PT Cruiser drives into the sunset.
Last Friday, the last Chrysler PT Cruiser rolled off the assembly line. The iconic vehicle with its love-it-or-hate-it “post retro” looks bit the dust after a tumultuous ten year run. That an automobile model has a pillow held over its face is not news. Automakers phase out models all the time.
What is news, to marketers anyway, is how this car, which sold 145,000 vehicles its first year and had months-long waiting lists at many dealers, was killed off while dealers are saddled with a bloated inventory of this year’s model.
In other words, marketing malpractice at its worst.
Like most cases of mismarketing, this one started out with success. Chrysler succeeded admirably at creating buzz for the PT even before its launch in 2001. Described as a cross between a 1930’s sedan and a vintage milk truck, it was the darling of car shows. Pre-orders were strong. Anticipation of the model drove scores of the curious (most of them non-Chrysler types) to dealer showrooms. Early adopters paid well over invoice for the PT of their choice. Fan clubs were formed. Rallies were organized. Aftermarket pimping commenced. It was also the first of the “post retro” crop of vehicles, which has grown to include the Ford Mustang, the Dodge Challenger and the Chevrolet Camaro and HHR.
The Cruiser also proved to be a demographic-buster, appealing to everyone from retirees to customizers to first-time car buyers looking for something spacious, inexpensive and yes, head-turning. (In the spirit of disclosure, I must inform you I purchase a 2002 model, which I still drive today.)
It didn’t take long for Chrysler to squander its success. Here are a few of the marketing sins commited by the automaker on behalf of the Cruiser:
- It failed to reinvest in the brand. We’ve written before about the necessity for marketers to continually add value to their offerings (click here for post). If you see a PT coming down the street, you’d be hard pressed to tell if it was a 2001 model, a 2007 model or a 2010 model. Version 2.0 never arrived. Initial owners loved their Cruisers. But when it came time to trade them in, I suspect very few bought another one. Why buy the same car twice? As an example of an automaker who has done it right, check out the 2010 Honda Civic compared to the 2001.
- It failed to understand its user base. The downside of having a product that appeals to many demographics is that it is easy to lose site of your “sweet spot.” While you never want to turn away buyers, you definitely want to cater to your bread and butter. And Chrysler could never decide who its core market was. Was it the young urban family looking for economical transportation? The boomer who was swept up in the nostalgic looks? The soccer mom who wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan?
- It allowed the model to become too ubiquitous. This is a tough one. The idea, after all is to sell more units, right? Well, actually the idea is to make more profits, and there are a lot of ways to go on that. The initial demand for the PT should have signaled Chrysler that it had a powerful niche model on it hands, but that’s all it would be. It was too polarizing to become the automaker’s flagship vehicle. By limiting production of the PT, Chrysler could have justified a premium price, which would played into the “individualism” the model inspired. And by upgrading the model (or adding variations: a panel truck, a woody station wagon, a top-less roadster, a club coupe?) Chrysler could continue to appeal to that crowd. Make the product’s Brand Vision “Head Turner.”
A former client of mine who was in the auto business once shared with me his early indicator of when a model was in trouble. “When you see rental car lots full of them, then you know the end is near,” he said. That was certainly true of the PT.
But perhaps the biggest marketing sin committed on behalf of the PT was to take a product that inspired passion, loyalty and camaraderie and allow it to suffer a Saturn-like fate.
Good luck, Fiat. Your work’s cut out for you.
Posted by Mickey
Recent Comments