7 Series Styling Update

Bradburn Fentress wrote:
> "Michael Low" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
> > Actually Canadians also seem to have a problem with the E65. There
are
> > very very few of them on the streets and roads here.
>
> There are very very few of them on the streets anywhere. This model
has
> always been a very low volume seller....but you cannot argue with the
fact
> that the current version has sold better than any previous version of
the 7
> series car. You just can't, and because of that it is equaly
difficult to
> say the car hasn't been a success.


I'm not sure you mean they sold better than the old 7er in Canada or
just world-wide. I think your sales numbers are world-wide.

The impressions in Canada is that it is an unpopular and ridiculed
design. As we have said - numbers can be misleading.



>
> > One good reason to take seriously the notion that the E65 is not a
BMW
> > success is what Helmut Panke has admitted to recently about
mistakes by
> > BMW with the E65.
>
> I don't think so at all. I think BMW has taken a difficult direction
with
> their cars and will cure some of the ills over time. Just because
they admit
> to errors or mistakes isn't evidence that they feel the car hasn't
been a
> comercial success. The numbers alone say it has.
>


So you think Panke had a success in his hands and still felt it
worthwhile to admit a mistake. That does not make any sense. Again, I
remind you, numbers mislead.


> > Another reason is the way BMW has been responding to
> > worries about the E60 and the E90 meeting the same negative
reception
> > of the E65.
>
> The E60, in 2004, was the best selling 5 series car ever in both NA
and the
> world. I don't think they are too worried about how it has or will be

> accepted by the public.
>
> And I think their decision to not take the E90 too far, was both well

> thought out and pertinent. You think it means they are scared of the
> reaction they got from the E60 and E65...while I think they are
lending a
> balance to their designs while the whole company goes thru a change
in
> design direction. The 3 series has always been the most mundane of
their
> models (in terms of exterior design) and they have actually changed
it
> significantly by comparison. To have taken that car to 5 or 7 series
design
> levels would have been to great of a change in one model year.
>


You have it backwards. The 3er is not a mundane car. It is targeted
towards the most dynamic segment of the car market. It is their most
important product because anyone who knows anything about BMW knows BMW
makes most of it money from the 3er due to volume. If BMW were so sure
of the success of the new design direction then they would apply it
more to the 3er because they would make even more money.

BMW made the car more mundane because it's safer - because they may
kill their cash cow if they sour the public's impression of their best
seller. It means BMW doesn't really have faith in their new design.
They don't have faith because it is hurting the company's profitability
and long term success.

Anyone who is frank and knows BMWs also knows BMW runs their new design
"direction experiments" on the poor folks who buy 1st year major
designs of the 7er and become unwitting guinea pigs.



> > While I agree the "refresh" is timed to help sales I think you may
also
> > want to consider how BMW went about doing the resfresh.
> >
> > If the bold design direction were so successful then one would
think
> > BMW should be more apt to build on the same ideas. However, the
> > opposite appears to be true because the resfresh seems more of a
design
> > retreat.
>
> I don't see that at all. All of the most sever design cues remain in
the
> car. What has happened, at least from the pictures I have seen, is
that they
> have melded these cues together is a more flaterring manner. They
have
> simply improved in understanding the styling direction they embarked
upon 4
> years ago.


>From what I have seen I cannot agree with you. The car looks less
jarring and frankly reminds me a bit of the old Audi A6 but on
steroids.


>
> > So if BMW is actually reversing the original design effects
> > then the logical inference is that advancing the original design
> > further at this point would not be desirable. Finally, if your
> > criterion for proving the success of a design is sales, then it
should
> > follow that BMW feels the original design did not meet its sales
goals.
>
> Really? I can't tell if you're serious or just making an argument
because
> you don't like the car. The object is to sell more cars, and to sell
more
> 7's at the end of a leasing cycle means making a car a little better
and a
> little different than the one the customer just returned.
>


What you wrote does not refer to what I wrote at all. You're off on a
tangent.

I said if sales were the success criterion (for you and BMW) and that
BMW is actually reversing its design direction with the refreshed E65
then it means the original E65 did not satisfy BMW's sales goals.

I have no idea why you attached your new points to what I previously
wrote. It has no bearing on that discussion.


> It's almost as if you think trying to do better means everything you
did
> previously was a failure. That doesn't follow, not in business or in
life.
>


I'm not sure what your business background is but no, the concept of a
refresh has its basis in traditional product marketing. We call it the
"mid-life kicker".

I did not disagree that it is meant to help sales. What I disagreed
with was the means by which BMW is refreshing the E65. I said it is
reversing the jarring new design directions to help sales. Since it is
a design reversal then it also implies the original E65 design
direction was flawed and negatively affected company objectives (which
you claim to be sales and which I alluded to is not the best
objective).


>
> > Actually, sales is a misleading measure of success, product cycle
> > profitability is much more honest. I used to work for
multinationals,
> > you bet sales managers padded their sales figures every quarter and
> > every year, especially when people are gullible enough to use sales
> > figures as yardsticks.
>
> So suddenly BMW is a failure because they sell more cars?
>
> Suddenly BMW is less profitable because more people have bought the
E65 than
> the previous 7?


Most people understand sales is not the same as profit. Revenue is not
the same as income.

You can sell at a loss and you can sell below margin. You can also
increase the lease factor and postpone hits to your profitability to
later years when you (hope) you get better profits from other sources
and hide the mistake in the balance sheet.

A lot of people have pointed out that this is what BMW is doing. This
is why a lot of people could finance a new 7er lease with such cheap
monthly payments. This is why sales volume that is heavily dependant
on leasing is a very poor indicator of the actual profitability of a
product.


>
> After 35 years of being profitable each and ever year, and after 10
years
> of, along with Porsche, of being head and shoulders above every other
car
> maker in terms of margin, BMW suddenly loses their ability to make
money
> from cars....just because they sold more 7's than ever before and you
don't
> like the design?
>


This isn't an issue that only I brought up. BMW owners from all over
have brought up design and reliability issues with the E65.



> Look, BMW has managed profitability so magnifacently over the years
that
> they are one of 2 companies to have been profitable every year over
the past
> 35 years. They have managed business so well that they and Porsche
are head
> and shoulders above the rest of the industry in unit margins.


IMO, BMW's strength is in its engineers and in the cachet developed by
the company for its previously unique blend of performance and
refinement in its cars.

You have wandered off the discussion once again by somehow alluding
that a criticism of a recent bad design has something to do with how
the success of the company was built over a number of years.

I think you should be in the spin doctoring business. :#)



>
> I don't believe for a minute that simply because they have changed
design
> direction they have somehow for some reason lost their amazing
ability to
> make every model profitable in a way few other makers can. Even in
light of
> the debilitating currancy valuations BMW remains a profit center.


I never said BMW is not profitable. I said the E65 does not and did
not meet BMW's orginal goals for a successful product. You are off in
a tangent again.

As for "debilitating currancy valuations", aside from conventional
currency hedging methods, BMW mitigates that by having a North American
plant in Spartanburg, SC; and its California design center.

"Bradburn Fentress" > haute in die Tasten:

> You just can't, and because of that it is equaly difficult to
> say the car hasn't been a success.
>

I do not know wether this was intended by BMW or just coincidal: The E65
served as a kind of door opener for the bangle design. So the loud
discussions were almost over when the high volume models E60 and E90 were
due for market introduction. Other car makers have also used low volume
models to get the public acustomized to a new design language. Examples are
the Renault Avantime and the first Mercedes CLK with its four eye face.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

"Michael Low" > haute in die Tasten:

> The impressions in Canada is that it is an unpopular and ridiculed
> design. As we have said - numbers can be misleading.
>

Misleading in which direction? How many prospective car buyers live in
canada?

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

Frank Kemper wrote:
> "Michael Low" > haute in die Tasten:
>
> > The impressions in Canada is that it is an unpopular and ridiculed
> > design. As we have said - numbers can be misleading.
> >
>
> Misleading in which direction? How many prospective car buyers live
in
> canada?
>


Numbers can potentially mislead in any direction.

As for the numbers you inquired after, I believe Bradburn is the
numbers guy. I was referring to impressions, not numbers in Canada.

FYI, there was another review in one of Canada's national papers today,
"The National". It went like this "...Well, the all-new BMW 3 Series
is finally here and we can all stop wondering whether it will be a
Bangle-butt disaster or the tour de force that BMW's most iconic model
deserves to be..." (DAVID BOOTH)

"Michael Low" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bradburn Fentress wrote:
>> "Michael Low" > wrote in message

> So you think Panke had a success in his hands and still felt it
> worthwhile to admit a mistake. That does not make any sense. Again, I
> remind you, numbers mislead.

Numbers only mislead if you haven't taken the time to understand them. And
yeah, I think Panke is more than willing to say he had a success but there
are still some mistakes to correct. That has been BMW's manner of
development for some time now.

Success doesn't mean perfection.

>> > Another reason is the way BMW has been responding to
>> > worries about the E60 and the E90 meeting the same negative
> reception
>> > of the E65.
>>
>> The E60, in 2004, was the best selling 5 series car ever in both NA
> and the
>> world. I don't think they are too worried about how it has or will be
>
>> accepted by the public.
>>
>> And I think their decision to not take the E90 too far, was both well
>
>> thought out and pertinent. You think it means they are scared of the
>> reaction they got from the E60 and E65...while I think they are
> lending a
>> balance to their designs while the whole company goes thru a change
> in
>> design direction. The 3 series has always been the most mundane of
> their
>> models (in terms of exterior design) and they have actually changed
> it
>> significantly by comparison. To have taken that car to 5 or 7 series
> design
>> levels would have been to great of a change in one model year.
>>
>
>
> You have it backwards. The 3er is not a mundane car.

Yes, it is a mundane exterior design. Always has been. They have always been
a little less willing to "step out" with that model than they have with
others. This is not a model line they traditional screw with too much. If
you look at the differences betwen the E34 - E39 - and E60 compared to the
changes between the E30 - E36 - E46 and now E90 it is clear they are far
more comfortable making sweeping changes in the 5 than they are the 3.
Clearly that is the same for the 7 as well.

> It is targeted
> towards the most dynamic segment of the car market.

I don't know about that. But it is surely the most dynamic car in the
segment.

> It is their most
> important product because anyone who knows anything about BMW knows BMW
> makes most of it money from the 3er due to volume.

I'll stop our conversation right here, since it's become clear to me you are
working with something less than all the facts: The 5 series, though it
represents only 25% of BMW sales, provides the greatest percentage of
overall profit to the company of any car BMW makes. It accounts for over 40%
of all BMW profits. The 3 series, despite selling several times more units,
is second in that regard.

You see, numbers really do mislead if you don't take the time to understand
them.

The CLK was preceded by the E-Class with four eyes, IIRC. The Merc
propaganda dept had said at the time that this design would remain unique to
the E.

Well, they lied.. :-)

(I guess that's what propaganda depts do...)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Frank Kemper" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> Examples are
> the Renault Avantime and the first Mercedes CLK with its four eye face.
>
> Frank

Bradburn Fentress wrote:
> "Michael Low" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Bradburn Fentress wrote:
> >> "Michael Low" > wrote in message
>

<snip>

These discussions are public forums and you may opt to end your
participation as you wish. I don't mean to disrespect your decision
but I have my own right to reply and I can chose as I wish. You don't
have to answer.


> >>
> >
> >
> > You have it backwards. The 3er is not a mundane car.
>
> Yes, it is a mundane exterior design. Always has been. They have
always been
> a little less willing to "step out" with that model than they have
with
> others. This is not a model line they traditional screw with too
much. If
> you look at the differences betwen the E34 - E39 - and E60 compared
to the
> changes between the E30 - E36 - E46 and now E90 it is clear they are
far
> more comfortable making sweeping changes in the 5 than they are the
3.
> Clearly that is the same for the 7 as well.
>


The 3er is not a mundane car with regard to what its market segment
expects. Bimmerphiles know the 3er is the direct descendant of the
much-beloved 2002. For many years, the 2002 and the 3er were
synonymous with the dynamic popularity of BMW cars.

The reason why you feel the 3er is mundane is because BMW has gradually
made it so. They did so out of fear that they would kill "the golden
goose", so to say by metaphor. Fear is a bad thing when it prevents
people from being authentic. That was why I gave a degree of credit to
BMW for at least trying a new design. Unfortunately, they ran the
experiment on the market segment that they should be most conservative
with - the high-end limousine market. They should have instead tried
their experiments on a more dyanmic market segment where people would
be much more apt to try radical ideas.

IMO, better models for such experiments would have been the Z4, 6er,
3er cabriolet or even the X5. Their prospective owners would have been
more receptive and could have tempered the market's response, buying
time to tweak the radical designs to better suit other cars like the
3er, 5er and 7er.


> > It is targeted
> > towards the most dynamic segment of the car market.
>
> I don't know about that. But it is surely the most dynamic car in the

> segment.


Yes, I agree. That's why the 3er is not a mundane car - it is only
mundane-looking (at the moment). The M3 for instance, has always been
the dream machine for enthusiasts.


>
> > It is their most
> > important product because anyone who knows anything about BMW knows
BMW
> > makes most of it money from the 3er due to volume.
>
> I'll stop our conversation right here, since it's become clear to me
you are
> working with something less than all the facts: The 5 series, though
it
> represents only 25% of BMW sales, provides the greatest percentage of

> overall profit to the company of any car BMW makes. It accounts for
over 40%
> of all BMW profits. The 3 series, despite selling several times more
units,
> is second in that regard.
>


Cost allocation is tricky business. It's another area where numbers
can be manipulated. As an outsider to BMW I cannot comment directly on
their method of cost allocation.

However, what I can say is that the 3er and the 5er at least share all
of the same I-6 engines except for the M3's. There is a great degree
of cost sharing going on in R&D, design, financing, manufacturing,
marketing, sales, training and servicing. Where do you draw the line?
IMO, that line is probably drawn based at least partially on how the
company wants to position their products from a competitive standpoint.

IMO, the 3er's sales carries a great deal of the running costs of the
company. For a company like BMW in the crazy worldwide car market, it
needs to have a breadth of products to sustain a critical business mass
in order to survive and compete well. In that regard, I think BMW has
done an excellent job of juggling so many concerns.


> You see, numbers really do mislead if you don't take the time to
understand
> them.


I understand numbers quite well. I just don't take them at face value,
especially under such circumstances. Some people use numbers to
justify what they want to see rather than look at them from various
viewpoints to understand better what may really be happening.