Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Why Lotus is wrong

**short version for newcarnet**


Having never owned one or contributed to the company's bottom line in any other significant manner, I cannot claim to be a Lotus purist despite holding the marque in great affection. And I'm sure if everyone complaining about them abandoning their core values was an owner, a reinvention wouldn't be necessary – but it is.

Announcing an 1800kg Lotus just as a 999kg Lambo is unveiled is not great timing - but isn't their biggest problem. I'm sure the Lotus name resonates with those who have no familiarity with Colin Chapman or his engineering philosophy, so there is potential to exploit. I still don't hold with the Porsche Cayenne, but any fool could see it was going to sell like hotcakes.
The designs themselves are a little underwhelming, and the 'same sausage, different lengths' strategy doesn't help this; but this isn't their biggest problem either.
No, their biggest problem is that whilst the new range may bring in a whole new demographic, it's by definition three years away - and seems to be at the expense of their customer base. A potential Elise customer may decide to go for one of the final 'old-school' Lotuses but is probably more likely to hold out for the new one. And if the new Elan really is 'the only car you'll ever need' (surely a strange tagline when relaunching a complete range?) and a 2+2, why buy an Evora at all? (worse yet – what if you've just taken delivery of one?)
The other major issue is that, in a single stroke, they've unveiled what must (surely??) be their entire product plan for the next 5 years – a very public commitment. Given their troubled history, surely Lotus insiders could have predicted the scepticism that's greeted this highly ambitious plan; given that same history, would it not have been better to underpromise and overdeliver? Let us hope it doesn't end up the other way around.

Finally the idea that - a) six new Lotus concepts would not attract sufficient media attention without a celebrity garnish, and b) that Naomi Campbell, Brian May, Stephen Baldwin & Mickey Rourke were the answer to this particular conundrum - is probably both a sad indictment of our celeb obsessed culture and the PR's competence.


Besides it's over the next few years when they have bugger-all new to show that they really will need a celeb distraction...

No comments: