RE: Marketing matters: PH Blog

RE: Marketing matters: PH Blog

Monday 1st September 2014

Marketing matters: PH Blog

Value for money versus pose value - Dan drives the Cupra back to back with a Golf GTI



We get terribly hung up over numbers when it comes to our cars, don't we? I'll put this down to the fact that before we could all actually drive we had two things to go on in order to rank the cars we dreamed over.

You could base argument on the quality of the reviewing journalist's adjectives and overblown metaphors. Or you could skip straight to the data panel at the end and go by the numbers. Those debates have moved from the playground and pub into the virtual world but data will always (top) trump purple prose, right?

Does the SEAT's value leave the Golf trailing?
Does the SEAT's value leave the Golf trailing?
Not necessarily! Obviously I have personal interest here in making the fuzzy stuff about how a car makes you feel and the more descriptive comparisons matter too. Furthermore, taking Matt's Leon Cupra 280 along to the photoshoot for our Golf GTI marketwatch was very revealing. A back to back comparison with the VW booked in for modelling duties raised plentiful questions about value for money, perceived and actual.

Let's get some numbers out of the way first. A 280hp SEAT Leon Cupra 280 three-door with a manual gearbox like the basis of Matt's car would cost you £26,945. The commendably bare bones three-door 220hp Golf GTI manual we had lists at £26,330. Golf cheaper shocker.

Until you try and spec it to some sort of parity with the Leon. To get the VAQ diff the SEAT has as standard add £995, for 19s another £985 and for a basic nav (again standard on the Leon) a further £750, adding up to £29,060 - an additional £2,115. And even with the GTI Performance power bump it's still 50hp down.

Bring out the score cards and you've got a SEAT based on the same platform as the Golf with identical engine and transmission but more power and effectively costing over £2,000 less.

So why, given the choice - or perhaps a pair of test drives from respective dealerships - would I have driven away in the Golf, happily two grand and a few horsepower lighter?

Numbers only tell half the story in this comparison
Numbers only tell half the story in this comparison
I'd say it's an indefinable character, seasoned with a bit of vanity that'd make me willing to accept less power for more money. But that does a disservice to the giant spreadsheet I'd like to think exists somewhere in Wolfsburg that charts and plots the exact pricing and attributes for each platform sharing product. Both brand hierarchy and customer expectation need to be managed, after all.

From driving both I can see only one possible explanation - that SEAT was handed all the parts, permitted an on-paper power advantage for marketing benefit (torque is actually identical on both at 258lb ft and performance near identical) but instructed to make the package 5.95 per cent less satisfactory than the Golf by every key measure. OK, I made that figure up. But I bet there's a figure like it somewhere, I'll swear.

In practice this meant the SEAT's gearshift is 5.95 per cent more flaccid than the Golf's, the brakes 5.95 per cent more grabby, the steering 5.95 per cent less pleasing, the power delivery 5.95 per cent less modulated, the NVH 5.95 per cent less favourable and so on. Having driven the SEAT up to the shoot along a favourite B-road and been astonished by both the outrageous performance and total lack of involvement therein the Golf just felt ... nicer. And no slower.

At every level the SEAT screams bang for buck, value for money, hp per £ or whatever objective comparison you want to throw at it. But the moment your bum hits the tartan cloth of the Golf's seat there's just an involuntary sigh of (self) satisfaction. But maybe I'm just a sucker.

Discuss.

Dan

Photos: Anthony Fraser

   
Author
Discussion

r11co

Original Poster:

6,244 posts

229 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
What a load of subjective bullcrap. The 5.95% you refer to is called the placebo effect.

FWDRacer

3,564 posts

223 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Which side of your head is the handle mounted on. You are a mug.

ManicMunky

525 posts

119 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
A few months ago I got some PCP quotes for the Golf GTI, Leon Cupra and the Octavia vRS... all other things being equal, the Skoda was the most expensive per month!

thatguy11

640 posts

122 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
If you feel more satisfied sitting in a Golf GTI than another VAG equivalent, then the driving experience will sometimes be all the sweeter because of your mindset.

Sometimes just knowing that you're in the more expensive/classier option will enhance the experience, even if the physical act of driving is exactly the same (or even slightly worse) than the cheaper option.

Call it being a victim of marketing/advertising if you want, but sometimes if it feels better, even intangibly, it is better.

Yes Dan, you are a sucker, but so are a lot of us!


Edited by thatguy11 on Monday 1st September 12:34

sanctum

191 posts

174 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Value vs cost vs deliverables.

Seat brand accept worse NVH targets in exchange for higher performance numbers. The cabin ergonomics and tactile response is sacrificed for functionality. Driver feedback sacrificed for cornering force. The VWs either swap those priorities around, or just accept less compromise, which requires more expensive parts, testing and development.

It's all a balancing act and the two different brands target two different customer demographics. Wouldn't it be a dull world if we all wanted the same things?

GTEYE

2,092 posts

209 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
IMHO the Leon is a bit like own brand cola, with on paper all the right ingredients, but the Golf is the real thing, which matter for a lot of people.

You would never need to justify to yourself (or anyone else) why you bought a Golf.

Edited by GTEYE on Monday 1st September 12:39

RacerMike

4,192 posts

210 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
YES! Exactly my thoughts after driving the Golf R.

As a Mk5 GTI owner, it felt precisely 15% better than my car in every way...but still exactly like a Golf. Which kind of isn't what I wanted. I wanted it to feel a bit raw, considerably faster and a bit mental.

Instead it felt excellent. 15% more excellent than my Mk5. The suspension was about 15% better damped. It felt like it had about 15% better traction, 15% more power and 15% more noisy.

In isolation, the R is a fantastic car. But so is a Mk5 GTI. In fact, blindfolded, you'd struggle to tell a huge difference without a back to back test. So for me paying £350 a month to buy a new version of my car....that's 15% better. Just didn't make sense.

Which is now why I want a Porsche...

Clivey

5,108 posts

203 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Dan said:
Having driven the SEAT up to the shoot along a favourite B-road and been astonished by both the outrageous performance and total lack of involvement therein the Golf just felt ... nicer. And no slower.
This says a lot. If someone gave me £26-27k and stipulated that it had to be spent on a brand new car with five seats, I'd really struggle. Most recent hatches do absolutely nothing for me.

Truckosaurus

11,183 posts

283 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Perhaps the surprising thing is that the Leon is only a couple of grand (<10% of the list price) less than the GTi.

[Citation needed] I suspect the Golf would be cheaper on a PCP or Lease anyway.

Maldini35

2,913 posts

187 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
thatguy11 said:
Sometimes just knowing that you're in the more expensive/classier option will enhance the experience, even if the physical act of driving is exactly the same (or even slightly worse) than the cheaper option.

Call it being a victim of marketing/advertising if you want, but sometimes if it feels better, even intangibly, it is better.
I agree.

If it genuinely FEELS better to you - then it IS better to you. Perception is reality and all that.

Much as I like the Cupra I'd go for the Golf everytime if it was my money.
What seem like small, insignificant details at first (like interior fit and finish), become much more important over a number of years ownership.

Secretly most will conform to this way of thinking - unless you are reading this in a Tesco own brand suit & tie with 'leatherette' slip-on loafers(just as good as leather)...


Turbobanana

6,160 posts

200 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Does anybody REALLY care about the marketing?

Don't we just buy what we like? (And no, I am not wearing a Tesco suit or leatherette shoes etc).

365daytonafan

283 posts

184 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Turbobanana said:
Does anybody REALLY care about the marketing?

Don't we just buy what we like? (And no, I am not wearing a Tesco suit or leatherette shoes etc).
Why do you like the things that you do though? Sticking to cars if it is because of motorsport - car companies mainly enter for marketing reasons. If it because of magazine reviews - I suspect provision of press cars comes out of most companies marketing budgets.

wemorgan

3,578 posts

177 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
We're nearly all influenced by marketing. Even those who rebel against it are understood by marketing depts.
Best no worry about it too much and take an asprin, or other branded product.

chrisemersons

143 posts

142 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Am i the only one having deja-vu here ??!!

Havent we done the Golf vs Leon depreciation, value for money, build quality, brand loyalty, '£30k for a Golf!' topic to death ?!

Nobody in their right mind who can afford either would buy the Leon with their own money, the interior is tat compared to the VW and its a lesser brand in the percieved brand hierachy - most non car people view SEATS as a step up from a Kia - kinda at a Vauxhall or Renault level !

If you have the money you will buy the Golf, it'll look better for longer and be worth more when you come to sell it..

ally_f

245 posts

186 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
r11co said:
What a load of subjective bullcrap. The 5.95% you refer to is called the placebo effect.
So true!

chrisemersons

143 posts

142 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
GTEYE said:
IMHO the Leon is a bit like own brand cola, with on paper all the right ingredients, but the Golf is the real thing, which matter for a lot of people.

Edited by GTEYE on Monday 1st September 12:39
Exactly...

You only buy 'own brand coke' because you cant afford the real thing.

If people have to go on and on about how overpriced the real thing is then they probably cant afford it anyway 'get out of my way poor person' haha.......

r11co

Original Poster:

6,244 posts

229 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
It's all about perceived value, and it very rarely has anything to do with anything quantifiable, which is why the 5.95% allegory is a load of crap. It is an attempt to justify brand image.

Very often manufacturers ride perceived value in an attempt to cut costs when times are lean, or to milk loyal customers. Look at the dip in quality of Mercedes products around the W201 era, or the switch from cast aluminium to pressed steel suspension parts and then the move from wishbone to trailing arm suspension on the Honda Civic, or the deliberate dialling in of understeer on the F30 BMW to cheaply overcome the need for staggered tyre sizes on the E90 platform it was derived from. All products that were perceived to be 'good' in their current form, and the goodwill is milked for the next version. That's what happens when psycophants give credence to perceived value - as if it exists as a consequence of something more than image (which this article attempts to do).

B brands exist because some customers do not like to be milked, or want to keep the manufacturer honest. These customers decide with head rather than heart and will go elsewhere otherwise.

Edited by r11co on Monday 1st September 14:01

wemorgan

3,578 posts

177 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
chrisemersons said:
Exactly...

You only buy 'own brand coke' because you cant afford the real thing.

If people have to go on and on about how overpriced the real thing is then they probably cant afford it anyway 'get out of my way poor person' haha.......
Another marketing ploy. People feel rich buying Brand A and look down at people buying Brand B.

g7jhp

6,959 posts

237 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
The Golf would probably retain it's value far better than the Seat so factoring in the likely depreciation it's probably a better long term choice. All things being relatively equal most people would choose the Golf.

RacerMike

4,192 posts

210 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
ally_f said:
r11co said:
What a load of subjective bullcrap. The 5.95% you refer to is called the placebo effect.
So true!
You appear to have missed the point of that number. I don't believe Dan was using 5.95% as an exact figure wink

And...it's also not a load of subjective bullcrap. VW definitely will have an 'attribute positioning spreadsheet' which will place various cars above and below each other to appeal to different people. The Leon appeals to people who care more about numbers than a badge and want something a bit raw and unruly. The Golf is a 'all things to all men' sort of car. They assign numbers to these things to make sure they achieve that aim. Even if that number is a development budget (so perhaps SEAT only get half the budget that VW get to develop the steering feel), it will still ultimately mean the Golf comes out slightly better subjectively.