Stories from the Sales Frontlines

imidazol97

@houdini1 said:
That is how I view radical environmentalists. No one really knows if humans are causing our climate to change, or if they are, are the changes substantial and are they all bad.

The extremists in the party have to be pacified into believing the administration really cares about their goals. All of this pretend stuff is the Hadacol syndrome. Hadacol was a snake oil medicine sold in the old days by folks going town to town--miracle it was supposed to be. People believed it and bought it and swore by it. Had a high alcohol content. Sort of like the Sister's miracle elixir from their father's formula on the Waltons. Lots of alcohol.

graphicguy

@driver100 said:

Driver....if the 98% who control the votes won't work for the 2% who control all the wealth, that 2% isn't going to be able to hold their wealth for very long.

That said, it's the 1/3-1/2 who don’t vote that really screws up the balance.

driver100

@graphicguy said:Driver....if the 98% who control the votes won't work for the 2% who control all the wealth, that 2% isn't going to be able to hold their wealth for very long

GG, it's like the chicken and the egg...which comes first?

These days there are more people willing to take jobs, than entrepeneurs who can create them.

If there is no incentive entrepeneurs will not risk everything in order to build a business (starving for years, working 24/7, risking all your money in early years, giving up a steady pay check). It is very difficult and stressful starting a business and making it successful. If you work someone you should be very greatful that person put his life on the line so you can have a pay check, and you should be glad he can reap the benefits of what he created.

abacomike

@houdini1 said:
It refers to the law of unintended consequences. It means while trying to do something to improve things you actually make things worse.

Thanks for elaborating, houdini. I really appreciate your efforts. I knew what "...throwing the baby out with the bathwater..." was, I just couldn't figure out what context you were using the adage for. No I understand.

graphicguy

@driver100 said:

driver...we're violently agreeing!!!!

imidazol97

Somone posted the Aztek as an example of an ugly car. I think it's been scapegoated through the years because it was GM. The time in which it was designed was different. And, indeed, it was different.

But this has to be the worst car for ugly. I see them in all colors and it doesn't look good in any color.
However that's my one man's opinion. Others will see it differently.

In contrast, the Aztek does look okay to my eye in solid colors and without the contrasting plastic coverings. The maroon is especially good. The lady down the road has had one for years now.

Kirstie_H

@driver100 - in the future, if you want to see reviews by consumers who own the vehicle, choose the make, model, and year from the menus at the top. That's probably what you did, but once you get to the page with pricing, etc., if you scroll down about 1/3 of the page, there are reviews by consumers listed.

Kirstie_H

@imidazol97 said:

But this has to be the worst car for ugly. I see them in all colors and it doesn't look good in any color.

Every time I see the Juke out in the wild, I can't help but think "turtle."

stickguy

I know 2 people that recently bought jukes. A black and a silver. They both really seem to like them.

laurasdada

My opinion of the Juke? It's so ugly it's almost cute. In a frog-like manner. The Aztek? It's so ugly, it's ugly. But, I don' think it was so functionally bad. Pontiac improved the looks ever so slightly by de-cladding it. But, still ungainly.

Michaell

@laurasdada said:
My opinion of the Juke? It's so ugly it's almost cute. In a frog-like manner. The Aztek? It's so ugly, it's ugly. But, I don' think it was so functionally bad. Pontiac improved the looks ever so slightly by de-cladding it. But, still ungainly.

We've actually test-driven the Juke .... twice!

First time was just me. Manual FWD version. Had some nice scoot to it. I likened it to a GTI on stilts.

Second time, the wife was interested. AWD with the CVT. She liked it, just didn't love it. And, too small inside for her.

But, they are unique.

Kirstie_H

@Michaell@Edmunds

I looked at it too, before getting my current ride. It was a bit out of my budget range, since it was fairly new, plus I also found it too small.

@laurasdada - So ugly it's almost cute is about how I see it, too.

imidazol97

The appearance of the Juke just hits me. If I owned one, I might have a different opinion because the driving experience may be great. I note most Jukes in this area are driven by middle-aged women. The dog walker for the people across the road had one of the first I saw on the road and hers is black.

And car impressions are personal. The Aztek had a different focus market which showed in the ads at the time. I tried to find pictures of the Aztek in maroon and could only find a web page where the pictures can't be linked.

Here's one in silver. Not bad. But add contrasting colors for the cladded areas and things go downhill.

graphicguy

@imidazol97 said:
Somone posted the Aztek as an example of an ugly car. I think it's been scapegoated through the years because it was GM. The time in which it was designed was different. And, indeed, it was different.

But this has to be the worst car for ugly. I see them in all colors and it doesn't look good in any color.
However that's my one man's opinion. Others will see it differently.

In contrast, the Aztek does look okay to my eye in solid colors and without the contrasting plastic coverings. The maroon is especially good. The lady down the road has had one for years now.

Yeah...that looks like....ummmm....a....Kirstie, you're right...a turtle.....a turtle exposed to too much radiation!

roadburner

@graphicguy said:

Yeah...that looks like....ummmm....a....Kirstie, you're right...a turtle.....a turtle exposed to too much radiation!

Radioactive turtle? That would be the Japanese Kaiju Gamera:

driver100

@imidazol97 said:
Somone posted the Aztek as an example of an ugly car. I think it's been scapegoated through the years because it was GM. The time in which it was designed was different. And, indeed, it was different.

But this has to be the worst car for ugly. I see them in all colors and it doesn't look good in any color.
However that's my one man's opinion. Others will see it differently.

In contrast, the Aztek does look okay to my eye in solid colors and without the contrasting plastic coverings. The maroon is especially good. The lady down the road has had one for years now.

I am afraid I said it. I must say, the car shown is actually uglier as far as I am concerned, but, it is funky and would probably appeal to younger people. I was looking for a picture of an Aztec on Edmunds and people who bought them loved them...lots of room, reliable, etc. The Aztec is not as bad as it is made out to be, but it is one that most car people can recall as a car that is not a beautiful design.

Not sure if being a GM is the reason, maybe just that most people have seen one and it did stand out in it's day.

driver100

@Kirstie@Edmunds said:c., if you scroll down about 1/3 of the page, there are reviews by consumers listed.

>

I will give it a try and report back.

driver100

@Kirstie@Edmunds said:That's probably what you did, but once you get to the page with pricing, etc., if you scroll down about 1/3 of the page,

That worked. I was in a hurry and didn't go down the page far enough. I suppose Edmunds main concern is letting you know they can get you the car at a good price so that is near the top of the page. Actually, it is effective because I checked a MB CLA250 and they ask what your ZIP code is, and then steer you to a dealer, and you can find out the price you can get it for....kind of neat really.

I also like the "pros" and "cons", they give you a good idea of the hi-lites of that car, good and bad, very quickly.

If you google a review of a particular car most sites start off with the review, this starts assuming you're in the market. Not a bad thing, I think it is a good thing, but it is different than most other sites.

isellhondas

driver100

That Juke was voted ugliest on a Top 10 Ugliest cars site I looked at. This was number 7 though, and in some ways this may even be worse;

It is a 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV Hatchback

I think I agree Imid....the Juke and Mitsu make the Aztec look glamorous.

imidazol97

@isellhondas said:
What the heck IS that hideous white "thing"?

The front end looks like a Bulldog!

The car does look a little like a Pug with Soul in the shape of the door frames.

imidazol97

@driver100 said:
Not sure if being a GM is the reason,

If it had said "Honda" on it, would it have been labelled as ugly? Look at the Element. Look at the Odyssey with the rear third that looks like it's been grafted onto the front 2/3.

As to the Aztek, the dual level of air intake for the radiator was ridiculed by some. Now how many cars have two levels for air flow through the radiator?

As for the GM Oldsmobile Silhouette, the high rear lights were ridiculed. Then when Volvo used them on wagons, they were fine. Now look at CRVs.

cdnpinhead

Don't look for logic where none exists.

Mr_Shiftright

Sometimes ugly or unsuccessful cars have some good design "elements"--it's when you put it all together that it gets ugly.

Car design can be quite radical or unorthodox, but it should "make sense"---a cohesive whole. It shouldn't look like two different cars glued together.

abacomike

STERLING'S COMMENTS

We've all heard and experienced racist remarks in our lifetimes. In retrospect, those racial slurs were outrageous, untrue and hurtful, to say the very least. But, in the 21st century, to witness the kind of racial slurs and plantation rhetoric coming out of the mouth of a well-known, highly influential individual - Sterling - is disgusting and unforgivable.

We should not have to tolerate that racist rhetoric in this country. It's people like Sterling who propagate the hate and disrespect that we all have worked so hard in our lifetimes to eliminate.

He should not only be forced to divest himself of the ownership of the Clippers, but if he does not voluntarily do so immediately, every scheduled Clippers game - even the playoffs - should be boycotted by the fans and the players should conduct a work stoppage.

We should not have to tolerate a bigot and a racist like Sterling.

roadburner

@abacomike said:
STERLING'S COMMENTS

We should not have to tolerate a bigot and a racist like Sterling.

Please understand that I am not defending Sterling in any way, shape, or form- but I thought this essay was quite thought provoking:

On Character, Public and Private

abacomike

@MrShift@Edmunds‌ said:

"Car design can be quite radical or unorthodox, but it should "make sense"---a cohesive whole. It shouldn't look like two different cars glued together."

What I have serious difficulty comprehending is how in the world these "ugly ducklings" get built and put into showrooms across the country. I know they do lots of market testing when they come out with a new design - but 99% of us know UGLY when we see it!

If 50% of the car-buying public state that a car is "ugly ", why would a manufacturer build that car a put it into their automotive lineup?

Come on - the Pontiac Aztek was a "Two Bag" car - you need to cover the vehicle with 2 paper bags just in case the first bag falls off. I know that one man's food is another man's poison, but in the Aztek's case, it was always poison to most people.

houdini1

@roadburner said:

>

Insightful article. It doesn't excuse Mr. Sterling, but it sort of explains why it is unlawful to record a private conversation without permission of all parties. There is a indeed a difference in how most of us act in our public and private lives.

abacomike

@roadburner said:

"Please understand that I am not defending Sterling in any way, shape, or form- but I thought this essay was quite thought provoking:"

Very interesting essay, RB. Thanks for posting the link. I enjoyed reading it.

oldfarmer50

@abacomike said:
MrShift@Edmunds‌ said:

"Car design can be quite radical or unorthodox, but it should "make sense"---a cohesive whole. It shouldn't look like two different cars glued together."

What I have serious difficulty comprehending is how in the world these "ugly ducklings" get built and put into showrooms across the country. I know they do lots of market testing when they come out with a new design - but 99% of us know UGLY when we see it!

If 50% of the car-buying public state that a car is "ugly ", why would a manufacturer build that car a put it into their automotive lineup?

Come on - the Pontiac Aztek was a "Two Bag" car - you need to cover the vehicle with 2 paper bags just in case the first bag falls off. I know that one man's food is another man's poison, but in the Aztek's case, it was always poison to most people.

If I had unlimited money I would buy up every good condition, low milage Aztek I could find and sit on them until, like the Edsel, the ugly duckling became "cool". I would then make a killing selling classic Azteks to collectors.

What would you pay today for an "ugly" Chrysler Airstream or a Cord?

abacomike

@oldfarmer50‌ said:

"If I had unlimited money I would buy up every good condition, low milage Aztek I could find and sit on them until, like the Edsel, the ugly duckling became "cool". I would then make a killing selling classic Azteks to collectors."

I have a sense or just a feeling that the Aztek will never achieve notoriety or high demand even 100 years from now. But the Cord, that's a horse of a different color!

oldfarmer50

Google develops self-driving car

Don't they already have those? I think they call them cabs.

To me a car driving itself is like taking a shower wearing a raincoat. What's the point?

imidazol97

@abacomike said:
Come on - the Pontiac Aztek was a "Two Bag" car - you need to cover the vehicle with 2 paper bags just in case the first bag falls off.

That makes the Juke a 3-bag car... LOL The Odyssey is a 1-bagger.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... When I first saw the current Camryx on a truck, I thought the taillight design was a refreshing improvement. But then I saw the whole body on the ground, in various colors, and with comparison of how toyota designed the same car's taillights sold as their ES300 series, I realized how bad the design was. I couldn't even actually talk to a salesperson to compare pricing, indeed I couldn't even take a test drive. I couldn't stand to have the car in my garage.

As the CTS/STS commercials said in the past, your car should turn you on rather than you having to turn it on.

snakeweasel

@laurasdada said:
My opinion of the Juke? It's so ugly it's almost cute.

I wouldn't say the juke is ugly, just that it looks strange. Like the designer was tripping on something,

snakeweasel

@abacomike said:
MrShift@Edmunds‌ said:
If 50% of the car-buying public state that a car is "ugly ", why would a manufacturer build that car a put it into their automotive lineup?

because the only car ever made where 50% of the car buying public bought one was the Model T and that was nearly a century ago. If there are enough people to like the care enough to buy it and make a nice profit for the manufacturer then why not try to do so.

snakeweasel

@oldfarmer50 said:
What would you pay today for an "ugly" Chrysler Airstream or a Cord?

Oh come on now I wouldn't say Cords are ugly.

abacomike

@snakeweasel said:
because the only car ever made where 50% of the car buying public bought one was the Model T and that was nearly a century ago. If there are enough people to like the care enough to buy it and make a nice profit for the manufacturer then why not try to do so

Snake, you turned my comment around to something I was not communicating.

I am not saying that the manufacturer would ask a consumer if he/she would buy a car if it looked like....! What I am saying is that the manufacturer would ask a customer, "...IS THIS CAR UGLY?"

That's very different from your take on my comment. If the right question is asked, you'll get an answer that is more appropriate.

As an example, if you asked 100 drivers if they would "buy" a Fiat 500 4 door sedan, probably most (more than half) would say NO! But if you asked that same group of 100 drivers, "...IS THIS CAR UGLY?..." probably less than half would say it is not.

I am attempting to find out what people think is UGLY, not what people would buy. Do you get my drift? Or should I be more specific.

Thanks, Snake!

bwia

@imidazol97 said:
But then I saw the whole body on the ground, in various colors, and with comparison of how toyota designed the same car's taillights sold as their ES300 series, I realized how bad the design was. I couldn't even actually talk to a salesperson to compare pricing, indeed I couldn't even take a test drive. I couldn't stand to have the car in my garage.

Imid, same here. I just can't get past the Lexus "spindle" grill design. To put it bluntly, it is awful.

As to the Juke, it at least elicits a response, usually confused. But I like the Veloster R-spec turbo much better. The design is contemporary, youthful and forward thinking unlike the Juke that is a bad imitation of the Veloster and a Murano.

oldfarmer50

@snakeweasel said:
Oh come on now I wouldn't say Cords are ugly.

Nor would I but at the time the public rejected the "coffin nose" design. Now they are hot collector items. Just sayin'.

driver100

@imidazol97 said:

I don't think the tailights on the Silouette were the problem. Those tailights are functional and look smart when built into the rest of the car...as in the Volvo and Honda pictured.

The Silouette was criticized because it looks like a Dust Buster. It is a silly design for a van because the passenger area starts so far back there is little room left for storage. They were made using plastic sides which expand and contract with the temperature and so get squeaks and rattles, and the whole van wasn't that strong.

I wouldn't call the Silouette ugly, just badly designed.
This is one of the worst designs I have seen:

1949 Airway

For fun, Edmunds has a site called the 100 ugliest cars, read the comments. Some I was surprised at, but, in retrospect, are probably very ugly;
the 100 ugliest cars

driver100

@roadburner said:- but I thought this essay was quite thought provoking:

On Character, Public and Private

Excellent article! Sterling is an [non-permissible content removed], but his "girlfriend" is a bigger one for recording a private conversation and then going public with it. Also, she provoked him into saying some his absurd comments.

We all say things about other people we wouldn't want made known to the general public, it's part of human nature. We may even have internal prejudices but we are civilized enough to keep those comments to ourselves.

Fine the guy a few million, give him a long suspension, try to persuade him to sell the team, but, then let it rest, at least we know what and who he is, and that's bad enough.

driver100

@imidazol97 said:
As the CTS/STS commercials said in the past, your car should turn you on rather than you having to turn it on.

Talking about Carys. I saw this picture of a 2015 Camry presented at the NY auto show;

Is that new front for real or is that just protective stuff on it to make it scratch proof when shipping?
Are they just trying to uglify the car more? Trying to save money by making it look different by leaving a big impression in people's minds.

abacomike

@driver100 said:

"Is that new front for real or is that just protective stuff on it to make it scratch proof when shipping? Are they just trying to uglify the car more? Trying to save money by making it look different by leaving a big impression in people's minds."

I just can't understand Toyota's marketing strategy. Huyandai and Kia have out styled and outperformed (engine-wise) Toyota for several years now. I see many, many more Sonatas down here now than I do Camry's. I realize Toyota sells more cars and SUV's than Huyandai and Kia, but what is so difficult about designing the Camry so that it actually looks good?

How much effort would it take to come out with a Camry that would blow the socks off every competitor's product? We know Toyota has the resources, but they don't seem savvy enough to build a knock-out Camry? They could corner the market by taking back market share they lost to Huyandai.

Maybe some day the'll figure it out.

stickguy

They lead in sales. Pretty sure the typical buyer doesn't care, and may even be turned off by so me thing radical. They seem to want isolated and boring.

imidazol97

@stickguy said:
They lead in sales. Pretty sure the typical buyer doesn't care, and may even be turned off by so me thing radical. They seem to want isolated and boring.

It looks like toyota is following the Fusion and HynKia appearance with that snout. To my eye it is even less appealing than the 2014's rear cheap light setup.

The Camry buyer is the former Buick buyer. The seat height on one a friend in Michigan leases seems better than the KynKia where my wife couldn't even have lowered herself into the passenger front seat because it was so low. My wife has major lower back problems. I didn't even have her try the HynKia vehicles when we shopped.

That grill looks like an angry insect waving it's pincer tentacles down to the sides as it comes to attack like an angry hornet. Psychologically it gives me a bad reaction when I see it.

driver100

@abacomike said:
I just can't understand Toyota's marketing strategy. Huyandai and Kia have out styled and outperformed (engine-wise) Toyota for several years now.

I think some people will just buy and trust the Toyota name no matter what. A large percentage of the population just aren't that knowledgeable. I wouldn't be surprised if most just go back to the dealer and order another one, without even checking anything else.

And this guy wrote a pretty funny little article about the stupid redesign of the rear side window, like what is that supposed to add:

Part of what Jalopnik said:
See that little side window there on the new 2015 Camry? That's not a window, that's just black plastic. That's some cheapo, bargain-basement, Dodge Avenger BS.

Full article: jalopnik - one cheap detail on the 2015 Camry

houdini1

@driver100 said:

I think Toyota and specifically the Camry, has fallen victim to their own product placement and profit margins. They would much rather sell you a Lexus ES than a Camry because they make more money on the ES. If they made the Camry look nicer and more desirable it might cut into the ES sales...so they just leave it an average car that most people can afford, while those who can afford more will opt for the ES or possibly the Avalon. Apparently they pay no attention to other options a buyer has, such as the Accord, Altima, or Fusion...and just depend on the Toyota past reputation for reliability. No question they could build a better looking Camry if they wanted to.

imidazol97

@houdini1 said:
Apparently they pay no attention to other options a buyer has, such as the Accord, Altima, or Fusion...and just depend on the Toyota past reputation for reliability.

They did take the taillights from the Genesis for the 2015 model. So they pay some attention to what looks better, at least enough attention to mimic the better style.

mako1a

youtube.com/watch?v=qxCpK1W_Gjw&authuser=0

Hope this works. Its a 101 yr old lady that really likes her Packard.

graphicguy

For reasons that everyone has already stated, A Toyota hasn't been anywhere remotely on my radar for quite a few years. Can't think of any reason why that will change. I thought the fiancé's Accord out styled, out drove, was better built, and a better value than the Camry.