strategies and to generate discussions of such among marketing professionals. The marketing strategies of U.S. auto manufacturers are deserving of debate from a marketing perspective and a consumer perspective as well if the government is being called to bail them out. I have yet to hear an argument that makes me want to advocate the marketing decisions of U.S. auto manufacturers.
I own a Chyrsler (traded in my SUV long ago), but I still think the company makes terrible marketing choices. I’m also not a “treehugger” as the stereotype goes, but I do think car manufacturers have a responsibility to produce more fuel efficient cars (and I mean more fuel efficient than simply matching what’s already on the market) just as financial companies have a responsibility not to extend loans to people who can’t afford them.
Susan, I don’t work at GM; I work at reporting on the auto industry and have done so for 30 years.
I have to agree with Alan — you and thousands of people like you have added little but ignorance, inaccuracy and prejudice to the situation and I can see from your response to Mr. Adler’s comments that you intend to continue in that vein. Adding your uninformed opinions to the web is a classic case of piling on.
Believe me when I tell you that the people who cover the auto industry the way I do are not full-time proponents of everything that GM has done, but the people who know what they’re talking about are nowhere near as critical of the corporation as the ones who don’t.
Thanks for your comment, Alex. But I still have to disagree from a marketing perspective. A simple SWOT analysis reveals that a shift in marketing and branding strategy is essential if U.S. auto manufacturers are going to recoup lost market share.
I certainly respect your decision, but I’d invite you to provide constructive marketing strategy rather than suggesting I’m ill-informed. I certainly don’t claim to be an auto industry expert, but I am a marketing expert and have trouble understanding the marketing methodology that U.S. auto makers have pursued in recent years. What do you suggest that they should do to shift the negative brand perception and lost market share? That’s the type of discussion that a marketer like me wants to debate. So what do you think would change consumer perception and reallocate the marketing budget to meet those goals?
Susan, don’t let these people bully you (not that I think you would). If you feel that way, many many more will, too. Let them ignore the tide of feelings if they want to, at their own peril!