Re: motivation

["Gregory S. Youngblood" <greg@domain.elided>]

On Fri, 3 May 2002 Pottree@domain.elided wrote:

> Olds and Buick., I think, represent the old paradigm and they have outlived
> their usefulness and appeal -- the image they carry, which was once part of
> their success, is now poison as far as market segments with any future are
> concerned.

I think this is right on the money. Buick is my grandfather's choice.
Actually, cadillac is, but when you can't afford a caddy, you get a buick.
He used to say, buy a caddilac if you can. If you can't, get a Buick. If
you can't afford either one, get a Chevy.

When I travel and have to rent a car I'll often get something like a
bonneville or caddy or something in that size. Often they try to stick me
with a Buick. I've learned from driving them that they do not make their
seats for someone my size - I'm only 5'10/11 but the Buick seat backs are
too low leaving no support for my head and they don't go far enough back.
Even at the end of their travel I feel too close to the steering wheel.
Yet, the same car's sister (Bonneville) has higher seat backs and fits me
better. I hate to stereotype, but look at the Park Avenue drivers when you
see them. At least 75% of the ones I see around when I'm paying attention
fit the profile of the typical "Buick" driver. The last time they had
something the didn't fit their normal image (as far as I'm concerned) was
the Grand National.

When I look at GM marketing, I see a few distinctly targeted products and
the rest a collection of cars appealing to an aging demographic market.
Poll most non-white middle age and younger people and they do not want GM
cars. At least the ones I run across. The ones that drive a Chevy or any
other American car are the exceptions.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided