Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see the same worn-out arguments are still being made about "real" Cadillac and how that ( conveniently) the last "Real" Cadillacs always seem to be from whatever era the person making those comments likely comes from.
Like said before, horse and buggie drivers thought cars in general were too newfangled
Model T drivers likely hated newfangled cars in the 50's with their pointless fins
And now 50's-70's car drivers are making the exact same comments about cars of today
They are all about equally incorrect in their assertions.
I see the same worn-out arguments are still being made about "real" Cadillac and how that ( conveniently) the last "Real" Cadillacs always seem to be from whatever era the person making those comments likely comes from.
Like said before, horse and buggie drivers thought cars in general were too newfangled
Model T drivers likely hated newfangled cars in the 50's with their pointless fins
And now 50's-70's car drivers are making the exact same comments about cars of today
They are all about equally incorrect in their assertions.
That is too much of a generalization. I like '50s cars even though I wasn't even alive then... how does that fit in with your outline above?
Some young people like '60s cars (and music) over modern cars. Why don't they like cars (and music) from their era? Maybe because the older era was far more interesting and fun?
It's a matter of taste, but I never saw fins as "pointless." they added style, which is sorely lacking today. What I see as pointless is the chopped-off back end of modern cars (which reduces useful trunk space).
It depends upon the target consumer as Mercedes had some great cars in the early 70s that I prefer to the likes of Lincoln. The 300SEL 6.3 and the 600 (SWB) were cutting edge cars that handled well, and had ample power and comfort. It would be unfair to compare Rolls-Royce to Lincoln or Cadillac in the classic era because they competed in market segments, but a flagship Roller also exceeded Lincoln and Cadillac, especially in terms of comfort. Not everyone liked a floaty boulevardier in the 1960s and 1970s, and manufacturers have to chase the profits or go bankrupt trying to serve niche markets that are unsustainable.
I prefer the '60s/'70s American Luxury cars over the 300SEL 6.3 and 600. Because the American cars had a smoother ride and softer/more comfortable seats. Also, big stretch-out room inside (example: 63-64" of shoulder room).
Not everyone likes a firm ride and stiff seats; I certainly don't. Not in a luxury car, anyway.
I don't see how a flagship Rolls-Royce exceeded Lincoln and Cadillac in comfort (or ride). In fact, a Car & Driver 6-car comparison which included a '65 Silver Clouds revealed many surprises. To quote from the text:
"Entry and exit are difficult because it's a bit of a climb to the door sill and the seats are high. There is no power seat adjustment, no steering wheel adjustment, no inside adjustment for the outside mirror, very little room inside (which is strange, in view of the car's great exterior dimensions), minimum luggage space, suspension that betrays every secret of the road surface, and an air-conditioning installation that is too obviously an afterthought."
Handling was also a disappointment... "The steering was dead and unresponsive, and there was a rather unusual tendency toward roll-steer (a change in turning radius caused by the turning vehicle's shifting weight), which made it virtually impossible to hurry the car on a winding road, or to negotiate a simple slalom maneuver that the other five cars managed with relative ease. Similarly, the Rolls did not seem very pleasant to any of us at sustained high cruising speeds."
Quote:
Even the heavy fleet use could not save the Town Car. There was no grand scheme to eliminate it to alienate buyers, but the market had shifted and the traditional American version of luxury fell short of market standards in terms of comfort, technology, and handling. They were fine for their era, but Lincoln cannot afford to continue to remain rooted in the past if it is to succeed. In the 60s and 70s, there were fewer competitors and while the cars were comfortable, they only handled well in a straight line, up to the recent Town Cars. Driving an S-Class or a 7-Series and then driving the TC made the shortcomings evident in terms of handling, performance, technology, and luxury. The Town Car was not a competitive flagship that Lincoln needed to survive.
I've posted here before about how a '95 Lincoln Town Car has almost the same skid pad and slalom figures as some late-model cars. The big American cars (recent and older) handle fine for the driving most people do (to work, school, the market, vacation). I also consider a Town Car more luxurious than an S-Class or 7-Series... more room, big and comfortable seats, plenty of room, larger trunk, full-sized length, easy steering, etc.
Also interesting are the answers to surveys from Popular Mechanics in the '60s and '70s.
One such survey, from 1973, had a list of "most liked feature" of a '73 Buick Electra. #1 was "handling!"
All these luxury car brands (Cadillac included) are trying to go "younger", and I have no idea why. The population in this country and basically all the large car markets (Europe, China) are getting OLDER. Marketing to the over 60 segment without actually telling people they are old or making them feel old is key.
Those cheeky Toyota Venza ads with the children "worried" about their older parents was pretty decent strategy. Toyota knew the target for that car was an "older' audience, and marketed it to them in a fun smart way.
A lot of the over 55 crowd that I know now won't admit it, but they'd rather have a larger, softer riding car. Not necessarily going back to 80s Town Car type stuff. But you can build a car with a softer ride that still handles and feels solid these days. Heck Toyota can do that with a 35,000 Avalon, why couldn't Lincoln do it with a 50,000 luxury car?
Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but I think Lincoln still has a lot of brand equity left. They should market to the older generation without being condescending about it, and they should maybe target a slightly lower market than Cadillac. Try to compete more directly against Buick and Toyota Avalon/ fully loaded Camry buyers.
That is too much of a generalization. I like '50s cars even though I wasn't even alive then... how does that fit in with your outline above?
Some young people like '60s cars (and music) over modern cars. Why don't they like cars (and music) from their era? Maybe because the older era was far more interesting and fun?
That wasn't the assertion being made. There are a number of people claiming as 'fact' that ALL new cars and even new music is not as good as the stuff from back in the day. As you said, its a matter of preference so anyone making such statements is in the wrong.
Quote:
All these luxury car brands (Cadillac included) are trying to go "younger", and I have no idea why. The population in this country and basically all the large car markets (Europe, China) are getting OLDER. Marketing to the over 60 segment without actually telling people they are old or making them feel old is key.
Think about that for just a second. That's EXACTLY what GM and Ford did for decades. The only obvious problem is that by virtue, over time you will have less and less.... customers to buy your products. If GM and Ford had continues only making luxury cars that appealed to an aging demographic that would have gone out of business.
That wasn't the assertion being made. There are a number of people claiming as 'fact' that ALL new cars and even new music is not as good as the stuff from back in the day. As you said, its a matter of preference so anyone making such statements is in the wrong.
Think about that for just a second. That's EXACTLY what GM and Ford did for decades. The only obvious problem is that by virtue, over time you will have less and less.... customers to buy your products. If GM and Ford had continues only making luxury cars that appealed to an aging demographic that would have gone out of business.
Your contention is that GM and Ford lost their competitiveness by marketing to old people. My contention is that they lost their competitiveness by not doing that in the right way AND failing to make compelling products (which is the biggest reason in my opinion).
Marketing to the over 55 crowd doesn't mean your audience just dies with you. You have to capture the 1000s that turn 55 every year. That's where they failed by failing to improve their products. There's nothing wrong with going after an older audience, there is something wrong when you try to peddle them uncompetitive junk.
That wasn't the assertion being made. There are a number of people claiming as 'fact' that ALL new cars and even new music is not as good as the stuff from back in the day. As you said, its a matter of preference so anyone making such statements is in the wrong.
But it doesn't change the fact that people don't automatically like what was in the era they grew up in, like you claimed. For example, someone who is only 30 years old may like the '65 Pontiac GTO and owns 2 or 3 of them. To him, he finds classic cars more interesting and desirable than new cars.
A lot of people (old and not-so-old) are shaking their heads; puzzled as to what happened to music. Let's not pretend it hasn't changed drastically from 40 or 50 years ago.
I am one who prefers cars and music from the 50s-60s to day's stuff. I'd gladly trade today's music and cars with the music and cars from 1959-1969.
There are plenty of cars that I like from today like the CTS-V (but not a real Cadillac), Ford Taurus, Chevy Impala, Chrysler 300, etc. And with music I like Coldplay, Eminem, and various songs from the past few years. At least the Beach Boys came out with a new album last year, and Brian Wilson is making a new one this year.
But the thing is, I'm not an old guy, I'm 17. Todays Cadillac are NOT real Cadillacs, though the XTS comes somewhat close. They may be good cars, but they're just an American BMW at this point. Cadillac themselves said they are specifically targeting them, just do some research on the ATS and you'll find that out. Lincoln is the same way, but their turnaround is happening about 10 years later than Cadillac's. I expect Lincoln to stay closer to the traditional luxury cars that are very comfy and not meant to be taken around the track. I only wish they would have made the Town Car a few years more until a new RWD platform would be ready. I can't wait to get one next year. It'll be cool to own the last of the true American luxury cars.
Todays Cadillac are NOT real Cadillacs, though the XTS comes somewhat close
The current Cadillacs are indeed Cadillacs. Otherwise they wouldn't be branded as such, designed in the GM design studio, and be tested, engineered, and the sold to the general public... would they? You can keep saying over and over and over that anything not from the 50's and 60's isn't a "Real" car but that doesn't mean you are correct. It just mean that's your opinion, which is fine. Just don't state it as fact because it isn't. Lastly, the new Cadillacs are selling, and selling well. Obviously many people like them.
Quote:
But it doesn't change the fact that people don't automatically like what was in the era they grew up in, like you claimed. For example, someone who is only 30 years old may like the '65 Pontiac GTO and owns 2 or 3 of them.
I believe you're still missing the point I was making before. To be clear- I myself own a classic. A 55' Mercury. I also collect and own a lot of vintage 50's-60's items and my house is full of the stuff. I also listen to a lot of vintage country, rock, blues, jazz, and big band as well. But I would never come out and say that these things that I like are the BEST things. They are clearly the favorites of some but not others. That is all perfectly fine. My only problem is when some make the claim that their particular tastes are actually fact versus opinion. That is all.
Quote:
Marketing to the over 55 crowd doesn't mean your audience just dies with you. You have to capture the 1000s that turn 55 every year.
That's an almost impossible plan. Perfect example: Say you do in fact market to 55+ year olds. But then within a few years that demographic has aged and now you have to please the upcoming 55 year olds. Chances are the previous generation will wail and complain if you change the style of car they like. Hence that's a precarious marketing plan, chasing a very narrow sliver of the overall market.
I wouldn't say they failed at making the types of cars older buyers liked either. The truth of the matter is that from the 50's-90's those big floaty cars were pretty close to being the same damned car: Big floaty things with overstuffed interiors. Older buyers LOVED em'. The problem was as mentioned before, you can't market to an aging demographic and keep that as a permanent marketing plan. In addition to that, the most coveted consumers are going to be those who are in the prime of their careers with large amounts of expendable incomes. Retirees are often on fixed incomes. So do the math.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
