RE: Lotus - Geneva 2015
Discussion
Wayoftheflower said:
Vee12V said:
Wonder if TG has a problem with Lotus (or the other way round). The Exige v6 hasn't even been on the show!
It's silly but it would be the best (and cheapest) PR they could do.
TGtv and Lotus fell out over the Evora S review being a stitch up/addendum to the 1M review. The "drag race" result was totally fabricated. Lotus did also send 3 cars to the best of british mall lineup and got almost no screen time either.It's silly but it would be the best (and cheapest) PR they could do.
Also watched Harris' bit of Geneva show last night. Not even mentioning the 400...
otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
Agree with Lotus' struggle. But if they want to remain in their tiny niche then they need to completely restructure their business as it is currently built for much higher volumes and then will never, ever get any volume without appealing to the masses and to do that they need to be asperational. You could do this the Bahar way of associating the brand with celebrity and the world of classless bling or you could do it the sensible way and make the body shape look a million dollars.
Gales has restructured, though (to the usual "circling the drain" noises from the vultures) to get the company to the point where it can realistically grow from the volumes it can achieve. What would do it more good than anything is a really good review of the Evora 400 from Top Gear. It's disappointing that so many people don't have any more informed metric than that, but there you go. Lexus must be absolutely gutted by the hatchet job they got last week.
And whether you like TG or not, it is the global audience for any prestige car and has to be done.
SrMoreno said:
blueg33 said:
This is spot on, but not just Top Gear the other car mags too. Unfortunately the anti Lotus attitudes you see on this thread seem to be pervasive and the cars are judged before anyone even climbs in. PH did their own hatchet job on the Evora SR last year with dumb and factually incorrect reporting, half of PH then jumped on the band wagon. Sadly in a world full of easily guided and rather dumb sheep the likes of Porsche will always been seen as the better car.
Porsche pay for a lot more adverts and trips to Spain for reviewers than Lotus ever will.The reason journalists can say what they like about Lotus is that there are no repurcussions. Lotus need to be giving something to journalists that they can also take away. It's that simple. Denying a journo access to a car doesn't matter, it's denying them an invitation to a gobsmackingly good event that would be embarrassing not to be seen at that works.
Wayoftheflower said:
Vee12V said:
Wonder if TG has a problem with Lotus (or the other way round). The Exige v6 hasn't even been on the show!
It's silly but it would be the best (and cheapest) PR they could do.
TGtv and Lotus fell out over the Evora S review being a stitch up/addendum to the 1M review. The "drag race" result was totally fabricated. Lotus did also send 3 cars to the best of british mall lineup and got almost no screen time either.It's silly but it would be the best (and cheapest) PR they could do.
What is even sadder is the commercial reality that Lotus are not in any position to get in a huff with TGtv - yes some of it is puff and theatre, but it does appear from what TGtv is saying that they are zeroing in on a track test of the McLaren P1, the FerraritheFerrari and the Porsche 918. If TGtv can wield that sort of power, how can Lotus get on their radar, other than the sympathy vote? And I say that as a Norfolk boy and therefore conditioned to love anything with the ACBC badge on it.
I remember happier times when (I can't remember if it was old TGtv or one of Clarkson's post old-TGtv documentaries) where he reviewed the S1 Elise and said if they sold any, he'd eat his shoes - then the next sequence was him "eating" a shoe. And Lotus PR (Lord Flo of Hethel) sent him a shoe shaped cake, which he published a photo of him eating.
TTmonkey said:
The main thing wrong with this car is the price. It doesn't have cutting edge technology, it doesn't have a bespoke engine.... so why would you pay £70,000 plus for it?
Lotus should stick to making cars at a price point that the majority of its fans can aspire to owning.... and that's £40k or less, to me.
I mean... £70k..... you just would spend that elsewhere, wouldn't you....?
Not when you consider the heap of pre-loved exotica you can get for that money..Lotus should stick to making cars at a price point that the majority of its fans can aspire to owning.... and that's £40k or less, to me.
I mean... £70k..... you just would spend that elsewhere, wouldn't you....?
Or new/nearly new far more modern, bespoke and luxurious GTs and sports cars out there.
ILoveMondeo said:
TTmonkey said:
The main thing wrong with this car is the price. It doesn't have cutting edge technology, it doesn't have a bespoke engine.... so why would you pay £70,000 plus for it?
Lotus should stick to making cars at a price point that the majority of its fans can aspire to owning.... and that's £40k or less, to me.
I mean... £70k..... you just would spend that elsewhere, wouldn't you....?
Not when you consider the heap of pre-loved exotica you can get for that money..Lotus should stick to making cars at a price point that the majority of its fans can aspire to owning.... and that's £40k or less, to me.
I mean... £70k..... you just would spend that elsewhere, wouldn't you....?
Or new/nearly new far more modern, bespoke and luxurious GTs and sports cars out there.
You can't compare used v new.
SidewaysSi said:
Very true - you can get 70 2000 MY Mercs for the same price. Likewise why buy a new Panda when you an get a 12 year old BMW M3
You can't compare used v new.
Ok, new thenYou can't compare used v new.
ftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
ILoveMondeo said:
Ok, new then
ftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
None of those are more compelling to me. It's good that there is diversity of different tastes. I might think the Cayman common, the Nissan vulgar and the Jag a bit too Midlands golf club, but there are plenty of people who love them. Good for them.ftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
ILoveMondeo said:
SidewaysSi said:
Very true - you can get 70 2000 MY Mercs for the same price. Likewise why buy a new Panda when you an get a 12 year old BMW M3
You can't compare used v new.
Ok, new thenYou can't compare used v new.
ftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
Have you driven any of them? Or are you beguiled by the marketing and the journalists?
Spec the jag and the Cayman to match the Evora and they cost more. Only the Cayman is comparable dynamically the GTR is amazing but is too digital for me.
So it's subjective and its marketing that wins the day in those circumstances.
ILoveMondeo said:
Ok, new then
ftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
I'll answer this from an honest perspectivie. On PH it isn't terribly popular to admit to buying cars based on how they make us feel in public. In fact PHers go out of their way to deny that they care what random strangers think. But as we all know this is total bftype v6s
Cayman gts
Nissan GT-R
All far more compelling options to me.
Also I think you should / can compare new v used, it's part of the decision process most people go through when changing car.
If not a 8 year old lambo, you have to throw nearly new / delivery miles used cars Into the mix, which opens up a range of different Porsches and v8 ftypes, vantages , Amg GT ( In a few months probably) and probably more
ks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc. So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
DonkeyApple said:
I'll answer this from an honest perspectivie. On PH it isn't terribly popular to admit to buying cars based on how they make us feel in public. In fact PHers go out of their way to deny that they care what random strangers think. But as we all know this is total bks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc.
So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Sort of agree - but in person the Evora gets more female attention than a 911 did for me (my Ginetta got the most). I think its probably because they think its a Lambo or a Ferrari, you would be surprised how many people make that mistakeks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc. So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Anyway, I don't buy I car to get laid, I buy one to have fun in between getting laid
I also have a suspicion that most new Porsches are bought on PCP type finance by people who in reality can't afford them, wheras I bet not many Lotus's are financed that way.
Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 7th March 10:04
blueg33 said:
DonkeyApple said:
I'll answer this from an honest perspectivie. On PH it isn't terribly popular to admit to buying cars based on how they make us feel in public. In fact PHers go out of their way to deny that they care what random strangers think. But as we all know this is total bks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc.
So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Sort of agree - but in person the Evora gets more female attention than a 911 did for me (my Ginetta got the most). I think its probably because they think its a Lambo or a Ferrari, you would be surprised how many people make that mistakeks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc. So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Anyway, I don't buy I car to get laid, mI buy one to have fun in between getting laid
If you didn't tell a woman what you drove and picked her up in a Lotus, I really don't think she will be thinking she won't drop the necessary because it isn't a 911. I also think it is a regional thing - I live and work in London and having a 911 is really no big deal. Every t
t and their dog has one.And I am not a middle class white guy, yet have grown up yearning for Lotus/Caterhams more than any other. Perhaps I am not that bright and/or genetically mutated though.
SidewaysSi said:
blueg33 said:
DonkeyApple said:
I'll answer this from an honest perspectivie. On PH it isn't terribly popular to admit to buying cars based on how they make us feel in public. In fact PHers go out of their way to deny that they care what random strangers think. But as we all know this is total bks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc.
So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Sort of agree - but in person the Evora gets more female attention than a 911 did for me (my Ginetta got the most). I think its probably because they think its a Lambo or a Ferrari, you would be surprised how many people make that mistakeks. The chap who cries out that he has no care what the neighbours think is either a sad lier who's not very bright or is genetically mutated. It's in out DNA to think like this. God knows why and we all know it's stupid but we are programmed to be like this. If we weren't we'd all drive Bristols not Bentleys etc. So, from an honest perspective I will give you my answer:
The Jag: I've never seen the point in being lured into a prestige brand and then buying the lowest model. If you are buying into a package then buy the best that is on offer or do not waste your money. If you don't then you've spent all that money but haven't really bought into what you wanted and you'll be driving around wanting the top model. The base model is what you buy your wife so that she can travel the local vicinity showing off your personal success without you needing to spend any more than you need to.
And besides all of that, if you are buying into this particular type of product then why not go the whole hog and buy an Aston? You're only really buying the sporty Jag because you can't afford the aston.
The Cayman: it doesn't matter what anyone says at all. The simple truth is that you are buying a Cayman because you cannot afford a 911. That's fine if you are a kid but it gets sadder and sadder as they get older. The brand is about prestige, performance and success. People driving a Boxster or Cayman know that everyone with a 911 is laughing at them because the people who buy into this brand do so for the display of wealth. The irony of course being that everyone who looks at a 911 owner is thinking 'oh, they couldn't afford a Ferrari'.
GTR: proper council estate. And like the best looking scrubber on the estate it may be fantastic to drive but you'd never bring it home to meet the parents.
So that leaves us the Lotus: they've made it a brand for boring people who want to talk about cornering etc. it's a brand that shouts out that you rarely get laid. Ask any woman would they prefer a date with a Porsche driver or a Lotus and she will say Porsche. It's an indictment on women but they know that the insecure Porsche driver will be easy to rinse for champagne and Michelin food whereas the Lotus guy just won't.
And this brings us to the nub of it all: owning a Lotus won't get you laid any more than you can do without one. A Porsche will.
Lotus' key problems is that they are a brand for uncool, white people. It is non asperational and it won't get you laid more.
And this is where Bahar got it right in his understanding of the problem. On paper his plan of brand association was right. The execution terrible.
The best thing Lotus could do is to give a few cars to some of the urban mongs we all are horrified by and let them flash them about, spin them all over social media and start getting these sector of society seeing them as asperational. Then you'll start seeing them more in social media etc and start getting non white, non middle classes aspiring to them.
Anyway, I don't buy I car to get laid, mI buy one to have fun in between getting laid
If you didn't tell a woman what you drove and picked her up in a Lotus, I really don't think she will be thinking she won't drop the necessary because it isn't a 911. I also think it is a regional thing - I live and work in London and having a 911 is really no big deal. Every t
t and their dog has one.And I am not a middle class white guy, yet have grown up yearning for Lotus/Caterhams more than any other. Perhaps I am not that bright and/or genetically mutated though.
The fact that we drive for pleasure of driving is an anomaly. Car companies market the pleasure but are really selling an image. The fact that most girls mistake the car for something else says it all.
I'll also admit to being very London centric where Porsche's are as common as minicabs where I live and owned for status not driving. And if I go out to the suburbs the reason people have RR Sports and Boxsters on their drive is because they can't afford a Range Rover or a 911. A sweeping generalisation but...
Lotus need to tap into the normal market and to do that they need to make the product socially asperational. Having an auto option will help but they need to invest in sexing it up. If I ran Lotus I would make sure that the Evora was being driven around Knightsbridge and Mayfair every Saturday night and being doing that in every key city for starters. Get it out in the public eye and being associated with the asperational products that urban dwellers own and want to own.
I agree to an extent but having some yummy mummy trying to hitch her skirt over the sill and dropping into the fixed back seat would not go down well. Likewise, would a kid in inner city London really want a trackcar? Brand awareness can be built up so far but I assume most people do not drop £30k + into something without trying it out.
Besides, whilst people may not know the cars are a Lotus, they do think they are expensive and exotic.
As I said earlier, I think a Lotus is actually the perfect car for the average trackday goer as it is the one car that can do it all. People compare Lotus with Caymans etc but the reality is that they are nothing like a Cayman. I see them as a more practical and useable Caterham/Atom etc rather than a cheap(er) Porsche.
It is the likes of PH, EVO etc that Lotus need to target (EVO does seem to be sponsored by Porsche) so that anyone reading knows just how bloody good at everything they are.
In comparison, Boxsters/Caymans and non-GT 911s should be seen to be the fat, average to drive expresses that they are.
Besides, whilst people may not know the cars are a Lotus, they do think they are expensive and exotic.
As I said earlier, I think a Lotus is actually the perfect car for the average trackday goer as it is the one car that can do it all. People compare Lotus with Caymans etc but the reality is that they are nothing like a Cayman. I see them as a more practical and useable Caterham/Atom etc rather than a cheap(er) Porsche.
It is the likes of PH, EVO etc that Lotus need to target (EVO does seem to be sponsored by Porsche) so that anyone reading knows just how bloody good at everything they are.
In comparison, Boxsters/Caymans and non-GT 911s should be seen to be the fat, average to drive expresses that they are.
DonkeyApple said:
If I ran Lotus I would make sure that the Evora was being driven around Knightsbridge and Mayfair every Saturday night and being doing that in every key city for starters. Get it out in the public eye and being associated with the asperational products that urban dwellers own and want to own.
This is a bloody good idea. Park up outside the Dorchester, preferably a car in orange or another shouty colourThe problem is, Pistonheads is not made up primarily of driving enthusiasts. Car enthusiasts perhaps, but not driving enthusiasts - to most people on here the quality of the interior plastics, the badge, the image the car portrays to other, etc. genuinely are more important than the way the car drives. They are no less enthusiasts for that; nothing about being a petrolhead says you have to think handling more important than everything else.
If Lotus are going to target petrolheads in general rather than just driving enthusiasts, they need to improve their cars in areas which are nothing to do with how they drive. The most important area is probably the hardest of areas to quickly alter - their brand image. They need to be able to ask normal people on the street "what car would you buy if you won the lottery" and have at least some people answer "a Lotus" because whilst they may not be targeting to sell their cars to those people, they need to sell them to those who want to impress those people.
At the moment the word I'd use to describe Lotus's brand image is "geeky". That's got to change.
If Lotus are going to target petrolheads in general rather than just driving enthusiasts, they need to improve their cars in areas which are nothing to do with how they drive. The most important area is probably the hardest of areas to quickly alter - their brand image. They need to be able to ask normal people on the street "what car would you buy if you won the lottery" and have at least some people answer "a Lotus" because whilst they may not be targeting to sell their cars to those people, they need to sell them to those who want to impress those people.
At the moment the word I'd use to describe Lotus's brand image is "geeky". That's got to change.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 7th March 10:42
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff