Tim,

Excellent subject and discussion starter.

Although U.S. auto makers are three decades late in creating cars based on consumers wants and needs combined with visionary thinking, Chrysler is now doing the right thing for its business. Is it too late? We'll know as we watch them respond (or not) to what they hear.

If they make changes based on consumer feedback and those changes begin paying off by grabbing market share, maybe Chrysler will survive. At the end of the day, U.S. auto makers will only survive if they can eliminate unprofitable cars and add ons and produce profitable cars that consumers want and need.

The challenge they face is that Honda and Toyota have been practicing consumer-driven production and marketing for 30+ years. Can U.S. auto makers win back those consumers they have lost over those years.

Thanks for your comments, Lewis. Agreed that consumer input is crucial--and that U.S. car makers are behind the proverbial 8-ball on this. I guess my only question is: does Chrysler need as many as 2000 consumers on its CAB, or would they achieve as much, or more, with fewer advisors? Will 2000 consumers clarify or muddy the waters?

Thanks for your insights, Lewis. They're always appreciated.

Ted, what % of the 2000 are Chrysler owners? I understand you'd need a mix of current and potential customers, but I think I'd lean moreso on my current customers.

How are these people vetted to keep snarky competitors out of the mix?I'd want to be VERY sure the feedback I was receiving was from people who are owners or considering buying my car. Competitor zealots need not apply.

Good point, Paul. You hit the nail on the head. The article indicated Chrysler was seeking current customers first and then seeking out potential customers. The vetting process was not disclosed although I'm sure there will be one. And if they're smart, a stringent one. While I think current customers' opinions should carry considerable weight, I do think potential customers' ideas are also important since they have experience with other brands, many of them representing foreign competitors that are doing considerable volume. You're right, though, moles are the last thing Chrysler needs!

Thanks, Paul, for adding an important dimension to this post.

Ted,
I don't know that this will work, but I do think it's never too late to try something to improve yourself.

• Can Chrysler and the other major automakers make a strong comeback if they solicit ongoing feedback and input from US consumers?

I wonder what kind of feedback the average joe off the street could offer. Is a mid-level Toyota that much different from a mid-level Chrysler? Or is it just name recognition, popularity, status, and resale value (which comes from those others)?

• Will this make a difference at this point or is international competition too strong?

I'm concerned that if you gave people a blind test drive, they'd not choose the one they would if they could see the placard. I think auto makers are much more similar than consumers believe.

• Do you think Chrysler needs as many as 2000 virtual board members? Will it be helpful to have the input of so many consumers or will it result in confusion and cacophony?

2,000 at once is over the top. But 2,000 isn't necessarily too high a number. How about 10 at a time in 4 sessions per city in 40 cities (10 large, 10 medium, 10 small, and 10 very small)? I wouldn't do it virtually and I would include a test drive in the session. Answer questions about perception of the vehicle and brand and write down wants and needs. Test drive vehicle and answer questions about the test drive followed by wants and needs as well as things they didn't expect that they liked.

I'm not in the auto industry and don't know a lot about focus groups or cars, but that's where I'd start.

Michael,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses to the questions I posed in my post. I think your perceptions are very good ones. Especially this one: "I'm concerned that if you gave people a blind test drive, they'd not choose the one they would if they could see the placard. I think auto makers are much more similar than consumers believe." We keep hearing and reading that U.S. automakers have substantially increased the quality of their vehicles. If that is true, and we have no reason to believe it isn't, then effective marketing has sold Americans on foreign cars to a great extent... along with new bells and whistles, of course.

You've also given a thoughtful, convincing answer to the question of using 2000 consumer advisors. Let's hope the input is really heard, as Lewis pointed out, so that Chrysler becomes more responsive to the consumer. That's where the rubber is going to hit the road (pun intended).

Thanks again, Michael. I appreciate your input.

Michael's point about consumer preferences being different in a blind test drive vs. a branded one would be easy to test. (I'd be surprised, in fact, that it hasn't already been tested.)

That would give a baseline on whether Chrysler has a car problem or a reputation problem and would direct them to the best way to fix whatever it is that needs fixing.

����� ��� ��� ������ ��������� �������� ������ ����� �������� ��� ���? �� ��� ������ ������ ;) �� ������ �� ����� ����, � ��� �������� � �������������, ��� ������� ������?
P.S ������ ������ � ��� ����� [url=http://www.ruzip.com/]�������� ������� ���������� ���������[/url], ������ �� ������ - �� ����.

You've brought out an important issue; one that I missed, Martin, and I thank you. You're quite right: Chrysler needs to pinpoint exactly where the brand is losing with consumers before the car maker can fix any problems it has, real and perceived. Many times, consumers can also have great insights on desirable design aspects for products. Smart companies invite consumers into the process of product innovation. Then, they are able to implement features into products that consumers really want. Thanks, Martin, for adding something important to this discussion.

what Chrysler needs to do is figure out how to make a stronger product.
marketing is not a magic trick to make a bad product sell in a marketplace where cars are just better all around...better value for money; better investments; better symbols of the owner's individual style.
the US car makers need to have a stronger understanding of that concept, and if the product development department needs help from the average customer--who never studied engineering, has no experience in manufacturing, and only knows how many cupholders they need... then what Chrysler needs is a new product development process.

Thanks, dtaye, for weighing in on this. Actually, by enlisting the help of a consumer advisory board, Chrysler is trying to "figure out how to make a stronger product". Successful companies like P&G enlist consumers and even watch them using products to get a better idea of how to improve them. Dell has enlisted consumers to input their ideas on a special web site so they, too, can innovate and improve their products. The idea is not a new one. . .it's just that some of the largest companies, including U.S. auto makers are finally getting on board with this concept.

You're right in saying that the average customer has no idea about engineering or manufacturing concepts. However, as the buyers of consumer products, they do know what they would like to see in finished goods. Consumers also like to be asked for their input and respond favorably to that. And that, in my opinion, will lead to the "new product development process" you rightfully point out that Chrysler needs.

Thanks,dtaye, for adding some strong points to this discussion. I appreciate it.

I think it is never too late to try something new. However, Chrysler's image in the marketplace is that they don't make a good engine and that inturn contributes to soft resale. What all US automakers need to tackle first before they worry about marketing is the high cost of salaries and benefits they face. International automakers do not have this problem. Until US automakers can put more money into R&D they will not be able to compete with Honda & Toyota. It is an unfortunate reality. As to the comment about blind test drives, Ford is currently running a TV commercial that features just that. I truly and honestly hope that some good comes out the CAB. There are a lot of people who count on the US automanufacturing industry.

Lee Ann,

You raise some great points in your comments, and I thank you. You're right: quality should be the first concern of U.S. automakers. However, Ford is now on par with Toyota according to industry sources, and I do believe U.S. automakers have been huge improvements in that regard.

Very astute of you to point out that U.S. automakers are faced with huge salary/benefit issues. Pensions have also been huge cash drains on these companies, forcing them to make deep cuts in every aspect of their businesses. They have no choice but to get "lean and mean" if they're going to survive.

Lastly, you're absolutely right on the money: many people count on the US auto industry to make a living. I hope that the latest steps taken by Ford, Chrysler and GM help to slow down the bleeding while they all implement new initiatives to turn themselves around.

Thanks for adding greatly to this conversation, Lee Ann. Great stuff.