Life Liberty & The Pursuit - since 1902

[Mr.Krinkle]

it was ok but relied to heavily on the music to identify itself with the prospective cadillac buyers. iggy pop is an interesting choice, though. subtle but strikes a familiar chord. it jseems in a way they want to be all things to all people.

im a punk rocker, yes i am... and they just closed cbgb's. lousy rathole.

good progression of cars but more time could have been spent putting them together. it also wouldnt have hurt to throw in a few people throughout the years.

Edited November 1, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[ClassyEldo]

Moments was a superior delivery of the message that the brand is 100+ years old. It represents that Cadillacs have always been aspirational, and they have always appeared in important situations (i.e. heads of state throughout the world, Hollywood, parades of victory, Wall Street, etc.). It reminded me of the old print ad, "Wherever important people meet, the overwhelming car of choice is Cadillac. . . " I think that appeared in the early sixties.

However, in the 'new' ads by Modernista, the choice of Cadillacs was very good, in my opinion (i.e. including the '85 Seville, although I would select the '80 Elegante in Desert Sand/Canyon Rock colors as the nicest example of those bustle-backed Sevilles, the '93 Allante, and if something newer, perhaps an '00 Eldorado, as they were known for 'styling' as well as engineering). I hope the new ads are an indication that better things, that include the past, are yet to come. Hopefully, the new sales brochures will also feature some historical shots of past models, too.

[Brougham-Holiday]

I wish Oldsmobile had done ads like that to help make a connection to the famous Rocket cars of the 50's. I think this ad is great and I really like the Since 1902 part.

[big blue]

I wish Oldsmobile had done ads like that to help make a connection to the famous Rocket cars of the 50's. I think this ad is great and I really like the Since 1902 part.

211372[/snapback]

Moments gets my vote, definitely a strong message with great visuals to go alongside it.

[dford]

Horrible!!!!! Reminds everyone of the terrible cars Cadillac used to make. These commercials are only good for evoking fond memories of the faithful. To all the people Cadillac wishes to court, it draws a straight line directly from the CTS and STS back to the Seville and Cimarron.

You don't see Infiniti fondly remembering the G20 or the 2nd gen Q45 in their ads for the 07 G35, do you???

You don't see Ford reminding you of the 4 cylinder, landau roofed Mustang II do you in their ads for the GT500??

You don't see Chrysler reminding you of the K-car New Yorkers in their ads for the 300C, do you? (though they did revive the Aspen name - God knows why..)

If they showed those commercials only in Detroit, maybe it would be ok.

[dford]

....and the music sucks too. If you want Cadillac to be aspirational for the next generation, why pick their parents music??? If you are targeting people in their 30's and 40's to be the next generation of Cadillac buyers, why pick music from before we were born?? Same with Led Zep.

Using such old music is just "remember our youth" stuff for the 60 year old baby boomers. Oh, wait. Even they have a bad impression of Cadillac.

I am not saying I think Cadillac sucks. They have some competitive cars now, but these commericals miss the mark.

[balthazar]

Wow, dford- what planet are you logging in from?? Did you watch the linked ads at all? It showed -what- 13 models over the course of Cadillac's history: which ones weren't "terrible" in your opinion?

Edited November 12, 2006 by balthazar

[dford]

The problem with heritage ads is that while you remind people of the good, you also remind them of the bad. How does even the appearance of the 85 Seville help conquest buyers from BMW, Audi, or the Japanese??

And in the 30 sec ad, jumping from the Seville directly to the XLR is especially bad. Nothing Cadillac has produced in the last 30 years - current models excepted, warrants fond remembrance in an ad, especially if the desired goal is to change people's perception of Cadillac.

This ad is for loyalists only.

[balthazar]

IMO, you are incorrect.

#1- the 2nd gen Seville is not supposed to gain conquest sales from the competition's loyalists- just like an ad with an '85 BMW is not going to gain any conquests from any other brands loyalists today. It's not a compare-n-contrast ad, it's a look back at the marque's heritage. And the 2nd gen Seville was not without it's imitators (Imperial, Continental).

I take it then the '85 is the only car you object to out of like 13? Hardly seems to warrant "the terrible cars".

#2: 2006-30=1976. Cadillac was setting sales records (still not even approached today) in this era and the Seville was a critical and sales success. mercedes & BMW were still enlarging, equipping & empowering their cars to compete with Cadillac in the late '70s; Cadillac was the segment benchmark whether you believe it or not. '30 years of nothing' is a gross overstatement.

And sometimes a little heritage awarness can educate those with erroneous perceptions.....

[dford]

Who cares if the 85 Seville was supposed to get conquest sales. TODAYS cadillacs are supposed to - because previous generations of Cadillacs lost the customer.

My point is: Many import luxury buyers have a negative perception of Cadillac. Whether is the big boats of the 50's-70's or the too small, poor quality 80's cars (V8-6-4 anyone?), the perception of Cadillac to most luxury consumers (that don't live in Detroit) is of poor quality and out dated technology. Cadillac wants to change that perception, and should not be running ads that remind potential new customers of cars those very customers perceive negatively.

You are not going to change the perception of a car by flashing its image and playing some Iggy Pop in the backround. But you can change the perception of a brand by showing the current cars in a contemporary context - that the cars are relevant to todays luxury buyers.

One commercial is not going to get the buying public to say "Gee, I was wrong about Cadillac all this time."

Remember, 5 years ago Infiniti was a joke: rebadged Maxima as the I35, the too small G20, the ugly Q45. Look at it today.

[balthazar]

>>"Who cares if the 85 Seville was supposed to get conquest sales. "<<

YOU were the one who stated it would do nothing to earn conquest sales. I stated it's appearance was not designed to attempt that.

>>"TODAYS cadillacs are supposed to - because previous generations of Cadillacs lost the customer."<<

Sure, but TODAYS Cadillacs have steadily regained consumers.

>>"Many import luxury buyers have a negative perception of Cadillac."<<

And many Cadillac buyers have a negative perception of import luxury cars. This is only natural. Any corporation who has a goal of appealing to every segment consumer risks driving that corporation into the ground. Fact is, there will ALWAYS be import loyalists that will NEVER consider Cadillac, and vice versa.

>>"...the perception of Cadillac to most luxury consumers (that don't live in Detroit) is of poor quality and out dated technology"<<

Source, please.

>>...should not be running ads that remind potential new customers of cars those very customers perceive negatively."<<

Source, please.

>>"You are not going to change the perception of a car by flashing its image and playing some Iggy Pop in the backround. But you can change the perception of a brand by showing the current cars in a contemporary context - that the cars are relevant to todays luxury buyers."<<

Cadillac has done relevent advertising countless times in recent years- have you missed them all?? How does one heritage-based ad counter all that? Do you believe Cadillac's recent considerable sales gains are now at risk? Did mercedes see a notable sales dip because they ran more than 1 heritage-based ad a few years back?

Do not forget- no degree of clever, relevent advertising is going to translate into lasting sales unless the product is there. Aren't Cadillac sales up something like the last 6 years in a row?

This ad -tho not as effective as Moments, is a nice look back at the marque throughout it's history, the vast majority of which entailed class leading innovation & quality. Nothing wrong whatsoever with reinforcing that reality.

[Drew Dowdell]

....and the music sucks too. If you want Cadillac to be aspirational for the next generation, why pick their parents music??? If you are targeting people in their 30's and 40's to be the next generation of Cadillac buyers, why pick music from before we were born?? Same with Led Zep.

Using such old music is just "remember our youth" stuff for the 60 year old baby boomers. Oh, wait. Even they have a bad impression of Cadillac.

I am not saying I think Cadillac sucks. They have some competitive cars now, but these commericals miss the mark.

214839[/snapback]

The song was recorded in 2006 by a group called The Teddy Bears. They invited Iddy Pop to make a song with them. It's not an old song meant to grab old people.

It's roughly equivalent to Tom Jones recording a song with Dave Mathews.... only about 10000x better.

[Drew Dowdell]

Who cares if the 85 Seville was supposed to get conquest sales. TODAYS cadillacs are supposed to - because previous generations of Cadillacs lost the customer.

My point is: Many import luxury buyers have a negative perception of Cadillac. Whether is the big boats of the 50's-70's or the too small, poor quality 80's cars (V8-6-4 anyone?), the perception of Cadillac to most luxury consumers (that don't live in Detroit) is of poor quality and out dated technology. Cadillac wants to change that perception, and should not be running ads that remind potential new customers of cars those very customers perceive negatively.

You are not going to change the perception of a car by flashing its image and playing some Iggy Pop in the backround. But you can change the perception of a brand by showing the current cars in a contemporary context - that the cars are relevant to todays luxury buyers.

One commercial is not going to get the buying public to say "Gee, I was wrong about Cadillac all this time."

Remember, 5 years ago Infiniti was a joke: rebadged Maxima as the I35, the too small G20, the ugly Q45. Look at it today.

214853[/snapback]

Even 3-series kool-aid drinkers will admit that a 1956, 60, 76 Cadillac convertible is a cool car. Anyone under the age of 30 will have no first hand memories of the 8-6-4 and most non-car people under 40 will never even have heard of it.

They didn't play Iggy Pop. They played Teddy bears <unknown swedish electronica band> featuring Iggy Pop. Best of both worlds.

The issue there was that the media are import lovers, so to the car rags an I35 was still superior to a Northstar equipped Seville. Infinity has no heritage. They are new money. That's the point of this ad. If Infiniti tried an ad like this, they'd get stuck in 1991 and have to stop and we'd all be saying "Great 3 second ad there Infinity". Cadillac has the heritage.

To their credit, Mercedes did a similar ad for the SL showcasing every body style of SL ever produced.

Edited November 12, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[dford]

"Sadly, for Cadillac, Taylor says baby boomers are pretty much a dead end for Caddy. They saw the brand’s bad years in the 1980s and 90s and moved on to Asian and European brands."

"When Caddy launched its “Break Through” campaign four years ago with Led Zeppelin music, it was a game-changer at GM and the Caddy brand, which had become asoociated more with the white-shoe and matching belt crowd than those wearing Dr. Maartens or Gucci. And while four straight years of sales gains is nothing to sneeze at, Caddy recently identified a problem. Beyond the Escalade, young people had no clue about the rest of the lineup. Also, while the average age buyer had come down to 59 from 64, that's still too old and too few women have been shopping the brand."

Source:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/bra...lac_reachi.html

Ok, you got me on the Teddy Bears.

"Anyone under the age of 30 will have no first hand memories of the 8-6-4 and most non-car people under 40 will never even have heard of it." - so Cadillac has to hope for ignorance of its customers to get sales? And many people get their car buying advice from "car guys" they know, and the car guys remember the bad old days, however brief or long ago.

Infinity is spelled I-N-F-I-N-I-T-I

Note: I am not a Cadillac hater, I think the latest generation of cars are great. I just don't think that these ads will help them bring in new customers.

[Drew Dowdell]

"Sadly, for Cadillac, Taylor says baby boomers are pretty much a dead end for Caddy. They saw the brand’s bad years in the 1980s and 90s and moved on to Asian and European brands."

"When Caddy launched its “Break Through” campaign four years ago with Led Zeppelin music, it was a game-changer at GM and the Caddy brand, which had become asoociated more with the white-shoe and matching belt crowd than those wearing Dr. Maartens or Gucci. And while four straight years of sales gains is nothing to sneeze at, Caddy recently identified a problem. Beyond the Escalade, young people had no clue about the rest of the lineup. Also, while the average age buyer had come down to 59 from 64, that's still too old and too few women have been shopping the brand."

Source:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/bra...lac_reachi.html

Ok, you got me on the Teddy Bears.

"Anyone under the age of 30 will have no first hand memories of the 8-6-4 and most non-car people under 40 will never even have heard of it." - so Cadillac has to hope for ignorance of its customers to get sales? And many people get their car buying advice from "car guys" they know, and the car guys remember the bad old days, however brief or long ago.

Infinity is spelled I-N-F-I-N-I-T-I

Note: I am not a Cadillac hater, I think the latest generation of cars are great. I just don't think that these ads will help them bring in new customers.

215009[/snapback]

yeah, I know the spelling. I slipped with the Firefox spell checker.

Infiniti has to hope that no one remembers the G20, J30, I30, Q45, and QX4, all substantially more recent than the 8-6-4. Even the worst Cadillac hater acknowlages that the 8-6-4 is ancient history. Heck, they've had equally as bad <but not as notorious> engines since then.

Other than the G35, are they really doing all that well? DTS still easily outsells the Q, even if you subtract fleets. STS probably runs neck and neck with the M. Escalade completely clobbers QX. SRX does well in the compairisons against the FX, the FX does outsell it though. XLR has no competition from Niss....Infiniti.

[Sixty8panther]

You don't see Infiniti fondly remembering the G20 or the 2nd gen Q45 in their ads for the 07 G35, do you???

214838[/snapback]

What a 'Negative Nelly'... I love my 2ng gen. Q45 FYI.

and that's why they DID NOT have a 1983 Cimarr0n

or a J-body sized 1986 Seville in the ad. They had

to ackowladge the 1980s so they went with the cool

and VERY unique Bustle Back. Besides, who fu**ing

cares what 1980s car they show in the ad... after the

1932 V16 Dual Cowl Phaeton & the 1959 Biarritz the

ad makes it's point, Cadillacs are for Emperors,

super flashy celebrities & billionares.

[dford]

" after the 1932 V16 Dual Cowl Phaeton & the 1959 Biarritz the

ad makes it's point, Cadillacs are for Emperors,

super flashy celebrities & billionares. "

Thanks for making my point. Cadillac wants to do a heritage ad, but it's best work until 2002 was back in 1959!! And Cadillac USED to be for emperors, super flashy celebrities and billionares. You've got the celebrities(drug dealers) back, but Cadillacs customers until recently have been dying WWII generation.

Show me the quality, the unique features, the performance of the Cadillac that makes me want it - that what they should be showing in there ads. It's there, but instead, for me, they are reminding me of cars best forgotten. And win a few comparision tests in those biased buff magazines so the car guys have to rethink their positions......

[balthazar]

>>"but it's best work until 2002 was back in 1959!! "<<

Any '60s Cadillac trounces any '60 luxury import, and any '70s Cadillac is more than competitive overall with any '70s luxury import. You do not need to go back to the '50s to find Cadillac's best work. Your point is simply not factually valid.

>>"And win a few comparision tests in those biased buff magazines so the car guys have to rethink their positions...... "<<

This is an entirely different obstacle to overcome- magazines are not based on objective evaluations, but pushing pulp. It's "entertainment", not journalism.

Edited November 13, 2006 by balthazar

[97regalGS]

>>"but it's best work until 2002 was back in 1959!! "<<

Any '60s Cadillac trounces any '60 luxury import, and any '70s Cadillac is more than competitive overall with any '70s luxury import.

215234[/snapback]

In the 60's Cadillac trounced them and in the 70's they were merely competitive. In the 80's and 90's they were.....?

You do not need to go back to the '50s to find Cadillac's best work. Your point is simply not factually valid.

Excellent point. Cadillac's best work was not 47 years ago, it was, (according to balthazar, sometime in the 70's) at least 26+ years ago. That's a HUGE difference. NOT.

[Drew Dowdell]

In the 60's Cadillac trounced them and in the 70's they were merely competitive.  In the 80's and 90's they were.....?

Excellent point.  Cadillac's best work was not 47 years ago, it was, (according to balthazar, sometime in the 70's) at least 26+ years ago.  That's a HUGE difference. NOT.

215304[/snapback]

The '85 Seville, while stylistically polarizing, was still the epitome of luxury while BMWs and Audis were still minimalistic, quirky, non-luxurious cars that were only desirable because they were expensive and European. It sold in great numbers.

The Allante, also stylistically polarizing, has almost a cult car status now.

[balthazar]

97regalGS= >>"In the 80's and 90's they were.....?"<<

I've not studied the era, but in the '90s, it seems to me the Seville & Allante were compeitive with in their segment- the Deville was in a class by itself, no? It's really not my era.

>>"Cadillac's best work was not 47 years ago, it was, (according to balthazar, sometime in the 70's) at least 26+ years ago. That's a HUGE difference. NOT."<<

Look, maybe you don't care if metric tons of mud is slung around-- dford implied the entire showcase of Cadillacs was terrible (he certainly didn't call out 1 year out of 13) and they all would turn off potential consumers. Obviously you agree with that. Both opinions are not grounded in reality. I'm here to correct that. If you insist on whitewashing everything, fine; the conversation is over.

But I will not sit by and watch gross misstatements carelessly tossed about.

You do realize that mercedes & BMW were woefully uncompetitive in the '50s, '60s and '70s, right? Who was class leading longer?

The '80s and '90s have no more bearing on potential new customers than the '40s and '50s, but let's focus on the singular '85 and call it all a failure. Excellent work.

[Mr.Krinkle]

i dont know how dford got his tit caught in the wringer over this ad? i assure you it wasnt a personal affront designed to provoke you.

i would have found it more instigating if they showed a broken down 4-6-8. or if it was a showcase for gms early diesel technology.

there have been so many crappy looking benz', bimmers, and arguably anything that isnt a current lexus or infiniti. and of course cadillac's.

all have the option of showing you where they were and how they got there . the only difference to me is that none are anywhere near as spectacular or diverse or

rich as the heritage of cadillac's. and few--if any can match the amount of timeless designs introduced by them. gotta take the good with the bad. they cant all be gems.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[evok]

The '85 Seville, while stylistically polarizing, was still the epitome of luxury while BMWs and Audis were still minimalistic, quirky, non-luxurious cars that were only desirable because they were expensive and European. It sold in great numbers.

The Allante, also stylistically polarizing, has almost a cult car status now.

215313[/snapback]

Have you ever driven in an 80s era Cadillac if it be the 85 or 86 era E/K cars and then get into a 7 Series or S-Class of that same vintage.

There is no comparison in perceived quality or driving feel.

The Cadillacs of that time period were crap. That is not to say the 79 - 85 Eldo in particular are not classically styled but their build quality and powertrain were aweful.

The 4100 engine, 4 speed trans were under powered by at least 40hp for that era.

I believe the 4100 had 125 - 135hp. Compared to the Germans these vehicles were a joke and only got worse with the 86 DeHam cars. And dare I bring up the 85 C cars and the blown heads. The Allante! The Allante got it right in 1993 only then to be axed but still out classed by the new SL.

Edited November 14, 2006 by evok

[dford]

Ok, I never meant to start a flame war bashing Caddies. I merely was expressing my opinion that these particular commercials were not the best way to bring in new buyers to Cadillac.

The current crop of Caddies have a lot to offer and should be considered by open minded luxury buyers. Cadillac would be best served to keep the advertising focus on the current cars' luxury and performance attributes.

[97regalGS]

97regalGS= >>"In the 80's and 90's they were.....?"<<

I've not studied the era, but in the '90s, it seems to me the Seville & Allante were compeitive with in their segment- the Deville was in a class by itself, no? It's really not my era.

>>"Cadillac's best work was not 47 years ago, it was, (according to balthazar, sometime in the 70's) at least 26+ years ago.  That's a HUGE difference. NOT."<<

Obviously you agree with that.

215386[/snapback]

Please specify which of my statements indicates that I agree with dford's or anyone else's comments.

[97regalGS]

The current crop of Caddies have a lot to offer and should be considered by open minded luxury buyers. Cadillac would be best served to keep the advertising focus on the current cars' luxury and performance attributes.

215482[/snapback]

Here's the crux of the problem. The current crop of Cadillacs are NOT considered by open minded luxury buyers. The 30-50 yr old crowd that are shopping BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes do not have Cadillac on their radar.

The NG CTS might address some of that. I certainly hope so.

[dford]

That was MY point, but then again, I'm just a Caddy hater.

[97regalGS]

Note: I am not a Cadillac hater, I think the latest generation of cars are great. I just don't think that these ads will help them bring in new customers.

215009[/snapback]

so which is it? are you a Cadillac hater or not?

[Bimmer325]

Here's the crux of the problem.  The current crop of Cadillacs are NOT considered by open minded luxury buyers.  The 30-50 yr old crowd that are shopping BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes do not have Cadillac on their radar.

215485[/snapback]

The current CTS was a breakthrough product for Cadillac. It allowed the brand to gain traction in the entry-level luxury segment.

The '08 CTS will strengthen the footing Cadillac has gained against the 3er, G35, IS, and A4 crowd. It'll guage the integrity of Cadillac's rennaissance. In this respect, the next CTS will be more crucial than the first.

[balthazar]

Here's the crux of the problem.  The current crop of Cadillacs are NOT considered by open minded luxury buyers.  The 30-50 yr old crowd that are shopping BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes do not have Cadillac on their radar.

Mercedes has a far older ABA than Cadillac. Cadillac's ABA is dropping, mercedes' is rising (their positions on the scale were reversed about 5 years ago.

Average Buyer Age~

Mercedes -- 58.7

Cadillac -- 53.4

Jaguar -- 49.8

Lexus -- 49.4

BMW -- 46.1

Infiniti -- 41.6

Really, only infiniti has a relatively enviable ABA- even BMW's is only the median age of all car buyers; certainly not what would be termed 'youthful'.

Any "open-minded luxury buyer" that would not consider Cadillac is in no way "open-minded".

So the question remains- just who are all these new Cadillac customers pushing sales up year after year, and what did they trade in from other brands??

What was the problem again?

[97regalGS]

The current CTS was a breakthrough product for Cadillac.  It allowed the brand to gain traction in the entry-level luxury segment. 

The '08 CTS will strengthen the footing Cadillac has gained against the 3er, G35, IS, and A4 crowd. It'll guage the integrity of Cadillac's rennaissance.  In this respect, the next CTS will be more crucial than the first.

215565[/snapback]

did it really gain a foothold in the entry lux segment? or did a bunch of GM fans just buy a CTS instead of some other GM product?

I surmise that there weren't near as many conquest sales as they were hoping for.

I fully expect NG CTS to do just that, win over conquest sales.

[97regalGS]

Here's the crux of the problem.  The current crop of Cadillacs are NOT considered by open minded luxury buyers.  The 30-50 yr old crowd that are shopping BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes do not have Cadillac on their radar.

Mercedes has a far older ABA than Cadillac. Cadillac's ABA is dropping, mercedes' is rising (their positions on the scale were reversed about 5 years ago.

Average Buyer Age~

Mercedes -- 58.7

Cadillac -- 53.4

Jaguar -- 49.8

Lexus -- 49.4

BMW -- 46.1

Infiniti -- 41.6

Really, only infiniti has a relatively enviable ABA- even BMW's is only the median age of all car buyers; certainly not what would be termed 'youthful'.

Any "open-minded luxury buyer" that would not consider Cadillac is in no way "open-minded".

So the question remains- just who are all these new Cadillac customers pushing sales up year after year, and what did they trade in from other brands??

What was the problem again?

215576[/snapback]

since you love to squash facts so much, tell me the break down of the ABA. is it a bunch of 25yr old NBA stars buying Escalades combined with 60+yr olds buying Devilles? Or is it an equal mix across all age categories? ABA, while interesting does not tell the whole story-not even close.

and by the way, I would never expect any luxury marque to have a 'youthful' ABA, since not many 'youth' have the cash necessary.

I surmise that many of these Cadillac customers are GM customers that are trading in Bonnevilles, Regals, Grand Prix etc.

And the problem is that the CTS is a strong product for a GM fan to buy, but not for a 3, G35, A4, etc buyer to buy. Not because the car isn't capable, but because Cadillac is not on their radar screen. And the lacklustre follow on products have done nothing to lend credence to the image of the brand or to keep momentum going.

Let's face it, Cadillac's sales success is predicated on the 'unexpected' bling factor of the Escalade and the existence of a car (CTS) in a segment where there wasn't one or at least not a strong one(the melted bar of soap Catera hardly qualifies).

Edited November 14, 2006 by 97regalGS

[evok]

since you love to squash facts so much, tell me the break down of the ABA.  is it a bunch of 25yr old NBA stars buying Escalades combined with 60+yr olds buying Devilles? Or is it an equal mix across all age categories?  ABA, while interesting does not tell the whole story-not even close.

and by the way, I would never expect any luxury marque to have a 'youthful' ABA, since not many 'youth' have the cash necessary.

I surmise that many of these Cadillac customers are GM customers that are trading in Bonnevilles, Regals, Grand Prix etc.

And the problem is that the CTS is a strong product for a GM fan to buy, but not for a 3, G35, A4, etc buyer to buy.  Not because the car isn't capable, but because Cadillac is not on their radar screen.  And the lacklustre follow on products have done nothing to lend credence to the image of the brand or to keep momentum going. 

Let's face it, Cadillac's sales success is predicated on the 'unexpected' bling factor of the Escalade and the existence of a car (CTS) in a segment where there wasn't one or at least not a strong one(the melted bar of soap Catera hardly qualifies).

Good post - I wish more people used common sense in analyzing the situation instead of misguided notions from the past or their own selective interpretation of what they want to believe.

Edited November 14, 2006 by evok

[tmp]

Have you ever driven in an 80s era Cadillac if it be the 85 or 86 era E/K cars and then get into a 7 Series or S-Class of that same vintage.

215442[/snapback]

Well, actually yes, I did. I've driven an 88 deVille and an 89 SL back to back for a while back in the early 90's. The deVille was a pig on the twisties (you could get carsick on Coldwater Canyon) but on the freeway and in the city was pure butter; I drove back to LA from Santa Barbara at 50 along PCH and got about 30 mpg with that patented "youjustsitbacknowandwe'llhandleit" feel. The Benz was a tank at low speed but was laser sure at high speed. In town the Caddy was all about swaddling: you really didn't even want to go fast, what with all of that leather and the climate control and the stereo: all it needed was a pacifier. The Benz was all cold hard surfaces and handling that you needed to hit 60 to appreciate. I loved the SL, and I wish I had one today, but I have to write that the current SL has borrowed a hell of a lot from the 80's deVille than Germany would ever want to admit.

[balthazar]

'Squashing facts'?? You're 'surmising' CTS buyers are jumping 50% in price from Regals & GPs and I'm squashing facts?? Let's see your trade-in break-downs. Simply repeating conjecture 'not a lot of conquest sales' with zero fact behind it is that very same thing you are accusing me of doing.

What are mercedes' conquest sales in the last 5 years? How does that validate or refute mercedes' 'success' in the last 5 years? Why does mercedes need 28 models to compete in volume and why did sales drop last year? Cadillac doesn't even have a $20-someK hatchback and a minivan to pull down their ABA. You want to stick a sharpened stick in a segment underperformer, it's mercedes you're looking for.

>>"I would never expect any luxury marque to have a 'youthful' ABA, since not many 'youth' have the cash necessary."<<

No kidding. Then why bother with:

>>"The 30-50 yr old crowd that are shopping BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes do not have Cadillac on their radar."<< when more 30-50 yr olds are shopping Cadillac than mercedes? The implication is Cadillacs are for old folks but the reality is quite different.

>>"the problem is that the CTS is a strong product for a GM fan to buy, but not for a 3, G35, A4, etc buyer to buy."<<

Again, what makes you think the 3, 35, 4 are on the radar screens of the 60K annual CTS buyers, and what makes that an entirely different scenario?

Oh, I get it: those imports are so amazingly better that a Cadillac is far beneath their upturned noses, while every single CTS owner is a faint breeze from jumping in any one of those and he 'settled' for a CTS (after all, it's so much better than the $20K Regal he came out of).

Classic old school perceptions.

Edited November 14, 2006 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

Have you ever driven in an 80s era Cadillac if it be the 85 or 86 era E/K cars and then get into a 7 Series or S-Class of that same vintage.

There is no comparison in perceived quality or driving feel.

The Cadillacs of that time period were crap.  That is not to say the 79 - 85 Eldo in particular are not classically styled but their build quality and powertrain were aweful.

The 4100 engine, 4 speed trans were under powered by at least 40hp for that era.

I believe the 4100 had 125 - 135hp.  Compared to the Germans these vehicles were a joke and only got worse with the 86 DeHam cars. And dare I bring up the 85 C cars and the blown heads. The Allante!  The Allante got it right in 1993 only then to be axed but still out classed by the new SL.

215442[/snapback]

In don't think I stated, anywhere in my post, that Cadillacs were the fastest or best handling. They, clearly, were not. The 4100 was a boat anchor.

and, yes, I have driven, back to back, Cadillacs and Benzes of the same era. Luxury was measured by a different yard stick in 1980. Luxury was having the most sumptuous soft leather seats, wood or plood everywhere, lots and lots of chrome, wire spoke wheels, super smooth ride and as little noise in the cabin as possible. In short, it was meant to feel like you were driving a leather couch in an upscale gentleman's club.

I've owned a 1985 Toronado. While I had the advantage of the 307 over the 4100, much of the rest of the car is the same as the Eldorado. I've also driven 79-85 Rivs and Eldorados at the local Lambda car club. At the same time a friend of mine, with a masochistic streak, owns an 85 or 86 <can't remember> Benz 300E. Over all it is a solid car with many, many minor issues, but it is not a luxury car by 1985 standards. The wood is chipped or pealing and the vinyl feels like an upscale version of the stuff used on my dad's old '83 F-150 bench seat.

Have luxury "standards" changed since 1985? Youbetcha! Today the luxury is measured in harsh rides, stiff seats, monochrome interiors with as little wood as possible, and cramped spaces. Are 5-series nice cars? yes, but they're premium sport sedans, not luxury cars.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[Mr.Krinkle]

since you love to squash facts so much, tell me the break down of the ABA.  is it a bunch of 25yr old NBA stars buying Escalades combined with 60+yr olds buying Devilles? Or is it an equal mix across all age categories?  ABA, while interesting does not tell the whole story-not even close.

and by the way, I would never expect any luxury marque to have a 'youthful' ABA, since not many 'youth' have the cash necessary.

I surmise that many of these Cadillac customers are GM customers that are trading in Bonnevilles, Regals, Grand Prix etc.

And the problem is that the CTS is a strong product for a GM fan to buy, but not for a 3, G35, A4, etc buyer to buy.  Not because the car isn't capable, but because Cadillac is not on their radar screen.  And the lacklustre follow on products have done nothing to lend credence to the image of the brand or to keep momentum going. 

Let's face it, Cadillac's sales success is predicated on the 'unexpected' bling factor of the Escalade and the existence of a car (CTS) in a segment where there wasn't one or at least not a strong one(the melted bar of soap Catera hardly qualifies).

I dont understand the bickering and side taking. This is what i see.

First off --your argument about Average Buyer Age is useless. Who cares what the average age is or how its divided. Its like saying pay me in 10's not 20's. Really what do you care?

Secondly, theres not enough NBA ballers to effect an average on this scale. So, get over it already. Landrovers, Sl's C's, would all see the same benefits of decreaesed aba if the NBA and pro sports was such a force...From my own meager observations of the &#036;h&#33;loads of Escalades i see--most by 30/40 year old younger families.obviously successful younger families. of the CTS, younger.

As mentioned there is no entry level Caddy to be had in the same figures as the entry Benz-- the cheapest Caddy is still gonna set you back more than the cheapest Benz; and so if anything its just as easy (maybe easier) to scream bias from the other direction.

The CTS more than anything represents a style. Its a statement about an accepted and welcome change. IT doesnt have your typical snob factor associated with it, least not yet.

I personally know people who have gone the CTS route instead of their typical import purchase.

I also know GM families to continue to buy GM's and now the cts

...And if you think its only Buick and Bonneville buyers moving up

then the original plan for GM as envisioned --what 50? 60? years ago still

works and has been validated once again by your.

Its hard to discount cadillacs success lately. you can act all bitter and piss all over it as much as you want or focus on the drawbacks and the incompleteness of it and thats fine, theres plenty of excuses out there.

But after saying all this, I still dont think that Cadillacs are on the majority

of most import buyers minds as a serious replacement for their 5's and E's. and not the 3 and G35 as you say. in general but mostly the higher end models because the product simply isnt there at this time.

And you could have just left it that. And i know its true because no one holds any reservations after seeing the 60 mins or more recent SLS pictures. And i hear things such as, "Wow. thats nice." "Now thats a Cadillac" "Id definately check that out."

The NG's will get import buyers to take note of Cadillac. Change does not happen over night, and pure speculation on my part--the interiors would have gone to waste if they were the ones out of the gate. (if Cadillac could even have afforded them)

Now it is more of a resestablished brand so while it may not have been on the radar prior to 2002 it certainly is now. Theres always going to be room for improvement. And thats a fact jack.

edit:

Your position for Cadillac's success is nothing more than they have a popular truck and a popular car in their lineup.

Let's face it, Cadillac's sales success is predicated on the 'unexpected' bling factor of the Escalade and the existence of a car (CTS)

so whats your problem with that. thats the idea.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[evok]

and, yes, I have driven, back to back, Cadillacs and Benzes of the same era. Luxury was measured by a different yard stick in 1980. Luxury was having the most sumptuous soft leather seats, wood or plood everywhere, lots and lots of chrome, wire spoke wheels, super smooth ride and as little noise in the cabin as possible. In short, it was meant to feel like you were driving a leather couch in an upscale gentleman's club.

Luxury was not defined as you state, only that Cadillac and Lincoln still defined that segment as the luxury car market was on a decline and the prestige market was increasing in significance. By 1986, Cadillac was selling midsized and compact luxury vehicles.

This market has been in a transition since the early 70's as the German brands became a viable alternative to the status quo. Hence the original 1976 Seville and 1981 Cimmarron.

I've owned a 1985 Toronado. While I had the advantage of the 307 over the 4100, much of the rest of the car is the same as the Eldorado. I've also driven 79-85 Rivs and Eldorados at the local Lambda car club. At the same time a friend of mine, with a masochistic streak, owns an 85 or 86 <can't remember> Benz 300E. Over all it is a solid car with many, many minor issues, but it is not a luxury car by 1985 standards. The wood is chipped or pealing and the vinyl feels like an upscale version of the stuff used on my dad's old '83 F-150 bench seat.

I meant when these vehicles were new! Hell by the time my 1985 Eldo was a few years old the trans was slipping, the drivers door would not open because a clip for the latch broke. I would hate to see what that car looks like 20 years later!

As for the new for 1986 MB E Class. That vehicle put MB on the map and set the stage for the growth in that class. A class Cadillac has yet to take MB head on yet in terms of price and product. The car when new was first class and there was not a US brand that could touch it in that segment.

Have luxury "standards" changed since 1985? Youbetcha! Today the luxury is measured in harsh rides, stiff seats, monochrome interiors with as little wood as possible, and cramped spaces. Are 5-series nice cars? yes, but they're premium sport sedans, not luxury cars.

I have no idea where this was pulled from. How about competent, sophisticated, stylish transportation with brand cache in more vehicle segments that 1985.

[Drew Dowdell]

I have no idea where this was pulled from.  How about competent, sophisticated, stylish  transportation with brand cache in more vehicle segments that 1985.

215759[/snapback]

Quite simply, in 1980, this was luxury:

This was not:

but that was then and this is now... tastes have changed.

[evok]

Quite simply, in 1980, this was luxury:

This was not:

but that was then and this is now... tastes have changed.

215762[/snapback]

Your dates keep changing, 1985, 1980.

Lets compare apples to apples:

[evok]

No that was BMW than:

And this was Benz:

[Flybrian]

Cimarron

325

Audi 200

1984-1986 timeframe

[evok]

And CTS present 20 years later.

[Drew Dowdell]

not sure who's point you're trying to prove here, mine or yours.

that 3-series doesn't look any better or more luxurious than the Cimarron. The Cimarron, I think we'd both agree, is an abortion of style, taste and quality. So it being comparible to the 3-series does what for your argument?

the Cimarron was also not typical of Cadillacs of the time.

as far as the modern day CTS, I've stated repeatedly that tastes have changed.

The reason I use the 1980-1985 range is because there weren't a lot of body changes at Cadillac during those years and Google image search is a bit more forgiving than focusing on one year.

Edit: and why are we comparing the lowest common denominators of each company? I compared a Seville with a 633i, though an Eldorado would have worked as well.

My only point here is that Cadillac in the 80's was much more luxurious in terms of traditional luxury than BMW, Benz, or Audi. Any by that regard, the '85 Seville deserves to be in the commercial. By the end of the 80's, that was still true, but America's tastes changed to favor the firmer, trimmer appointments of the Euros.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[evok]

not sure who's point you're trying to prove here, mine or yours.

that 3-series doesn't look any better or more luxurious than the Cimarron. The Cimarron, I think we'd both agree, is an abortion of style, taste and quality. So it being comparible to the 3-series does what for your argument?

My only point here is that Cadillac in the 80's was much more luxurious in terms of traditional luxury than BMW, Benz, or Audi. Any by that regard, the '85 Seville deserves to be in the commercial. By the end of the 80's, that was still true, but America's tastes changed to favor the firmer, trimmer appointments of the Euros.

215783[/snapback]

The point is very simple - You are comparing a entry 3 Series to a top of the line Eldo. Compare apples to apples.

American tastes have not changed but they have certainly evolved. The midsized and fullsized Euro cars were just better made and engineered vehicles compared to the Cadillac offerings in the 1980s. A big S Class or 7, drove and road better than a comparable Fleetwood, Brougham or Seville during that period. They did not ride harsh but just better. Those two vehicles were everything a Cadillac should have been. And BMW and Benz after years of consistently putting out that type of product swayed the market in their favor. And then came Lexus and the rest is history.

IMO the current sigma Cadillacs do not drive and ride harsh but are very much a modern interpretation of a Cadillac. I find them to be a nice balance of ride isolation and handling prowess.

Unlike Lincoln, the CTS and Escalade saved Cadillac from the fate of Lincoln. And in many ways Cadillac has to thank the Lincoln Navigator.

But the facts are, Cadillac in many ways as the product stands on the showroom floor right now, has a very long way to go to be a serious player in the prestige segment.

The Germans and lesser degree Lexus still outsell Cadillac on price in every segment besides the Fullsized SUV.

I know I would never pay a 5 Series/X5 price for a CTS or SRX. But the CTS and SRX are a better deal to me than an 3/X3.

[Drew Dowdell]

The point is very simple - You are comparing a entry 3 Series to a top of the line Eldo.  Compare apples to apples.

215800[/snapback]

That was a Seville <cause I couldn't find a decent Eldo pic> v. a 633i. Dunno how much more apples to apples you want it.

[balthazar]

No, no, Oldsmoboi; BMW is God's bestest gift today, so it was God's bestest gift always.

Look at that 325 interior above: a coal bin of plastic, plaid upholstery and banks of idiot lights. Nevermind that a Chevy Beretta out performed a 3-series in this era- BMWs are simply fantastagasmoric.

[razoredge]

Luxury was measured by a different yard stick in 1980. Luxury was having the most sumptuous soft leather seats, wood or plood everywhere, lots and lots of chrome, wire spoke wheels, super smooth ride and as little noise in the cabin as possible. In short, it was meant to feel like you were driving a leather couch in an upscale gentleman's club.

At the same time a friend of mine, with a masochistic streak, owns an 85 or 86 <can't remember> Benz 300E. Over all it is a solid car with many, many minor issues, but it is not a luxury car by 1985 standards. The wood is chipped or pealing and the vinyl feels like an upscale version of the stuff used on my dad's old '83 F-150 bench seat.

Have luxury "standards" changed since 1985? Youbetcha! Today the luxury is measured in harsh rides, stiff seats, monochrome interiors with as little wood as possible, and cramped spaces. Are 5-series nice cars? yes, but they're premium sport sedans, not luxury cars.

215707[/snapback]

This was an honest, excellent post.

My sisters family still has one of these 80's I6 gasoline Mercedes, they have had it since early 90's, bought from origional owner, they had the engine expensively rebuilt due to the fact that is was a traveling bug screen. That was at what I consider low miles. Its has a nice leather interior and all the appearences of a luxury car. Lots of things no longer work. That was 5 years ago. All I know about it now is that my nephew is or was using it. Our LSS got props for being "a far better can than our Mercedes". They drove it on a trip into the mountains with the kids, while my wife and I drove their C4. They did buy a new Mercedes but I know nor have heard much about it. They, like so many other successful people need to maintain a degree of statis quo.

My idea of the 80's luxury car would be a 82-89 NYer/Fifth Avenue. Thats what it was still about, soft luxury, sit down and let the harshness of the world go away. Had American industry totally abandoned this idea of "luxury car" they would have had an irrate customer base and showed signs of trouble much earlier.

What few CTS that are seen around here are driven by successful mid age people. SO I dont see what the problem is. Seems like some are just so angry that some Americans still want a FWD land yacht called or indicated as - Deville

We met one old fella at the Cadillac dealership while shopping for our G6, that told us flat out "Im going to buy that Escalade", He was driving a XK8, when asked about it he said "yea, I only drive it every once in a while". I suppose I should have lectured him about how if he bought that Escalade he would be raising Caddys ABA and worse yet, would be ranking himself in a stereo type with "gangsta/rappers and phat heads"................

[Drew Dowdell]

I dont understand the bickering and side taking.  This is what i see.

First off --your argument about Average Buyer Age is useless.  Who cares what the average age is or how its divided.  Its like saying pay me in 10's not 20's.  Really what do you care?

215711[/snapback]

I think it has something to do with "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".

[Drew Dowdell]

American tastes have not changed but they have certainly evolved. 

Tell that to GM with a straight face.

The midsized and fullsized Euro cars were just better made and engineered vehicles compared to the Cadillac offerings in the 1980s.  A big S Class or 7, drove and road better than a comparable Fleetwood, Brougham or Seville during that period.

Better made? sure. Drove <as in handled> better? sure. Road better? eh, you can't really beat an air cushion suspension for ride softness.

And BMW and Benz after years of consistently putting out that type of product swayed the market in their favor.  And then came Lexus and the rest is history.

with a bit of help from the car rags.

IMO the current sigma Cadillacs do not drive and ride harsh but are very much a modern interpretation of a Cadillac.  I find them to be a nice balance of ride isolation and handling prowess.

I own a CTS remember? On long trips I actually prefer using my Avalanche because of the softer ride. The CTS beats me up too much on the PA TPK. I usually end up using the CTS for fuel concerns and the fact that Chas doesn't like to drive the 'Lanche.

Unlike Lincoln, the CTS and Escalade saved Cadillac from the fate of Lincoln.  And in many ways Cadillac has to thank the Lincoln Navigator.

Not sure how poor Lincoln got dragged into this. Show them some mercy.

I know I would never pay a 5 Series/X5 price for a CTS or SRX.  But the CTS and SRX are a better deal to me than an 3/X3.

215800[/snapback]

again, not sure where you're going with this.