GM believes its vehicles are better than the competition’s.
Do you agree?
Like most consumers, you’re probably not buying it.
Here’s the problem: GM’s words carry no credibility. For decades, the automotive company has delivered irrelevant messages and crappy products. And it’s damn hard to break out of the doghouse when you’ve been a dog for that long.
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz recently commented on his company’s situation, “We are really in a position today where anyone can say that we are as good or better than anyone else. We have to close this monumental chasm between the product lineup and the public’s perception of the product lineup.”
So given GM’s decades-long slide, how does it intend to break out of the doghouse?
By sending a bold signal of confidence. (Watch the commercial below.)
Enter GM’s 60-day money-back guarantee, which allows customers to return their new GM vehicle for a full refund if they’re not completely satisfied.
Close, but no cigar.
Directionally, I like where GM is going with this. Really, I do. Taking your message beyond words is a far more effective strategy than diluting your brand by offering rebates and employee pricing. But sadly, this is a message still misses the mark.
Why?
Because GM’s new return policy lacks relevancy. As Holly Buchanan brilliantly pointed out in her recent blog post, most consumers will thoroughly research their car buying options, giving them confidence in their purchase. Taking a two-month long test-drive is not a true motivation to buy.
What consumers really want is unmistakable proof that GM sells long-lasting, dependable vehicles with higher resale values.
That said, a stronger, more persuasive signal for GM to send would be to demonstrate the reliability of its vehicles with a comprehensive warranty that includes coverage on wear and tear items such as wiper blades, tires and brakes. No exceptions. No exclusions. No fine print.
And if you’re mechanically challenged like me, you’ll appreciate the straightforward language and simplicity of such a warranty. I cringe every time I hear the term, “powertrain.” Insider jargon like this makes me feel clueless. Hey, I admit, I had to look up its definition and I’m still unable to conjure up a clear mental image of the parts that include a car’s powertrain. For me, a bumper-to-bumper warranty makes more sense and is certainly more persuasive. And I bet there are plenty of consumers who feel the same.
The lesson for GM is this: Identifying the customer’s felt need must come first. And it has to be a need that you are willing AND able to meet. (Hey, if you can’t support what you’re signaling, then don’t send that particular signal.) Only then can you reinforce your words with action.
Tom is in high demand as a 
