VW is a tricky one to categorise. They produce cheapskate stuff such as the Fox, and the luxury Phaeton. That's about as wide a spread under one name as you would ever find. But putting them generally in the "premium" class isn't right to my mind - the UK market may think that, but I'm not sure about the rest of the world. Neither can I take Audi seriously as "prestige" - to my mind they are little more than posh VWs and don't compare with the likes of Jaguar and Mercedes. But that's probably because I have a long memory and can remember them when they were still producing 2-strokes!

 

LOL, you ain't the only one - I remember 2-stroke DKW Audis when I was a kid which lets face it were just Trabants separated by a wall.
If Audi represents anything it's how to create a brand and suck in stupid buyers.

The brand that should be there instead of Audi is of course NSU - the real German Vorsprung Durch Technik.

 

We know how "status" is really important to UK buyers, who will pay loads extra for it. A Portuguese-made VW is judged higher status than a German-made SEAT, while a (partly) Slovakian-made Porsche beats both.

Exactly what status is seems to be decided by the motoring press, who rate Alfas but not FIATs...!

In Germany, it's clear who gives way to whom on the autobahn:

Everything else gives way to VWs

VWs give way to Audis

Audis give way to B*Ws

B*Ws give way to Mercs!

Hence the "manhole cover" grille for the Audi - it's an attempt to frighten other drivers and move Audi up the pecking order! :lol:

 

Ian, i think you should drive a current Audi, you might be surprised and I too (almost) rememeber 2 stroke auto Unions. I think the problem is most manufacturers are re-positioning themselves up-market making it less easy to pigeonhole the entire range. I personally think putting Pugs and Renaults with Vw/Volvo is a joke. Ford is now very difficult to place with the quality of the Focus and new Mondeo.

 

I would tend to move Volkswagen, Renault; and especially; Honda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi down to the "value" sector, and Chrysler up to premium (troubled premium to be sure, but cars like the 300C and Aspen certainly aren't value class). Chevrolet also should probably go up one place to value, while I think most people's perception of Skoda is probably closer to budget.

Largely a matter of semantics probably. What would be helpful is a sliding price scale, say a set range between lowest and highest priced models puts a brand in category X, or maybe do it by either the average or median of base MSRPs.

An awful lot of brands are missing from the list of course. It is limited to global brands, but still, it could perhaps be expanded in scope just a bit

 

Chevrolet also should probably go up one place to value, while I think most people's perception of Skoda is probably closer to budget.

I believe that many Europeans probably now regard Skoda as a Tier 4 - Value brand while, in Europe, Chevrolets are re-badged and re-skinned Daewoos - just note the pricing structure of the Chevrolet Epica which will be launched in the UK at the end of April, 2008 with a base price of £13,595...

 

I'm not sure on some of those categorisations - Mitsubishi, Peugeot and Renault 'Premium'?! Nor would I describe Porsche as 'Elite'.
As for the comment about Ford being difficult to place - the products may be described as premium, but the badge isn't . The inverse would be true with Rover - premium badge but cars that didn't always live up to it.

 

Honda, Mitsubishi, Peugeot and Renault (unlike Ford and Vauxhall) all have, or are developing, E segment models namely the Honda Legacy, Mitsubishi Galant ZT, Peugeot 607 and Renault Vel Satis and that might be one reason why those manufacturers have been placed in the Tier 3 - Premium category.

However, as Adrian Robertsh points out, many manufacturers are in the process of moving their brands upmarket. Honda, for instance, are marketing the new Accord as a premium product while the CEOs of both Peugeot and Renault have indicated that substantial improvements in the perceived quality of their respective companies' new models are intended to justify the adoption of premium pricing strategies.

I guess that the "Global Automotive Brand Hierarchy" might be intended to reflect those anticipated developments and, indeed, the arrival of a number of Chinese manufacturers in the not too distant future...

 

Honda, Mitsubishi, Peugeot and Renault (unlike Ford and Vauxhall) all have, or are developing, E segment models namely the Honda Legacy, Mitsubishi Galant ZT, Peugeot 607 and Renault Vel Satis and that might be one reason why those manufacturers have been placed in the Tier 3 - Premium category.

Just because they have cars in those categories doesn't mean the brand is automatically elevated to the next tier though

 

I don't know how you can credibly put Renault and Peugeot in the same class as Alfa and Saab....

In my mind they are at the cheap end of the 'value' range, way below Toyota and Mazda, and indeed Ford and Vauxhall.

I remember when Audis were something a good salesman could sell to a potential VW customer who could afford to pay more than a VW price! Same showrooms until the 1990s at least in the UK.

I don't think Porsche is 'elite' any more, not with Cayennes all over the place and the Boxster, excellent car though it is..

 

I agree that SAAB and ALFA are with BMW but that BMW straddles a number of ranges in any event. porsche is still elite its just that there are more elite cars about. Astons and Bentleys are now a common sight as well. Maybe there needs to a super elite class for the Bugatti and Roller.

 

Laughable, looks like a rather childlike way of looking at it really.
Remember when people were blind comparing Audi's with the then new Skoda Octavia - and quality wise, 9/10 folks would have driven off with the Skoda?

Just seems like a sort of arrogant, Top Gearish, branding of names and marques. I'd happily rate the most budget Ford's over any Peugeot and Renault, as much as I hate to say it.

 

Laughable, looks like a rather childlike way of looking at it really.
Remember when people were blind comparing Audi's with the then new Skoda Octavia - and quality wise, 9/10 folks would have driven off with the Skoda?

Yeah I remember that - 9/10 would have driven off in the Skoda until they showed them the badge, then it was all "Oooh no, I wouldn't buy that. Not a Skoda".

 

Hmmmm... Automotive Hierarchy mullarkey.

Saddo me drives only Rovers and MGs ~ I know my place..... have to look up to evrybody ....

Do I hell ...:rofl: Like the M5 driver creeping forward who obviously wanted 'my' lane which was clear when we pulled away from the lights ~ he didn't realise an eleven year old Rover purchased for little more than loose change could take off that fast ... but, they can ..

I know my place ... yeah ... right ...keep spreading the wisdom ....

 

I think some people are losing sight of the point of thread - it's about the brands, not the cars. Many manufacturers have brands in different categories that straddle the different tiers - mainstream producers with executive cars, prestige makers with small family hatches etc vut it doesn't mean that the brand slips into the tier where that car might traditionally sit.

 

The original list is partly based on whether or not a luxury saloon is in the portfolio, and on volume. IMO this shouldn't be that large a factor. As you point out, the brand should. What about other luxury and non-volme vehicles that are part of brands clearly not luxury, presige, or premium, e.g. Ford and the GT40?




Tier 1 – Elite:
Aston Martin, Bentley, Bugatti, Daimler, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maybach, Porsche and Rolls Royce.

Should be called luxury or prestige, and include Jaguar, Merc, Maserati and possibly Land Rover and Cadillac, on top of the ones included in the list.

Tier 2 – Prestige:
Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lexus, Lotus, Maserati and Mercedes-Benz (most of whom have a ‘Luxury’ saloon in their product portfolio).

Should be called Upper premium, exclude the ones put into the tp list, and include alfa, Jeep, SAAB and possibly Subaru and MG.

Tier 3 – Premium:
Alfa Romeo, Honda, Jeep, Lancia, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Renault, Saab, Subaru, Volkswagen and Volvo (most of whom do not have a ‘Luxury’ saloon in their product portfolio).

lower Premium, including everything on the list not shifted into upper premium except VW, pug, and renault which should go down a tier. Lancia, like rover, is a tricky one, but probably lower premium.

Tier 4 – Value:
Chrysler, Citroen, Fiat, Ford, Mazda, Nissan, SEAT, Skoda, Toyota and Vauxhall (most of whom are commonly referred to as ‘volume’ manufacturers).

Should be called mainstrasm, which in most people's eyes means reasonable value without loss of quality/safety hence pug, VW, and Renault being included in the list, and Skoda possibly going down one (it's considered extra value). Also maybe should include chevvy.

Tier 5 – Budget:
Chevrolet, Proton and, probably, the majority of the Chinese OEMs which will eventually export to America and Europe.

Value of budget brands, list is about right, but maybe swap Skoda for chevrolet.

 

Hello,

Driving a Rover 400 then a Skoda Felicia Glxi for a while and now back to a Rover 45 I would say Yea I like Skoda.

I now drive the Rover 45, witch is a great car and comfortable, however I just want a good car that looks well and has good comfort for the never ending traffic so I choose Rover or Skoda.

One note to mention the only car's I ahev ever driven without any major problems have been Rovers. Shocking I know to some people.

thanks

 

yeh i agree with rixs, and basing your arguement on the fact that chrysler is a luxury car maker because it produced the 300c is ridiculous,decades before it produced this car its main market was producing "value" autos for the american market,the 300c was its attempt at the european market in which in my opinion it crashed and burned ,i wonder if this brand tier will change when china takes over the u.s to be the worlds biggest auto market???

 

,Just to answer the original question of what is brand hierachy,as no one seems to get it,luckily you have a marketing student here!!Its obvioulsy not working when it comes down to cars. But at least you can relate to one of these

1. Coca-cola(Soft drinks)
2. Unilever(Soap toothpaste)
3. Diageo (Alcohol
4. Nestle(Cereals, Hot drinks)

I shall take Diageo for example: the makers of Green blue, black, red labels of whisky. They are also the makers of Bailey's Irish cream, Smirnoff Vodka ..... in East Africa they are also affiliated to the Brewereis (East African Breweries)

To define the hierarchy lets take the whisky example

1. You have scotch whisky as the mother brand
2. Then you have Green, Blue, Black, Red etc as your Brands with the Cash cow e.g Black being the premium brand. Perhaps a brand manager for each depending on the size of its market, budget, return on investment etc
3. Then you have the format i.e. the packaging 750ml bottles then 50 mls bottles etc
3. Brands like Vodka have the variants stage in their hierarchy u can look at variants (e.g smirnoff ice red or black... in case you have different flavours in the same price range.....
4 . Then look at the formats in 250 mls bottles, 50mls and sometimes sachets etc

I hope this can give you a rough idea of brand hierachies
anohter example is;

B) Nestle- Mother Brand

2 You have Coffee, Milk, etc as sub brands
3 Then Variants.... in case you have different flavours in same price category
4. Format is the packaging eg tins sachets and grammage

Get my drift.......

 

brand hierachy? B@!!@CKs more like!

I think classifying music into a genre is impossible since what one person refers to as heavy metal others would class as soft rock. i also believe that you cannot classify entire manufacturers in a brand hierachy as ppl have their own opinions and most manufacturers produce a wide range of cars for example nissan is rated so very low in the original post but i certainly wouldnt turn down a skyline GTR if it was offered to me.... i would however slap anyone who offered me a micra! and whoever came up with that post has left out most car manufacturers anyway (e.g. ascari, oh and ROVER) so all in all it's not really worth the read!

next time just put...
"if you have noticed this notice then you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing!"

 

But then there's the Epsylon...

Perhaps Rover, Skoda and Lancia (and possibly MG, Seat or even Volvo) are in a category all of their own: Value premium.

 

ypsilon is very premium bought as very posh second cars by many you can have it with amazingly luxury interior poshest supermini you can buy in europe

 

What is the brand hierarchy?

In my humble opinion, it's a largely meaningless, mostly abritary concept which was probably invented by marketing people in order to enhance their careers.

Ok, you might think it is obvious to put a Rolls Royce above a Skoda in some kind of hierarchy, but what does that mean? In most cases a Skoda will meet the owners requirements better than a RR would, so it's not real world performance. Is the RR of higher quality? Maybe, but how do you define that rather abstract concept?

I think the only meaningfull hierarchy is based on selling price, pure and simple.

If not, why not? :stir:

 

steve zr you must be joking right???!!

 

Nope. Entirely serious.

Sure, you can create some kind of hierarchy in the minds of the consumers, but what does it really mean? Only that VW can charge more for an Audi, and less for a Skoda.

 

yes but as marketing communications work,yes vw can charge more because the audi is seen as a far better model to the skoda,plus the skoda has a name tarnished with the old skoda jokes and a negative cloud around it.all cars whether we like it or not are consumed 9/10 as a socially consumed object with high involvenment purchasing,which means we are arsed about the look and spec etc and what are friends and peers will think about it,this is how the big motor companies can take advantage of this. we know a skoda and an audi are basically made out of the same bits yes,but an audi comes with a rallying pedigree and this is seen as strong and reliable, and a skoda comes with a pretty bad reputaion for being the oposite ,we pay for the badege mostly. but we also pay the price for our natural instinct to keep up with the joneses so to speak

 

It is really just a way the brand to move customers up the value chain. i.e. BMW moves consumers from a lower priced model to higher priced models throughout the life of the customer. same as vw would move you up from a golf to a lambourghini so to speak if thats the way your life went! but yeh just to keep you with the company so you give them all your money and not some other motor comapany!! why do you think these big companies are buying out other companies??

 

So you agree with me?

 

well i dont entirly get your arguement to be honest,i dont agree that it is some "largely meaningless, mostly abritary concept" because if it was then car companies wouldnt be doing as well as they are and there would be no difference in a ford fiesta and a bentley gtc,brand hierachy is defianlty there for a reason.??

 

There are lots of factors, but price and perception of price are quite important. People will pay more for a Ford than for a Rover but think they are paying less for the Ford than for the Rover they didn't bother to look at/into (including its price). that's because people expect a rover to be less good value. Yet the complaints over the CityRover were largely about quality, and Rover was assumed to lack it by people. So that points to not just price, but the perception of how high up a brand is in the hierarchy of brands! And if a model doesn't come up to scratch it can flop. Meanwhile there are people who paid £13,000 for a Fiesta who think they've got good value for money.

Equally, a brand like Porsche now seems to be almodst solely valued on how much you pay for it, even if the models don't justify the price. You get one when you win the lottery and people know you have a lot of money to burn. Exclusivity is a factor, even though The Cayenne is quite common for the price charged. See also the BMW 3er's compared to the Mondeo. The opposite applies when people deliberately want something that every third person seems to have, like a Ford.

 

I feel like everyone is forgetting about Buick

On 13 February Clive Goldthorpe wrote on the AROnline site a piece called Tiers for all: an OEM hierarchy? in which he says….



You can’t really argue with his Tier 1 and 2 brands but I really don’t see how Tier 3 – (Premium) can possibly include Honda, Mitsubishi, Peugeot and Renault which sell on price, whilst he relegates superior Ford and Vauxhall products to Tier 4 – (Value) alongside Citroen, Nissan, SEAT, Skoda, and Toyota who ought to be down in Tier 5 – (Budget). I mean you can’t really compare a Focus to a Primera, or the new, 3 Series bashing Mondeo to a Meganne can you!:wtf:

Or can you? I think his hierarchy is crazy but maybe I'm letting my prejudices influence me too much...

I feel like everyone is forgetting about Buick, which I would normally place in Tier 3, but I'm having a hard time agreeing with some of the vehicles there. For one, Volkswagen should not be compared with Volvo or Buick, especially Buick as of late. Volkswagen definitely produces upmarket vehicles, and in some cases even super luxurious ones like the Phaeton. But when you hear VW you don't think Phaeton, you think Passat, Jetta, and Golf. Most the time they look like cheaper Audi's, which I understand because VW own Audi, but GM platform shares Cadillac, Buick, GMC, and Chevrolet, and while the Encore and Trax look like rebadged vehicles, the LaCrosse, Impala, and CTS all look like entirely different cars, just like the XT6, Enclave, Acadia, and Traverse. But back to the list, Honda also doesn't earn a premium label. Yes the new Accords are upmarket, much like Volkswagen, but it's certainly not an Alfa, Buick, or Volvo.