Talk Back Tuesday: Consumer Comparison Test
If you've been watching either the Straightline blog or the Strategies blog you've already heard about our Consumer Comparison Test pitting the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord and Toyota Camry against each other. Feel free to predict the finishing order of this comparison test (that's what they're doing over at Straightline) but this post will be focusing on a different aspect of the event.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is HUGE. It's not huge because it involved letting consumers drive three competing models and provide feedback. We've seen that in various "buff books" ad campaigns for a couple years now, not to mention recent television commercials and radio spots. No, what makes this huge is the fact that no manufacturer was involved in the testing process.
Every previous "consumer" test I've seen has always been backed by a specific manufacturer. The buff book campaigns I just mentioned involved the Cadillac CTS and Jaguar X-Type -- with associated ad pages and tiny "advertisement" text on those pages (Ugh! -- I felt dirty just quickly thumbing past them). The recent television/radio ads we've likely all seen or heard involves Ford's "Swap My Ride" effort to show that the Fusion and Edge are "better" than the Camry and Highlander. Any guess as to which vehicles fared well in those tests?
Fine. Whatever. Those brilliant manufacturer marketing/ad guys are always looking for the "next big thing" to offer "outside the box" ad thinking while "taking it to the next level" when it comes to product promotion. But, thankfully, none of that was going on here. We asked for a test vehicle from Chevrolet, Honda and Toyota, and we gave them a specific price point they had to meet. That's where the manufacturer involvement ended.
Edmunds personnel set up the driving activities, provided the notepads and clipboards, and made sure we had six articulate consumers with a wide variety of backgrounds. We even spread out the geographic location of the consumers to avoid real or perceived regional biases. We also gave the consumer participants no feedback regarding our opinions of these models. If they had questions regarding what to look for during a given excercise we provided it, but no qualitative feedback (verbal or otherwise) regarding how well (or poorly) a vehicle performed was offered.
In theory they could have read our editorial reports on these models, but neither the Malibu Road Test nor the Family Sedan Comparison Test were published at the time.
Bottom line, this was a unique experience. I remained at Willow Springs throughout the test day and was thrilled to hear what these folks had to say about the Accord, Camry and Malibu -- without any prompting from us (or any manufacturers!!). The results of this consumer comparison test will go live on December 18th, with each participant providing his/her own ranking and associated comments.
I'm convinced family sedan shoppers will find the feedback valuable. I'm also convinced we should arrange these consumer comparison tests on a regular basis. Being able to experience similarly priced/equipped models in back-to-back excercises (including cargo loading and static evaluation of interior design and quality) is simply the best way to determine where each model succeeds or fails -- assuming, of course, no manufacturer is involved.
Do you agree, and which segment should we do next
Posted by Karl Dec 11, 2007 7:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Chevrolet | Honda | Toyota | Talk Back Tuesday
|
|
1487, been to them and always found that they would mismatch cars and pull other basic tricks. Heck, parking the Audi with its HVAC working in the shade makes it seem more comfortable than the hot, stuffy BMW parked in the sun. At the Lexus event they were keen to show off the straightline speed but reluctant to expose the IS350's awful handing. Goes without saying these tricks are pulled.
It's not different than advertising - the roads are open, windows tinted, everything's great.
The sponsored events, just like advertising, are designed to be superficial: no critical thinking expected or wanted.
|
|
 | |
7driver
- Dec 11, 2007 5:19 pm
(#27 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I remember one time I was at a GM event and while standing in line the people around me that I talked to seemed to prefer the Mustang over the (current at that time) Camaro. Indeed, I thought it much more tossable. I also thought it was easier to kiss the apex cone. If GM stacked the deck at that event, then it didn't work.
|
|
| |
zach101
- Dec 11, 2007 6:19 pm
(#28 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
I agree this was a great idea! My guess is: first place- Honda Accord, second place- Chevrolet Malibu, third place- Toyota Camry.
I would love to see more of these! Some suggestions are:
Saturn Outlook vs. Mazda CX-9 vs. Honda Pilot.
Cadillac CTS vs. BMW 3 series vs. Infiniti G35
Chrysler Town and Country vs. Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna
Honda Civic vs. Mazda 3 vs. (new) Toyota Corolla
|
|
| |
|
|
Next comparo: small sporty cars - MINI Cooper S vs VW GTI vs Honda Civivc Si vs GM Cobalt SS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 12, 2007 6:44 am
(#31 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
"1487
I see how it works. C&D, Karl, Edmunds = Totally biased.
Domestic Comparison Tests = Totally Objective and Fair
Import Showcase = Flawed
Yes, your analysis seems quite ?*&%%^$#@, uhhhh logical. "
as usual, your response was unecessary and silly. Where did I ever say an import showcase was flawed? what are you talking about? I've never been to an import sponsored even where any comparisons took place. I went to one held by MB and a few by BMW. There was one I signed up for with the Es330 but it was cancelled due to 9/11.
"When you went to the Cadillac test, did they have literature on the 5 series or E class? Where respective BMW or Mercedes dealers present? Did they have a presentation with those cars under a cover with a speaker making a dramatic introduction? I bet the Cadillac had all of those things. Do I think that Cadillac should have provided them, NO. But please don't pretend those events are about letting the customer make a FULLY informed decision."
This is one of the stupidest things you've ever typed on here and that's saying something. Why the hell would Cadillac have BMW reps at an event they are sponsoring? Are you serious? At all these events the engine stats and prices for all the cars are listed. Have you ever been to one? If not dont comment any further because your assumptions are absurd and you seem to be of the impression that the attendees (many of whom drove imports) are complete morons. Do you not think these people are smart enough to know if they were comparing cars that are not competitors? Do you think they wouldnt suspect something if Cadillac compared a 328 to an STS-V? Stop being ridiculous and accept the fact that when compared head to head by intelligent, open minded people the sponsored vehicles can hold their own.
opfreak,
at most of these events the tracks are so short that you cant even get enough speed to exploit the supposed advantages of the sponsored car. You are reading way too much into it. It seems to me the main problem here is that people suspect that any comparo in which a domestic vehicle does OK has to be rigged. I attended an edmunds.com sponsored even in NJ years back and I didnt see any difference in the testing or type of vehicles.
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 12, 2007 6:49 am
(#32 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
"1487, been to them and always found that they would mismatch cars and pull other basic tricks. Heck, parking the Audi with its HVAC working in the shade makes it seem more comfortable than the hot, stuffy BMW parked in the sun. At the Lexus event they were keen to show off the straightline speed but reluctant to expose the IS350's awful handing. Goes without saying these tricks are pulled. "
no tricks at all. We know you well enough to know you dont like many vehicles. You obviously went to some of these events disliking some of the vehicles being featured and came away convinced that the fix was in. Speak for your own experiences but dont tell me (or any of us) what has happened at other events. At the ones I attended the road courses had curves and you could push every car into them as you saw fit. No rigged tracks, no cars with deflated tires, no cloth seats on the imports while the american car was fully loaded with aftermarket rims and racing slicks. Give me a break. Just because you dont like the IS350 doesnt mean every one of these events is rigged. As I said, some people come away unconvinced the sponsoring company's vehicle is superior. How does that happen if the fix is in as you allege?
You are reaching way too far here.
"The sponsored events, just like advertising, are designed to be superficial: no critical thinking expected or wanted."
Yeah no critical thinking. You get to drive the cars, sit in the cars, examine the build quality and ergonomics, etc. and there is no critical thinking wanted. Its just a beauty contest. Maybe the people at the events you attended were stupid, but that wasnt the case at the ones I attended.
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 12, 2007 7:03 am
(#33 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
blackadder,
I asked a simple question earlier which you have not answered. Just explain to me HOW Ford or anyone could force or trick people into liking their car. Thats all I want to know. I did not attend the Fusion comparisons but it appears to be like other events I have attended in the past. If that is the case they take cars that are similarly equipped and priced and let you test their acceleration, handling, interiors, styling, etc. You can say WHATEVER you want, they dont hold a gun to your head. I doubt most people who attended the Fusion event went out to buy one. The point of the excercise and the ads is that people who wouldnt have considered a Ford product saw that when you actually drove the Fusion head to head with the supposed class leader you found there wasnt a huge disparity in handling, styling or build quality. Thats all the ads are saying and its believable since the Fusion is the nicest midsize car from Ford in years. The reason they do this stuff is because people (obviously not here) are more likely to respect the opinion of a regular person than listen to a regular commercial that has been scripted and test marketed by the manufacturer.
"When the manufacturer is hoping to learn from the competition and make improvements to a future model. As far as I know, such tests are not usually open to the public. "
the public is who attends these events and makes the comments. I would assume any negative comments about the manufacturer's vehicle would taken into consideration for future models. Again, you would have a much different perspective if you had been to one of these. You are making up all these conspiracy theories but if you attend one you will see it's not like that. YOu are free to think and feel whatever you want. At the end of the day you can rate the car poorly if you so chose.
What people have to accept is that regular folks dont care about the specific traits that are so important to enthusiasts or auto journalists. While those folks may scoff at the fact that the Fusion could outrank the Accord because of the Accords "steering feel" or Honda's engineering prowess, regular people arent going to pay attention to that stuff. If a car goes through the cones with little fuss and tire squal then they will believe it handles well. The minute differences in steering and control input feel between a car like the Fusion and the Accord isnt going to be noticeable or important to most buyers. Whether or not its true in absolute terms, most people would likely think the Fusion and Accord are about the same in the handling department with both cars ahead of the camry. When you factor in the Fusions more dramatic styling and lower price its not hard to believe that people were impressed with the car. You cant expect them to rate resale value or 10 year reliability at a driving event so it makes no sense to say "all the facts werent considered before the rankings". The comparo is about what you an see and feel on that day only. Its not about resale, durability, brand image, etc.
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 12, 2007 7:22 am
(#34 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
"I too have been to many of these comparison tests. Most of the time the results aren't published and the purpose of the event is to educate the public as to their new car, not to get objective analysis as to the different qualities of the respective models. "
I just reread this nonsense. First of all why would competing cars be at the event if they didnt want the consumers to see how their car compared objectively to established players? In a truly biased presentation of a new product you wouldn't even have competitors present. The vehicles are evaluated by the attendees by being driven and contrasted with key rivals. If that isnt done analyzing the qualities of the respective models I dont know its done.
|
|
| |
|
|
Ellicott City MD United States of America |
|
|
I like the idea of getting "average Joes" and "average Janes" involved for the simple reason is that they are NOT gearheads—and therefore are far more likely to give impressions that are often not found on " car buff" sites.
Those who follow any car site, or who read any car magazine, know (or should know) that there is often a lot of gearhead-geared info being passed on that average consumers could care less about. With this type of test we're likely to get a completely different perspective—which is good, and long overdue.
|
|
| |
|
|
1487
"Where did I ever say an import showcase was flawed?"
Few entries earlier he said.
"The few I have been to sponsored by imports didnt feature any competing cars. You can draw your own conclusions from that."
What are we to draw from these comments? Now who looks stupid.
"Why the hell would Cadillac have BMW reps at an event they are sponsoring? Are you serious?"
That was kind of the point. You are the one that was arguing that they are objective and allow for a full comparison. In reality they are marketing gimicks. You should be asking yourself the same questions you dole out to us.
I have been to many of these things. I went to one from Cadillac here in Fort Worth at the Texas Motor Speedway. They had a 530 an E320 and an STS V8. Wow, that is comparison for you. They are marketing tools. For tools. And only tools would think they are a neutral and fair comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
1487,
I don't know exactly HOW they would "trick" people into liking their car because I've never worked for a car manufacturer. I'm not a marketing person. But just because I'm not a car maker employee or marketing guy doesn't mean there aren't subtle marketing gimicks at sponsored events.
Sponsored events are marketing gimmicks meant to portray the manufacturer's car in the best possible light, most often making it seem better than the competition (even if it's not). They are not objective, unbiased comparison tests. This is a fact. If you fail to understand this, then you're being naive.
Now, a question you haven't answered: what does 1487 mean?
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 14, 2007 8:35 am
(#38 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
"What are we to draw from these comments? Now who looks stupid. "
do I really have to answer that? the import showcases werent flawed, they just werent comparisons. Like I said you can determine if there is a reason for that. My guess is they dont feel the need to compare their products to the competition because their brand image is so strong.
"That was kind of the point. You are the one that was arguing that they are objective and allow for a full comparison. In reality they are marketing gimicks. You should be asking yourself the same questions you dole out to us. "
As usual you are making accusations with no basis. How are the events "gimmicks"? How are they rigged? How do they "trick" people into thinking their cars are competitive? The Devil is in the details and you have provided none. Of course thats what happens when you make a silly argument that isnt based on truth. The individuals attending these events can make whatever they want out of the opportunity to drive the vehicles presented. There is no mind control involved. If you arent strong willed enough to evaluate the vehicles without undue influence from the sponsor that's on you. If the cars are in the same price range with similar powertrains then the comparison is fair, period. Some people like the sponsored car better and some do not. It's not rocket science by any means, but I'm sure that wont stop you from continuing to argue your point. Whatever that point may be.
|
|
| |
1487
- Dec 14, 2007 8:43 am
(#39 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
"Sponsored events are marketing gimmicks meant to portray the manufacturer's car in the best possible light, most often making it seem better than the competition (even if it's not). They are not objective, unbiased comparison tests. This is a fact. If you fail to understand this, then you're being naive. "
this from someone who hasnt been to one. Attend a few and then get back to us. I assure you that your conspiracy theories arent grounded in reality. If you don't think you are slightly unqualified to tell us what happens and doesnt happen at these events when you have no experience with these events that you'r being naive my friend. Instead of assuming that the attendees are stupid, why not accept the reality that in many cases the cars being featured arent as bad as the attendees assumed they would be before attending. You havnt named ONE way the cars or courses could be altered to fool people but you insist that the fix is in before the event even starts. If you know what you speak of then give us some examples. Again, your entire line of thinking is based on the premise that the attendees are complete idiots and wouldnt be able to see through cheap parlor tricks attempted by the manufacturers. As I said, I attended an edmunds event in NJ years back and it wasnt substantially different from the manufacturer events. In fact at the manufacturer events the employees typically dont work for the manufacturer and they purposely maintain a low pressure attitude and let people form their own opinions.
|
|
| |
|
|
1487,
Do I need to attend a manufacturer event before I know or figure out that it's a marketing exercise?
Answer: No.
Do I need to have attended one of these events to know that a marketing exercise is meant to highlight the car and is not an objective review?
Answer: No.
Is it reasonable to conclude/assume that, being a marketing event, it would be held in such a way as to highlight the car's strengths?
Answer: Yes.
Have I ever claimed that people who attend these events are idiots?
Answer: No.
If car (and other companies, Sony movies comes to mind) routinely let their salesmen write consumer "reviews" on popular websites, is it reasonable of me to expect their marketing departments would do subtle things so that attendees would be more likely to see their car as better than the competition?
Answer: Yes.
How many of these events have you attended where most of the attendees concluded, after driving the cars, that the competing cars better?
Answer: I leave you to answer this........
You see, your argument that I've not attended one of these events and so have no right to think that they are or may not be completely objective is baseless! As you can see from the answers to these quiestions, I don't need to have attended any of these events to know that they aren't or are highly unlikely to be objective!
|
|
| |
|
|
Hahaha I'm with you guys on this one. I've been to more of these manufacturer-sponsored comparos than I can count, and here are a few of my observations:
1. Majority of the attendees are complete idiots. I usually keep score on the number of unbelievably stupid comments I hear from the peanut gallery.
2. The deck is always stacked in favor of the sponsor. Sometimes it's subtle and other times it's stupid-obvious. Blackadder, blueguy, brett8210, anythingbut, opfreak... all very true, lol. Unfortunately most of the sheeple there just eat everything up without noticing or caring about the minute details influencing their opinion.
3. It is possible to be fully objective - if you are careful to notice and ignore those subtle advantages the sponsor may have slipped in. For example, at a test the Subaru Legacy was supposed to win, it was "convenient" that there was sand all over one part of the track in a tricky corner that required a hard acceleration on exit. Neither the BMW nor the Volvo in the comparo were equipped with AWD. The Suby was also loaded whereas the Volvo and BMW were sparsely-equipped.
|
|
| |
|
|
"Have I ever claimed that people who attend these events are idiots?
Answer: No. "
I did... they are. :-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
myob
- Dec 22, 2007 2:52 pm
(#45 Total: 45)
|
|
|
|
Funny that the woman's first comments were about the color. Though to be fair some of the men mentioned colors also.
I wonder if it occurs to any of them that colors are optional.
I actually find these kind of tests not very useful, since though I'm not a "gearhead", I am much more into the driving experience than these folks. I need specific information on attributes, not vauge statements like "it rides nice". They will, however, every now and then mention something the gearheads overlook, like lane changing visability or something else pros see as mundane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
- Edmunds Consumer Comparison Test: Economy Cars May 15, 2008
- 2009 Acura TSX: A Really-Really-Really Good Honda May 14, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Chrysler refools-ur, refuels America May 13, 2008
- Ford's SYNC: A Look at the Future in a Car from the Past May 12, 2008
- April's Automotive Sales Numbers: Not a Pretty Picture May 9, 2008
- MPG Smackdown: Focus vs Jetta vs Prius vs Smart May 8, 2008
- Cars that Jumped the Shark: Mazda Miata May 7, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Will Plug-In Hybrids Really Work? May 6, 2008
- Legend of the Motorcycle: Pebble Beach without Posers May 5, 2008
- Top 10 Fuel Efficient SUVs for 2008: CAFE Can't Kill 'Em May 2, 2008
|
|
|
|
