Building a Bridge to The Future: Why Ford Can Go Further

Recently, Ford's CEO Mark Fields came under fire from its board of directors for its lackluster quarterly financial performance. As it strives to remain competitive in the face of the most significant change the automotive industry has seen in over 100 years, Ford has invested heavily in future technology. Ford's board was reacting to the challenge that all automotive companies are facing...how to fuel what will someday be your core business with profits from what will someday be your legacy business, while making everyone happy today.

How does a brand keep one foot in the past and one foot in the future and thrive today? Brands that focus on delivering consistent brand experiences that transcend categories and time can use those experiences to build a bridge to the future. For these brands, the classic '4P's' of marketing become subordinate to delivering one big 'E'. Over the years, Apple has been a master at this. 

Brand as big 'E'

In contrast, in the automotive business, all efforts are focused on delivering one big 'P'. Product development gets the lion's share of investment. All the other P's work in service of that product. This is why automotive marketing rarely strays from touting features and benefits. Product is star--the ultimate object of desire, while everything else, including the customer becomes a supporting prop for the product.

This is perhaps part of the reason that automotive marketing, despite a significant shift to digital media, remains stuck in the past. This is perhaps part of the reason that the category is losing relevance. And perhaps part of the reason that automakers are seeing their profits eroded by the need to prop up volume with ever increasing incentives.

And while that's the short term problem, nearly every automaker has acknowledged that their business will be shifting to a mobility services model over the next decade or two. Thus at some point, automotive brands will need to change the category conversation from 'P' to 'E' if they are to survive. 

Dictionary.com defines mobility as 'the movement of people in a population, as from place to place, from job to job, or from one social class or level to another'.

Thus, the  new automotive conversation will need to shift the focus from car as star to brand as life enhancing tool. The first brand to consistently and credibly do so has the opportunity to claim leadership and define the category on their terms.

And Ford just might have an edge to claim this leadership role.

First, it has established a Smart Mobility subsidiary to focus on delivering future experiences. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Ford has a history and heritage that allows it to credibly lay right to this claim. Henry Ford's vision was not about sheetmetal at all, but rather about affording the common person the opportunity for upward mobility. 

Ford's marketing has already dabbled in this territory. Ford's 2017 Superbowl introduced its Smart Mobility services by highlighting the consequence of the absence of mobility in a variety of non automotive life situations. And its tagline 'Go Further' has the potential to punctuate mobility as a life enhancing tool.

But in order for Ford to fully make the move in marketing they must build the bridge from the future to back to today. They must begin to highlight the almost forgotten power of personal mobility by focusing on the life enhancing experiences that all of their cars and trucks bring to customers right now. Ford has the right to become the champion for the millions of Americans who are feeling left behind. The Americans that Ford helps to go further, everyday. By making this shift, the customer becomes the star and the vehicle and other services become the tools to better life experiences...much like the Model T was oh so many years ago.
















 

The Autonomous Vehicle Adoption Curve: Why It's Likely to Look Unconventional

In a study conducted by Deloitte earlier this year, a vast majority of consumers felt that fully autonomous vehicles will not be safe.

Despite that statistic, vehicle manufacturers and technology companies are investing billions of dollars to develop fully autonomous capabilities. In fact, the first fully autonomous vehicles are due to hit the market before the end of this decade. But with such a high level of distrust, who will buy them? Perhaps the secret is to expand the reach of the category, rather than trying to convert those already in the category?

Unconventional Diffusion of Innovation?

Classic diffusion of innovation theory suggests that technology is adopted in stages, first by innovators, then early adopters, early majority and so on. 

This same theory suggests that innovators are risk takers, dreamers and adventurers. And early adopters are characterized as influencers who like to embrace change. But will that be the case for autonomous technology adoption? Or will the adoption curve look completely different?

Yesterday, I had a conversation with an automotive thought leader who suggested that the innovators would be commercial customers like Amazon and FedEx.  Hardly the classic risk taking dreamer or adventurer. Yet the argument made a lot of sense because for these companies, efficiency in time and money are key purchase motivators, and they carry things, not people.

If the innovators are commercial, what might the first consumers who make up the early adopters and early majority look like?

Can we change behavior?

Every licensed driver in the world has probably hit an imaginary brake pedal while riding as a passenger. The fact is, we don't just distrust autonomous, we distrust giving up control of the wheel, and of our consequent fate in potentially life threatening situations. 

Thus, finding the early adopters who are open to change may be more difficult when the new technology is not just a new smartphone, but rather a perceived safety threat to themselves and their families. 

Perhaps, rather than those who embrace change, might our early adopters actually be those who have nothing to change? Might they be those who have never driven a car before? Or those who have already abdicated control to others?

Sources of Early Adoption

If that is the case, then might early adopters be comprised of adults who have never driven before?  Perhaps in developing countries where vehicle ownership rates are low and automotive fatalities are high? It's not likely a coincidence that these are countries in which distrust of autonomous vehicles are lower. This won't be the first time that developing countries beat others to the punch. This is, in fact, quite similar to historical adoption of mobile technology, where countries with less access to landlines and home computers were the first to embrace mobile. 

Does that mean that countries like the US will fall into the late majority or laggard category? Not if US automakers look in unconventional places, with unconventional business models, to find autonomous customers. 

According to a recent study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, the rate of licensed drivers in the US is on the decline. This decline, while happening across the age spectrum is most pronounced at the younger end, and is significant. In 1983, almost half of all 16 year olds in the US had drivers licenses. By 2014, this rate had fallen to less than one quarter. During that same time, there was a 21% decrease in 19 year old licensed drivers, and some level of decline in every age category below 55. Much of the resistance, particularly at the younger end of the spectrum is due to the high perceived cost of vehicle ownership. 

So,  autonomous vehicles could provide US automakers with an opportunity to tap into the unconventional/incremental target of non-drivers. Of course, since early autonomous technology will not be cheap, US automakers will need to marry their nascent ride sharing initiatives with their autonomous vehicles from day one, if they are to penetrate this segment.

There are indeed other segments of non-drivers that could, for the first time, be accessible to automakers. Disabled and older former drivers would also fall into this category, again, expanding the total market for new vehicles. 

Brand Stretch?

Will appealing to these targets require automotive brands to stretch to the breaking point---beyond their current driving focused equities? If the focus of their marketing remains on features and dynamic benefits, then yes. If, instead, they  rediscover the higher order emotional benefits upon which their brands were first created, they might find remarkable synergies with their past. For instance, the freedom to explore new life experiences is what personal mobility brands have always offered. And at some time in the future, the laggards will even realize that this freedom to experience expands when they are no longer encumbered by the limitations of self driving.