Re*Move

Does the car industry now get it... whatever 'it' is?

Drew Joe

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of activities by the car companies, and their design and marketing departments, to take social media to another level and exploit its potential usefulness for designing and selling future vehicles.

First came GM with its LAB. GM has been in the social media auto world for a long time, but the Lab was a new way to test the waters with some of its more 'skunkworks' projects – such as the 'bare necessity' car and truck concepts, which you can see more of here.  What's interesting is that it gives designers, who remain - to quote Roland Barthes (yet again) "unknown artists" who are creating the "gothic cathedrals of our era" a window out into the world, and respectively, one back in to them. The videos are over-produced and slightly inauthentic feeling (the hands of a slightly nervous PR team are all over them), yet the Lab presents a platform, which, outside of the razzmatazz of the auto show, might be one of the only ways for a team to test an idea, and open up a dialogue about what they're doing, outside of the company.

The power of social in this respect seems to be growing - with the web going all-a-chatter just a couple of weeks back, when GM canned a proposed SUV, apparently in part, due to adverse responses on twitter.

Gmbarenecessitiescar GM's bare necessities car, showcased with its LAB platform

Next comes Fiat, downsideupdesign drawing our attention to their 'Mio' project, which is openly 'collecting' user research via the web, as part of the early process for developing a young person’s car, which will be showcased at a forthcoming Sao Paulo auto show. The interesting bit is that Fiat is going to openly publish all of the information it collects, licensing it under creative commons. Why interesting? Because it represents a u-turn in an industry famed for its secretive research and development processes. Furthermore, it means that others can not only reference and use the research in their projects, but critique and analyse the information, and the way Fiat use and interpret it.

While at first glance what's interesting about all of this is that it simply provides greater volumes of available raw data, what'll really be interesting is following the creative process of how Fiat translates this into something physical, and - in particular - how their reading of the data differs from that of other (outside) observers.

I'll come back to that in a minute, but it's worth mentioning the third project in this arena right now, which is Audi's (facebook log in required). As part of the development process for the LA design challenge, Audi is asking users on its facebook fan page for their input to the development of its entry to this year’s competition, which sees the car design studios of Southern California competing to design a youth-orientated car for 2030. This will only exist in 2D form, and is traditionally a place where we see designers experiment with the sublime and the ridiculous. As such, this is a low-risk, semi-serious dipping of its toes into the shark-infested waters of social media for Audi. It does signal though, that crowd-sourced ideas, and social media research could play some part in future car developments and marketing campaigns.

Audi design video from its Facebook / LA design challenge page

So what? I hear you ask about all of this. Well, let’s get the positives out of the way first. The auto industry is repeatedly accused of lagging behind other sectors when it comes to getting on new bandwagons. No such worries with social media - the train has left the station, auto industry onboard (for once). Secondly, it’s one of the simplest, fastest, most high-profile ways for an industry which has been repeatedly accused of ‘not listening’ to customers, to actually engage them and show it’s interested in their view.  

The question is, does all this mean that the auto industry now ‘gets it’? Is this a way of acknowledging the development processes needs to change, that it needs to listen more, open up, and that user-based design and research has much to offer?

I’m honestly not sure. On one hand, thinking and attitudes – in some companies – is clearly changing. On the other, using social media platforms for data collection and user research is a complete no brainer – and is becoming a prerequisite of proving that you’re a contemporary company.

But the ‘is it marketing bullshit’ or ‘is it genuine new engagement’ argument actually misses the point. Because simply having conversations, running competitions, asking for input and conducting user research online is only the first stepping-stone, and arguably not the most important. What’s missing today is the bridge between talking to customers and collecting information from them, and when the designer first picks up his or her pencil in anger. At the moment, the bridge between these two places is called 'marketing', but it has oft proved inadequate at helping deliver products people want, or in helping companies successfully innovate. In my view, there’s a clear role being created, which exists between the data collection point (be that online or in the real world), and the marketing and design teams. An ‘auto analyst’ if you will – whose critical skills are three-fold

  • Being able to ask the consumer the right questions in the first place
  • Analysing the data, digging deeper than the raw numbers, and testing the conclusions that these new types of research – or indeed other existing methods – lead to
  • Translating the findings of research and user engagement into meaningful insight, which marketing and design teams understand and can work together around.

At the moment, social media-based user research in the auto industry is in danger of just becoming 'the next big thing' - jumped on by marketing teams as something new and radical, that they’ve got to have in order to look contemporary, but which ultimately is being treating as just another marketing method. Left like this, the results of these – often worthwhile and interesting - new means of research and engagement seem destined to be the subject of the same frowning and eye-rolling from the designer, engineering and planning teams who are ultimately charged with designing the ‘fallout’, that exists in the industry today. 

Related reading:

User research on the Ford Fiesta - the view from real life Antonellas

Drew Smith on the car industry's failure to do digital


Posted by Joseph Simpson on 1st September 2009. Hat-tip to Drew Smith at Downsideupdesign for sparking the train of thought that led me to this

Images: Joe Simpson and Drew Smith talk future auto in London - June 2009 (Mark Charmer); GM bare necessities car (GM), Audi video (Audi)

September 01, 2009 in Analysis, Audi, Auto, Fiat, GM, Media insight, Research, Twitter | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Fiat + Chrysler - a marriage made in heaven?

Fiat500turin IMG_0638

Do the seagulls know something we dont? - Fiat and Chrysler (Chrysler owns Jeep - above) seems like an unlikely union

Fiat Auto Group’s deal to create a strategic alliance, and eventually take a 35% stake in ailing Chrysler, has been met with a mixture of despair and rejoicing by the wider automotive industry and its league of commentators.

MPG-omatic on twitter summed up the American mood, saying: “Fiat/Chrysler: USA wins with small cars/high-MPG diesels…Alfa = cherry on the top.” And in response to me suggesting the deal seemed not too clever, labovandbeyond responded “if it involves Fiat bringing the 500 stateside in any way, then we’re all for it.”

White german 500 One of the best looking cars in white paint, Fiat 500 is already ubiquitous on roads of Europe

But what might it really mean? Unsurprisingly, America seems much more excited at the thought of affordable Italian metal than any European is at the thought of more Sebrings and Avengers. In essence, this is about Chrysler getting its hands on some efficient, small diesel (and probably petrol) engines (both a Fiat strong point), and on current, proven, (along with future) small car platforms. In part, this is so it can show congress it has a case for bail out money, and is viable as a company, come April. With both Ford and GM making big noises about bringing Fiestas and Sparks stateside very soon, Chrysler clearly thinks it needs to compete – but has nothing to offer – and one doubts it has either the cash, or the time to design anything from scratch itself. Fiat’s proven; successful small car platforms (once tweaked to pass US crash regs) could provide the answer.

Clearly, the deal has potential synergies. Chrysler makes big sedans, SUVs and pickups – Fiat doesn’t. Fiat makes fun, stylish small cars – Chrysler doesn’t. Fiat leads the world in turbo-diesel technology and is fairly hot on the future turbo-charged, advanced petrol engine stuff too. Additionally, in Alfa, it has a brand that attracts some of the greatest automotive love going – but currently lays largely untapped.

Alfagt1300junior Gt1300 Junior (above) made it to the US...

...more recent group offering such as Alfa 166 and Lancia Delta (below - HPE concept form), haven't

Alfa166  Lancia Delta2

So with obvious potential wins, why did the deal feel wrong to me on first viewing? Of all the automotive alliances, very few have worked well. Renault-Nissan springs to mind as a success, but a cursory glance over its current balance sheet hints otherwise. The VW group has had the greatest level of success with platform sharing out of any group, but until fairly recently, only really had Audi making reasonable money, and clearly still hasn’t a clue what to do with the likes of Seat.

Most troubling, is that technologically, Fiat and Chrysler have little to offer on the future drivetrain front, right now. If one buys into the idea that the automotive industry will be revolutionised in the next five-to-ten years, led by a movement away from the internal combustion engine, towards battery power – then this could present challenges.

Chrysler has been badly beaten up, under Daimler, then Cerberus, by the press – and in the minds of consumers. Few believe its electric car story is viable. And its way off the Japanese levels of quality and reliability Ford and GM have begun to hit. Most of its existing platforms are dated. Much about the company has a whiff of corpse about it.

DodgeEVconcept Dodge EV concept had its third outing at NAIAS - still judged as little more than thinly veiled Lotus Europa with some "electric vehicle" stickers...

So what the hell is Fiat playing at? One answer could be that it has become so desperate for a global partner, so convinced that any auto group making less than 5.5M units a year will collapse in the present climate, that it has jumped into bed with Chrysler - turning a blind eye to the last three month’s worth of news. And yet… history suggests that we shouldn’t underestimate the Italians.

Sergio Marhcionne, Fiat group’s head, rescued the company from the brink before. Largely, he managed this thanks to some clever business dealings with another US based automotive firm, and by building products people wanted, and co-developing - or selling on - Fiat’s vehicle platforms. The only really plausible theory, therefore, is that Fiat is playing a canny game with this deal. As far as we know, it hasn’t paid Cerberus any money for 35% of Chrysler. In return it donates platforms it has already developed and paid for. Stunningly, one of those platforms – sitting underneath both the Fiat Panda and 500 - has already had part of its development paid for by another American firm - Ford – who use it underneath the European Ford Ka. Fiat therefore stand to get two different American car firms to pay for one car platform. Smart business, no?

In return for not spending any money, Fiat group gets access to some (old Merc) rear-wheel drive sedan platforms, a confusing line-up of Jeep SUVs, and the potential to share future development costs, and utilise economies of scale that come with doubling in size. So far, so-so.

LanciaDeltaIntegrale Lancia Delta Integrale one of the company's all time great cars (not to mention icon of world rallying)... could the US market give Lancia a new raison-d'etre?

What’s far more important is that Chrysler gives Fiat a shortcut back into the US market. Long known to covet a return to the US, particularly for its Alfa Romeo brand, Chrysler gives Fiat access to over 3000 dealers, (which would be almost impossible for Fiat to build from scratch), and – potentially – some currently underused factories, in which to build cars. I suspect the US market could give Fiat a decent reason to keep its Lancia brand alive, too.

Of course, it’s not that simple – nothing in the car industry ever is, but if it sounds strange, delve deeper into Fiat’s GM story. Fiat teamed with The General – donating the diesel engines and providing European synergies, in return for the co-development of two of the platforms that might head America’s (and Chrysler’s?) way – the Grande Punto (which also sits under the Opel Corsa) and the Alfa 159/Brera (originally intended to sit under some SAABs). This latter platform is renowned in the industry as being over-engineered, over-weight and uncompetitive with the premium German brands due to its front wheel drive nature. Yet it’s also so tough and safe, that it would likely pass US crash regs with little, if any adjustment, and – to many people – underpins one of the best looking cars on the road today. 

Brera Alfa Brera - overweight, and sadly front wheel drive - but a 'looker' for sure.

Crucially, Fiat was clever enough to write-in such a smart get out clause, that when GM wanted (and needed) out, the money it had to pay Fiat to disentangle itself, allowed the Italians to head-off the bailiffs from the doors of Mirafiori. One might muse that the real irony of this story, is that if Chrysler ends up using the Grande Punto platform under a future small car, then it would be using a vehicle developed by GM. Not that this makes it a bad platform… I speak with authority here, as a Grande Punto driver myself!

 IMG_0421 Grandepunto 

Grande Punto still one of best looking cars in the B-segment, even with daft sill extensions (right). Simpson's own car (left) looks much purer...

And perhaps that’s the reason this deal could work. Americans seem - for the most part – to be rejoicing at the idea of being able to buy cool, cheap, small and efficient Italian metal. If that really happens (and if it doesn’t then little here does make sense) then the US is in for a treat, and Fiat might just have pulled off the deal of the century – and have the last laugh, once again.

Photos: Joseph Simpson, except Dodge EV - Robb.Hunter (Robb Hunter) on flickr, Lanica Integrale - Charmermrk (Mark Charmer) on flickr, Lancia Delta HPE oriOn on flickr and blue grande punto, alfa 166, white 500 and Gt1300 Junior - all iwoaf (Nick Simpson) on flickr

Posted by Joseph Simpson on 22nd January 2009

January 22, 2009 in Analysis, Auto, Chrysler, Fiat | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

About us

Share our material


  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Search

  • Search Re*Move

Recent Posts

  • The debacle of Denmark Hill station
  • '70s Fords in Camberwell
  • Vinay Gupta on Wolverhampton: 1
  • City Camp presentation on Wolves
  • Getting started in Wolverhampton
  • On cathedrals, new and old
  • Jaguar's 75th Birthday bash
  • Lunch in the park with Robert Brook
  • iPad - The best things come to those who wait
  • The trouble with eight-point plans

Back to our home page...

Archives

  • August 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010

More...