Buick?s Image; Jim Mateja Column

[BUICK RACER]

Buick?s Image; Jim Mateja Column

Chicago Tribune

December 30, 2004

By Jim Mateja:

Buick has left no doubt it's trying to shed its geriatric image, not only in the cars it sells but also in the ads it uses to promote those cars.

Rather than enlist the songs of Mel Torme or Tony Bennett to promote the 2005 LaCrosse sedan, Buick signed Aerosmith, complete with lead singer Steven Tyler.

"We didn't think classic crooners would get our message across," noted CJ Fraleigh, Buick general manager -- until Jan. 3 when he bids Detroit adieu to become chief customer and marketing officer for Sara Lee Corp. in Chicago.

While Buick traditionally has catered to folks in their 60s, LaCrosse TV ads feature younger people -- and younger music.

"We wanted our ads to be about the product first and then add music as an enhancement. People get caught up in music. Nothing connects more with human emotion. When an ad is missing energy in its music it misses rememberability -- if there is such a word," Fraleigh said.

"We chose Aerosmith's 'Dream On' because the song starts softly and then vaults into energy and excitement. We wanted younger people to see the ads and say, 'Wow, things are changing at Buick.' "

Hmm.

A few years ago Cadillac turned to Led Zeppelin to provide background music for its ads and -- along with adding a more appealing lineup of vehicles -- has attracted younger buyers.

Fraleigh insists it's just coincidence that when he joined General Motors in 2001 as executive director of advertising, he was the one who signed Led Zeppelin for the Cadillac ads.

As for Fraleigh's future, the move to Sara Lee surprised some at GM but probably could have been expected. Insiders say his true love is marketing.

More important, Fraleigh, 41, is a friend and former colleague of Brenda Barnes, 50, the new president and chief operating officer of Sara Lee. She had been chief executive of PepsiCo North America.

Fraleigh worked with Barnes at PepsiCo for 12 years and was vice president of colas and director of the Pepsi brand before leaving for GM.

John Larson, 42, executive director of finance for GM sales and service since 2001, will succeed Fraleigh at Buick.

Auto show telecast: If you always wanted to see the Detroit Auto Show but never wanted to visit Detroit, NBC Sports is scheduled to have a live two-hour telecast of the show from Cobo Hall at noon Jan. 23.

If you plan to visit Detroit to see the show in person, be advised that the road work on Interstate Highway 94 that leads you into the city probably won't be done until right around the time the show starts -- in 2007, '08 at the latest.

The bite on Big Three: GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have pledged a total of more than $6 million of the reported $14.3 million Detroit needs to host the 2006 Super Bowl.

Under its contract with the NFL, the host committee must pay for the teams' hotel rooms and transportation, as well as for a party for the 3,000 media members covering the event and other assorted things.

Maybe one reason Detroit is so depressing is that it relies on the auto industry to solve all its problems and refuses to pick itself up by the bootstraps -- unless the automakers supply the boots and straps and someone to do the lifting.

Bitten again? Bad enough domestic automakers have to worry about the competition from Japanese cars, now comes word Honda has developed a child-size robot that can walk, talk, climb stairs, dodge people in its path while jogging and shake your hand.

One flaw, however. Honda says the robot can't run up or down slopes -- yet. Honda insists the robot isn't being developed to replace humans on the assembly line but to perform such tasks as delivering office mail.

Or sweeping up Detroit?

[Guest COMPACTBC]

I just hope that Buick doesn't go to a very annoying ad like Cadillac's, where they have a female voice in the background of EVERY ad saying "O YEA O YEA"

I hate to say this, but the Japanese ads are much more appealing to watch and listen too.

[Barney Eaton]

While the new LaCrosse may have many "hidden" inprovements, I am disappointed in it as a replacement for the Regal. When you look at the standard equipment for a 2004 Regal GS and compare that to the best LaCrosse, it is de-featured.

I just viewed a LaCrosse and G6 setting side by side in a showroom and was supprised to find that the "chrome" wheels on both were actually chrome plated plastic covers on the alloy wheels. Can you imagine what these will look like after a couple of years. And if one goes bad, you know that your GM dealer will not be able to sell you a new cover... you must buy a new wheel.

Now turn the clock ahead 25 years and what do you think any of the 2005 class of cars will look like, I know plastic has improved over the years, but some of the big pieces will never be reproduced by vendors so if there is such a thing as a 2005 collector car, how will you maintain it?

Hemmings listed its 2005 sleepers, and the Reatta was listed. Watch the prices start to climb. I have already seen evidence that good cars are moving much faster. This may be your last chance to get a modern Buick collectable at a reasonable price.

[Judd]

Buick Racer

I like both songs but wonder if you can call them songs of the young generation, wouldn't somebody with a name like puff daddy be more to their liking? LOL.

[ranchero]

Well, yes, Aerosmith appeals to a younger generation - like mine. Steven Tyler is older than I am; that would be 54. So I guess the idea is to lower the average Buick owner age from four decades above that of the Mustang owner to just three decades above the Mustang owner.

And why did Aerosmith first do Dodge truck ads then Buick sedan ads? Does that say anything about the credibility of Aerosmith?

And can anyone imagine Steven Tyler driving a LaCrosse in real life (other than out of the Hertz lot if they were out of Jaguars)?

I love my old Buicks but I know how out of touch Buick is when my wife laughs at the Aerosmith/LaCrosse ad when we see it on TV.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Buick traditionally has catered to folks in their 60s, LaCrosse TV ads feature younger people -- and younger music.</div></div>

Yeah, because that song, unlike their customers, is only 30 years old...

The LaCrosse is the car Buick should have built 10 years ago. It breaks no new ground (the styling, while benign enough, is hardly dramatic enough to entice a young woman to <span style="font-style: italic">swoon</span> as the one in the commercial does), uses 15-year old parts on a 15-year old chassis, and is still powered by wheezy pushrod engines (except for the optional V6, which is basically the same engine Toyota was building in 1989). Are there any broken elbows in Flint from the Buick guys patting themselves on the back for this one? I'm guessing yes.

Buick needs home-run products (hell, at this point, I'd settle for some solid doubles and triples). Instead, they give high-fives all around for simply getting a walk to first...

[Guest my3buicks]

Matt, how do you really feel?

[Guest bkazmer]

Matt hits the nail on the head - trailing edge car. If you are not going to lead, than you had better have stunning execution - and I don't see that either.

[Guest my3buicks]

I will ask this, have the fellows that don't like the new Buicks even looked or sat in one? Not talking seeing one on the road or driving past the dealer, I mean really looked at one.

[Guest bkazmer]

Yes. The LaCosse seems more a next step in the same old way of doing things than any new direction. And a timid step at that

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will ask this, have the fellows that don't like the new Buicks even looked or sat in one? Not talking seeing one on the road or driving past the dealer, I mean really looked at one. </div></div>

Just turned in my rental LaCrosse last Sunday night. Base engine, I'd imagine, but wholly uninspiring car in every way. Quiet (but not as quiet as the benchmarks--my mom's 8-year-old Accord <span style="font-style: italic">still</span> has better NVH), decent gas mileage (but not great--about 22 MPG with a full load), reasonable back seat (as long as you're shorter than my 6'0" father), smallish trunk (one bag stored between back seat passengers). It took me having my foot jammed into the throttle body to get it to even <span style="font-style: italic">approach</span> merging speed on the highway, and I manually had to take it out of OD to keep it moving at 75-80 MPH with 4 people aboard. The tires <span style="font-style: italic">howled</span> on the off-ramp at about 50 MPH. And there was an <span style="font-style: italic">exceptionally</span> annoying squeak in the dashboard somewhere behind the passenger's side airbag. At least it only had 4200 miles on it and didn't smell like an armpit like most rental cars.

New standard for Buick? Feh. Improved? If so, I'd hate to see what they improved <span style="font-style: italic">upon</span>. Worth $30K? Not if it's <span style="font-style: italic">my</span> $30K.

Yep, looks like the shortstop is settling under that pop-fly right about now. <span style="font-style: italic">The inning's almost over, GM, and Toyota's at bat next...</span>

[ranchero]

Well, here is more fuel on the fire. In today's (11 January) Wall Street Journal (at page B1), there is a story focusing mainly on Bob Lutz, the Pontiac G6 and the Buick LaCrosse. And as we clearly recognize, neither the LaCrosse nor the G6 are exciting potential customers. At the end of December both the new LaCrosse and the new G6 had 71 day supplies on dealer lots. In contrast, the home run Chrysler 300C had a 28 day supply. The story reports Buick sales dropped 8.1% in 2004 to 309,639 vehicles. This followed a 22% decline in 2003. And the icing on the cake: "Buick is now selling fewer vehicles than Oldsmobile in 1999, the year before GM decided to kill the Olds brand."

Do any Buick enthusiasts think the quite satisfactory but ordinary LaCrosse is the answer?

[Centurion]

No, I don't think anyone has said that the LaCrosse is the answer. But it is a portion of the answer. Many of the automotive publications have been quite positive in their reviews of the LaCrosse. Some have not been complimentary, but many have acknowledged that it is an excellent car.

I test drove the mid-line LaCrosse CXL, and was highly impressed with the car's solid structure, comfortable seating, and handling. The styling is not groundbreaking, but I found it to be attractive. Perhaps I'm not discerning enough? That may be the case. Yet, I've driven some of our company-owned vehicles during recent years, including the Lexus LS430, Infiniti Q45, and BMW 5-Series. All were most impressive -- and significantly more expensive than the LaCrosse. I left my LaCrosse test drive with the sense that I would be as satisfied with the LaCrosse -- given the price differential -- as I would be with the costlier competitors. I recognize that the LaCrosse is in an entirely different price and competitive class, but there was very little about the car that seemed second rate to me, with the exception of the plastic wood on the dash.

I've looked at the sales statistics for the LaCrosse for November and December. Considering that many dealers did not receive any LaCrosses until mid-November, it appeared to me that initial sales were very respectable.

The LaCrosse notwithstanding, the answer for Buick lies in the upcoming models that will be introduced during the next two years. We have not yet seen the fruit of GM's 3-billion dollar investment in Buick.

[Guest COMPACTBC]

I watched a special TV program about the LA Auto Show that is going on this week. The show was an hour long and it mainly featured NON AMERICAN cars and cars that could only dream about being able to afford. It also talked about Chrysler's new 300 models and the new Ford Mustang. The only mention of a GM car was the Pontiac GTO. There was nothing on Cadillac, Chevy or Buick at all.

In my opinion this speaks volumes about where GM is in the overall auto market.

[Guest my3buicks]

No, the LaCrosse isn't going to be the single answer but it is a vehicle that fits well into it's class. And the sales figures show a division that was STARVED for product. As the stable fills now with a more rounded lineup with more to come over the next couple years, sales should start to show nice improvement.

[Buicks Rule]

Will LaCrosse be the answer to the whole question--probably not. But like Keith said, some of you guys need to get into the more recent Buicks on some long trips.

My sister took delivery of a new LaCrosse right after Christmas, trading in her Century. At my strong suggestion, she bought a more base model with the 3.8 rather than the new multi-valve engine that produces more hp ( but way less torque ); 3.8 gets better gas mileage and has a much more relaxed axle ratio ( 2.?? ) rather than the 3.69 in the multi valve wonder engine ( wonder how it's more efficient when it makes less power and gets less gas mileage ).

A mechanic friend who makes his living servicing modern cars also seconded the purchase of the "wheezy" old pushrod 3.8 due to better gas mileage than a 4 cylinder Toyota Camry, or any Taurus, better engine repair and longevity than a Camry and the fact that the 3.8 can cruise up hills without all passengers rowing--unlike the Camry.

Matt-next time try turning off the traction control. Usually when my BUICK SC 3.8 feels a little doggy, I look down and sure enough the traction control is on. Makes it hard to go when the computer is applying the brake.

The Buick 3.8 is just as state of the art as the "hot" small block Chebby engine that we keep hearing about. But, the buff magazines are so busy being technologically fascinated by multi-valve horsepower engines that quality, torque and decent fuel economy in the city traffic rev range that is the 'real'world get ignored.

GM does need to improve product content and pricing structure. The BUICK 3.8 is doing a great job of providing BUICK level performance, economy and longivity in various Pontiacs and Chevies which sell at cheaper price points. As long as GM continues to sell the same basic car, including engines, at multiple price points, the higher $ car will always sell fewer.

BTW--I would love to hear the reason why the SC 3.8 fits into the Bonneville but was NEVER available in the LeSabre. Even though the LeSabre is a little pudgy in styling, with an SC under the hood and a fully optioned high line interior, it might have given the more 'refined' makes a little competion.

Maybe the next BUICK engine will be a world class hybrid or hydrogen fueled car. Until then the 3.8 can soldier on showing the Chebbies it's taillights when turbocharged, and providing very nice performance and 30++ MPG for a 6 passenger car. It will probably take a hybrid to get better performance and equal fuel economy than the 3.8.

As much as I like my older Buicks and enjoy driving them, 24 mpg in constant stop and stop driving with climate control on and 30 mpg highway for 4- 6 passengers makes the SC 3.8 pretty easy to drive at gas pump time. Only time I notice it's front wheel drive is when the smoke comes from the front tires-not the back.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, the LaCrosse isn't going to be the single answer but it is a vehicle that fits well into it's class. And the sales figures show a division that was STARVED for product. As the stable fills now with a more rounded lineup with more to come over the next couple years, sales should start to show nice improvement. </div></div>

If we keep telling GM <span style="font-style: italic">"It's OK to put out segment-trailing products, we're sure you'll do better next time"</span> they'll never get the message that adequate just doesn't cut it any more. We've been saying <span style="font-style: italic">"well, there's always next year"</span> for 20 years! Do you really think that the next car out of the gate will be somehow revolutionary for Buick? I wouldn't bet on it. It'll be some G-body, FWD, 3.8-powered 4-door sedan with mouse-fur upholstery with some fishy-looking chrome grille and whitewall tires. <span style="font-style: italic">Please.</span>

GM is the biggest car manufacturer in the world, with some of the smartest and most talented engineers and designers anywhere. Japan, Inc. doesn't know anything these guys don't. But we, as consumers, are obligated to tell them that merely approaching what the competition was doing 5 years ago is unacceptable. If we keep telling them that it's OK to be mediocre and rewarding them for it, that's all they'll ever be (this is a good parenting lesson, too, but I digress). As a society, we've started to accept mediocre in everything, from music to movies, and because we accept it, it continues to be the norm. Executives delivering sub-par stuff continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done.To me, $30 large is <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">A LOT</span></span> of money. I'd try to get as much as possible for my dollar, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Getting the most for my dollar doesn't happen at the Buick store. Sorry.

We're keepers of the torch. Maybe most folks don't care about cars and these new cars are perfectly acceptable for them. But we are <span style="font-style: italic">Buick enthusiasts!</span> Don't we owe it to Buick to tell them when they've forgotten what Buick stands for? Instead, a lot of folks here seem to think that being a Buick enthusiast means accepting whatever Buick does as wonderful, no questions asked. That seems backwards to me, especially since we all <span style="font-style: italic">know</span> GM could do a lot better.

If the LaCrosse is so wonderful, why are my local dealerships already offering $2500 cash back on it? It seems to me that if you have a good product, it should sell itself (ever heard of a Honda Accord with a rebate? what about discounts on that new Chrysler 300?). Instead, GM has to discount <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> its hardware just to get it out the door. Honestly, will any of you <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">ever</span></span> pay sticker price for a GM product? Or do you go in and take $2000 off the top before you even start negotiating? GM is now the home of the cut-rate deal, not quality products.

And <span style="font-style: italic">that's</span> the problem.

Here's a post from the past with the rest of my thoughts.

I expect the next few posts will be from people defending the 3.8 and claiming that it is a great engine, and how you don't need overhead cams and multiple valves to make a car go, and how reliable it is, and how wonderful its torque is, and how they got a great deal on their <span style="font-style: italic">used</span> Buicks. That's all true, I won't argue that, but you're missing the point with all those arguments. The 3.8 sounds like a tractor motor thrashing around under the hood. For what it must cost GM to manufacture (hell, the tooling was paid in full before I was born!), for them to charge so much for the rest of the car it's in is ridiculous! The LaCrosse is probably a great $22,000 car. Unfortunately, it's a sub-standard $32,000 car.

If I gave you $35,000 and you had to buy a car (not a truck, not an SUV, not a "crossover") with it--my money, not yours--what would you buy? Lots of choices at $35K, aren't there? Nice choices. Would you rush out to the Buick store and buy a loaded LaCrosse, no questions asked? Or would you perhaps stop by the Acura or Lexus or BMW or Infiniti or Jaguar or Mercedes or even Cadillac or Chrysler dealerships on your way there? Sure, you can lie to us, but can you lie to yourself?

I'll be waiting for that answer (though I bet not 1 in 10 people will be honest)...

/rant <span style="font-style: italic">off</span>, flame-retardant pants <span style="font-style: italic">on</span>

[Gene Brink]

Okay Matt, I'll bite and be first to respond...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I expect the next few posts will be from people defending the 3.8 and claiming that it is a great engine, and how you don't need overhead cams and multiple valves to make a car go, and how reliable it is, and how wonderful its torque is, and how they got a great deal on their used Buicks. That's all true, I won't argue that, but you're missing the point with all those arguments. The 3.8 sounds like a tractor motor thrashing around under the hood. For what it must cost GM to manufacture (hell, the tooling was paid in full before I was born!), for them to charge so much for the rest of the car it's in is ridiculous! The LaCrosse is probably a great $22,000 car. Unfortunately, it's a sub-standard $32,000 car. </div></div>

As I think you might just be exaggerating a bit to make a point (one that I happen to largely agree with) I have to respond as follows-

- the 3800 is a great engine and is on a number of best engine lists as such however that does not make it a leading technology engine design (although that does not make it any less good/bad) - it does it job well and does not sound anything like any tractor engine I have heard. (Matter of fact it does not sound too bad under max throttle in first gear only - does sound wheezy in all other gears when it gets above 4000 rpm or so. I would like a bit better sound myself but fortunately you normally do not hear the engine at all when driving)

-cost -- I suspect it does not cost much more (or less) to make any standard engine in any manufactures car <span style="font-style: italic">provided</span> the numbers involved are sufficient to realize manufacturing efficiencies when all things are equal. For example single overhead cam with two valves per cylinder probably does not cost much different than ohv with 2 per cylinder but the same basic V8 does indeed cost much more in a Mercedes AMG application because the engine is blueprinted with much additional work having been done thus, for some, justifying the extra cost. I imagine GM's long-term use of old technology is a combination of satisfactory performance and not wanting to spend the $$ to develop new engines (which is short sighted and is the same thinking that resulted in add on smog equipment in the 70's that resulted in such poor engine performance) and wish those capable engineers you mention were allowed to do a better job as I am certain they would like to.

And to comment on the LaCrosse, I went to the LA Auto Show last night and gave it a good look. It it were a girl I'd say she was nice which I think is your point - Buick could have used a knock-out! Good fit and finish, comfortable front seats (not enough leg room in the back), average material quality, generic in the looks department but a look that will wear well for most owners. Would have preferred a more "dashing" design and certainly better tactile feel to the interior materials with thicker carpet and better plastic. Suppose they can turn it into something most would find much better (engine/suspension options, better interior appointments) but the real question is why they have to. Evidently setting the standard too low to begin with.

As always Matt, I enjoy reading your comments (and am really enjoying your progress on the Century).

Gene

P.S. If I were spending your $35k I'd supplement it with some of my own cash and get a five-series BMW. Terrific car with just enough rear seat room that I can sit there in comfort (I'm 6'2"). My wife would insist on a mini-van of some sort though...