BMW Says “No”

Ken (WingNut) May 27th, 2006 Link

This is the same answer I give my mother-in-law all the time.

Reply

Vanwall May 27th, 2006 Link

Nailed it is right! I like the no compromise stance, and as long as sales support this, I imagine it will continue. BMW isn’t quite as independent as it would like one to believe, but not being part of a conglomerate makes it possible to pick and chose one’s partners – Carroll Shelby put it most eloquently and succinctly regarding the outcome of getting into bed with a Big Car Company, and he would know. I’m so glad MINI was delivered into BMW’s good hands after the Rover debacle – it coulda been much, much worse. There may never be another small car like it, and BMW must’ve said “no” a helluva lot in the design process. Thanks, guys!

                BCNU,
               Rob in Dago

Reply

Dave May 27th, 2006 Link

I’m so glad MINI was delivered into BMW’s good hands after the Rover debacle – it coulda been much, much worse. There may never be another small car like it, and BMW must’ve said “no” a helluva lot in the design process. Thanks, guys!

With the exception of possibly Porsche, I can’t think of another “parent” company I would have rather of seen in charge of bringing the new MINI to market in 2001.

BMW’s involvement was a huge factor in my decision to get on a list a year and a half before my local dealership officially opened. If Rover had still been the primary force behind the new MINI and bringing it to the U.S., I would have shyed away.

Dispite the rather deragatory nature of the “no BMW parts” stance that a few classic Mini owners took, IMO BMW has been a solid custodian of MINI.

Reply

Andrew May 27th, 2006 Link

This kind of marketing spin only serves to provoke a cynical response from me. Without really trying, I can think of one car that blows this whole campaign out of the water, the Mazda MX5. Sure it doesn’t compete in the same league as BMW, but it’s a class leading no compromise car with a 50/50 weight distribution built by a company partly owned by Ford. On the other hand, there have been a number of changes made to the MINI over the years which reek of factoring “designs down to the lowest common denominator” like the three spoke steering wheel which makes little sense in right hand drive versions of the car (cause the radio controls are on the same side as the radio) and removing the clock from the headliner and making giant cup holders for the US market. The list goes on.

Reply

Bilbo Baggins May 27th, 2006 Link

BMW can say no. No, we will not compromise our ideas. No, we will not do it the way everyone else does it. No, we will not factor designs down to the lowest common denominator.

I just hope that they can say no to altering the MINI from where it is now. It seems that most car manufacturers create a wonderfully sporty sedan and then over the years it seems to grow and grow and grow until it does not reseble what it started from.

Think of the original 3 series, that started off as the 2002, and look where it is now. It is as large as the 5 series from the ’70s. I just hope that BMW can resist this trend.

Reply

Siddhartha May 27th, 2006 Link

Damn! I wish Bayerische Motoren Werke would go public so I could buy a slice and tell them what to do!

Reply

Erik Rutberg May 27th, 2006 Link

“Damn! I wish Bayerische Motoren Werke would go public so I could buy a slice and tell them what to do!”

They are public, it’s just that the Quandt family holds 50-60% of the shares so they don’t have to listen to anyone.

Reply

Vanwall May 27th, 2006 Link

Dave -

I totally agree, and in the wrong hands, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. I truly wished Rover would some how snap out of the death spiral, get real smart, real quick, and make a grand turnaround, but I had seen this kind of thing before, sadly, with the Brit manufacurers, and held out no real hope for a resurrection in the USA. I have noticed the surprising turnaround at Jag and Aston, so there might have been other avenues, other suitors, perhaps as willing as BMW to let ‘em run with a long leash – at least as long as might be required to hang themselves – but then again, BMW has almost a corporate policy of taking the long chance.

As for the comparisons of brands, there is no comparison – there might be something that, on a foggy day, if you squint real hard, might resemble a notion of a BMW or a MINI, in idea or execution, but face it, most other manufacturers view these as an abberation in their line-up – they are too much of a driver’s car for passenger car makers. No other major car company, save Porsche, has a commitment to the driver on all the cars they make. I’m actually glad BMW has evolved, and in a benchmark fashion – comparisons to the past are always invidious and deceiving. Shall we go back to that most important car that really saved BMW from dissolution? Yes, let us now praise the nonpariel from those halcyon days of yore, there is none like it now and they’re all too big and fat today – no, not the 2002, but… TaDah! The Isetta. Get real.

                BCNU,
               Rob in Dago

Reply

Randall May 27th, 2006 Link

I just wish that BMW had said no to that freakin’ I-Drive.

Reply

Rollin May 27th, 2006 Link

Just glanced at the BMW web site and another ad copy gem there; “Your ability to speak will eventually catch up” with an image of the new Z4 — sweet. Seems to me the compromises on our MINI’s were to keep the cost down, and I’m thankful they did, but still made handling, etc. a priority.

Reply

J/C May 28th, 2006 Link

With the exception of possibly Porsche, I can’t think of another “parent” company I would have rather of seen in charge of bringing the new MINI to market in 2001.

Now THAT would’ve been interesting.

Reply

Nathaniel Salzman May 28th, 2006 Link

This kind of marketing spin only serves to provoke a cynical response from me. Without really trying, I can think of one car that blows this whole campaign out of the water, the Mazda MX5

I have to disagree with you here. Firstly, a single “uncompromising” car cannot invalidate the assertion of an entire car company that they’re going to keep on dancing to their own tune. They aren’t saying that they’ve refused to vanilla-ize one of their cars, but rather all of them. So saying that one car “blows this whole campaign out of the water” is faulty logic.

Secondly, if you’re going to make that assertion, you picked the wrong Mazda. If any Mazda says “we’ll do what we bloody well please, thank you very much,” it’s not the Miata, it’s the RX-7/RX-8. If the Miata were the “rebel” of the group, it’d still have flip-up headlights. Few things say unique like having the only production sports car with a rotary engine (and then squeezing 230+ hp out of its measly 1.3 liters), suicide doors, and 4 bucket seats.

And BTW, if I’m not mistaken, the 3-spoke wheel had to do with a change in the US airbag standards.

But I will agree that BMW’s attitude does not quite trickle down to MINI with the same level of purity, I think. Though BMW has been an exceptional steward of the new MINI, I think that some of the design choices in the R56 are steps in the direction of “lowest common-denominator.” Not in any huge way, but in small areas that take away from some of the subtle character of the car. But I’ve already made that rant.

My favorite bit of classic BMW advertising that I think is equally relevant today is an add from the ’90s that essentially read:

“To the other automotive designers out there, eyes on your own page”

Toyota has stolen blatantly from the looks of the BMW 7 series for its new Camry iteration in what I can only guess is some sort of attempt at performance/luxury credibility for the historically blandest thing on four wheels. GM’s Solstice and Sky roadsters are brazen “me too”s of the Z3/Z4. And though slightly more subtle, Volvo has been taking design cues from the propeller for the better part of a decade now (remember back when Vovlo’s were ugly?).

To toss in some professional criticism on this new ad campaign; though I agree with the organic and otherwise truthful nature of their message (in that they are pretty much telling the truth and not just blowing a bunch of smoke up our arses), the message needs to be more succinct. It takes them two paragraphs to get to the point and by then I’ve lost interest. BMW has been sponsoring All Things Considered on NPR for the last few weeks and their sponsorship script is a noticeably bulky message. It has more the ring of business-to-business or business-to-investor, macro-benefit-centric messaging than a true and palpable communication to consumers or potential customers. I believe them – that their independence helps them build better, more interesting, better looking, more driver-oriented ultimate driving machines. But it’s a letter when it should have been a postcard (a little Whipple for you hard-core addy’s out there). Boil it down further to that essential message.

Reply

dickdavid May 28th, 2006 Link

That’s not a campaign, it’s an awesome Mission Statement.

Kudos to BMW.

Reply

DELI May 28th, 2006 Link

“NO”…I believe that’s what they said to Mark over at North American Motoring when it was MCO (MINI Cooper Online), isn’t it???

Reply

Philip May 28th, 2006 Link

Ah. One day not checking MotoringFile and what I sent Gabe this morning as news is no news anymore. He already posted a story around the “no” campaign yesterday.

Well, at least I can’t see a link to the great website the put up there as well: http://www.bmwtransact.com/whywesayno/

Enjoy!

Reply

lTZMTOR May 28th, 2006 Link

NS………………..

I agree with most all you said, especially the length of the BMW “NO” ad, did they forget their ad class dictums, SSSSSSSSSSnore, but then I digress………………

It seems to me that most small open architecture cars, Miata or whatever they call it now, Sky/Solstice, S2000 Roadster, have a general look that goes with their size and configuration. To say that they are stealing from the Z4 is a tad off mark, for me. The Miata style was very innovative when it came out back in 1989-90 way before the Z 3-4. The style has slowly morphed into what it is now and I don’t really see where they stole anything.

There is little innovative style in cars now and most of what is suppossedly inovative just is bad….Tribeca comes to mind, Aztek, Xb and a few others.

As little as I like the new BMW’s, I do like the 3, at least they have a creative look. One could say that their new styling was a ripoff of the 2003 Cadillac CTS. It was a full year before the 2004 5 series and way before the 3 series and had that Flame architecture BMW says is theirs. So did BMW steal? I think not.

That was one of the things I liked so much about the new MINI, ya can’t say it looks like any other car.

Car design has gone through square, then Blob, then who knows what for a few years and now it’s squarish blob/flame?

As far as the “NO” ad, I like the sentiment but who is really going to read that much copy? Not many. Geez had I, when I worked in an agency, gone to my DD with that ad, Holly Cwap there would have been hell to pay!

But what do I know you guys are the experts…….. :¬)

Reply

Timothy May 28th, 2006 Link

The one word “shocker” page (BMW: “No”) has a long tradition in automotive advertising. VW’s “Lemon” ad comes to mind.

Reply

gokartride May 28th, 2006 Link

I doubt if BMW knows it, but they have stumbled across one of the prime, basic, classic paradoxes of sprituality. Saying “no” to certain things isn’t a “no” really, but a “yes” to something else, something of greater, long-lasting value. That this principal of human existence has a corollary in the realm of automotive aesthetics is brilliant!!!

Reply

beken May 28th, 2006 Link

After reading the ad, I was going to say “brilliant!”. One of the reasons I bought my MCS was because of BMW ownership. Then while thinking about the ad on my way home from work, I got cut off by some inconsiderate driver in a BMW X5.

Reply

Mark Hendrie May 30th, 2006 Link

I have a load of respect for BMW right now their cars are in many ways different – I am not sure if any other motor company would have produced the Z4 a-la-Bangle. Despite this BMW seem to be in the UK motoring lovers bad books – with people like Jeremy Clarkson blasting their motors as boring! Surely JC must be wrong because they produce the Mini and what a fine automobile it is!!!!!

Reply

Joris Geutjes May 30th, 2006 Link

What about this BMW ad? http://www.motorpasion.com/archivos/2006/05/30-el-conejo-de-bmw.php

Do we need to say more?

Reply

agranger May 30th, 2006 Link

The only reason Gabe likes it is because it touts the 50/50 weight distribution. :)

Reply

eVal May 30th, 2006 Link

It’s kinda funny when you consider how often they say no to warranty repairs, or no that horrid sound is perfectly normal ;)

Reply

Philip May 31st, 2006 Link

Hehe, I’m on the “Why we say no” / “see no” page of their website. See if you can find me: http://www.bmwtransact.com/whywesayno/

Reply

GSP May 31st, 2006 Link

Not to be too literal here, but to suggest that they don’t compromise is just B.S.. And let’s not forget that their ad agency wrote this “manifesto” with just one goal: to sell cars. The world is full of people who love to think that they don’t compromise – this ad is written to appeal to just those people.

Reply

Dave Aug 7th, 2006 Link

BMW has apprently given up being “the ultimate driving machine” and is now going to be “a company of ideas”

Screwy.

Reply

whiteroofradio.com - The MINI Cooper Podcast » Woofcast #66 Aug 15th, 2007 Link

[...] BMW Says No [...]

MotoringFile » Archive » White Roof Radio #247 May 25th, 2008 Link

[...] BMW Says No [...]

sanjeev Jul 9th, 2008 Link

thanks the help….

Reply