Subscribe to this blog's feed« Mayfield v. NASCAR heats up | Main | The rise and fall (or not) of dictators »
June 13, 2009
Brand names: Important, or not?
By DAVID GREEN
News of General Motors' termination of support of second-echelon NASCAR racing Friday has elicited some discussion, much of it speculating about the status of factory-backed Chevy teams in the elite Sprint Cup Series.
Friday's news was hardly surprising, except perhaps in that the cutback was limited to Nationwide and Camping World series teams. Chevy was the last of America's Big Three companies to pull the plug on the two lower series, following fiscally faltering Chrysler and the healthiest of the U.S. companies, Ford.
I found an interesting contrast in some of the coverage of this story and reader responses to it. Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Tony Stewart were singled out for expressing their loyalty to Chevrolet, Earnhardt for his insistence on a Chevy ride when he became a NASCAR free agent and Stewart for returning to the GM fold when he left Joe Gibbs Racing after one season in a Toyota.
Both drivers offered thoughtful comments about the state of the economy in general and the financial straits of American auto manufacturers in particular, and Stewart was particularly eloquent in noting the impact of the recession on so many Americans who have lost their jobs.
In stark contrast were the remarks of some readers who dismissed the notion of brand names being significant in today's NASCAR racing, most of them packaged in criticism of the new-generation racing stock car.
So -- do brand names matter, or not?
GM and Chrysler did not go broke because they wasted large sums of money using auto racing as a marketing tool. Some people -- ordinary people, not just guys like Earnhardt and Stewart -- do still have brand preference and they don't care that Jeff Gordon's Monte Carlo never saw an assembly line. The minimum number of pieces of hardware that are Genuine Chevrolet parts are irrelevant. It has a bowtie on it, and that's good enough.
Ditto for many NASCAR fans who drive Ford Explorers or Dodge Ram pickups or Chrysler minivans. They buy into the notion that the car company is interested in the sport they love to watch, if in no other way than helping race teams compete, and that resonates with them.
My suspicion is that there are more of those fans in the upper ranges of the demographic chart measuring age. Younger people with strong brand preference likely grew up in staunch Ford, Chevy or Mopar homes and picked up on the fervor.
I think that's less important to drivers of Toyota Camrys. Toyota got into NASCAR in hopes of changing its image in order to appeal to younger NASCAR fans, or hopefully luring away some of those second- or third-generation fans from brand-oriented families.
The sport and the production automobile have evolved in different directions. I'm very much into nostalgia -- that's why I participate in vintage stock car racing -- and if there were an abundance of 1964-69 vintage Ford Galaxies, Fairlanes and Torinos, Dodge Coronets and Chargers, Plymouth Belvederes and Super Birds, Chevrolet Impalas and Chevelles, I'd be all for replacing the Car of Today with them.
Of course, I'd also be in favor of being 20 or 25 years old again, as long as I could keep all the life lessons I've learned since I was young and dumb. (Yes, I know -- "young and dumb" is a redundancy. My apologies to all you experience-challenged flatbellies out there.)
It's not gonna happen, neither the reappearance of those golden-era racecars nor the loss of my arthritis and about 60 pounds.
So that leaves us with the COT, the fragile state of the traditional U.S. auto industry and modern NASCAR racing. My assessment is that brand names still matter, and are pretty important to some of us, and matter not at all to others.
June 13, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
You're right on as far as I'm concerned. The "brand" of car is virtually irrelevant to me. I follow a driver, a team, maybe even a sponsor. (I smoked Winstons for years because they sponsored Cup racing, and blamed only myself when the almost inevitable cancer came!) Anyway, the cars now are really one brand: NASCARs.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Jun 13, 2009 3:58:28 PM
I was actually wondering about new engine developement. If the big three pull out, do you expect NASCAR to go to a spec engine for the series. There is no way Hendrick, Roush or Penske can compete with the dollars that Toyota can spend on engine parts or technology. Even thogh they are still running ancient pushrod type motors. They are highly advanced castings compared to yesterdays engines.
Posted by: 68 ss camaro | Jun 13, 2009 5:03:04 PM
I grew up in a Chevy household. Dad would never in a million years think of owning anything but.
When I go to the race or watch on TV, I root for my favorite drivers ( who drive Chevys by chance), and secondly I root for a Chevy to win. But when it is all said and done I want to see a good competitive race.
Posted by: Peter | Jun 14, 2009 7:52:20 AM
Doug: It seems to me (this is not scientific research, merely reflection on anecdotal observations) that auto brand loyalty has changed for the mainstream. Several years ago, I began seeing Mark Martin decals on Dodge truck and Dale Earnhardt stickers on Ford F-150s. And I remember the controversy of Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to (gasp!) Ford in 1969.
And even brand-loyal fans don't necessarily drive the NASCAR-edition vehicle; they're just as likely to drive a truck or SUV from their favorite manufacturer.
68: You pose a very interesting question. Engines represent the only significant component that has some legitimate claim to brand, and if the manufacturers stop supporting race teams, it figures they won't continue to tool up to manufacture engine blocks. After the COT, who could possibly be surprised by a spec NASCAR engine block?
Peter: Your letter supports my assumption that some fans still pledge allegiance to the brand, just as Dale Jr. and Tony Stewart do (although their motivation has just a little more financial incentive than most of us enjoy).
In my family, both Fords and Chevys were prominent, but some of us were pretty hard-line about which ones we drove. Not me; I've owned a '55 Bel Air, '69 Torino GT, '72 Monte Carlo and '93 and '96 T-Birds. I've had Chevy and Ford pickups, vintages 1953-95, and presently have a 2000 Mercury Mountaineer as my daily driver.
However, one of my NASCAR favorites, David Pearson, won his first championship driving a Dodge and I proudly wear my Cotton Owens Garage T-shirt.
So, when you consider that Toyota is one of the top employers in my home state of Kentucky, I've got the best of all worlds.
Posted by: David Green | Jun 14, 2009 1:34:57 PM
I prefer the American makes both personally and in Nascar, but when it comes down to it, I will root for my driver no matter what make he drives. I have 9 stickers on my Ford and on my husband's Chevy.
I grew up in a Chevy family--my dad taught me to drive in our electric blue, chromed-up '69 Chevy Caprice and my grandmother still has her one-owner-only Malibu (I forget what year). But my dad would also be the first to tell you that the least problematic car our family ever owned growing up was the used Honda station wagon we had for many years. However, to this day, that's the only foreign car my folks have ever owned. Dad has stuck with Chevy and Mom has gone with Ford and Chrysler.
Posted by: Kari | Jun 15, 2009 1:58:09 PM
Super article. 3 of the most successful car manufacturers in the world (BMW, Mercedes, and Toyota) have all pledged their support to continuing in F1, or their own similar series, and of course the only connection to the manufacturers in F1 is the engine technology. They obviously believe racing and branding go together and are worth the money they spend.
Posted by: Richard in N.C. | Jun 15, 2009 7:00:38 PM
off topic but this is what happens when the ruling group makes a few mistakes...
On Thursday, eight of F1's major teams, including Renault, said they intended to establish a rival championship.
It is perhaps an inevitable conclusion to the bullying and thuggery Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone have subjected Formula One to over the past decades.
While many involved in F1 have become very rich in the meantime, s, but the very few who have brokered deals.
It may be unavoidable or it may be a historical artifact dating back to the late 70s when the very same duo made Formula One into the global media juggernaut it currently is.
But it has certainly not helped the sport’s long-term survival. The series began in 1950 at Silverstone, a converted airfield in postwar England which will host its last race this Sunday. The teams have until today evening to reach a last minute compromise. Otherwise, the cars on the grid on Sunday afternoon may take part in not just the last grand prix at Silverstone—but at the last grand prix of a Formula One with a future.
bullying and thuggery
the biggest money was made not by the people who actually go out there and race cars
Formula One is subject to rapid, arbitrary rule changes
it is increasingly raced on tracks worlds away from the sport’s historic and financial heartlands—Europe and North America.
sounds like nascar.
Posted by: exile | Jun 19, 2009 5:21:32 PM
oops
sloppy cut and paste, sorry about that...
While many involved in F1 have become very rich in the meantime, the biggest money was made not by the people who actually go out there and race, but the very few who have brokered deals.
Posted by: exile | Jun 19, 2009 10:51:51 PM
Kari: Your description sounds pretty standard to me. I'd have to say that I have known more uber-avid Chevy devotees than any other. Many Ford fans I know are just as hard-core, but less demonstrative about it.
Richard in N.C.: Thanks for the compliment. Participation in F1 is an excellent indicator of the value that automakers believe exists in that endeavor. It is a turbulent time in grand prix racing, for sure.
exile: "bullying and thuggery -- sounds like NASCAR"? Sure does. Amazing how the examples you listed about F1's actions in recent years compare with NASCAR, particularly with regard to leaving traditional venues and fan bases behind. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. We can all learn from observing other forms of motor sport rather than being myopic.
Posted by: David Green | Jun 20, 2009 3:10:22 PM
Post a comment
Advertisements
