Since folks persist in arguing about the Ford example, here's my $0.02 worth:
1965 was not the best example to use if you wanted to show that all Fords looked vaguely alike...a better example is 1964 (sans Mustang).
In 1964, the Galaxie AND Fairlane both had quad side by side headlights. ALL Fords in 1964, except the T-Bird had round tail lights with the reverse light in the center. In 1964, with the exception of the Falcon, ALL Fords had grilles made of thin horizontal bars. Sorry, I don't have time to post the picture "proof".
For Chevy, 1969 isn't a good year if you are doing like the above example....trying to prove how alike Chevys are. 1966 (gee, again before the intro of the ground breaking chevy ponycar) all the Chevys looked more alike than not. All had horizontally placed headlights and all had tail lights that were rectangular with the long side being on the horizontal plane....except for the Nova (on the vertical plane) and the 'Vette and 'Vair had round tail lights.
BTW, Fords got quite rounded in 1968...about the year AFTER GM cars did. Chryslers? Starting in '69.
IMHO
The only "corporate design" philosophy that really worked for me was the Pontiac design themes from the mid-to late 60s. All of the cars looked different, but similar enough to let you know they were Pontiacs. They were all pretty good looking too.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
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.
Marketing people need to explain this to me.
Car A is too good so E36 M3can it so that it doesn't steal sales from Car B.
Why not just E36 M3can car B?
DaewooOfDeath wrote:
Marketing people need to explain this to me.
Car A is too good so E36 M3can it so that it doesn't steal sales from Car B.
Why not just E36 M3can car B?
Perhaps because you make twice as much money on every car B.
Then charge more for car A, it is after all flying off the lots.
