RE: PH Blog: why Lotus-Mansory makes sense
Discussion
suffolk009 said:
The problem actually is that everyone has unrealistic expectations of how many cars Lotus should be selling. They have ambition for selling numbers that are just not in line with the types of car they have been making. Morgan are managing to expand without trying to move into exciting new bling markets. Ariel seem to be making sufficient cars to employ a few people. Ginetta are doing rather well. Caterham were another classic example of a niche company doing rather well(albeit until recently, we'll have to see how it all pans out)
All these companies have realistic commercial expectations.
I know it's very old-fashioned to run a business that isn't driven to be the biggest/market leader/have a planned exit strategy for the investors. But those less commercially ambitious companies can provide stable employment for many people, and build the sort of cars that people want to buy.
That's how you build brand loyalty.
Brand loyalty isn't the problem though - it's brand recognition and desirability that's the stumbling block.All these companies have realistic commercial expectations.
I know it's very old-fashioned to run a business that isn't driven to be the biggest/market leader/have a planned exit strategy for the investors. But those less commercially ambitious companies can provide stable employment for many people, and build the sort of cars that people want to buy.
That's how you build brand loyalty.
If quality of product at decent money matches any upstroke on desirability Mansory brings to the table, then loyalty should follow.
Having thought about the issue, and taking Dan's reasoned account into consideration, I have to say that I am on balance not enthused.
I am happy to admit I don't own a Lotus, and am not going to have the financial means to acquire one for some time - and after all they have a business to look after, employees they are responsible for etc, and don't have to cater to the whims of someone who doesn't buy their cars and has some over romanticised view of the past.
However...
Lotus do seem to be suffering from a very confused identity at the moment. What with Swiss Cheez and Mansory on board, they seem to be pitching themselves squarely at the 'image' market - people for whom a car is a status symbol, rather than(or, let's be fair, as well as) a tool or toy.
The question is, do Lotus have the image to match the aspirations of those with the money in this market place? The answer, I fear, is no. Next to your curvacious, pouting Ferrari's and Porsche's, Lotus is the plain girl in the corner with the great personality. Loved by those that know her, disregarded by others in a highly competitive and ultimately shallow world.
Aside from the above mentioned tie ups with a second string rap musician and a fairly gauche styling house, what else have they done to imprive their status? Now we move on to the much thornier than previosuly considered issue of Motorsport heritage.
Heritage is a lot like beauty - It is in the eyes of the beholder. It is a mythical construct that depends as much on the willingness of the observer to believe it as it does on facts and figures. So, I ask, what is Lotus' motorsport heritage?
To Joe Pistonheader Lotus is something of a legend of automotive innovation, if a double edged sword with the associated fragility. To them motorsport heritage means Type 49, Jimmy Clark, Gold Leaf/JPS, multiple world championships, high wings, ground effects, Cosworth DFVs, Indy 500 wins, class wins at Le Mans and Ayrton Senna. It is a history that is rich, colourful and vibrant and contributes to our perception of the company, and ultimately the shared outrage at the perceived dilution of the brand.
However, for the new target market, Lotus to all intents and purposes has no motorsport heritage. They probably aren't aware of the above, or if they are only on the periphery. Ayrton Senna is someone who Lewis Hamilton bangs on about and has a film about him. Who's Colin? They probably know there is a Formula One team, but don't realise Lotus only own about 20% of it. They are unaware of the Indycar campaign and the WEC efforts, though if they were probably wouldn't see it merely as a rebadging exercise.
Their efforts to rekindle the motorsport flame for the new audience (or bring it bang up to date for Joe Pistonheader) have had to be done on a shoestring. As a result, the new breed are unlikley to notice and even less likely to apply the same 'racecar' image to their new fashion accessory, and the old breed are just pretty unimpressed and see it as the betrayal of a proud history.
In my view, Lotus know what they want to be, but don't seem to understand what they 'are' - though my point of view is highly subjective of course. They are trying to compensate for a lack of heritage in this sphere with blingy tie ups. But this sphere are probably unlikely to care.
This to me, feels like they are divorcing their core customer base in order to have a pop at a customer base that they are ill prepared to pander to. Divorcing the wife in order to have a crack at Scarlet Johansson - and running the risk of being knocked back and ending up with nothing.
I am happy to admit I don't own a Lotus, and am not going to have the financial means to acquire one for some time - and after all they have a business to look after, employees they are responsible for etc, and don't have to cater to the whims of someone who doesn't buy their cars and has some over romanticised view of the past.
However...
Lotus do seem to be suffering from a very confused identity at the moment. What with Swiss Cheez and Mansory on board, they seem to be pitching themselves squarely at the 'image' market - people for whom a car is a status symbol, rather than(or, let's be fair, as well as) a tool or toy.
The question is, do Lotus have the image to match the aspirations of those with the money in this market place? The answer, I fear, is no. Next to your curvacious, pouting Ferrari's and Porsche's, Lotus is the plain girl in the corner with the great personality. Loved by those that know her, disregarded by others in a highly competitive and ultimately shallow world.
Aside from the above mentioned tie ups with a second string rap musician and a fairly gauche styling house, what else have they done to imprive their status? Now we move on to the much thornier than previosuly considered issue of Motorsport heritage.
Heritage is a lot like beauty - It is in the eyes of the beholder. It is a mythical construct that depends as much on the willingness of the observer to believe it as it does on facts and figures. So, I ask, what is Lotus' motorsport heritage?
To Joe Pistonheader Lotus is something of a legend of automotive innovation, if a double edged sword with the associated fragility. To them motorsport heritage means Type 49, Jimmy Clark, Gold Leaf/JPS, multiple world championships, high wings, ground effects, Cosworth DFVs, Indy 500 wins, class wins at Le Mans and Ayrton Senna. It is a history that is rich, colourful and vibrant and contributes to our perception of the company, and ultimately the shared outrage at the perceived dilution of the brand.
However, for the new target market, Lotus to all intents and purposes has no motorsport heritage. They probably aren't aware of the above, or if they are only on the periphery. Ayrton Senna is someone who Lewis Hamilton bangs on about and has a film about him. Who's Colin? They probably know there is a Formula One team, but don't realise Lotus only own about 20% of it. They are unaware of the Indycar campaign and the WEC efforts, though if they were probably wouldn't see it merely as a rebadging exercise.
Their efforts to rekindle the motorsport flame for the new audience (or bring it bang up to date for Joe Pistonheader) have had to be done on a shoestring. As a result, the new breed are unlikley to notice and even less likely to apply the same 'racecar' image to their new fashion accessory, and the old breed are just pretty unimpressed and see it as the betrayal of a proud history.
In my view, Lotus know what they want to be, but don't seem to understand what they 'are' - though my point of view is highly subjective of course. They are trying to compensate for a lack of heritage in this sphere with blingy tie ups. But this sphere are probably unlikely to care.
This to me, feels like they are divorcing their core customer base in order to have a pop at a customer base that they are ill prepared to pander to. Divorcing the wife in order to have a crack at Scarlet Johansson - and running the risk of being knocked back and ending up with nothing.
andy_s said:
You're comparing new with used prices. If you do that you need to look at £30k-ish car alternatives to the Evora.
Doesn't matter, the budget allows both to be considered options.I'm looking at buying a used Lexus GS - are you suggesting I should only consider brand new cars for the same amount my budget permits (under £10K)?
Edited by PJ S on Wednesday 28th March 12:48
How many new lotuses have actually been sold this year? I haven't seen that many and the dealers seem to be getting thinner on the ground. Outside of the UK the fact that a Toyota dealer could service them enabled them to be sold further afeild which should have been their boom time. But they have fallen out with Toyota.
toppstuff said:
I will try and explain why I am concerned about this development..
I guess I am an ideal potential buyer. Young enough to want a car like an Evora and maybe even able to afford one ! I am tuned into the narrative of established brands like Porsche, BMW etc and understand why people buy them.
As for Lotus, what does the brand mean to me?
Well, for me it represents interesting, technologically advanced sports cars that are pure and connected to the road. The Lotus brand is about simplicity - all of their best cars are simple, easy to understand and easy to appreciate.
The Lotus brand is also about motorsport. Lotus is about winning GP cars, JPS, Senna and De Angelis, Ronnie Petersen etc... Only the most stupid, ill-educated petrol head would fail to understand the amazing motorsport heritage of Lotus. And Lotus won GP's because they innovated in their car design.
Now this is where I think Lotus is going wrong, maybe taking the wrong direction.
Ferrari are an amazingly successful car company. They make product everyone wants. The Ferrari brand and its motorsport heritage are inseparable. You can still sense the spirit of Enzo Ferrari, you sense that if he were alive and a young man today he would totally "get" a car like the 430 Scuderia for example. The lineage is clear to see and easy to understand. This is why Ferrari is a successful brand.
Now lets look at Lotus.
Many people say that Lotus cannot survive by selling cars to the old bearded Lotus lovers of old. This is nonsense.
The main worry for me is that Lotus seems to be ignoring its heritage. Lotus seems to be trying to reach out to new customers who know nothing of the Lotus history, and they are doing this deliberately. This makes no sense - they may as well create a new car company with a new name, if they are ignoring the legacy and the bloodline of the past.
Lotus somehow needs to create an image that ties its past with its future. They are not doing a good job of this. The Mansory tie up is proof that in terms of marketing, the owners just don't understand what they have.
Lotus should, IMO,
1. Reference the past. Reference the fact that Lotus stands for chassis engineering that changed the world of motorsport and supplied the worlds finest GP drivers.
2. Show that just as in the past Lotus innovated and succeeded, it is still doing it now. Make it clear that a Lotus provides more "feel" for the road you are driving than other cars ( especially German ones ! ). Exploit the fact that as Porsche moves toward electronic, lifeless steering, a Lotus gives you a connection to the road. A connection that goes all the way back to Senna himself.
3. Lotus is not about bling. Lotus is about engineering. Lotus is about being clever. Lotus is about being the "thinking mans' Sports car. The fashion victim buying a car because of the bling and the bodykit is never going to be loyal to the Lotus brand, because they do not understand the brand anyway. Lotus should be pitching to a smarter customer than that.
Am I living in the past? No way. But Lotus should look to the future by understanding what already makes it special.
All this Mansory nonsense means nothing. It does not seem to fit at all to the Lotus brand values.
It is sad to see that Lotus management really do not understand their own company. They do not understand it at all.
We should be seeing clever marketing, referencing the clever , alternative thinking of Lotus cars. About feeling the road. About efficiency. About "feel" rather than bling. About Senna, not Swiss Beatz...
It is tragic that they don't see this...
Absolutely agree .... except I would also add that Lotus are the master when it comes to "handling via lightness" route and this is a part of their heritage.I guess I am an ideal potential buyer. Young enough to want a car like an Evora and maybe even able to afford one ! I am tuned into the narrative of established brands like Porsche, BMW etc and understand why people buy them.
As for Lotus, what does the brand mean to me?
Well, for me it represents interesting, technologically advanced sports cars that are pure and connected to the road. The Lotus brand is about simplicity - all of their best cars are simple, easy to understand and easy to appreciate.
The Lotus brand is also about motorsport. Lotus is about winning GP cars, JPS, Senna and De Angelis, Ronnie Petersen etc... Only the most stupid, ill-educated petrol head would fail to understand the amazing motorsport heritage of Lotus. And Lotus won GP's because they innovated in their car design.
Now this is where I think Lotus is going wrong, maybe taking the wrong direction.
Ferrari are an amazingly successful car company. They make product everyone wants. The Ferrari brand and its motorsport heritage are inseparable. You can still sense the spirit of Enzo Ferrari, you sense that if he were alive and a young man today he would totally "get" a car like the 430 Scuderia for example. The lineage is clear to see and easy to understand. This is why Ferrari is a successful brand.
Now lets look at Lotus.
Many people say that Lotus cannot survive by selling cars to the old bearded Lotus lovers of old. This is nonsense.
The main worry for me is that Lotus seems to be ignoring its heritage. Lotus seems to be trying to reach out to new customers who know nothing of the Lotus history, and they are doing this deliberately. This makes no sense - they may as well create a new car company with a new name, if they are ignoring the legacy and the bloodline of the past.
Lotus somehow needs to create an image that ties its past with its future. They are not doing a good job of this. The Mansory tie up is proof that in terms of marketing, the owners just don't understand what they have.
Lotus should, IMO,
1. Reference the past. Reference the fact that Lotus stands for chassis engineering that changed the world of motorsport and supplied the worlds finest GP drivers.
2. Show that just as in the past Lotus innovated and succeeded, it is still doing it now. Make it clear that a Lotus provides more "feel" for the road you are driving than other cars ( especially German ones ! ). Exploit the fact that as Porsche moves toward electronic, lifeless steering, a Lotus gives you a connection to the road. A connection that goes all the way back to Senna himself.
3. Lotus is not about bling. Lotus is about engineering. Lotus is about being clever. Lotus is about being the "thinking mans' Sports car. The fashion victim buying a car because of the bling and the bodykit is never going to be loyal to the Lotus brand, because they do not understand the brand anyway. Lotus should be pitching to a smarter customer than that.
Am I living in the past? No way. But Lotus should look to the future by understanding what already makes it special.
All this Mansory nonsense means nothing. It does not seem to fit at all to the Lotus brand values.
It is sad to see that Lotus management really do not understand their own company. They do not understand it at all.
We should be seeing clever marketing, referencing the clever , alternative thinking of Lotus cars. About feeling the road. About efficiency. About "feel" rather than bling. About Senna, not Swiss Beatz...
It is tragic that they don't see this...
Edited by toppstuff on Tuesday 27th March 12:26
Having said that .... perhaps we should give Mansory the benefit of the doubt until we see the fruits of their labour. I'm not holding my breath though.
PJ S said:
suffolk009 said:
All the bling you'll ever need on the side of your Lotus.
Sorry, but in my book, that's the embodiment of resting on one's laurels!
suffolk009 said:
PJ S said:
suffolk009 said:
All the bling you'll ever need on the side of your Lotus.
Sorry, but in my book, that's the embodiment of resting on one's laurels!
PJ S said:
42 years ago is championed (forgive the pun) as a good thing these days?
Sorry, but in my book, that's the embodiment of resting on one's laurels!
You actually made two puns (laurels on the badge)! I'd say it was resting on your laurels unless your Lotus is 42 years old too. Sorry, but in my book, that's the embodiment of resting on one's laurels!
sisu said:
the extended version of the Evora here. 
All that does is remind me how badly Lotus styled the Evora in the first place. To my eye Evora's dull at the front, odd in the middle and ugly at the back! They don't need a tuner to help them sort it out, just a bit of common sense! That Ferrari 458 shows the right sort of direction.P4ROT said:
The Pits said:
Trouble is, the 458 is not appealing to my eyes to start with. But Mansory haven't managed to improve it, I'll give you that.
I agree it's not a 'pretty' car....but those Homer Simpson style speed holes are just disgustingVocal Minority said:
This to me, feels like they are divorcing their core customer base in order to have a pop at a customer base that they are ill prepared to pander to. Divorcing the wife in order to have a crack at Scarlet Johansson - and running the risk of being knocked back and ending up with nothing.
What is a great analogy! ....worst case is the relationship will fail at the chatting up stage, which looks like its happening right now, but I suppose its feasible that Lotus and their new clientele will get it on, get married, have kids and live happily ever after. After all, alot of cleleb relationships end that way....don't they?Jellinek said:
Vocal Minority said:
This to me, feels like they are divorcing their core customer base in order to have a pop at a customer base that they are ill prepared to pander to. Divorcing the wife in order to have a crack at Scarlet Johansson - and running the risk of being knocked back and ending up with nothing.
What is a great analogy! ....worst case is the relationship will fail at the chatting up stage, which looks like its happening right now, but I suppose its feasible that Lotus and their new clientele will get it on, get married, have kids and live happily ever after. After all, alot of cleleb relationships end that way....don't they?Get a grip you lot.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff