Why are people so vehemently brand-loyal?

[John V]

Preface:

I've owned four cars in my lifetime and four motorcycles. Not a whole lot of brand loyalty here, but I loved almost all of these cars (the SHO was a POS).

1) '87 Mazda RX-7 Turbo
2) '89 Civic Si
3) '95 Ford Taurus SHO 5sp
4) '95 BMW M3.

Bikes:
1) '81 Yamaha XS400
2) '79 Yamaha XS650
3) '85 Yamaha Maxim X
4) '03 Suzuki SV1000S

Correllary:

Now when I bought the BMW, my father jabbed at me and asked me to think back to his old '84 318 (purchased brand new from Concours motors in Milwaukee). Worst car we ever owned. It had zero horsepower, rarely would idle, had a radio that worked occasionally, the A/C leaked, the electrical system was a nightmare... and as a result my father vowed he would never but NEVER set foot in a BMW dealership again. It's the same thing as brand loyalty, but reversed... I told him that just because he had one bad experience twenty years ago doesn't mean the brand is junk. :dunno

I heard someone on another forum say that he would ALWAYS own a BMW. They're just the best cars. The BEST? :?

I look at it this way. The BMW fits my lifestyle and gives me what I want in a car right now. It's cheap to maintain, it's good on gas, it is reasonably quick and it handles OK (but just OK). It has four usable seats and gets around in the winter with good tires but I can still autocross it or take it to the track. But there are some cars coming out that I will definitely consider when it's time to buy another car - I won't just rush out and buy another BMW willy nilly. In fact, with the direction BMW is going, it's unlikely I will ever own another one (I hate the new styling, I hate the new interiors and I hate how the company is seemingly trying their damndest to remove the driver from the driving experience.).

I guess in my ideal scenario I'd own the (hopefully) upcoming RX-7 - a two-seater with around 300hp (hopefully) and curb weight under 2800lbs (dreaming, now) and a Mazda 3 to get around in every day. But I'll probaly end up keeping the M3 as a beater and buying a 'Vette, or ponying up for an RX-8 to slap a turbo or a supercharger on.

I guess my point is people need to expand their horizons. It's possible to like the attributes of your car and find those attributes are actually enhanced in other brands... :eeps:

[BahnBaum]

I heard someone on another forum say that he would ALWAYS own a BMW. They're just the best cars. The BEST? :?
I guess my point is people need to expand their horizons. It's possible to like the attributes of your car and find those attributes are actually enhanced in other brands... :eeps:

Idiot fanboys?

Not sure if Nick coined the phrase, but he's used it before and it's pretty appropriate.

Alex

[zach]

3) '95 Ford Taurus SHO 5sp


:bigpimp:
I wanted that exact car very badly when I was in high school. I kind of still want one actually.

[John V]

Maybe... I'm not even talking about the people who buy BMWs for the roundel. I just mean the people who are so entrenched in owning BMWs that they don't even know there are other models out there that do things just as well if not better.

I got into this with a guy at the autocross a few weeks ago. He chided me for getting into a "rice burner" this season instead of sticking with the M3. I told him I liked driving FAST cars. You know, ones with steering feel, proper suspension geometry and low centers of gravity. He didn't get it, I guess.

[John V]

3) '95 Ford Taurus SHO 5sp


:bigpimp:
I wanted that exact car very badly when I was in high school. I kind of still want one actually.

Go drive one. That'll take care of that desire right off. Honestly, that was a sh!tty car that did one thing right - accelerate. And it didn't even do THAT very well.

[BahnBaum]

I got into this with a guy at the autocross a few weeks ago. He chided me for getting into a "rice burner" this season instead of sticking with the M3. I told him I liked driving FAST cars. You know, ones with steering feel, proper suspension geometry and low centers of gravity. He didn't get it, I guess.

Brand = Status to many people. Most of those that are blinded by that concept don't understand that brand doesn't necessarily equate to performance. And most of those people can't appreciate the differences you mention like CG and suspension geometry when they drive anyway.

Alex

[John V]

I got into this with a guy at the autocross a few weeks ago. He chided me for getting into a "rice burner" this season instead of sticking with the M3. I told him I liked driving FAST cars. You know, ones with steering feel, proper suspension geometry and low centers of gravity. He didn't get it, I guess.

Brand = Status to many people. Most of those that are blinded by that concept don't understand that brand doesn't necessarily equate to performance. And most of those people can't appreciate the differences you mention like CG and suspension geometry when they drive anyway.

Alex

But these same people purport to be car enthusiasts. I think the problems is they read the car review rags, and basically regurgitate what they read without actually thinking or (god forbid) DRIVING the cars in question to form their own opinion.

[FC]

Brand loyalty used to make sense.

The moment technical people stopped running companies, it was all over. It happens everywhere. It is no longer about making a great product that people will like, it is about trying to guess at what people want and making a product to fit, all while maximizing profts.

It happened in my company. Marketing and customer service dictate how we ought to design our products.

Often times we could make something much better, but the guy on the field may have to use 1/4 of his brain to service it. Well, that's too much, we must f-up the design and spend more money so that the service guy can replace the item using only 1/8 of his brain.

Of course, I have a fixed budget, so the cool feature I wanted to put in gets scrapped.

Such is business in large corporations.

This is how it works:

1: Someone comes up with something great and different. The original designers get to charge whatever they want for it because nobody else can offer it. They don't worry about saving a nickle or a dime here and there.
2: The public loves it and they buy it. They pay the "premium" because they don't know they are paying a premium. They are just happy to get the product.
3: The compnay grows tremendously
4: Competitors jump in
5: Prices come down
6: In the interest of efficiency and better management, the original designers get put out to pasture and the comapy is then run by beancounters.
7: Instead of being proactive and thinking of how to make the product better, the company conducts marketing research to guess what the customer wants and make it as cheap as possible.

Result: The company loses its identity and becomes just one more company.

That is where we are. That is where all companies are headed.

That is why brand loyalty is stupid nowadays. Sure, some comapnies will make better products than another consistenly, but you always have to check the competition. There is no soul left.

[JST]

Brand loyalty used to make sense.

The moment technical people stopped running companies, it was all over. It happens everywhere. It is no longer about making a great product that people will like, it is about trying to guess at what people want and making a product to fit, all while maximizing profts.

It happened in my company. Marketing and customer service dictate how we ought to design our products.

Often times we could make something much better, but the guy on the field may have to use 1/4 of his brain to service it. Well, that's too much, we must f-up the design and spend more money so that the service guy can replace the item using only 1/8 of his brain.

Of course, I have a fixed budget, so the cool feature I wanted to put in gets scrapped.

Such is business in large corporations.

This is how it works:

1: Someone comes up with something great and different. The original designers get to charge whatever they want for it because nobody else can offer it. They don't worry about saving a nickle or a dime here and there.
2: The public loves it and they buy it. They pay the "premium" because they don't know they are paying a premium. They are just happy to get the product.
3: The compnay grows tremendously
4: Competitors jump in
5: Prices come down
6: In the interest of efficiency and better management, the original designers get put out to pasture and the comapy is then run by beancounters.
7: Instead of being proactive and thinking of how to make the product better, the company conducts marketing research to guess what the customer wants and make it as cheap as possible.

Result: The company loses its identity and becomes just one more company.

That is where we are. That is where all companies are headed.

That is why brand loyalty is stupid nowadays. Sure, some comapnies will make better products than another consistenly, but you always have to check the competition. There is no soul left.

No offense, but that sounds like an engineer talking.

What good is a cool product if it can't be serviced in the field? What good is a cool product if there are only 3 people that want to buy it, and none of them want to pay you enough to recoup your R&D? What good is a cool product if it does things that the customer doesn't want or need, and your competitor comes out with a product that ONLY does what the customer wants and needs and costs a lot less?

Focusing too much on marketing and not enough on product is a Bad Thing. But focusing too much on product without having marketing and customer awareness is just as counter productive.

[clyde]

Preface:

I've owned four cars in my lifetime and four motorcycles. Not a whole lot of brand loyalty here, but I loved almost all of these cars (the SHO was a POS).

1) '87 Mazda RX-7 Turbo
2) '89 Civic Si
3) '95 Ford Taurus SHO 5sp
4) '95 BMW M3.

Hmm...

1969 Chevy Corvette
1970 Olds Cutlass
1975 Datsun 280Z
1976 Olds Delta 88
1984 BMW 318i
1986 Ford Mustang GT (Black)
1986 Ford Mustang GT (Gray)
1987 Chevy Corvette
1988 Acura Legend L
1988 Ford Mustang GT
1989 Ford Mustang GT
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0
1991 Infiniti Q45
1992 Honda Civic Si
2002 BMW 325xiT
2004 Mazda RX-8

Not to mention the accidental family hand me down Buicks (more on that in a bit).

Obviously, there are some common themes in there, but brand loyalty? No. Then again, I have had a soft spot for certain products, like Mustangs and Corvettes. I would also put the 318i in the "one of the worst cars, ever" category, but I bought another BMW about 15 years later and currently find myself wanting an E90 and/or some variant of the 1 Series. It's because those cars are speaking to me, though, and they will fit my budget. I'd probably want an E60 if I thought the value was there and I could stretch my budget that far, but that's a different discussion. But it's not because they're BMWs (if anything, it's in spite of the fact that they're BMWs), it's because they are the right products that make for what should be about the best compromises between what I want and need.

People fall into situations where they are blinded to the flaws of a product or brand because the strengths overpower them, the flaws don't get in the way of their purposes, or...what might be most likely...they need to justify to themselves why they spent their money on that product, despite the things that they don't like about it as opposed to admitting to having made a mistake, taking their lumps by selling it and moving on.

WRT the Buicks in my past (and present)...it's all my mother's doing. In 1986 my parents bought a new 1986 Buick Electra T-Type somewhat by accident. They were just looking and they were offered a deal that seemed too good to be true. Making a command decision, my father jumped on it and it did turn out that something was amiss. After the papers were signed, and the car was being prepped for delivery, the dealership tried to back out saying that they couldn't sell the car for the agreed price. My father said, "It sucks to be you," and held them to the deal. As best he could figure it, my dad thinks that they probably lost ~$4k on the car (back in '86 MSRP for cars of that type weren't much over the $15k mark). Well, my mom sort of took the car over when her Wagoneer was totalled a few weeks later. I think she's had seven Electra/Park Avenue/LeSabres (which are all basically the same car with differing trunk sizes and trim levels) spanning two generations of the platform since then, only recently moving to a (Chrysler) minivan. Why? With the exception of the very first one, they have been dead nuts reliable until they have well over 100,000 miles on the clock. Due to her disabilities, the layout of the seat to the steering wheel to the door, etc, there are few, if any, cars that are easier for her to get in and out of and then operate the secondary controls. Also, though, Buicks are what her father used to drive in the 50s and 60s. Every two years, he'd come home with a new one. Always a Buick. Once my mother found a Buick that worked for her, she became very reulctant to even look elsewhere. But, well, she also has brain damage, so...

I guess in my ideal scenario I'd own the (hopefully) upcoming RX-7 - a two-seater with around 300hp (hopefully) and curb weight under 2800lbs (dreaming, now) and a Mazda 3 to get around in every day. But I'll probaly end up keeping the M3 as a beater and buying a 'Vette, or ponying up for an RX-8 to slap a turbo or a supercharger on.

My ideal scenario you would own a specific RX-8 by this time next year. :devcool:

[rumatt]

Familiarity is comfortable.

[clyde]

No offense, but that sounds like an engineer talking.

And a disgruntled one at that.

D-FENSE
D-FENSE
D-FENSE

Don't fall down.

[Rob]

To some extent, you are preaching to the choir here. If you look at our car list, you will find many of us have moved on from BMW. I think the majority of people that are brand loyal to that degree are in it to some extent for the snob appeal. I know exceptions though.

There is a thread around here somewhere about what we are driving now. There are still a lot of BMW drivers, but there are a lot of us that aren't. Somewhat ironic since we started as a BMW board.

On the other hand, it's not just BMW. Sometimes it seems like everybody that posts on any automotive board anywhere thinks their choice is the only right choice. Hmm. In fact, now that I think about it, we have people that push their choices quite a bit. The Miata driver, RX8 driver and Elise driver come to mind . . . :outtaher:

[Roadstergal]

Not a whole lot of brand loyalty here
Bikes:
1) '81 Yamaha XS400
2) '79 Yamaha XS650
3) '85 Yamaha Maxim X
4) '03 Suzuki SV1000S

:kekeke:

[Roadstergal]

The Miata driver, RX8 driver and Elise driver come to ming . . . :outtaher:

Hm, do you think there's a difference between brand loyalty and model loyalty? On the Mazda brand side, clyde wouldn't touch a Miata with a 10' pole, and although I love the RX-8, I give it thumbsdown on fuel efficiency...

And we have a couple of the-E36-M3-is-the-best-thing-to-come-out-of-Germany-since-beer people who don't like other BMWs...

[Rob]

The Miata driver, RX8 driver and Elise driver come to ming . . . :outtaher:

Hm, do you think there's a difference between brand loyalty and model loyalty? On the Mazda brand side, clyde wouldn't touch a Miata with a 10' pole, and although I love the RX-8, I give it thumbsdown on fuel efficiency...

And we have a couple of the-E36-M3-is-the-best-thing-to-come-out-of-Germany-since-beer people who don't like other BMWs...

:)

I was just :stickpoking: - I actually don't think any of you would hesitate to switch to a different car if that different car was better at what you wanted the car to be.

[clyde]

The Miata driver, RX8 driver and Elise driver come to ming . . . :outtaher:

Hm, do you think there's a difference between brand loyalty and model loyalty? On the Mazda brand side, clyde wouldn't touch a Miata with a 10' pole, and although I love the RX-8, I give it thumbsdown on fuel efficiency...

And we have a couple of the-E36-M3-is-the-best-thing-to-come-out-of-Germany-since-beer people who don't like other BMWs...

I would touch a Miata with a 10' pole. And I'd probably have one if I could sit in one for more than a few minutes without physical pain.

[FC]

No offense, but that sounds like an engineer talking.

What good is a cool product if it can't be serviced in the field? What good is a cool product if there are only 3 people that want to buy it, and none of them want to pay you enough to recoup your R&D? What good is a cool product if it does things that the customer doesn't want or need, and your competitor comes out with a product that ONLY does what the customer wants and needs and costs a lot less?

Focusing too much on marketing and not enough on product is a Bad Thing. But focusing too much on product without having marketing and customer awareness is just as counter productive.

Of course I sound like an engineer talking. :twisted: And all my desings are easily serviceable. The problem is that after we became heavily cost-conscious (a good thing) customer service was awarded too much power because we spent so much on it.

So the problem is that it is not that the desings cannot be servied easily, they can, they just require the field guy to think for one nanosecond, or god forbid, have to reach in to get something. It would not cost any more or take any more time, but it would require to (gasp!) expect our trained personnel to do their job. :rolleyes:

But who has final say is a political decision. My point is that we pay for trained professionals to service our systems, yet we are forced to design them as if we had 5-year olds working on them.

Marketing is VERY important, but it cannot be the sole driver. In my company, engineers have proven to be correct almost all the time vs what marketing thinks.

Regardless, the issue is brand loyalty, and the attributes that made a person loyal to a brand tend to be diluted over time due to competion and pricing. Whether this is good or bad is another issue.

My only point is that the reasons why someone may be brand loyal could be due to factors that are no long relevant or no longer exist. Prime example: A Mercedes-Benz being ultra-reliable.

Sorry, I was venting out on the other stuff. :oops: :)

[Roadstergal]

I would touch a Miata with a 10' pole.

You just wouldn't be able to bring the 10' pole in the Miata. :eeps: :)

[Nick M3]

I would touch a Miata with a 10' pole.

You just wouldn't be able to bring the 10' pole in the Miata. :eeps: :)

So your friend's son found...

[John V]

Not a whole lot of brand loyalty here
Bikes:
1) '81 Yamaha XS400
2) '79 Yamaha XS650
3) '85 Yamaha Maxim X
4) '03 Suzuki SV1000S

:kekeke:
:?

The 400 was my first bike - I bought it for $500 and it was mint with 2800 miles on the clock. I knew if I got something fast ... I'd be in trouble.

the 650 was given to me by a guy who couldn't get it running. Owned it for two months, sold it to a collector for $1200. Still think I could make a decent living doing that kind of thing... LOL.

The X I wasn't initially interested in, being another cruiser type bike and everything, but then I rode it. :bigpimp: Yikes.

The SV is almost everything I could ever ask for in a bike... but needs a better rear shock.

[Plaz]

And all my desings are easily serviceable.

Yeah, if there's anything wrong with them, it's usually just that two components were installed in reverse order, right? :)

[FC]

And all my desings are easily serviceable.

Yeah, if there's anything wrong with them, it's usually just that two components were installed in reverse order, right? :)

Actually, that is the cardinal sin of DFMA (design for manufacturability and assembly). Everything is keyed when necessary or made perfectly symmetrical so as to not matter if it is installed in reverse. :twisted:

My job is not really all that technically challenging, but I do get to be creative and work on lots of parts. I like it because to me, it is LEGO's for grown-ups. :)

[Mathew]

3) '95 Ford Taurus SHO 5sp


:bigpimp:
I wanted that exact car very badly when I was in high school. I kind of still want one actually.

http://www.shoclub.com/images/members/conansshosmall2004.jpg

[Pinecone]

Some brand loyalty is because the last car was good, so why not go with another one.

Some brand loyalty is because the people have NO idea and just want to look like they have some idea and that their choice is the best.

Some brand loyalty is because they like how that company does things and how the cars work, handle, run, last, perform, etc.

Some brand loyalty is because having mulitple of the same brand helps in maintenance to lower the learning curve. :)


For me, in order of purchase (including cars our consulting company bought):

'55 Chevrolet Bel Air hot rod
'71 Fiat 850 SPider
'76 Toyota Corolla SR-5
'78 Yamaha RD-400
'85 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z
'88 Dodge Shadow ES (Daytona was good and best warranty at time)
'90 Jeep Cherokee
'01 Jeep Grand Cherokee (because Cherokee was good)
'00 BMW M Roadster (because the M3 list was so long)
'02 BMW E46 M3 (because I wanted one since '88)
'95 BMW E36 M3 LTW (because it dropped in my lap)

[Roadstergal]

'95 BMW E36 M3 LTW (because it dropped in my lap)

And now you're talking in a high-pitched voice? :eeps:

[lemming]

there's nothing wrong with brand loyalty, is there?

it just doesn't always correlate well consistently with performance anymore.