the_bard Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I do have to worry about the women this guy has been seeing, since he's comparing the front end to their anatomy... that hole's rather large. Might explain why he's so... ornery? Anyway, it's kinda growing on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Blitz, we may never know if a rear wing was approved. What we do know is that no company would deliberately damage the image and loyalty of a strong brand. You can't possibly believe "the whole "New Coke" fiasco was nothing more than a media advertising gimmick"? The brand loyalty, equity value and market share that Coke lost to Pepsi was never fully recovered. Even the CEO lost his job at Coke over that fiasco. While I don't think the marketers at Subaru have hurt brand loyalty or image, the marketing morons hired by Subaru will lose their jobs, just like those at Coke did. Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwagon Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 the marketing morons hired by Subaru will lose their jobs... I just hope this transpires before they get their hands on the Legacy, Outback or Forester ranges... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitz Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 "New Coke" Juan, I'm not sure if you understand. Coke needed to switch from sugar to corn syrup in an effort to keep profits up (sugar was becoming more expensive), but realized that the taste and consistency of the finished product would change slightly. The public was none the wiser courtesy of the "New Coke" campaign which was run simultaneously as a distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 OK. I see. The CEO and marketers at Coke set out to deliberately and irreparably damage the image, brand loyalty and stock holders' equity of what is, arguably, the strongest brand the world has ever known; all in an attempt to secretly lower costs and lose their jobs. Good plan. Juan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 but I wonder if they got fired in the end. There seems to be a ready supply of folks with a great idea that would save money and make a fortune in the end. It doesn't always work out.... But back to the Tribeca, I bet it drives very well. When I first saw a Subaru the cars were the sort that one had to appreciate the function rather than the looks. Folks who bought them swore by them and said they were unbreakable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitz Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Juan, read and learn. No one lost their jobs and stocks prices jumped. I thought this Classic Coke corn syrup switcharoo thing was common knowledge, but apparently not. Also, there's no need to "yell" in boldface or be angry over what is basically a calm presentation of the facts. --------------------- The Great Coca-Cola Conspiracy The New Coke campaign of the early 80's was considered one of the biggest marketing failures ever. Well, it's not. It is in fact one of the most brilliant and immoral marketing strategies in history. This is all true, just look on any can of Coke. In the 1980's when Bill Cosby declared that Coke would change it's formula, it was a huge scam to save Coke money. You see, the Coca-Cola corporation never dreamed that people would like New Coke. What they wanted was to release a substitute Coke product with a noticeably different taste. They would keep this on the market until all of the old Coke was sold and people couldn't get it anymore. Eventually, Coke co. claimed (quite rightly) that people missed old Coke and demanded it's return. As a consequence, Coke vowed to rerelease the original Coke as Coke Classic. They never did. What they did do was bring back the original recipe, but with (significantly cheaper) corn syrup instead of sugar. Everyone would have noticed if they had just made the switch directly. Coke would have been forced to return to the original, more expensive, product. But since Classic Coke tasted passably similar to old Coke, people just assumed it was the same, since no one had had any in so long. So now you can only get original Coke in the US on Passover (look for Kosher for Passover Coke from about mid March, it will either say KP, or just look for Hebrew letters). Since corn is not kosher for Passover, they release the true original formula with sugar. In Europe, Coke is still made with real sugar. ------------------------ Why wasn't anyone fired? This is a very intriguing question. Even after the consequences and repercussions of this "blunder" were analyzed, no one at Coke was reprimanded, much less fired. The same top management team of Goizueta, Keough, and Dyson continued for a number of years until Dyson moved on to head Coca-Cola's company-owned bottling operations. Why was no one held accountable? There are a number of reasons. First of all, the fact is that Coke did not lose money as a result of this fiasco. In fact, the stock price jumped from 61.875 to 84.500, a 35.5% increase. By early 1986, the stock had reached an all-time high of $110 million. Goizueta was rewarded with $1.7 million for 1985 in salary and bonuses, and was additionally awarded with almost $5 million in bonus for the increase in stock price. President Keough's wage was potentially more than $3 million. (42) According to Coca-Cola's 1986 proxy statement, these awards were given for: "singular courage, wisdom and commitment in making certain decisions in 1985 which entailed considerable business risks, the net result of which has been, and will continue to be, extremely beneficial to the shareholders of the company." Herbert A. Allen, president of Allen & Co. and chairman of Coke's compensation committee said that, "They had the courage to put their jobs on the line, and that's rarely done today at major American companies." (43) (Apparently the quality of their decisions is irrelevant.) Roger Enrico argues that a mass firing would essentially put everyone at Coca-Cola on notice that risk-taking is punished; worse performance would certainly result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester_Ranger Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Robert Farago didn't write the STI review. It was written by Chris Paukert. I agree the B9 has an ugly front end. I never thought the front looked like a vagina and didn't notice the falopion tube interior untill Farago pointed it out. I can easily see a airplane in the grill design. Which I don't find attractive in this particular design. But the rest of the B9 I do like. It has a Alfa Romeo look which I love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bard Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I do have to wonder about the women the reviewer is seeing... that hole in the grille is really too large to be comparing it to certain portions of female anatomy . I can't see the fallopian tube reference in the interior... well, I can, if I push my imagination. But it's a stretch. On the other hand, I'd have to say that anybody who turns down a Subaru for the way it looks doesn't deserve a Subaru. My ol' Loyale was ugly as sin, but she sure had what counts, far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Blitz, your story sounds plausable. Only problem is that people were fired and forced to resign. And, by the way, the replacement CEO came from Mexico where Coke is still bottled using cane sugar. Anyway, this is a Subaru board. Let's talk cars, OK? Juan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitz Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Blitz, your story sounds plausable. Only problem is that people were fired and forced to resign. And, by the way, the replacement CEO came from Mexico where Coke is still bottled using cane sugar. Anyway, this is a Subaru board. Let's talk cars, OK? Juan. Attention mods: that was juan dropping a hint that you should admonish me for being off topic. What a wongleflute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unibrook Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 um yeah....I don't know what kinda chix he has been dating, but ............ well anyway, he is right in general that the car is buttugly. We need cars designed by Italians but built by Japs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnuman Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 But back to the Tribeca, I bet it drives very well. When I first saw a Subaru the cars were the sort that one had to appreciate the function rather than the looks. Folks who bought them swore by them and said they were unbreakable. That is what I've been saying about the B9 since the start. . . As for how it drives, I got a chance to drive one around Oakland for a bit (did not get a chance to take it on the freeway, or push it hard in corners) and it drives respectably. My biggest problem is the lag between stomping on the gas and the car taking off. When I punch it, I dont want the car to sit there thinking about it before responding. When I hit the gas hard there is a reason. mid throttle responded well, however, and I would buy one if I had the money to. I'd find a way around the hesitation problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSubie Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 OK, so the review was over the top. Though I'll be honest, I am really tired of the mamby bamby "this is a really nice car" reviews that have been the norm for several years now. It seems like there have been very few reviewers that will say anything really negative about a car. But oh, what a big improvement the new model is over the old model. The old model that they raved about just 2 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Attention mods: that was juan dropping a hint that you should admonish me for being off topic. What a wongleflute. I was dropping nothing of the sort. I was thinking of dropping the other shoe but... Wait a minute! Where did that shoe go? Oh. There it is. You're wearing it, Richard. Now. On to cars. Why aren't car reviewers calling this thing ugly? Afraid to lose Subie advertising $$? Unspoken car review rule that you don't disrespect a manufacturer? It couldn't possibly be that most of them find this thing 'not' ugly, could it? Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Every reveiw ive seen has had an issue with its looks, some calling it ugly, some saying "its a face only a mother could love, if she was blind" and everything inbetween. Subarus were always a ltille odd looking, but now they have gone beyond odd. nipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitz Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 I was dropping nothing of the sort. I was thinking of dropping the other shoe but... Wait a minute! Where did that shoe go? Oh. There it is. You're wearing it, Richard. I don't participate in this board to win any popularity contests, I do it to share info both ways ...accurate info. When I give my opinion, I include "IMO". When I present a fact, I'll always be able & willing to back it up with documentation - even if it goes off topic, because I won't have anyone justifiably calling me a liar. Truthfullness & trustworthyness are sacred. I've presented data to the group in the past that I've had to correct after going back and re-checking it for accuracy. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong - when I'm wrong. Transforming into a weasly little mouse after you've backed yourself into a corner is awkward. Better yet, don't back yourself into a corner. Now. On to cars. Why aren't car reviewers calling this thing ugly? Afraid to lose Subie advertising $$? Unspoken car review rule that you don't disrespect a manufacturer? It couldn't possibly be that most of them find this thing 'not' ugly, could it? Damn, we actually agree on some things. IMO, not only is the Tribeca ugly, it's a generic, gas-guzzling soccer-mom SUV-thing. It's completely devoid of that unique, quirky Subaru panache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtsmiths Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 IMO, not only is the Tribeca ugly, it's a generic, gas-guzzling soccer-mom SUV-thing. It's completely devoid of that unique, quirky Subaru panache. I am in agremnt with Blitz. It's Fugly, overwrought and is a marketing (not autmotive) solution for a non-existant market. Note to SOA: get the 'marketing consultants' out of the shop and give the company back to the engineers. Fire the stylist that designed the 'Tribeca', AND the 'branding consultant' that named it. Note to GM: Go away, be a 'silent partner' and leave Subaru alone to design simple, reliable, effecient cars that also happen to be able to go anywhere in any weather. If you want to do something productive, get busy on hydrogen power cars and a nation-wide distribution system. Never bought a Subaru yet based on 'style' never will. But poor styling will definately KEEP me from buying one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.