BMW: Sales, Marketing, and Financial News
03-15-2005, 01:33 PM
#201
Originally Posted by domn
Well technically yes, but in reality MB makes MB and MB makes Daimler Chrylser. The merge was really a takeover.
Chrysler has no say over MB branded cars like GM has over Saab or Ford over Volvo or Aston.
Chrysler has no say over MB branded cars like GM has over Saab or Ford over Volvo or Aston.
And to say that Daimler Chrysler makes Mercedes Benz is technically incorrect because most of the MB vehicles right now were made by Daimler Benz, before the takeover of Chrysler to form Daimler Chrysler.
03-15-2005, 01:49 PM
#202
fap fap fap
Originally Posted by vybzkartel
Vybz, who thinks, BMW is premiun, and Benz is luxury.
whats your def. of premium? theyre both premium brands. just one is more sporting than the other.
03-15-2005, 01:59 PM
#203
Race Director
This whole issue only matters to those who care about the badge on the car. Buy the car because of what the badge brings in terms of your enjoyment of the car not what the badge means to others.
03-15-2005, 03:37 PM
#204
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Age: 41
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IS200 is not sold in the United States. The ES330 is not sold in Europe.
BusinessWeek has a piece on Audi. As you know, Audi is much smaller than other upscale players in the USA, but still, the US is Audi's #2 market. China is also very important to Audi.
BusinessWeek has a piece on Audi. As you know, Audi is much smaller than other upscale players in the USA, but still, the US is Audi's #2 market. China is also very important to Audi.
03-15-2005, 07:36 PM
#205
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total Market Cap: $ 128 B Toyota, $ 25 B BMW and Toyota has yet to make a footprint in Europe yet its value is FIVE times the size of BMW. I think the winner of worldwide appeal would ought to have the greatest market cap and that is Toyota. Afterall, consumers do vote with their purchases.
"Designs that appeal worldwide" HAHAHA! BMW took a japanese designer and remade the look of the entire lineup. How's that for doublespeak.
"Designs that appeal worldwide" HAHAHA! BMW took a japanese designer and remade the look of the entire lineup. How's that for doublespeak.
03-15-2005, 07:43 PM
#206
I feel the need...
[QUOTE=gavriil]
Remember, Lexus just entered the Japanese market last year. The Japanese market!
QUOTE]
Dude, they've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
I agree that Lexus does need to do more to reach BMW and Mercedes in terms of design and aspiration. Personally, I don't give two shits about cachet - but obviously a lot of people do.
Remember, Lexus just entered the Japanese market last year. The Japanese market!
QUOTE]
Dude, they've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
I agree that Lexus does need to do more to reach BMW and Mercedes in terms of design and aspiration. Personally, I don't give two shits about cachet - but obviously a lot of people do.
03-15-2005, 08:31 PM
#207
Chloe @ 17mo
[QUOTE=PistonFan]
Everyone knows that. The japanese knows that. He was referring to how Lexus, as a luxury brand, just started offering their vehicles in the Japanese market. Like how Acura isn't a global luxury marque, just a US based one. It means that Lexus is starting to become more of a global nameplate, even in their own home.
Originally Posted by gavriil
Remember, Lexus just entered the Japanese market last year. The Japanese market!
QUOTE]
They've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
QUOTE]
They've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
03-15-2005, 09:43 PM
#208
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by domn
Well technically yes, but in reality MB makes MB and MB makes Daimler Chrylser. The merge was really a takeover.
Chrysler has no say over MB branded cars like GM has over Saab or Ford over Volvo or Aston.
Chrysler has no say over MB branded cars like GM has over Saab or Ford over Volvo or Aston.
Yes but it's not accurate to say "Benz is made by Benz". There is no Benz like there is BMW as he wrote.
03-15-2005, 09:44 PM
#209
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Jerky
was the title of this thread changed by any means? mang i must be halluninating...
03-15-2005, 09:45 PM
#210
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by phile
And to say that Daimler Chrysler makes Mercedes Benz is technically incorrect because most of the MB vehicles right now were made by Daimler Benz, before the takeover of Chrysler to form Daimler Chrysler.
03-15-2005, 09:49 PM
#211
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by M TYPE X
The IS200 is not sold in the United States. The ES330 is not sold in Europe.
03-15-2005, 10:02 PM
#212
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
[QUOTE=PistonFan]
First, they were not exactly the same vehicles. It's like the case with the EUro Accord and the TSX. They are not exactly...identical.
Second, my point still stands. Which was that Lexus just started operating at its..."home" market. That says a lot to the point I answerd to which was why Lexus is so much "smaller" or "less significant" if you prefer, than BMW and MB.
Originally Posted by gavriil
Remember, Lexus just entered the Japanese market last year. The Japanese market!
QUOTE]
Dude, they've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
QUOTE]
Dude, they've been selling "Lexus" models as Toyotas for years....just different badge.
Second, my point still stands. Which was that Lexus just started operating at its..."home" market. That says a lot to the point I answerd to which was why Lexus is so much "smaller" or "less significant" if you prefer, than BMW and MB.
03-15-2005, 10:03 PM
#213
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by AsianRage
Everyone knows that. The japanese knows that. He was referring to how Lexus, as a luxury brand, just started offering their vehicles in the Japanese market. Like how Acura isn't a global luxury marque, just a US based one. It means that Lexus is starting to become more of a global nameplate, even in their own home.
03-15-2005, 10:10 PM
#214
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by KavexTrax
Total Market Cap: $ 128 B Toyota, $ 25 B BMW and Toyota has yet to make a footprint in Europe yet its value is FIVE times the size of BMW.
03-15-2005, 10:18 PM
#215
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by KavexTrax
I think the winner of worldwide appeal would ought to have the greatest market cap and that is Toyota. Afterall, consumers do vote with their purchases.
Revenue though is only one factor that affects market cap. There are literally infinite factors that play a role on that respect.
On an indirectly relevant note, here is some more market cap numbers which give all of us an idea of how the market values certain auto companies currently:
DAIMLERCHRYSLER A (NYSE: DCX) = 46.701B
FIAT SPA ADS (NYSE:FIA) = 7.515B
FORD MOTOR CO (NYSE:F) = 22.392B
GEN MOTORS (NYSE:GM) = 19.046B
HONDA MOTOR CO AD (NYSE:HMC) = 48.295B
NISSAN MTR SPON A (NasdaqSC:NSANY) = 42.620B
TOYOTA MTR CP ADS (NYSE:TM) = 127.2B as you wrote
VOLVO AB CL B ADR (NasdaqNM:VOLVY) = 19.604B
VOLKSWAGEN A G SPONS (Other OTC:VLKAY.PK) = 18.42B
03-16-2005, 03:15 AM
#216
Kabachitare!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about Audi being second tier:
AutoExtremist:
by Peter M. DeLorenzo
A delusional fog hangs over Audi's luxury aspirations.
Detroit. I read with amusement in last week's Business Week that Audi and its dealers are absolutely convinced that their salvation in the U.S. market lies in having an SUV, the seven-passenger Q7, which they're eagerly anticipating for delivery one year from now. My immediate question is this: How can Audi - a car company that has been perennially saddled with the "almost great" moniker for so long now that even they must wonder if they'll ever ascend to the "top tier" of the luxury car market - possibly believe that an SUV, of all things, will be their ticket to greatness?
This is a company, after all, that builds some of the most seductive cars in the market today as far as I'm concerned, but for a long list of reasons has never been able to "crack the code" in terms of image and desirability with consumers, in order to be considered on the same level with Lexus, BMW or Mercedes-Benz (some would even argue that GM's resurgent Cadillac division is challenging Audi in terms of image and desirability these days). I've expounded on the reasons for Audi's perennial second-tier luxury status many times over the last several years, but for all of the things that have either gone wrong for Audi (the "60 Minutes" hatchet job/debacle) or that they've managed to screw up themselves (unrealistic pricing, poor quality), there is one overriding reason in particular that has prevented them from achieving greatness in the U.S. market - and that is their unrelentingly dismal resale performance.
Let's put it this way - if it weren't for Audi's manipulation of the residual values on their factory leases through their captive financial arm, Audi's resale performance would only be a couple of points above nonexistent. When I talk to auto dealer sales professionals, particularly the purveyors of minimally used, high-line luxury vehicles, the consistent thread I keep hearing over and over again goes something like this, "Audi? Nice cars, but when it comes to resale they're dead in the water. We always caution our customers to lease them rather than buy, because if they don't, they'll lose their shirts."
Not exactly what I'd call a ringing endorsement, by any means.
But then again, this isn't anything new when it comes to Audi in the U.S. Resale has been the brand's Achilles' Heel for as long as I can remember. But judging by the comments put forth by Audi executives in the Business Week article, they just don't seem to have a clue about what Audi needs to be concerned with if they're ever going to get beyond spinning their wheels in this market.
Audi prides itself as the car company that marches to a different drummer, one that leads and never follows, and most recently one that is "greater than" its competition. But all of that good old-fashioned German luxury car arrogance doesn't count for much when the realities of the retail market keep intruding on Audi's vision of itself. A vision that is obscured in a perpetual fog of self delusion, apparently.
Let's take the comments by Johan de Nysschen, the head of Audi of America, for instance. He told Business Week that Audi can sell 50,000 Q7s a year. 50,000 in a year? You have got to be kidding me. Why is it that every car executive in the world seems to operate in a vacuum that allows them to believe that they can launch any vehicle, in any segment they choose to operate in, and achieve success as if by osmosis? We usually only get to see this at the Detroit Auto Show, where we have the pleasure of listening to executive after executive insist that their entry into whichever segment they choose to play in will immediately be successful - literally overnight. Even though it was the same segment that another car executive was talking about not ten minutes before.
It doesn't take much to realize that it just doesn't work that way. The "pie" is shrinking by the day, with car companies jostling for tenths of a percentage point - fighting to the death for every scrap of market share they can glom on to. And just because a manufacturer deigns to show up in a segment doesn't necessarily mean that success will automatically be achieved.
Audi's de Nysschen didn't get that memo, apparently. Fifty thousand Q7s right out of the box? Come on, Johan. Would you like to delineate for us as to whose hide you think those sales will come from? Or are you insisting that Audi will add 50,000 buyers to the market based on the brilliance of Audi's Q7 alone? Please.
Audi dealers, of course, are absolutely thrilled with the Q7, which is not surprising. Dealers usually believe that more new product is a ticket to salvation, especially when their idea of salvation is measured out in 30-day increments. But no matter how good the new Q7 is, it will not address Audi's core problem. After all, a hit SUV won't count for much if Audi's reputation is still one of precarious resale - and thus a brand that should be avoided.
Audi is desperate to play with the established leaders in the luxury car market. And well they should be. They create beautiful cars that are for the most part wonderfully executed. But wishing and hoping isn't going to get it done. And pretending that an SUV, no matter how exceptional, will transcend all the ills and weaknesses of a brand, is a nothing but a fool's errand.
Audi's horrendous resale performance should be Johan de Nysschen's number one priority. And until it is, the delusional fog will hang low over Audi's luxury aspirations.
Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.
AutoExtremist:
by Peter M. DeLorenzo
A delusional fog hangs over Audi's luxury aspirations.
Detroit. I read with amusement in last week's Business Week that Audi and its dealers are absolutely convinced that their salvation in the U.S. market lies in having an SUV, the seven-passenger Q7, which they're eagerly anticipating for delivery one year from now. My immediate question is this: How can Audi - a car company that has been perennially saddled with the "almost great" moniker for so long now that even they must wonder if they'll ever ascend to the "top tier" of the luxury car market - possibly believe that an SUV, of all things, will be their ticket to greatness?
This is a company, after all, that builds some of the most seductive cars in the market today as far as I'm concerned, but for a long list of reasons has never been able to "crack the code" in terms of image and desirability with consumers, in order to be considered on the same level with Lexus, BMW or Mercedes-Benz (some would even argue that GM's resurgent Cadillac division is challenging Audi in terms of image and desirability these days). I've expounded on the reasons for Audi's perennial second-tier luxury status many times over the last several years, but for all of the things that have either gone wrong for Audi (the "60 Minutes" hatchet job/debacle) or that they've managed to screw up themselves (unrealistic pricing, poor quality), there is one overriding reason in particular that has prevented them from achieving greatness in the U.S. market - and that is their unrelentingly dismal resale performance.
Let's put it this way - if it weren't for Audi's manipulation of the residual values on their factory leases through their captive financial arm, Audi's resale performance would only be a couple of points above nonexistent. When I talk to auto dealer sales professionals, particularly the purveyors of minimally used, high-line luxury vehicles, the consistent thread I keep hearing over and over again goes something like this, "Audi? Nice cars, but when it comes to resale they're dead in the water. We always caution our customers to lease them rather than buy, because if they don't, they'll lose their shirts."
Not exactly what I'd call a ringing endorsement, by any means.
But then again, this isn't anything new when it comes to Audi in the U.S. Resale has been the brand's Achilles' Heel for as long as I can remember. But judging by the comments put forth by Audi executives in the Business Week article, they just don't seem to have a clue about what Audi needs to be concerned with if they're ever going to get beyond spinning their wheels in this market.
Audi prides itself as the car company that marches to a different drummer, one that leads and never follows, and most recently one that is "greater than" its competition. But all of that good old-fashioned German luxury car arrogance doesn't count for much when the realities of the retail market keep intruding on Audi's vision of itself. A vision that is obscured in a perpetual fog of self delusion, apparently.
Let's take the comments by Johan de Nysschen, the head of Audi of America, for instance. He told Business Week that Audi can sell 50,000 Q7s a year. 50,000 in a year? You have got to be kidding me. Why is it that every car executive in the world seems to operate in a vacuum that allows them to believe that they can launch any vehicle, in any segment they choose to operate in, and achieve success as if by osmosis? We usually only get to see this at the Detroit Auto Show, where we have the pleasure of listening to executive after executive insist that their entry into whichever segment they choose to play in will immediately be successful - literally overnight. Even though it was the same segment that another car executive was talking about not ten minutes before.
It doesn't take much to realize that it just doesn't work that way. The "pie" is shrinking by the day, with car companies jostling for tenths of a percentage point - fighting to the death for every scrap of market share they can glom on to. And just because a manufacturer deigns to show up in a segment doesn't necessarily mean that success will automatically be achieved.
Audi's de Nysschen didn't get that memo, apparently. Fifty thousand Q7s right out of the box? Come on, Johan. Would you like to delineate for us as to whose hide you think those sales will come from? Or are you insisting that Audi will add 50,000 buyers to the market based on the brilliance of Audi's Q7 alone? Please.
Audi dealers, of course, are absolutely thrilled with the Q7, which is not surprising. Dealers usually believe that more new product is a ticket to salvation, especially when their idea of salvation is measured out in 30-day increments. But no matter how good the new Q7 is, it will not address Audi's core problem. After all, a hit SUV won't count for much if Audi's reputation is still one of precarious resale - and thus a brand that should be avoided.
Audi is desperate to play with the established leaders in the luxury car market. And well they should be. They create beautiful cars that are for the most part wonderfully executed. But wishing and hoping isn't going to get it done. And pretending that an SUV, no matter how exceptional, will transcend all the ills and weaknesses of a brand, is a nothing but a fool's errand.
Audi's horrendous resale performance should be Johan de Nysschen's number one priority. And until it is, the delusional fog will hang low over Audi's luxury aspirations.
Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.
03-16-2005, 03:16 AM
#217
Kabachitare!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAnd a little more from the "on the table section."
n truth, Audi's troubles extend beyond the abyssmal resale value of their products. Audi has suffered from a persistent brand image problem almost from the moment they arrived in the U.S., and it's this "nearly great" status that seems to have doomed them to being a perennial second-tier player in the U.S. luxury market. Audi has never, ever been thought of in the same light as BMW and Mercedes-Benz, even with Mercedes' burgeoning troubles. BMW started with the cult-classic 2002 and then built its "Ultimate Driving Machine" persona from there (even though they've managed to adhere to it less and less with each successive new model it seems). And Mercedes-Benz always represented the pinnacle of German over-engineering, an aura first brought to the fore from the "buzz" generated about the cars by returning U.S. service men and women after WWII. And then that aura was solidified with the persona crafted by the famous (and dearly missed) theme "Engineered like no other car in the world" - a brand image theme that should be brought back immediately, by the way. But Audi? It has created a "march to a different drummer" brand persona that was based early on on its almost total embrace of all-wheel-drive capability as its raison d'etre. This persona was best expressed in its early "Never Follow" advertising executions, which have only been a recent development. It has taken Audi 20 years just to get to the point where they finally know and understand who they are, what they represent and where they fit in the "big picture" of the U.S. market. Does this mean they'll need another 20 years before they join BMW and Mercedes-Benz in the top tier? They don't have that kind of time, and besides, if Lexus continues on its upward trajectory - BMW, Mercedes and Audi will all occupy second-tier status in this market before long.
n truth, Audi's troubles extend beyond the abyssmal resale value of their products. Audi has suffered from a persistent brand image problem almost from the moment they arrived in the U.S., and it's this "nearly great" status that seems to have doomed them to being a perennial second-tier player in the U.S. luxury market. Audi has never, ever been thought of in the same light as BMW and Mercedes-Benz, even with Mercedes' burgeoning troubles. BMW started with the cult-classic 2002 and then built its "Ultimate Driving Machine" persona from there (even though they've managed to adhere to it less and less with each successive new model it seems). And Mercedes-Benz always represented the pinnacle of German over-engineering, an aura first brought to the fore from the "buzz" generated about the cars by returning U.S. service men and women after WWII. And then that aura was solidified with the persona crafted by the famous (and dearly missed) theme "Engineered like no other car in the world" - a brand image theme that should be brought back immediately, by the way. But Audi? It has created a "march to a different drummer" brand persona that was based early on on its almost total embrace of all-wheel-drive capability as its raison d'etre. This persona was best expressed in its early "Never Follow" advertising executions, which have only been a recent development. It has taken Audi 20 years just to get to the point where they finally know and understand who they are, what they represent and where they fit in the "big picture" of the U.S. market. Does this mean they'll need another 20 years before they join BMW and Mercedes-Benz in the top tier? They don't have that kind of time, and besides, if Lexus continues on its upward trajectory - BMW, Mercedes and Audi will all occupy second-tier status in this market before long.
03-16-2005, 09:19 AM
#218
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
Not necessarily. Market cap is an indication of how the (stock) market values a company at a given moment. Keeping everything else equal it starts with the top line. Revenue. BMW is a lot smaller than Toyota as far as revenue, hence you cant directly compare them on a market capitalization basis and derive appeal measurements.
Revenue though is only one factor that affects market cap. There are literally infinite factors that play a role on that respect.
On an indirectly relevant note, here is some more market cap numbers which give all of us an idea of how the market values certain auto companies currently:
DAIMLERCHRYSLER A (NYSE: DCX) = 46.701B
FIAT SPA ADS (NYSE:FIA) = 7.515B
FORD MOTOR CO (NYSE:F) = 22.392B
GEN MOTORS (NYSE:GM) = 19.046B
HONDA MOTOR CO AD (NYSE:HMC) = 48.295B
NISSAN MTR SPON A (NasdaqSC:NSANY) = 42.620B
TOYOTA MTR CP ADS (NYSE:TM) = 127.2B as you wrote
VOLVO AB CL B ADR (NasdaqNM:VOLVY) = 19.604B
VOLKSWAGEN A G SPONS (Other OTC:VLKAY.PK) = 18.42B
Revenue though is only one factor that affects market cap. There are literally infinite factors that play a role on that respect.
On an indirectly relevant note, here is some more market cap numbers which give all of us an idea of how the market values certain auto companies currently:
DAIMLERCHRYSLER A (NYSE: DCX) = 46.701B
FIAT SPA ADS (NYSE:FIA) = 7.515B
FORD MOTOR CO (NYSE:F) = 22.392B
GEN MOTORS (NYSE:GM) = 19.046B
HONDA MOTOR CO AD (NYSE:HMC) = 48.295B
NISSAN MTR SPON A (NasdaqSC:NSANY) = 42.620B
TOYOTA MTR CP ADS (NYSE:TM) = 127.2B as you wrote
VOLVO AB CL B ADR (NasdaqNM:VOLVY) = 19.604B
VOLKSWAGEN A G SPONS (Other OTC:VLKAY.PK) = 18.42B
This is so funny because it is so coincidental.
Today GM's market cap went from 19B (yesterday's close) to 16.9B.
Because they warned of "brutal year".
That's why I dont look at market cap as the sole indicator of market perception/appeal.
03-18-2005, 03:20 PM
#219
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
'Revolution is over' at BMW
'Revolution is over' at BMW - - Source: Autocar
Chris Bangle, BMW’s controversial design boss, has said the company’s design revolution is over and his team is preparing to start from scratch ready ‘for the next revolution’. Bangle, talking to Automotive News Europe, said the launch of the 3-series marked the end of a styling ‘revolution’ started by the 7-series in 2001.
He dismissed suggestions that the 7-series had an unattractive design, claiming that ‘customers liked it — very much so’.
He admitted the new 3-series was the best interpretation of BMW’s design language. ‘Perhaps we designers have matured, or the public is more ready to appreciate it.’
Bangle said he sees ‘almost nothing’ from other car makers in terms of ‘real and formal innovation… Almost no one has had the courage to take a radically new direction the way BMW has.’
He dismissed suggestions that the 7-series had an unattractive design, claiming that ‘customers liked it — very much so’.
He admitted the new 3-series was the best interpretation of BMW’s design language. ‘Perhaps we designers have matured, or the public is more ready to appreciate it.’
Bangle said he sees ‘almost nothing’ from other car makers in terms of ‘real and formal innovation… Almost no one has had the courage to take a radically new direction the way BMW has.’
03-18-2005, 03:24 PM
#220
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Bangle said he sees ‘almost nothing’ from other car makers in terms of ‘real and formal innovation… Almost no one has had the courage to take a radically new direction the way BMW has.’
This guy's got balls obviously and would do very well within a major sales department. Lip service up the ass... Justifying the design strategy issues by basically saying "at least I took huge risks, what did the other do?". Well, if it were a risk that ended with fruitful results, then yes, you can claim you're the pioneer, but I hear a lot more controversy about BMW design than acceptance.
I think the reason he is acting so cocky is because he did not lose his job over that controversy. And on top of that, he was promoted. Who is he "screwing" within BMW?
03-18-2005, 03:29 PM
#221
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Age: 41
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gavriil
I think the reason he is acting so cocky is because he did not lose his job over that controversy. And on top of that, he was promoted. Who is he "screwing" within BMW?
I wouldn't mind being a goatee'd "philosopher-king" of design.
I'd be like "some people think my new sedan designs look like 80s breadboxes. These are the same people who have no appreciation for Stevie Nicks' music!"
03-18-2005, 03:39 PM
#223
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
Bangle can kiss my ass. His design philosophy is ugyl, excessive, and unnecessary. He took a perfectly classy brand and turned it into a bunch of amorphous driving turds.
but he still makes more money then most of us 
sucks eh?
03-18-2005, 03:46 PM
#227
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Age: 41
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
So does this mean hes staying with BMW? Thought he moved on...
03-18-2005, 03:47 PM
#228
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
So does this mean hes staying with BMW? Thought he moved on...
03-18-2005, 03:57 PM
#230
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
The old designs are boring, Bangle is ahead of the times. IMO
The old designs look boring...now. They were not boring then.
03-18-2005, 04:07 PM
#233
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 43
Posts: 5,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
The chimp in the big white house makes more money than me but I don't have to respect him either.
A lot of people don't like the design direction that Bangle has taken BMW in, but I'd say that it's "polarizing" rather than "ugly". He's right that the people who buy the cars LOVE the design. And just wait until the new 3-er gets here: It's the most accessible (and IMO best looking) of the Bangle Bunch so it should sell like hotcakes. I thought the 7- and 5-series were ugly at first, but I think that's because I loved the old designs and the brand identity they had so much. They've definitely grown on me, though. I'd buy one if I had the dough.
03-18-2005, 04:07 PM
#234
goldmemberererer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't go as far as to say that he's "ahead" of the times. He has his moments, but I think he should be a designer for a Japanese manufacturer. I found the brand a ton more desireable before he stepped in and started changing shit around. BMW's once understated elegance has gone the way of the M1. It's all brawn and feline finesse now. Which isn't bad, but it isn't class either.
03-18-2005, 08:17 PM
#236
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I can live with the 3-series I think the new designs have ruined the overall brand. The evolutionary direction they used to be on would have been better overall imo, even a move towards the retro quad circle headlights with halo xenon eyes would have been pretty cool with a newer design theme.
The revolution is over because they couldn't backtrack any further design wise without ending the revolution.
The revolution is over because they couldn't backtrack any further design wise without ending the revolution.
03-18-2005, 09:37 PM
#237
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Age: 53
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new BMW designs are ugly. Ungainly. Loss of its German proportions. Too many creases. Loss of some heritage cues. Its a mess.
But sadly, people will buy anything and I mean ANYTHING with a BMW badge. And justify it.
This is the same company that said the 7 was radical and people didn't understand it. The same company that has people saying "who are auto journalists to question their design".
They didn't need revolutionary but to their credit they did it. And the once untouchable 5 is no longer the darling of the industry. The Z4 sells awful. The 6 is selling slow. The 7 had to have lease deals for the 1st time.
If the new design was so great, they would have made the new 3 AS revolutionary, instead of evolutionary.
But sadly, people will buy anything and I mean ANYTHING with a BMW badge. And justify it.
This is the same company that said the 7 was radical and people didn't understand it. The same company that has people saying "who are auto journalists to question their design".
They didn't need revolutionary but to their credit they did it. And the once untouchable 5 is no longer the darling of the industry. The Z4 sells awful. The 6 is selling slow. The 7 had to have lease deals for the 1st time.
If the new design was so great, they would have made the new 3 AS revolutionary, instead of evolutionary.
03-18-2005, 09:42 PM
#238
Bangle said he sees ‘almost nothing’ from other car makers in terms of ‘real and formal innovation… Almost no one has had the courage to take a radically new direction the way BMW has.’
Bold? Yes. Attractive? I don't think so. The new 3-Series is the "best interpretation" of Bangle's design because it doesn't use so many of his design cues! You don't see much of the so-called flame surfacing on the new 3.
03-18-2005, 10:36 PM
#239
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,122
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
Bangle is a conceited piece of buttfuck.
Tell whats innovative about the interior designs??? Its a fucking step backwards x100.
The only decent interior of the new cars is the 6.
I have no respect for that man.
Tell whats innovative about the interior designs??? Its a fucking step backwards x100.
The only decent interior of the new cars is the 6.
I have no respect for that man.
03-18-2005, 11:55 PM
#240
Suzuka Master
Almost no one has had the courage to take a radically new direction the way BMW has.’