Autoblog Infographic

[Source: Auto Insurance for Autoblog.com]

The short memory of auto journalists...

I remember distinctly the excitement that came from the buff books a few years ago when the Mazda6 debuted. They praised not only its Zoom-Zoom handling, but also it's sporty looks that flew in the face of Camrys (by the way, I'm ready to start the discussion about the pluralization of proper nouns according to the conventions of the English language, changing this to "Camries"--please leave your thoughts in the comment section) and Accords. 

The following is an excerpt from a 2004 Autoblog review of the Mazda6: "...The 6 hatch has all the Mazda traits we love like crisp handling, decent power and a very upscale feel to the interior. ...As far as sedans go it still outdoes most of the competition in the looks department."

But I just read a first-drive review from same of the all-new '09 model, and it's as if the first generation missed the mark completely: "We didn't exactly feel tingly with the last model (the MazdaSpeed6 would be the exception), so we walked out to the new car with key in hand to see if we are going to be feeling 'it' with the new car." 

And this gem: "...The [new] 6 doesn't look nearly as painfully boring as its predecessor."

This kind of phenomenon seems to happen fairly often with the motoring press. A car debuts, they drive it, they love it, then it ages. As soon as this happens, and they're able to compare it with the new hotness, these journalists proclaim, "We never thought it was that great anyway." C'mon, guys! Sure, maybe the new Altima and Accord have surpassed the 6 in power and possibly even dynamics, but when it hit the market you couldn't get enough of this sedan's sporty handling and its interesting compound eyes that made it not another Japanese snoozemobile. 

I love reading Autoblog and plenty of other automotive journalism, but I'm calling shenanigans! 

Some Well-Earned Recognition

This was a pretty good write-up of my beloved R32, and of course I can't resist posting it. Enjoy!

Someone agrees with me!!!

In a previous post I criticized the new Malibu's rear styling, while mentioning that the automotive press does not seem to share this view. Well, someone in the press has finally recognized this fact. Autoblog characterizes the taillights as "something of an after thought" in this post. Vindication!

That is all.

The Alphabet Soup Crucible

BMW just lost its lawsuit seeking to enjoin Infiniti from using the standalone letter "M" in marketing for its models, based on the rationale that Infiniti's marketing of its M35/45 dilutes the Motorsports brand at BMW (responsible for the M3, etc.).

When I first read the following on MotiveMagazine.com, I was about to write a scathing critique of BMW:

"Several months after BMW won an injunction against Nissan to prevent the Infiniti brand from badging its cars as 'M', Motor Authority is reporting that a Canadian court has ruled in the latter's favor. BMW had argued that Infiniti was peddling "inferior and more modestly priced" cars and was tarnishing the prestige of its M brand."

But after following this dead link to the Motor Authority website, and then manually searching out the real story (here, by the way), the tune changed. The fact is, this was a gross oversimplification by Motive, which really missed the point of the suit. Badging is not the issue. BMW was fine with the names M30, M35 and M45, as Infiniti has used thus far. The issue was the way Infiniti was advertising the cars, with the solitary letter M, which could be argued lends ambiguity to the message, creating the possibility of confusion with BMW's M division.

I was checking out Motive at the behest of AutoBlog, which proffered it as a new alternative to the more traditionally focused mainline print and online mags, like Car and Driver and Winding Road. This site is aimed at the tech-savvy young-un like myself, who, in AutoBlog's words, "doesn't seem to need the page turning (virtual or not)."

Well, interesting idea, but if in actuality it's run by a bunch of slackers who don't bother to actually read the stories they purport to summarize, then I say, "No, thanks."

Okay, back to the real story. While I think there is legitimate complexity to be considered in this suit, I'm still glad that BMW lost. Had they prevailed, it might have opened the door for infighting among industry players over similar model names. Sure, it might be idiotic for a brand like Lincoln to name a sedan the LS and a crossover the MKX, since this does create some confusion. But it should be up to the industry to police itself on these matters, especially since the party that often ends up "injured" by this foolishness is the unestablished brand that shot itself in the foot in the first place.

Does BMW realistically think that those pining for an M5 would have second thoughts because Infiniti has worn out the letter on its more pedestrian mid-sized sedan? To suggest that a company can lay claim to a letter is as absurd a notion as me trying to buy the rights to...a letter! At the moment, I really can't think of a better example than this.

Sure, if Infiniti made a deliberate attempt to hijack BMW's brand equity, naming one of it's products...I don't know...the M3, this complaint would be supportable in a court of law. But as it stands, BMW's claim needs more evidence that there is demonstrable benefit or harm to one party, and that just isn't forthcoming.