Audi's, BMW's, Cadillac, and Mercedes are the best examples of Corporate Branding. The cars look very much alike (usually only on the front end), but its not so much to not be able to tell the difference between models.
Not a lot of companies have been able to make it work well.
stuart in mn wrote:Javelin wrote:Yes, the cars you picked looked different but they have similar design cues...the Fords still all look like Fords, and the Chevys still all look like Chevys. Back then anyone could tell at a glance what brand a particular car was.stuart in mn wrote:Disagree, *strongly*. Evidence:Javelin wrote: Back in the 60's Ford was on a sales tear, and all of the cars had their own look (Mustang, TBird, Fairlane, Falcon, etc).But they still all looked like Fords, just like Impalas, Chevelles and Novas all looked like Chevys, and so on. The different models weren't identical, but there were enough common design features to tell they all belonged to the same family.
Looking at those pictures I know the Fords are Fords because I know those cars are all Fords. I see nothing that makes me think they are related just because of the styling. Same with the Chevy's.
I think the current Cadillac corporate design looks good. One look at a CTS, STS, etc. and you know it's a Cadillac.
Javelin wrote: Notice how I didn't have to label the cars? I'm fairly certain that 90% of the population here can easily name all of those cars without labels. And as an example of what I *am* talking about, here's the 2012 Audi lineup (can you tell what each one is?):
This is kind of the thing I'm talking about when I start blaming marketing executives. They know their "brand" has history...
But they don't know how to make it appeal to people, other than trying to beat them over the head with it. It's not 1940 anymore, I know what Audi is. Did anyone bother to tell the marketing department that "Auto Union" has a modern motorsport history as well?
None of those have that stupid "Edsel Horse Collar" on the nose. Heck, you'd think the Edsel would have been a lesson they could learn.
I dislike the Acura beak nose. I briefly considered an RSX when I was shopping for a new car in 2005. Every Acura since the RSX has seemed exactly the same to me and something that I would never consider buying.
I can't name those Audis (not without reading the plates anyway). I know the cars are generally A# and there are sportier S# versions. No idea that the SUV's were Q#. Sounds like an Infiniti to me. I dislike the grills on the Audis and they cost more than I want to spend. They are recognizable though - other then looking somewhat like the ugly subaru grills from a few years back, or the Evo grill.
I don't really see much Ford or Chevy in those pics that were posted. I can pick out which is which, but if it is because of shared design cues they are subtle enough to not be bothersome.
Someone said that Toyota does not have a unifying theme - but they do. Look under them from behind. They have a propensity to hang the exhaust system well away from everything - I guess for NVH issues, but it makes it look like the exhaust is falling off. This goes for Yarisi on up through Lexi. It is a terrible unifying theme.
I have trouble discerning most small to mid size sedans on the road... and a few CUVs.. until I'm close or see badges
maybe it's just me 
I think the Volvo "Boxy, but good" corporate design philosophy for many years worked, but maybe that's just me.
stuart in mn wrote:Javelin wrote:Yes, the cars you picked looked different but they have similar design cues...the Fords still all look like Fords, and the Chevys still all look like Chevys. Back then anyone could tell at a glance what brand a particular car was.stuart in mn wrote:Disagree, *strongly*. Evidence:Javelin wrote: Back in the 60's Ford was on a sales tear, and all of the cars had their own look (Mustang, TBird, Fairlane, Falcon, etc).But they still all looked like Fords, just like Impalas, Chevelles and Novas all looked like Chevys, and so on. The different models weren't identical, but there were enough common design features to tell they all belonged to the same family.
Ummm, no, no they don't. What makes the Ford look like Fords or the Chevys look like Chevies? Some are single headlight, some are dual headlight, some are vertical stacked, some are horizontal stacked, some have coffin grills, others have inset grills, still others have split grills. Not a one of those cars has a similar theme to any of the other ones.
I think using the mostly good-looking Audi design template is a bit ironic, what with the point you're trying to make.
First off, cars from an era look like other cars from the same era. Second, a '73 Capri looks an awful lot like a '73 Escort. Third, and really this is the most important part, what about a '73 Capri with an F2T and a five speed out of an FC RX-7 TT? With some aero work I want to think it could pull close to 40 MPG and still throw down numbers that will impress just about anyone short of a ZR-1 pilot.
WHO IS WITH ME?
pres589 wrote: First off, cars from an era look like other cars from the same era. Second, a '73 Capri looks an awful lot like a '73 Escort. Third, and really this is the most important part, what about a '73 Capri with an F2T and a five speed out of an FC RX-7 TT? With some aero work I want to think it could pull close to 40 MPG and still throw down numbers that will impress just about anyone short of a ZR-1 pilot. WHO IS WITH ME?
Only reason I'm not with you is because I was a BMW guy back when Capris & E9s were mortal enemies. 
Another example of corporate design done pretty well: the 1990s VW lineup. I've picked 1990 as an arbitrary year.
They have a lot of styling differences, but is there any doubt they're all from the same company?
I think the Most successful corporate Design identity would have to be Aston Martin. Every one of their cars is distinctly an Aston but very very very very very pretty.
And as was mentioned, it's not just cars, but pretty much any product. From Apple computer products to John Deere tractors to Dyson vacuums. Whether we care or not depends on how much we like the product.
I can tell Astons apart at a glance. Like beautiful sisters that are all from the same family tree, but individuals as well. Complaining that all Astons look similar is like complaining that there's too many beautiful girls in a family... I can tell all new cars apart, just like I can tell people apart, even though we all share the same design cues 
In reply to MadScientistMatt:
I know the top is a Corrado, but honestly the bottom three look nearly identical to me. That would be a bad example IMO.
JoeTR6 wrote: Funny, but I had a similar discussion with a coworker started by the same article. My example was how Ford brought the Mercury Capri from Europe, and it was different. They didn't sell loads, but enough to justify bringing it over. For some reason I liked that car better than the Mustang.
Actually, they did sell loads. Second best selling import car in America in 1973 behind the Beetle. And everyone liked it better than the Mustang II. That's why they stopped importing them (in part). They had a LOT riding on the new for '79 Fox Mustang and didn't want the even cooler updated Mk III Capri steeling it's thunder.
In reply to Javelin:
Passat, Jetta and Fox (Quantum?) I think are the last three in order.
It works like this. Using the Audi example, the R8 is awesome, and it has this really specific grille/nose treatment. When you see the same one on the 4,6,7,8 series, you connect emotionally with the halo car and feel good, completely forgetting how hideous your car's front end truly is.
You then see a Mercedes or BMW coming the other way and you immediately know that they did not choose the best brand available because they don't have a big ugly nose. They are not "Audi people" and you are therefore better than them.
You see a Q7 and think, this guy is nowhere near as cool as me because he is in an SUV...oh wait. Big ugly nose! He's and Audi guy! He's OK after all. I am a member of the best club in the world!
Then you buy a hat with the big ugly nose on it. Then your jealous neighbor needs a car and she doesn't know much, but she knows that she has to have something with the distinct ugly nose to be accepted at the country club.
It's branding and it's more important than design or style and we Marketing Managers will rule the world eventually! Evil Laugh!! You will buy our tape and graphics packages!!
The problem is, we're into the world of the subjective again. One of the first posters railed about the current generation of Ford designs. I happen to like them, but feel that most GM designs set the bar for bland design, with Nissan taking the "what drug's being introduced into their water?" award. But I feel that the fundamental premise here is suspect. Virtually all designs are corporate, with the rare exception of when a Bangle slips in. Corporations by nature are risk averse, and to stake their fortunes on an artist's vision isn't how they do things. You want a statement? Grab a hunk of foam and carve away. If you're really awesome, you stand a chance of being hired by a major design studio and spend the next ten years sketching armrests
Yep, this goes very deep into the world of subjective. You also have to remember that we on this forum are on the "fringe" of car buyers. Your average American car buyer doesn't think along the same lines. We can call that stupid, sheep following, whatever. But that's the way it is. Brand loyalty, identity and recognition sells cars these days. Look what happens to companies who lose those identities. Companies want all their cars to be recognizable at a moments' glance, and to share "design elements" among model lines.
Some of them are butt ugly to me, such as Acura's punched in the face look, but some aren't so bad. I like Caddilac's designs...well, at least the cars, I'm not much of an SUV/crossover fan no matter how much makeup you put on it.
Speaking of staking your fortunes on an artist's vision, you remember all those Acuras that started turning up in Ironman and its related movies? Today I figured out why. It's because that ugly grill thing is apparently called "The Shield." Like S.H.I.E.L.D., get it? Doesn't that random semi-pun instantly make you want to run out and buy or lease an Acura from your local dealer at low, low rates with nothing due at signing?? I presume that what we can take away from this is that the high priests of branding operate on a level far above ours.
DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Javelin: Passat, Jetta and Fox (Quantum?) I think are the last three in order.
Correct. Was trying to find a good shot of a Fox two door wagon to make it a bit more different, but didn't see any good ones in the first couple Google Images results.
Javelin wrote:stuart in mn wrote:Ummm, no, no they don't. What makes the Ford look like Fords or the Chevys look like Chevies? Some are single headlight, some are dual headlight, some are vertical stacked, some are horizontal stacked, some have coffin grills, others have inset grills, still others have split grills. Not a one of those cars has a similar theme to any of the other ones.Javelin wrote:Yes, the cars you picked looked different but they have similar design cues...the Fords still all look like Fords, and the Chevys still all look like Chevys. Back then anyone could tell at a glance what brand a particular car was.stuart in mn wrote:Disagree, *strongly*. Evidence:Javelin wrote: Back in the 60's Ford was on a sales tear, and all of the cars had their own look (Mustang, TBird, Fairlane, Falcon, etc).But they still all looked like Fords, just like Impalas, Chevelles and Novas all looked like Chevys, and so on. The different models weren't identical, but there were enough common design features to tell they all belonged to the same family.
I'll offer a disagreement - there are strong ties in the side profile of the bodies for each make.
If you look at the Fords, they all have nearly flat, nearly vertical side profiles (Like you're sighting down the body from nose to tail) with strong horizontal lines that are formed by a recessed bend in the sheetmetal. This overall gives a very "Square shouldered", "Crisp" line to the body.
The Chevys on the other hand, have a rounder profile that rolls outward as the body comes down, and all have a strong median crease outward that runs front to back. Overall it gives them a rounder, smoother profile. You can see that the median line is lower on the body on the vette than the others, giving it a lower visual profile, but still the chevy cross-section.
I don't design cars, but I have done design and branding work for over a decade. frankly I think the level of "Branding" that companies like Acura do is mostly a cop-out for vanilla-image safety and lack of real vision, but what do I know....
I have wondered how the Acura "beak" would look bodycoloured?
mad_machine wrote: I have wondered how the Acura "beak" would look bodycoloured?
Better, but still pretty terrible overall.
You'll need to log in to post.
