Start Me Up!

As our first big snowfall of the season accumulates outside, I'm reminded of the joys of my garage. With the Green Monster tucked safely away in storage, the Blue Devil is free to get cozy in its new home just downstairs.

Were it not for this situation, I'd once again be pining for a remote start system. I've always wanted one, and since I bought a car with an automatic transmission, it's more of a reality than ever before. But one major obstacle still remains--aside from cost. That's the car's immobilizer system.

Modern cars (except for some cheap Chrysler products) all have immobilizer chips embedded in the ignition key. If you hotwire the car, it'll start up, but then sense that the chip isn't around, and shut right back down. I can only imagine how car thieves are attempting to get around this.

What it means for aftermarket remote start systems, though, is that in order for them to work, a key needs to be permanently installed in the car so it'll start up even when you're inside the house. Obviously this makes the immobilizer system useless, which in turn increases the likelihood that your car will get jacked.

The answer to this issue is factory-installed remote start systems. GM has been offering these on their cars for years, with nicely integrated buttons right on the key fob.

Well, Ford announced a few days ago that they would finally begin offering the feature for 2011. I really wish more manufacturers would follow suit, but I guess I'll always be waiting for the next big thing to get to my car of choice, like Bluetooth streaming audio and voice recognition. Here's to wishin!

Bigger is Better?

I recently read a snippet about the CEO of Fiat, Sergio Marchionne, proclaiming that the number of global carmakers will eventually shrink to six behemoths. This, from the over 20 companies of significant size that Automotive News lists on its "Guide to global automaker partnerships". I searched further and found this article. Marchionne says that in order to survive, a company with need a sales volume of over 5.5 million cars each year, a number to which his own Fiat does not even come close.

I don't doubt that Fiat may need a merger to survive, as a recent news item claims it may be seeking. But the fact is, this very same statement was made roughly eight years ago. In a paper I wrote in college in 2000, I cited a claim by many industry bigwigs that by 2010, there would be a lot fewer car companies running the show. How many? The generally agreed-upon estimate was six. In fact, they used a very similar line of reasoning to Marchionne's, stating that there would be two for every major continental base, North America, Europe and Asia. Marchionne has also stated his theory in terms of geography: 'As far as mass-producers are concerned, we're going to end up with one American house, one German of size; one French-Japanese, maybe with an extension in the U.S.; one in Japan; one in China and one other potential European player.'

But the fact is, there hasn't been a huge amount of consolidation in the industry since that first round of predictions almost a decade ago. These predictions were likely precipitated by the "merger" of Daimler and Chrysler in 1998, and the alliance of Renault and Nissan, which had been inked the following year. We all know how the former turned out, creating not economies of scale, but rather one of the largest destructions of company value in automotive history. The latter tie-up is still going strong, and paying dividends, but aside from that, there has been little action that suggests a highly consolidated industry.

And why does Marchionne think that size is inherently good? While it's true that there are obvious advantages that stem from the basic principle of economies of scale, there are also downsides to this, most notably the loss of corporate agility. Corporations like GM have huge resources to offer its producers in each market, but if the act of marshaling those resources becomes cumbersome, decisions cannot be made in a timely manner, and competitiveness suffers.

While GM is a great example of how size does not necessarily equal strength (as is Ford, one of the other four companies cited as above Marchionne's magic 5.5m number), there are some equally good examples of smaller companies that have so far proven resilient in this tough economic climate. Honda is thriving, as Japan's number-two producer, because the company has refused to compromise its ideals. Its growth has been organic, driven by demand rather than production.

An even better example of the principle is Porsche, a company which sold less than 100,000 units last year. Despite its volumes, Porsche has managed its business so well that it is now financially powerful enough to have gobbled up a controlling interest in the only German company that is "large enough", Volkswagen. Porsche has achieved this clout with strict discipline, and tough decisions made based on the existing business and market climate (including the oft-derided decision to market an SUV). 

Size may be what's important to Fiat at this moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the major determinant to survival throughout the industry. It's true that for any company to survive, it needs to achieve a decent level of scale. But at a certain point, scale can become counterproductive if not managed the right way, and the right product decisions will, in my opinion, always trump size in importance. 

The Wonders of MySpace

I couldn't resist bringing you this profile from MySpace, under the name "Save Ford Go Vegan":

"I am a company that was founded as Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan on June 16, 1903 by Henry Ford. I am 104 years old. I have 300,000,000 offspring called automobiles. I am a vegetarian and do not smoke or drink. I am opposed to womanizing and most gambling involving the risk of hard currency. But I thrive on gambles involving new and innovative products however. I believe in giving a man a square deal for a square days work. In 1914 I began paying my workers the then princely sum of $5.00 a day, which was double the going rate at that time. I also reduced the workday from 9 hours a day to 8 hours a day, and reduced the workweek to 40 hours. In 1914 I ran as a peace candidate for congress and traveled to Europe to try to promote peace and forestall WW1, which was then looming on the horizon. I failed in that respect. But I tried. And I was ridiculed for my efforts. In 1942 I patented and built a plastic automobile that was based on soybeans, and was 30% lighter than conventional steel cars of the time. And it also ran on ethanol. In 1938 Ford Motors had a 38% share of the US market. In 2006 it was 14%. And last year Ford lost nearly 13,000,000,000. Yes that's 13 billion dollars. Healthcare costs at Ford add over $1000.00 to the price of each automobile. In Asia the added cost ranges from zero to just a tiny, tiny fraction of that amount. Most Asians are generally vegetarian, and are not burdened by the unhealthy Western diet of meat and dairy products and heavily processed foods. Or the ailments that are endemic to this unfortunate diet. It is a compounded matter of fact that over 70% of our medical difficulties are related to diet. It is an acknowledged fact that veganism or a vegetarian diet can reduce our medical problems by nearly 70%. With that decrease comes an enormous reduction in medical costs. This reduction in healthcare would return Ford to profitability; and restore Ford to a healthy and vital American company. I urge each and everyone of you to join with me in urging that Ford cafeterias prepare only vegan or vegetarian meals. Likewise, all Ford employees and their families and loved ones should be persuaded to adopt a vegan lifestyle. This lean and vital new workforce is what is needed to successfully challenge the competition in the coming decades. Not only will Ford benefit from this arrangement but also the millions of factory farmed animals that suffer in unceasing misery and despair. And this beleaguered planet will also benefit from this scenario, since the production of methane, a byproduct of factory farming, will also be considerably diminished. And the destruction of rainforests will be slowed or halted, benefiting all the inhabitants of this planet. So stand up and be heard, like Mr. Ford himself in 1914."

If only I had known that the solution was so simple, I could've fixed Ford while I was at the agency!

Cars & Drugs

My friend is in town to visit. He's a drug rep for Pfizer, and he was telling me some very interesting things about his company, that had a very familiar echo. Apparently, Pfizer has been relying heavily on one drug--Lipitor--for much of its profits for several years now. It seems the company had gotten quite complacent with its cash cow, and instead of focusing on developing more drugs within its traditional R&D channels, Pfizer went on a buying spree, snapping up hot shot drugs like Celebrex that never quite panned out the way they'd hoped.

As most of us know, Pfizer has had to close facilities and cut jobs (20% of its sales force alone). But the company has a new plan now, and while many analysts are concerned about its future pipeline, my friend insists that the company still has a strong product lineup.

Okay, if you're getting a feeling of deja vu, there's a reason. You could basically swap out a few words in the previous two paragraphs for terms like, say, "Ford", "SUVs", "European luxury brands" and "blue collar workers", and it would be the exact same story you've been reading in Automotive News for the past year. Hell, both companies even sport a blue oval!

So here's hoping that different industries can learn from one another. While they're at it, they might as well work out a trade of some cars for Xanax.

A Mighty Wind

Well, I blew through the Windy City for the Chicago Auto Show, and it's finally on its way...the R32. I've waited with bated breath for its arrival, and I actually got to experience the car in person, in all its glory. There was one snag, however. VW will only offer one transmission option, and it ain't the 6-speed manual that I know and love. No, the R32 will be DSG only. When I heard the news, I could've dropped to my knews and wept. My dreams of ownership seemed to slip away like dust in the wind.

To be fair, though, I've not yet driven a DSG-equipped car, and I've been assured that the experience will reverse my stubborn, backwards, 20th century purist thinking. I even made a new best friend at VW who will give me access to such an experience. I can't wait.

So what else was big in Chi-town? Well, the consensus settled on GM's "new" Pontiac G8. This is a rebadged Holden Commodore, but as NBC used to say, "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!" For years, Pontiac has been trying to brand itself as BMW on the cheap, right down to the twin kidney grille. But for the first time (at least in my life) GM has actually landed a shot in the same ballpark. (The Solstice doesn't count, since the essence of BMW is the sports sedan.) This is a great looking car, and maybe it'll prove once and for all that the RWD Chrysler 300 wasn't just a flash in the giant US FWD pan.

The Saturn Astra's another strong showing from the General, but it does have a few chinks in its armor. The driver's seat was quite narrow, and I'm smaller than the average American, revealing one of the likely reasons that you can't just grab a Euro vehicle an slap it onto US roads. The car also reinforced my impression that while Saturn's interiors have elevated their standards of design, many of the materials used are not up to that standard. Still, coming from the interior of a VW, I do appreciate the little luxo touches, such as the Astra's illuminated sunroof switches that are quite rare for this price point.

The Toyota Highlander struck many of us as an overgrown RAV4. You've gotta ask yourself, though, is this a bad thing? From the rear it looks a bit Hyundai-ish, and as I've said before, this is not a compliment. But the whole of the vehicle is polished, slightly bland, and slightly aggressive looking. This is a formula that works for Toyota, as it allows people to feel like they're stylish, without actually taking the risk of being so. And risk aversion is what Toyota buyers are all about (not a criticism, just a fact). Look for the Highlander to continue its success within the medium crossover segment.

As for the new Taurus/Taurus X/Sable, let me just say these are
great vehicles, worthy of those names. The roomiest and safest cars in the world--literally!!!--now have a great powertrain and the element of style to back them up. This move by Ford may be a bit of a punch-line due to the rental car rep of the outgoing models, but I can only hope that the publicity of the name change will cause people to give these cars a second look. They deserve it.

The Ad Bowl

I just have to vent right now, because of a trend that I know is at least as old as my literacy: bashing the Super Bowl ads. Once again, this year's crop of ads has been declared "disappointing". Maybe you agree with this assessment. If so, just ask yourself this question: When was the last year in which you were actually impressed with the Super Bowl ads? Let me rephrase that: When was the last year in which you said you were impressed with them? Did all your most recent watercooler conversations on the subject sound something like this...

Someone else: "Those Super Bowl ads were pretty lame, eh?"
You: "Yes, I agree with your assessment so as not to seem culturally out of touch."
Someone else: "Totally."

This is not necessarily your fault. The media, which is in fact neither liberally nor conservatively biased, is, on occasion, idiotically biased. The Wall Street Journal, which I consider to have the best news coverage around (of the stuff which they actually cover), has their typically prompt evaluation of the night's fare posted, and we're treated to verdicts like, "Despite the standouts, this year's Super Bowl ads overall didn't live up to the hype surrounding them." Fair enough, but what does this sentence actually say? To my point, have the ads ever actually bested their hype? Of course not. That's why they call it hype. Because it's hyperdemanding.

Later in the article we get treated to this gem: "But the biggest fumble of the night came from Flomax, the prostate drug from Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. The spot, which described the drug's side effects as including a 'decrease in semen,' showed men competing in a bike race. Ad executives questioned whether such ads should run during the Super Bowl. 'Call me a prude but there are kids watching the game,' says Mr. Feakins."

The article goes on to explain that they decided to run it late in the rotation to avoid kids, with nary a mention of the GoDaddy.com spot with the marketing dept. full of half-naked models that ran early in the rotation. People are getting bent out of shape on account of the word "semen", a clinical word which our children who are old enough to watch most Bud Light ads actually should be exposed to in health class. Those people are idiots.

Okay, so this is an auto blog, so I should probably say something about the automotive ads that ran. I work for Ford, but if I were to deny that GM stood out I'd lose all credibility. The amateur-based HHR car wash ad was good, but the robot spot was an absolute gem. This is an ad that'll get a lot of play on YouTube, and GM will be getting more than its money's worth spreading their quality message. In fact, in a stroke of brilliance, if you search for the ad on YouTube right now, you get a preview spot that tells you to go to GM.com to see the actual ad.

I think the only danger with this ad is the message being received as "Now that we have a decent warranty, we realized we actually have to think about quality." We'll see. But this ad may pay off for the General in sheer good will, further breaking down the stodginess of its image.

The Ford Super Duty ads were quite polished, and I did like how they built towards the actual intro ad where you got to see the full vehicle. But there should be more done in preperation for the traffic that these ads would drive. Many people, no doubt, went to Ford.com, which has nothing on it about these ads. And the FordVehicles.com homepage doesn't have a prominent link to Super Duty info.

The Jeep ad was clever, yet forgetable. "What Jeep ad?" you say? See what I mean.

I guess the overall point of this post is, think for yourself. Don't be so quick to say "This year's ads fell kinda flat," especially when you get such a familiar feeling as the words leave your mouth. The fact is, you can't even remember last year's ads well enough to compare them. Am I right, or am I right?