View Full Version : Cadillac: The Art of Irrelevancy


mgescuro
07-31-09, 05:22 PM
Cadillac: The Art of Irrelevancy
... a commentary by mgescuro ...

http://www.getchevatgan.com/images/cadillac_logo.jpg

Just 10 years ago, we as a car loving community saw a glimpse of the possibilities of an American brand finally competing with what was considered the de facto standard of the world for luxury -- the Germans. In 1999, we saw a glimpse of a new defining style that was to spread throughout Cadillac. It was groundbreaking, aggressive, brash yet sophisticated. It was technologically advanced yet retained a proud luxury. Art & Science was to be the new gold standard for luxury and image. This appeared pre-Bangle BMWs and L-Finesse Lexus. Cadillac's Art and Science was the new bar.

http://images.forbes.com/images/2004/03/28/cadillacevoq_420x220.jpghttp://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/2582/cadillac/evoq/evoq2.jpg

It took 3 years for Cadillac to launch a car with the Art & Science design language. It took far too long for product to reach the hands of consumers. And the first product, CTS, didn't quite have the pizazz and brashness of the Evoq. Expecially, since after Evoq, Cadillac premiered Imaj and Vizon.

http://static.autoblog.nl/images/wp2007/reviews/cadillac-srx/cadillac_vizon_concept.jpghttp://www.iceposter.com/thumbs/A18993_b.jpg
http://gallery.havesov.eu/data/media/17/mini-cadillac_imaj_2000_03_s.jpghttp://www.forbes.com/images/2001/04/02/feat3_377x275.jpg

This trio of Cadillac concepts were truly superb! They showed the possiblity. Groundbreaking technology. Leather wrapped interiors. Real metal accents. Sheer unabashed beauty and sophistication. A true Cadillac for the 21st century luxury buyer. They made no apologies as to what to was to come. Cadillac was back. The Germans knew it. Reports from Stuttgart had Mercedes redoubling its efforts on the new E and S classes because of "renewed strength" from Cadillac. Cadillac was a rising power again, intent on reclaiming its crown as "Standard of the World."

The Beginning of the End

3 years later, Cadillac launched the CTS. A replacement for the unloved Catera -- a car that zagged instead of zigged and was plagued with poor build quality and strange quirks like cupholders and power receptacles that didn't fit American electrical products. Yup. Typical GM. CTS was to be the start of something new.

http://www.autowire.net/cadillacCTS.jpghttp://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/2007/cadillac/cts/05122431990002-480.jpg

:bigroll:What happened? CTS had some awkward angles. The LED taillights that had become a staple of Cadillacs since the 4th gen Seville were suddenly missing. The interior had lost a decidedly large amount of what made Cadillac a Cadillac. And it wasn't quite reflecting what we had seen in 3 years of stunning concepts. Where was the modern design? Where was the style? It looked like a poorly cobbled piece of bad art. The exterior fared better. It was definitely daring. But it lacked a refinement that was also present in the concepts. Sales were decent but weren't lighting up the charts.

XLR came next. The high tech roadster that debuted as Evoq 5 years prior in 1999. While it had some interesting technology options, and a stunning stealth plane look, it somehow didn't look like it was worth the $75,000 asking price. But it did win a few awards for Best Interior among others. Interior quality wasn't befitting a car of this price class either. And it sold 1/5th-1/4th of annual expectations, despite its initial buzz and record sales through the Neiman-Marcus catalog.

Next came SRX. Initially priced so far above market expectations that they just didn't sell. It looked nothing more than a taller CTS with a poor interior but exceptional performance and handling. Enough to be rated a 10Best a few years in a row.

Then came STS. A car that was to be the flagship. Lutz's first product in which he had any influence. The design was more refined It was cleaner. It was more luxurious. More options were offered. A more fitting car for Cadillac. The design was purposely less "aggressive" because it was believed that buyers that buy this class of car wanted something less brash.

The Problem?

Hindsight is always 20/20.
But as I laid out here, Cadillac established the design bar with Art & Science in 1999. And the bar was set high. Expectations were that Cadillac would make good on its promise of higher technology and groundbreaking style and sophistication. The Germans were redoubling their efforts as they saw Cadillac as a credible threat to their market position.

But when the CTS launched, while impressive to most Americans, the glaring and typical GM deficiencies were present. It began a series of "not good enough" efforts from Cadillac. And while some of the essence of Art & Science made its way through to product, the stunning designs, technology, and overall presence of these designs failed to come through. Every product had cut corners. And for a luxury car, that was unacceptable.

The partnership with Bvlgari was shut down as quickly as it began, with only 2 Cadillacs ever getting Bvlgari enhancements. The reason given was that the partnership didn't prove beneficial to either side. Yet Cadillac failed to really push Bvlgari design into their cars. And its production cars certainly didn't look sophisticated enough to warrant the inclusion of a brash, sophisticated, edgy Italian jeweler. The other argument was that Cadillac's customers didn't know what Bvlgari was. Granted, part of the partnership with Bvlgari was to bring greater prominence to Bvlgari in the US. But those "in the know" or who are part of certain luxury circles already knew Bvlgari.

So that begs the question, "What market demographic was Cadillac targeting with its cars?"

As a result of the Germans redoubling of its efforts to prepare for Cadillac's resurgence, they too ended up with stunningly beautiful cars which deviated from their traditional staid designs. Bangles designs started to resonate some dissonant notes throughout the industry. BMW designs were starting to turn heads. Mercedes was coming out with more daring (for Mercedes) designs. A new design language was evolving. Jaguar had modernized its classic designs to some significantly positive response.

Suddenly Art & Science had competition.

The key problem is that Cadillac failed to deliver on the promise of Art & Science. So not only were its cars not meeting expectations, the competition had become even tougher because they were expecting a far stronger Cadillac. The competition didn't materialize to the level that was expected.

The Decline

A chance came to redeem themselves once the mid-cycle enhancements dawned. First was SRX. It debuted with a stunningly more sophisticated interior. It looked better. It was much cleaner and more elegant and more sophisticated. But nothing else changed -- especially to the exterior.

Another chance came to correct the wrongs of STS. The year prior, Cadillac debuted the STUNNING SLS in China. The look of the interior was American. And it was worthy of competing with the best in the world. Businessweek debuted a shot of the new STS interior, with slight modifications from the SLS: different window controls, slight variations to the center console and a different 4-spoke steeringwheel. Ultimately what we got was a poor rehash of the old STS, with a cleaner look, but still the same overall unrefined look. Furthermore, Cadillac decided that all new cars would have a side vent -- no matter how ugly or misplaced it might be. XLR got it. Escalade got it. STS got it. And the only one that actually pulled it off was the CTS. Why? Because it was integral to the design and not some poor after thought.

Instead of putting money in to making Cadillac a success, GM deemed it necessary to cut its losses. It made sense to GM's spreadsheets. But this decision ultimately will cause Cadillac to fail in a very hot and very cutthroat market. Cadillac has managed to put out substandard products into a market where customers are far more discerning and far more demanding.

In short, Cadillacs products were unacceptable in the luxury market. And their sales echo that point.

Losing Itself

No money. 1 decent product. 5 failed products. And 1 truck rebadge. That is what Cadillac is today. The reason Cadillac spent nearly $6B to kick off the Renaissance was to re-establish the brand as relevant in today's market. What $6B managed to do is damage the brand further... perhaps irreparably.

In the 1990's at least Cadillac had its traditional market to fall back on. With their push to the more sporty European cars, they've managed to alienate them. Now that market barely exists. And they're older.

In its push to be "younger" and be a "Cadillac for the 21st Century," Cadillac managed to lose the essence of what they were. Cadillac lost its history. Cadillac lost its own image. Today's 21st century Cadillac is defined by the Escalade. A Tahoe/Yukon rebadge that isn't differentially more luxurious than a GMC Denali. Ask anyone on the street. And they more than likely say "Escalade" is the car they think of when you hear Cadillac.

What happened to classics like the Seville and the Eldorado? Well, STS is dead. Eldorado is now "CTS Coupe." And Cadillac has a horrible product positioning mess on its hands, as it kills the last of its Renaissance cars. CTS is going to take the place of the STS? Good luck trying to convince people of that Cadillac. For 5+ years, Cadillac has managed to sell the CTS as "entry level." Now CTS is going to take on the flagship role after STS is killed? Now Cadillac expects people to jump on the bandwagon for an Epsilon II Cadillac?

Irrelevant

General Motors needs to ask the hard questions here:
-- What exactly is Cadillac?
-- What made Cadillac a symbol of luxury for 50-60 years?
-- What is different today that no longer allows Cadillac to compete at the highest echelons of the market?

No one knows what exactly Cadillac is. It is a lost brand. GM seems content to throw nonsensical products at the problem, hoping sales will hide the fact that Cadillac isn't catering to true luxury customers anymore. Image is everything. Cadillac doesn't have that positive and attractive luxury image anymore. Nor does it have a product lineup conducive to rebuilding that image.

Cadillac is back where it started in the 1990's. Lost. Only now, Cadillac has no image, no focus, no product, an alienated customer base, and twice the competition.

It is ironic that the program that was destined to pull Cadillac out of irrelevancy managed to do everything except pull Cadillac out of irrelevancy. Art & Science forced the competition to rethink its designs and its luxury strategy. Art & Science indirectly strengthened Cadillac's own competition. And when Cadillac's own A&S cars made it to market, they weren't up to the market expectations Cadillac themselves set. It was a double whammy.

Can Cadillac come back? I have to say no. And that's truly unfortunate. GM is in no position to allow Cadillac the ability to spread its wings. They had one chance, and they blew it completely. So Cadillac must resort to product repackaging to get product out the door in attempt to spur sales.

Sales Cadillac might get but image and respect and recognition is something that will not come. Such is the existence of Cadillac and the art of irrelevancy.

Vinsanity
07-31-09, 06:51 PM
The article seems extraordinarily harsh, but it's an interesting read; it hadn't occured to me that the less-than-perfect translation from the A&S concept cars to production cars is what caused the competitors to step up their game and cause the luxury car renaissance in the bull-market 00's.

The article does fail to acknowledge that the CTS and "blinged up GMC" Escalade were major contributors to the renaissance, though. However, I do have to agree with the following:

The XLR has no business occupying the $75k-$100k price segment. At that point, people move up too easily into the established Mercedes SL nameplate. The XLR is a great sportier alternative to the $60k Lexus SC430, but it wasn't quite ready to take on the king.

The interior of the 1st-gen CTS is a poor translation of the A&S theme, and a step below its competitors (although many other entry-lux interiors in 2002-03 weren't that great, either, and by 2006-07, considerable improvements were made to the awkward and imposing monolithic dash)

The interior of the refreshed STS is frustratingly disappointing, especially after seeing the top-notch interiors for the Chinese SLS and refreshed SRX. I was looking forward to all Cadillacs receiving a similar interior treatment. But instead, they gave the STS the same interior with a factory dash kit.

At least they got the complete package right with the 2nd-gen CTS. The exterior design has matured into a shape that's more elegant, yet also more aggressive: best of both worlds. And it also finally got the luxury interior it deserves from the SRX and SLS.

It's a shame that GM is in the dire financial straits they are in (although that's not to say they didn't earn their own way there), because the STS deserves a second chance at life on the Sigma II platform. It's what Cadillac needs to fill the role as a proper flagship sedan. Because at this point, it's either the underwhelming STS, the aging and bordering-on-irrelevancy DTS, or the engineered-by-a-truck-division Escalade. A bold, sleek STS (think Cadillac's A&S take on the Mercedes CLS) built on Sigma II architecture would do the job nicely.

One more thing I have to agree with: an Epsilon II Cadillac will be an epic failboat. To address the issue of the STS and DTS occupying the same price point, apparently GM's solution is to drop both cars and introduce a new Buick-derived FWD one that occupies the CTS's price point. Brilliant.

Jesda
07-31-09, 09:06 PM
GM took the Solstice from concept to production in just a couple years. It has been discontinued.

orconn
07-31-09, 09:11 PM
I disagree that the article was too harsh on GM and Cadillac. I think that most of the points made were very relevant to Cadillac's current market problems. The true years of Cadillac's "Standard of the World" were really the late 1940's and 1950's ...... European competiton really began for the luxury market really began in the 1960's becoming a real factor in the national marketplace in the 1970's. Let's face it following World War II Cadillac had very little competition from overseas, and styling and new money were defeating Lincoln and Packard, with Imperial not really considered in the Prestige class. Cadillac in the 1930"s never really competed with the real luxury class cars Rolls, Mercedes, Duesenburg, Hispano-Suiza, Issot-Fraschini, Packard, Pierce-Arrow, etc. inspite of their 16 and 12 cylinder cars.

I think that if Cadillac is to be relevant to GM's survival it has to truly re-establish itself as the "Standard of the World", whether their is the time, or the money or, in fact the commitment on the part of GM to this end is as yet to be seen. Without such a commitment then Cadillac should be aloud to die ....... and Buick should be th company's upper middle class entry and presence in the marketplace.

Vinsanity
07-31-09, 11:23 PM
I totally agree that Cadillac's time to shine was the 40's and 50's (and I was also under the impression that they were among the best in the business in the 30's as well), and they haven't been as great since the 60's.

But I just think the article downplayed the significance of the CTS and Escalade in staging a minor 21st century comeback that can still be capitalized on. All is not lost with Cadillac; it's a bit of a tall order to try to parlay the success of one car and one rebadged truck, but you have to play with the cards dealt to you, and given the hand they're dealt, it'll be a tough play, but not impossible.

Lord Cadillac
08-03-09, 11:33 AM
Cadillac obviously has the ability to do great things - it's unfortunate that their hands are tied...

thebigjimsho
08-03-09, 02:19 PM
Meh, Cadillac, except for maybe a couple holes in the lineup, is fine. Look at what BMW has done since '99. Lacking quality, questionable design at best and lack of direction. They have gone SUV crazy. Mercedes? They failed at the Chrysler takeover and has quality that is putrid. Lexus? They don't have a solid styling identity. They have quality in spades but the driving experience is bland. Audi is maybe the exception although they have also changed design concepts. Quality is also not a guarantee, either.

Cadillac is WORLDS better than they were in 1999. They have an expanded client base and are very relevant in the upscale automotive world.

C&C
08-03-09, 03:56 PM
I find the article a bit jaded to the negative. Cadillac has had some 'home-runs' since the new millennium; latest CTS rendition, the STS is better than it was received and the rest of the lineup is competitive. And the new stuff is to keep an eye on; new SRX and hopefully still in the mix, the STS/DTS replacement. I don't believe the Cadillac line-up is as 'doom and gloom', as represented. IMHO

Lord Cadillac
08-03-09, 07:48 PM
I really don't see where BMW has been making as many mistakes as you seem to feel they are. Aren't they the #1 selling luxury brand in America right now? Just beating Lexus for the first time this year? I hear all about the bad Bangle designs on forums - but all I ever hear or see in public is people loving BMWs. And I'm not even talking about BMW owners.. They turn heads constantly. So while some people think BMWs look bad (apparently), there are just as many who think they're great. So what does it all really mean?

Lacking quality? Exactly where? I'm really asking because I haven't taken a close look at ALL the BMW models - but those I've looked at all seem pretty high quality.. The 1-Series, the 3-Series, the 5-Series (most recently), the 7-Series.. And lack of direction? They seem to know where they are and where they're going...

SUV crazy? How many full-size SUVs do we have in GM? And BMW is SUV crazy? They have an X3 - which is a pretty darn small Crossover - an X5 which is their biggest Crossover and the X6 - which is more or less a sporty, stylish Crossover.. All these models seem pretty reasonable to me - with possibly the exception of the X6 because I really don't see many of them on the road. So they're either overpriced or just nobody wants them..

The only Mercedes I find to be of very high quality is the S-Class.. All the rest I just don't come away impressed by... I'd so much rather have a CTS than an E-Class - even a new one.. The hard seats aren't comfortable at all to me.. And - I find the CTS more visually appealing.. The C-Class - I'd never even consider it... The CLS is nice - but small inside.. So I'm right there with ya in regards to Mercedes..

Lexus has never been all there with styling - but they seem to build the cars that people want. This new "Prius" Lexus is going to sell very well because ALL the wealthy people who bought the Toyota Prius simply to make a statement are going to jump at the opportunity to make a statement with a more expensive vehicle. Yes, the driving experience is bland - but that's exactly what the driving experience was for Cadillac owners years ago - and apparently, Lexus is doing very well catering to those kinds of people.

Audi is on a screaming roll as of late. People (again, out in public) are REALLY loving the new Audi designs. The interiors have always been top notch - but now they're really coming along with exterior design.. Though competition is getting very strong here.. Even Saab's are looking really, really nice lately..

I respectfully disagree about Cadillac being "upscale" in the automotive world. Maybe in America - but not anywhere else.. They're not even on the MAP anywhere else. Even Buick is more upscale outside of America.. I have high hopes for Cadillac but I certainly don't want to see them become another Buick...

Meh, Cadillac, except for maybe a couple holes in the lineup, is fine. Look at what BMW has done since '99. Lacking quality, questionable design at best and lack of direction. They have gone SUV crazy. Mercedes? They failed at the Chrysler takeover and has quality that is putrid. Lexus? They don't have a solid styling identity. They have quality in spades but the driving experience is bland. Audi is maybe the exception although they have also changed design concepts. Quality is also not a guarantee, either.

Cadillac is WORLDS better than they were in 1999. They have an expanded client base and are very relevant in the upscale automotive world.

gary88
08-03-09, 08:38 PM
BMW is the largest luxury car manufacturer in the world. As of July 1st this year BMW has sold 114,448 vehicles, compared to MB's 85,088 vehicles and Audi's 37,845 vehicles.

Although some of the upcoming models could be questionable. They have an X1 on the way, M versions of the X6 and X5 (X6M is as fast as the new M3 somehow), and the new 5-series GT is a weird SUV/wagon/7-series mix. However, the X6 share a platform with the X5, the 5 GT shares a platform with the 7-series, and the new X1 will share a platform with the 3-series touring. So in the end it's really not costing them much to make these "new" models while at the same time opening up/entering new markets. Plus the platform sharing isn't blatantly obvious like it is with GM/Ford/Chrysler.