Well, let's see.... The new Ford GT will be built here in Wixom, Michigan, will be badged Ford, and will cost $150,000, so it's not really that simple, but you are on the right track in general. Ford bought Jaguar to "fill out their product portfolio" as they say, and has done a hell of a job of bringing Jag's quality and durability a quantum leap ahead of where it once was. They may never make any profit from Jaguar, but I hope they do eventually. I'm just glad to see that marque preserved and envigorated.
Keep in mind that, basically, buying any discretionary semi-durable good as expensive and complex as a new car (or a new bike, these days!) is an emotional decision, not a rational or financial one.
You can never, for example, financially justify purchasing a new car IMO. It's ALWAYS less expensive to do something else (buy used, keep what you have, etc.). But it's way less sexy. This is why you have so many new SUVs sold in this country each year. Do 99.9% of those buyers really *need* that vehicle? Nope. They buy them for other reasons, then rationalize away any doubts that they might have. That's how we sell about 15 million new cars and light-duty trucks here in the US each year. It's one heck of a wealth generator. If you try hard enough, you can rationalize almost any purchase IMO (it works great for vintage bikes and parts too!).
Folks buy shiny new cars (and shiny new bicycles, etc.) for many reasons (it makes them feel good, they think it gives them status among their peers, they get enjoyment from the item in question, etc., etc.). None of these reasons is rational. Therefore, marketing, in all of its forms, is about appealing to emotions to cajole you out of your money.
There are clearly price levels and increments above their competition that certain marques of cars (and bikes, to some extent) can command. Ford, with the introduction of the X-Type Jaguar, has learned that you can't water-down a brand too much and still command a significant price premium. People won't buy it at that price level. The market speaks.
BMW can obviously, based on it's perception (real and/or imagined) in the marketplace, command a higher price. This privilege isn't unlimited, however. If they go too far, the market will tell them that they need to reduce their prices. If they don't back up their reputation with solid products, or rest on their laurels, the market will move away from them (and some say that is already beginning to happen to BMW as we speak...).
Right now, "retro" is chic in the mainstream, so reviving old brands is popular. The marketplace will determine how much you can get away with, however. Some folks will succeed, some won't. There's (still) no such thing as a free lunch!
Grant, I think your final statement (below) is right-on, and pretty much sums it all up.
Greg Parker Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:15:19 -0500
> From: Grant McLean <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca>
> To: "Classic Rendezvous Mail List (E-mail)" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Subject: [CR]Re: Masi on Ebay.. Why, why?
>
> Bob,
>
> I agree with you. But like Richie said, it's still legimate to
> label the product with the brand name they rightly own.
> Both your examples are good ones.
>
> The irony is by purchasing a brand name, like Bugatti, what Ford is
> really saying is that THEY don't believe customers would pay top
> dollar for a "Ford" car, unless it has some other name on it!!!
> I think that's so funny. The fact that consumers know a jaguar
> is built by ford, and happily buy them, I think that says more about
> the consumer than it does about Ford. At that point, it's about
> more than how good the product is, it's about romance.
>
> Motobecane is the same as the Haro-Masi example. They figure for
> how little investment it cost to acquire the name, it's a better
> bet to market a brand at least some people will remember than to
> try to start a new one. The folks behind Motobecane figure they
> will sell more bikes with that name on the downtube than if they
> put the factory name there. In the short term, maybe so, maybe
> not.
>
> In the long term, for however difficult brand-building is, it
> seems to pay off for those who are committed to making sure their
> name really means somthing more than just the price of a decal.
>
> Grant McLean
> Toronto.Ca
> O \O/
> _< \_ _< _
> (_)>(_) (_)>(_)
>
> Bob Hovey wrote:
> I think I can question the legitimacy of at least some 'branded' frames...
> though it's a matter of degree (and personal opinion of course). I feel
> it is
> one thing for Ford to buy Jaguar and revamp the company's economics while
> continuing to produce a car in the old facility which bears some
> resemblance to
> what had been built before. It is yet another thing for a bunch of guys
> to get
> together and build a hideously expensive sports car and name it 'Bugatti'
> when they have no connection by blood, nationality, or philosophy to the
> original. My cynicism towards businessmen, advertisers and investors (and
> my
> admiration for the original marque) will not allow me to accept this.
>
> My attitude towards a company that would take the name 'Motobecane' and slap
>
> it on a bike (that has little if any connection to the original) would be
> one
> of contempt or at least apathy. I think it would actually make me LESS
> likely to buy one of their bikes.
>
> And let me add that this has little to do with the actual quality of the
> bike... even if that Chinese Motobecane was a topnotch rider, better than
> the
> original even, the very fact that they named it "Motobecane" would be a
> turnoff.
> Put another way, I'd have to admit that if you had chosen to resurrect a
> dead
> but respected name, say your bikes were badged 'Automoto' rather than
> 'Richard Sachs', I'd know I'd be far less likely to want one. But that's
> just me.