Lexus: Why the F?
A very interesting discussion is ongoing at The Truth About Cars, and what started out as an editorial criticizing the new IS-F’s marketing campaign has blossomed into a much deeper debate: Why does Lexus have a performance division at all?
To be fair, the question does open up considerably, casting the same doubts onto Mercedes/AMG, BMW/M Division and Audi/S. The argument is, what do these luxury brands gain by putting such substantial time and money into speed-demon halo cars? Shouldn’t each automaker focus on what they do best?
Were it strictly an attack on Lexus and their new F-line, the answer would be quick and obvious — to compete with their competitors by using their considerable reputation for reliability and dealership experience to draw in customers that want the speed but not the associated maintenance cost and poor service. Even considered solely on these points, the Lexus stands to make an impact in this rarified segment, all while staying true to their overall brand message: The Pursuit of Perfection.
However, when looking at the bigger argument as to why these performance divisions exist at all, that’s a tougher nut to crack. Beyond the significant tuning involved, the main thrust of the F/M/AMG/S divisions is horsepower, the vehicles released contain monster engines capable of stupidly excessive speed. If this was the main point of contention, it would be understandable, how many drivers need 400+bhp for their daily commute? Yet, this seems widely ignored, instead focusing on the idea of brand dilution, and more pointedly, do these halo cars actually serve their purpose of drawing in the general car-buying public to their respective companies?
To this question I have no concrete answers, and only my opinion: Consider the word luxury: the state of great comfort and extravagant living; an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain. Now, consider the luxury car, at least in terms of Lexus, BMW, Mercedes and Audi — they may be rarer than Chevys and Hondas, but the roads are crowded with these brands. What better way to elevate their status, short of increasing prices, than to release highly tuned versions? In my mind, this is the real reasoning behind the tuning arms, to restore some of the uniqueness that’s worn off due to higher sales. Whether this leads to people buying the non-tuned versions is hard to say, but it’s a suitable justification nonetheless.
Related Posts
Comments
Leave a Reply
To enable your avatar, please sign up with the Gravatar service.
Please keep your comments relevant to this news story. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
Debate is welcome and encouraged, but no personal attacks will be allowed. Failure to respect all participants on this website could result in removal and blocked access.
Very interesting discussion, which is more than I expect from TTAC. To put it mildly, I’ve disagreed with their opinion on many issues, from hybrids to their reviews of Lexus vehicles. I disagree with much of their article, but the interview is an improvement of sorts.
I will acknowledge that there is a sense of schizophrenia in the ‘everything you thought we weren’t’ line, but its use is likely to be limited and that should mitigate its effects. Furthermore, TTAC takes it too far again by assuming that the F-brand will be an anti-Lexus ‘unreliable’ and ‘junky’ etc. Not at all. I expect the F-brand to be much more sporty than the average Lexus, but still retain the high sense of quality and refinement that Lexus is known for—for instance the ML stereo on the IS-F, its high quality stitching, and advanced blue instrumentation.
Furthermore, I would laugh at TTAC’s attempt to tie-in the blue flames to ‘cigarette smoke’ which is ridiculous. The flames are like James Bond, race track fire, etc. Exciting and sophisticated.
Now as for the discussion with Mr. Ries, he is a very interesting character and recently has put his theory on Acura online along with other ‘Ries Reports’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxQX8pmn8gE
Very interesting, there he describes how Lexus did lots of things Acura didn’t, and should have.
Ries loves to harp on brand identity, and TTAC interviewer tries to lead him on. He makes good examples with the Corvette, Sky being not necessarily helpful to their brands. However those are general market brands. Lexus is a luxury brand, and case-in-point: Mercedes-AMG and BMW M division. Both are definite halo vehicles, likely quite profitable, and very much a part of brand identity.
Lexus’ expansion into the F-division is a good step IMO. It adds to the brand image, not detracts from it. Ries should like the fact that it (along with Lexus in general) continues to elevate its price point to be more on par with the German brands. Furthermore the F-division is not a overreach/dilution element like the Porsche Cayenne or VW Phaeton, IMO. High-performance variants of one’s performance models are expected at this level. Even the Audi R8 can help Audi globally, although Ries is correct in that it will not work that much stateside.
Ries is also correct in noting that the ‘main product’ is key, should be updated and kept on target all the time. Focus on the main product, and not keep all the ‘special tech’ on the halo cars. He probably does not know how a special skunk works team is doing the IS-F. Resources expended there are not detracting from the main product DV, IMO.
The last point I have is about marketing. Lexus has in the past sometimes been a bit too receptive to some criticism, too willing to believe what journalists and reviewers claim. It can be good, especially seen as being responsive to customer demand (and accurate, consensus-based opinions). However it can also lead to unnecessary changes.
Some examples of good changes could include the addition of the VSC/VDIM off switch in the 2007 IS, after many complaints of electronic ‘nannies.’ However, more controversial include the switch of “Relentless” pursuit to “Passionate” pursuit; also the more sporty and tighter handling of the ES 350 at the slight expense of a smoother, complaint but pillow ride that the past ES 330 had; and then the ‘anti-Lexus’ ads.
The biggest myth that Lexus marketing sometimes believes in is the ‘Lexus is not sporty’ stereotype; the F-division marketing is affected by that. From my perspective, Lexus’ F-division should expand on Lexus’ sporting heritage, including excellent performance examplars like the first generation SC, and the second generation GS. It is not about denying one’s heritage, but expanding on it. The F-division highlights the latent and sometimes less obvious strengths that were there in Lexus’ brand identity.
First of all, great video you recommended. While I didn’t mention it in my post, I really enjoyed the audio interview with Al Ries as well, and appreciated his ability to open the question up, not focusing singularly on Lexus but addressing the very same issue across all automakers.
You also make a very good point regarding the whole idea of brand dilution, the release of the IS-F can not be compared to the Cayenne or the Phaeton, and can’t really be pointed to as a case of a brand overstepping its boundaries. Sports cars have existed at Lexus since 1992, when they released the first generation SC, and this is simply an extension of that. Certainly not comparable to a Porsche SUV or a $100,000 Volkswagen.
Lexus’ willingness to bend to their customers is one of their greatest strengths, but is not without its consequences, as you say. Still, I can hardly criticize the switch from ‘Relentless’ to ‘Passionate’, as it provided me with my domain name.