@#$% @#$@#$#@% #%@ De Nysschen!!

[MinisterofDOOM]

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/24/cadi ... -official/



Go @#$% up someone else's brand you misguided marketing-minded a$$hat!

What really blows my mind about his "naming is everything and product is a secondary matter" is that he keeps coming into lineups mid-cycle and interrupting brand-equity momentum. ATS? Nope! Sorry, now that the press have been talking it up for 2 years, IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE NAME BECAUSE F%$@ING BATSH@T.

Exactly what he did with the G. It's asinine, stupid, pointless, and NOT THE RIGHT MOVE.

CT6 is officially the worst car name in automotive history.

DAMMIT. I @$%^ing hate this guy. He is my Nemesis. Why doesn't he go screw up Acura or something? Leave the brands with ACTUAL EXISTING REPUTATIONS alone for Hell's sake.

I'm starting to think that all his bitching about Nissan bureaucracy getting in the way of his plans is just hypernarcissism-fueled ignorance and that he's really just a complete f*** idiot who keeps ending up with CEO titles because nobody has caught on yet.

I hope he gets hit by a Catera.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

God damnit.

I like how not a single person posting in the comments section think its a good idea. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I'm surprised no one is bucking the trend and going the other way, assigning names to alphanumeric projects, like we used to do (as Americans) for damn near everything.

Nobody says "look at that sweet A10", they say "HOLY s*** THAT'S A SWEET f*** WARTHOG!"
or F117A... nope, its the stealth bombah!
Even things like the B17 got the nickname "flying fortress" which is just as well known (if not better) than the actual numeric title.

To be honest, I don't really like the current "STS, DTS, CTS" naming, but at least I know it....

[MinisterofDOOM]

To be honest, I don't really like the current "STS, DTS, CTS" naming, but at least I know it....

I don't, either, but: What makes those names simultaneously more tolerable AND more irritating is that they're derived from real names. STS: Seville. DTS: DeVille. CTS: Catera. STS/SLS were Seville trim names that became MODEL names and spawned a whole naming scheme. They still sound better than "CT6," which sounds more like a GM RPO code than a name.

Of course, SRX, ATS and XTS are all nonsense. And XLR, well that means one of these:

The best part is that De Nysschen says they won't mess with "Escalade" because IT HAS TOO MUCH BRAND EQUITY.
He proves himself wrong before he's even done explaining what he's doing!

[PapaSmurf2k3]

CT6 sounds like a phone or something.

[darylzero]

Wow this Johan de Nysschen guy has some major problems, but then again so do the people who hired this a$$.

I would love to see the people in the marketing dept at Cadillac, when they heard about this they probably all wanted to kill him. You can guarantee there are dart boards with his face on them.

[BusyBadger]

Nobody says "look at that sweet A10", they say "HOLY s*** THAT'S A SWEET f**king WARTHOG!"
or F117A... nope, its the stealth bombah!

Actually, having been in and having them fly overhead I've said and heard A10 quite a bit. Heard Warthog too, though just 'Hog was more common, but neither as much as A10. The irony in all of this is that Warthog is a nickname, it's name designation is actually Thunderbolt II.

The F117 is the stealth fighter, not b0mber. Thing is, I've usually heard F117 or stealth fighter, not its proper Nighthawk designation. Only time I've heard Nighthawk it was preceded by F117.

On the flip side think of the hue and cry we'd hear if Nissan wanted to bring the Fairlady name stateside. Most people say Z anyway and not 350Z or 370Z, unless they're taking to the unenlightened. Then there's referring to a car based in the chassis number (S13, Z33, EK, FD), sometimes trim level (GT3, STi, Z/28, Z51, Z06, ZR1) or even generation (C6 anyone?).

So what's in a name?

[MinisterofDOOM]

So what's in a name?

Well that's sort of the point. Instead of devoting all your resources toward making naming schemes that you somehow believe will help people identify your products (!?!?!?!?!), why don't you just MAKE A GOOD PRODUCT and let the identity build itself?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Plus, its another thing if the numerical deisgnation actually means something, like 370Z means 3.7l z.
M56 = 5.6 l, m37 = 3.7.
Now, what is it, a Q70? Who knows if it has a 3.7 or 5.6.

And most people outside the automotovie hardcore don't refer to anything with the chassis code.

[WDRacing]

And most people outside the automotovie hardcore don't refer to anything with the chassis code.

We're also the only ones that care about a name. Which is why, at a corporate level, no one gives a damn. The world is chock full of sheeple going through the motions of life until Darwin comes along.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I dunno man, people ask me all the time what the hell the new G is, or JX, and what "Q" it went to.
Nobody seems to get it.

Other companies don't seem to have any problem with their names at all. Lincoln being the exception.

[lne937s]

I have a feeling he got lucky with Audi and has just tried to cookie cutter everything ever since. But the Audi 5000 had negative equity with the public (fire) and didn't stand for anything to begin with. Switching to the A#/Q#/S# really didn't hurt anything and helped separate them from past failures-- and it was somewhat unique at the time. But when you already have brand equity and everybody has a similar letter/number naming convention that doesn't stand for anything, it isn't going to work very well.

[WDRacing]

I dunno man, people ask me all the time what the hell the new G is, or JX, and what "Q" it went to.
Nobody seems to get it.

Other companies don't seem to have any problem with their names at all. Lincoln being the exception.

I don't hang around those people I guess. Pretty much all of my friends are enthusiasts and 99% of those are Nico people.

Don't get me wrong, the new naming system is retahded to the 10th friggin power. I just think the masses are mostly in the same boat.

[RicerX]

You have pre-empted my next "Rants From the Ricer".

So I drew you a picture, MoD.

[BusyBadger]

I don't have a dog in this fight, my questions and postulates are completely unbiased. Onward...

Instead of devoting all your resources toward making naming schemes that you somehow believe will help people identify your products (!?!?!?!?!), why don't you just MAKE A GOOD PRODUCT and let the identity build itself?

How do you know exactly how many/much resources were devoted to the naming scheme? I don't think there's a lot of crossover between engineering/r&d and the brand identity/marketing team. None of these decisions were done on a whim, I've done enough design work for labeling to know what goes on with focus groups and bringing new items to market. It's possible is that the new naming scheme is a small step down a very long road of which everyone is unaware.

That being said, if you got a line that's got market traction you don't screw with it. Certainly not without considerable research and a cogent marketing plan.

Plus, its another thing if the numerical deisgnation actually means something, like 370Z means 3.7l z.
M56 = 5.6 l, m37 = 3.7.
Now, what is it, a Q70? Who knows if it has a 3.7 or 5.6.

And most people outside the automotovie hardcore don't refer to anything with the chassis code.

I'm all for this. If there's going to be a number designation it should reflect something about the car. I like the way Nissan did this (and Infiniti used to). My guess is that if Nissan eventually goes with a smaller force fed engine in the Z that the number will get dropped. It would seem like a downgrade to some going from a 370Z to a 250Z. I'm all for a coherent and consistent naming scheme. To tell the truth when I see CT6 my military aligned mind thinks of it as "Coupe, Touring, 6 (cylinder)." BMW names don't do a thing for me and I love that Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini all still use names for the most part.

WD already hit on the chassis code thing, I colour most (if not all) of my views on here with the idea that it's getting posted on an enthusiast site.

[MinisterofDOOM]

How do you know exactly how many/much resources were devoted to the naming scheme? I don't think there's a lot of crossover between engineering/r&d and the brand identity/marketing team.

Well, considering that de Nysschen has hardly been around Cadillac long enough to have any part in any actual product, but has manged to unveil a new naming scheme centered around a future car that's stil vaporware, I'd say it's a safe guess that his efforts have been on the marketing side and not the product side.

I possibility is that the new naming scheme is a small step down a very long road of which everyone is unaware.

Unlikely, considering that this move follows a single person wherever he goes. I highly doubt Cadillac sat around waiting for de Nysschen to join them before rolling out the red-carpet on a long-planned, highly-evaluated change. And Infiniti before them. Too much coincidence. Especially considering, as I noted before, that he dropped this bomb at both of these automakers mid-stride. Why not roll it out with the ATS? Or the ATS Coupe? Or the new CTS? Cadillac's entire lineup has been revised in the past 2 years; plenty of sensible opportunities for deploying a new brand-wide naming scheme attached to a new model if it had been in the works for a while. No, de Nysschen shows up at Cadillac and within weeks they've got a new naming arrangement for their models. That's not a small step down a long road, it's unfathomable nonsense driven by a man whose head is on backward.

The same exact thing happened at two automakers and the common link is Johan de Nysschen. This was not planned, it was dropped like a bomb.

And even if it WAS the result of careful planning--if anything, that's worse! It's clearly a terrible idea in both cases. If that's what careful, deliberate planning over a long period of time leads to, BOTH these automakers deserve to be out of business!