THE "BLIND-DRIVE" SYNDROME
Beldeu Singh
Blind drivers stay blind. Worse still, if they are bitten by the arrogance bug. To add to a bad headache is a diarheal disease caused by constipated thinking in marketing with regard to creating brands and brand attributes. That succintly describes GM. That also describes to some extent many American corporations and many third world governments.
GM was driving blind to the changes in the motor world, changing demographics in which middle income earners and women entered the market, safety designs became important and the quiet celebration of the compact car followed by the concept of affordable luxury on wheels.
GM, like many third world governments forgot about the power of market dynamics that drives sales and what was driving the competition. They cherished their domestic markets more than anything esle. They were driving blind when they thought that Americans will always buy American. The not-so-blind in GM either refused to see that markets will relish or savor or love and punish a product while statisfactory market acceptance is always short-lived or would rather blend in with the blind rather stand out. They forgot that decisions about comfort, quality, design, style, sturdiness, reliability, luxury, safety, fuel economy and image though initially made in the lab and assembly are in fact made by the consumers in the fragmented market segsments in due course and that is where the product development ought to begin. The lab is in the market not an extrinsic and isolated entity located in the ivory tower surround by mimosa managers.
Governments in the third world forget those factors, too, losing touch with the reality that it is not oil but change and the consumer in the global market are the key factors that drive economies and drive the competition and determine where the jobs will be created and energy powers the turbines. The real jewel lies in thinking and what drives the thinking. The market thinks too and can drive you out of the market or out from the seat of power.
They forgot to ask with changing times what are buyer preferences and what new factors drive buyer preferences, choices and what finally influences buying decisions. Many corporations forget that and these lapses produce companies that suffer from a decline in staying market-oriented. While the Japanese were caught in the quality imperative they always had an eye to the future and remain interested in technologies of the future and fuels that will power their cars in the future. GM and many other corporations dwell in the present. Even the principle of continual and incremental changes are illusive factors in their management. That spells the idea of developing responsive companies and responsive governments.
Even developed countries made blunders. Affordable education and quality education are critical factors in developing excellence and it remains the single most vital enabling factor to remain competitive in the knowledge economy. Yet, Tony Blair increased the cost of education in Britain. Does that stem from a blind spot or is it purely about turning a Nelson's eye to an important situation. But how responsive is such a move with far reaching consequences? If want to win the Waterloo, you need more than an armada.
The selling of a car is a complex phenomenon. Other than affordability there are issues in the case of consumers in the market fragments that can afford more than one car. In these people, the car could be more than a product. It could be more than a technology. It could be an extension of pesonality and image is important. Then comes the issues surrounding the purchase of the second car. Is it for a working spouse or is it a safe run-about-vehicle or is it just a pair of wheels on economy that they want? Matching product attributes to the consumers is the key. This key cannot be found in the American arrogance of building big and building gas guzzlers that did not always fit the designs and styles and safety into the demands of the changing markets. Listening to the ego within was easier than listening to the customers out there. Now comes the beating, a ruthless beating indeed.
Ford had the same huge ego pulsating inside him. He built cars and painted them black. When he heard about the demand for cars in other colors he said, "You can buy a car in any color so long it is black." His ego was talking and he was driving blind. He took the beating, too, in due course. He did not know then that the market makes the final decision and that he had to be positively responsive. He did not know then that markets will relish or savor or love and punish a product while statisfactory market acceptance is always short-lived. The only constant is change to match the changes in the consumers in the market or market segments and consumer buyer behavior and changes in consumer preferences.
Apart from building big gas guzzlers, what did the GM brand stand for? I do not know. Did GM really bother about building a brand - an endearing brand for America? It does not strike as something obvious except that it will obviously burn holes in the wallets of many consumers in Asian markets. At the subliminal plane, what GM was saying to potential consumers in other markets where gas was not so cheap as in America is - when you buy a GM you buy a gas guzzler for an image! Now that promotes global warming. And of course, with the increase in the automobile population, atmospheric oxygen is consumed at a faster rate and such huge consumption of oil helped create the American dependency on imported oil that led to the outflow of hundreds of billions of dollars. How ridiculous, then it is to say that what's good for GM is good for America?
That was for GM but the truth, in principle, can befall any other industry. The next possible industry to take a ruthless beating is the drug industry. This could primarily be due to the fact that it chose to remain stuck in the drug industry producing toxic drugs for treatments that are immunosuppressive rather than take interest in the healthcare industry that promotes health and well being and improves the immune system and the natural antioxidant system of the body that is integral to driving healthy biochemical pathways and to to follow the back-to-nature trend that is sweeping the educated populations to promote healing. To ignore "natures cures" like how natural vitamin C does cure scurvy is to continue to drive blind.
Secondly, for big pharma to continue to influence and push for regulations and legal definitions that are intended to promote drug use and suppress natures cures and health supplements made from edible plants rich in minerals and natural antioxidants will certainly yield a powerful backlash on then, in due course. Going on this course and against clinical nutrition and harassing proponents and writers of health and natural antioxidants and small companies with formulations that are efffective and either ignoring or refusing to research in healing based on edible plants and phytchemicals and natural biomolecules describes another industry that is driving blind. In due course the markets will make the final decision to go for non-invasive and nontoxic approaches to health problems as the first and natural priority.
In industry there are only two numbers that decide your existence - No 1 or 11. No 1 is being positively responsive to the market and failing that imperative to stay market-oriented or you take the forced march towards filing under chapter 11.
Comments are closed for this post.
