mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Chevrolet Colorado And GMC Canyon Target Younger Buyers And Crossover Owners, Marketing Team Says

General Motors hosted its Detroit-area regional truck drive for select members of the media earlier this week. The event, appropriately held at the Open Hunt Club in Bloomfield Hills, MI., gave journalists the opportunity to drive several of its all-new truck and SUV offerings for the 2015 model year, including the all-new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and 2015 GMC Canyon.

We’ve already driven and reviewed the two highlights of the event, the Colorado and Canyon, but GM’s regional truck drive also gave us the opportunity to mingle with some of the key people in charge of its mid-size truck onslaught. The automaker hopes to appeal to many different types of customer with the Colorado and Canyon, including younger buyers and current SUV/crossover owners, so the marketing approach taken with the two trucks will be crucial to its success.

GM believes former mid-size truck owners fled the segment and went to crossovers as the offerings became more lackluster, such as the relatively barren Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma. Now, both Chevy and GMC are hoping the comparatively high quality interior and array of technologies offered in the Colorado and Canyon will make crossover owners reconsider a pickup.

Director of Chevrolet Marketing, Sandor Piszar, recognizes that appealing to crossover buyers and younger demographics will require a different marketing strategy than that taken with full-size pickups. He said a large amount of crossover buyers are “younger and digitally savvy,” so touting standard technologies like OnStar’s 4G LTE Wi Fi hotspot and the rear-vision camera will be a large part of the Colorado’s marketing campaign.

Piszar also told us to have a close look at the Colorado’s mini-site, which he says is the most immersive of any of Chevy’s products. This was a main focus for the Colorado marketing team, as younger buyers ware more likely to go to the internet to research a vehicle rather than the dealership. When compared to the Silverado’s webpage, the Colorado’s is more user-friendly, filled with large interactive buttons and information on its Wi-Fi capabilities, 8-inch color touch screen and other new tech.

Another large focus of the Colorado/Canyon marketing teams was appealing to existing mid-size truck owners. According to GM, around 250,000 new midsize trucks are sold each year, yet there are 12 million midsize trucks currently on the road. As a result, there is an untold amount of midsize owners looking for a replacement, but are uninterested in the aging Tacoma or Frontier. This is where GM will step in with its larger mid-size offerings chalk full of technologies previously not offered in the segment.

“This is one of the most dissatisfied segments,” Piszar said.

What’s true for Chevrolet is also true for GMC. They hope the Canyon’s even more upscale interior will attract buyers who may be coming off a well-equipped SUV. The Canyon’s more grown-up looks and soft-touch interior may make it the truck of choice for families, while the Colorado could appeal to the aforementioned younger demographic.

There are many who doubt GM’s ‘three-truck’ strategy, which consists of the mid-size trucks, its full-size Sierra and Silverado and the HD Sierra and Silverado. Among them are Ford and Ram, who abandoned the segment after concluding that the demand was minimal. GM argues that demand is only minimal because consumers have been left with barely any choices in the segment and now its trucks are entering an almost entirely untapped market. It’s a big gamble, but if GM and its marketing team turn out to be right, the payoff could be huge.

Sam loves to write and has a passion for auto racing, karting and performance driving of all types.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Well then talk about a fail. You’re not going to get young buyers in with the sky-high prices, you’re not going to get crossover buyers with the piss-poor fuel economy. You’re not going to get half ton converts with the pathetic excuse for a bed.

    Nobody is going to appreciate the half assed rear seat storage room, or lack of sliding rear window.

    All the shoddy GM engineers had to do was spend about 5 minutes thinking and they could have gotten each of these points correct.

    1.) 4′ between the wheel wells.
    2.) Dump the shit gear on system and use a rail system like Toyota, Nissan, and Ram use.
    3.) Wouldn’t hurt to offer a trunk or dual action tailgate like Honda has on the Ridgeline – they clearly state that they want lifestyle and crossover buyers.
    4.) EVERY other truck has a sliding rear window. Pathetic.
    5.) The rear seat storage is far and away the worst I have ever seen. Have an F150esque fold up seat with flat load floor, otherwise copy Ram with the fold out flat load floor. Under no circumstances should they have put the abortion in that they did.
    5.) Console shifter is a waste of space in a small truck.
    6.) No AWD in the colorado? Really? And you want crossover buyers? Idiots.
    7.) The LFX? Seriously? The fuel pig, oil consuming, timing chain stretching engine was your choice here?
    8.) We could go on, but none of the above issues should ever have happened. Either GM employs terrible engineers, terrible managers, or both. These trucks will sell well right up until the new Frontier and Tacoma come out, then they will begin to fail.

    Reply
    1. Bit confused about the 4′ between wheelwells. This is supposed to be a midsized truck. If it took a full sheet it would become the same size as a full sized. Also the Tacoma and Frontier also do not take a piece of plywood so per your comments they will also not sell?

      Search “tacoma plywood bed” and you can see ways to get around your issue.

      Reply
      1. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who would define a “full size” truck as being capable of carrying a “full sized” piece of plywood between the wheel wells. The reality is that any minivan can do this, the (now discontinued) Honda Ridgeline can do this, and this truck is already large enough to do this. It is missing 3″ between the wheel wells, some clever engineering could have made those 3″ show up.

        The tacoma has a plastic bed with the bed sides and wheel wells setup to carry plywood. While not as good as being able to lay it flat, this is a million times better than the gear on solution which is to put crossbars 2/3 of the way up the bed to lay 4×8 sheets on.

        There are three possible sources of customers for this truck, crossover buyers, full size truck buyers, and current mid size truck buyers. Poor choices like ignoring 4′ between the wheel wells kill off most of the full sized truck buyers. Other issues noted above are going to kill off crossover buyers, and so GM is left with the current mid sized market, which is not large, but which they will dominate until the updated Frontier and Tacoma come out, at which point GM gets to fight for a piece of a small pie.

        Reply
        1. “Full size plywood”

          LOL! 8×4 is an industry standard, not an abnormally large size that should be seen as “full size”. Anything larger (10X4, 12X4, 14X4) are non-standard and thus unusually rare; their transport accommodated by specialized means.

          In fact, I would prefer that automakers stop offering full-size pickup with 6′ beds. They’re worthless for professional tradesmen, and an hallmark of the under-the-table, non-certified non-tradesman. Chiefly because they bought their 6′ box pickup not with the intent to work with it, but as a means of supplementing a recreation routine of their dirt bikes and ATV’s; their eyes and attention isn’t focused on the 7-5 M-F work, but on weekend leisure.

          Reply
    2. As far as the midgate. Great idea but it is not catching on. Honda is dropping it on the next Ridgeline and GM already did on the full size.

      Reply
    3. We have a troll here. Go buy yourself a Ford and get out of here.

      Reply
      1. Nothing wrong with criticism, without a little bit of that, GM would still be using carburetors on their cars.

        We can’t all drink the Coolaid and sing the party song, otherwise who knows what they’d be building these days.

        Saw many Colorado / Canyons coming from the Wentzville plant on a recent cross country trip. If one had fallen from the car hauler; I would have taken it.

        Reply
      2. I’m guessing you must work for GM if you think that criticism of a newly released vehicle is “trolling”. GM half assed this truck plain and simple. They came out with a decent offering that is better than the decade old competition in the market and that’s it. They had the potential to blow the entire market away with a truly fantastic product. They did not.

        Reply
    4. Well here is a case where one right makes a wrong.

      The segment for a smaller truck is always a compromise. As it is this truck will be a vast improvement over what is out there and will be the most advanced the class has seen. As with any truck we will see them evolved it over time.

      1. Case in point this is a smaller truck so you have limits on width.
      2. Lets just see how this GM system sells before we condemn it.
      3. The has been little cry out for a tail gate change as most buyers want what is offered only with a lock these days. It also now includes the easy down. If anything might offer a power tailgate.
      4. I know many offer the sliding glass but how often do you really need or even use it? Unless it is power you can not even reach it from the driver seat in crew and extended cabs. It is one option I have had and seldom made use of.
      5. Rear storage is always a compromise in a small truck. I would like o see a rear seat delete in the extended cab as I will never haul anyone back there.
      6. AWD is nice but it will put a truck like this in crew cab over $40K, Then how much MPG will you lose in a truck that will be focused to get more MPG.
      7. LFX Hmm I have two of these and they both get decent miles and nary a chain issue. The engine will do fin and will be needed for future emission etc.
      8. In any new vehicle there are things we all would like to see different but we also do not work under the same constraints that a engineer is under. They have to balance cost, demand and regulations all into one package. But internet trolls like to comment but not really understand the full scope of what has to be dealt with. For example they even asked a group if the smell of leather was important in the Camaro.

      Why because the sent has to be added to leather and it cost money.

      This truck will not be a fail and will do well. It has a greater mission in the future as this is the segment that will be targeted to replace the half ton as a norm.

      This segment will expand and grow with new features and more drive to get people in vehicles with less mass. In time all MFG will be here and all will offer this truck in Aluminum and their weight saving measures.

      I could also give a list of things I would like changed but I also understand the reasons many of them will never happen. This is a deal bigger then just petty complains. The fact is most truck buyers are looking for just what this truck is offering. It hits right in the middle of the mass market. It will do well.

      Reply
      1. As noted in an above reply. There are three potential buyers for this truck, current crossover buyers, current full sized buyers, and current mid sized buyers. GMs poor decisions make it unlikely that these will win many full size or crossover buyers, so they are stuck with the current small mid sized truck market to fight over.

        1.) There are two types of mid sized truck buyers. One wants a very small micro truck. This truck is HUGE to those people, they will never ever consider it. The other type wants a smaller half ton that can do most half ton work but is easier to drive daily, park, and gets better fuel economy. This truck is already too large for the micro truck guys, and needs an extra 3″ to get 4′ sheets flat. Easy to engineer in from the beginning. Instead they choose not to – boom you just lost a pile of potential full size truck converts.

        2.) I’ve already played with the system. Its not useless, but its just another unnecessary proprietary piece of crap GM Made to try to up the transaction price. A track system with adjustable cleats is much more useful.

        3.) No, there has not been a cry. That doesn’t mean that Honda did not have a good idea, and that GM couldn’t have adopted a good idea when they saw it. GM wants crossover buyers, that’s the point of this article. Features like an in bed trunk and dual action tailgate appeal to these people. It makes storage much easier. It makes getting things in and out much easier.

        4.) I use my sliding windows all the time in my trucks. Most guys I know do too. This is neither a new nor special feature, they’ve been around for years. Its an unforgivable screwup that they are not available at launch, and may not be automatic at all. Again its just more poor planning / engineering on GMs part. Its fine if you don’t want one, then just don’t order one. For those that do GM just lost a few more sales.

        5.) Rear storage is only a compromise if you have someone incompetent designing it. Ford already showed GM the best way to handle this in the F150. Ram showed them the second best way to handle this. Instead they did their own thing and just wasted piles of interior space. Building a small truck and then killing off its usable space through incompetent decision making is not an effective way to attract a “lifestyle” buyer who wants something with a lot of utility.

        6.) Exactly the point. No AWD is a deal breaker for many in the northeast who are buying crossovers. Just lost those purchasers. The already hefty pricetag is a deal breaker for the younger crowd. Just lost those buyers. Now you see why GM did such a terrible job with these trucks? Despite what they say their idiotic decisions will preclude them from tapping into the markets they claim to want.

        7.) I’m glad yours have worked well, go talk to the ENORMOUS number of people who have had loads of issues with it. GM *JUST* got on their high horse promoting the LV3 as the “truck” V6 and how it was designed for “truck duty” and they weren’t going to use a “car engine” like the competitors. They then turned around and did EXACTLY THAT. The LV3 would result in better performance and better fuel economy from these new trucks. It nearly definitely costs less as well. With the resources they already put into developing the LV3 (which really makes little sense from a manufacturing efficiency standpoint) the only reason to not have it in these trucks is incompetence.

        8.) There are always compromises when a new vehicle is made. These trucks were designed from the ground up and the people making the decisions have obviously not used trucks, not driven trucks, and are completely out of touch with their target market. These trucks look good and are updated to 2012 technology. You know how badly GM failed with these when every one of their sad boasts has been comparing the new twins to the decade old frontier and tacoma. You don’t see comparisons made to half tons at all since the half tons smack them all over the place. These trucks stand zero chance of taking any serious level of half ton sales. They will do a lot of damage to the current mid sized market until the new Frontier and Tacoma come out, at which point they will begin to fade rapidly (unless GM fixes the problems listed above, as well as the ones I didn’t list). You might think the issues listed are just “petty complaints” but when poor decisions result in a sufficient number of “petty complaints”, the result is a dud.

        Reply
        1. Yawn!!!!!!!

          In the end sales will prove who is right here and I am not worried.

          You do not count that this is only the intro model with many more things to come too.

          Reply
    5. 1) Not that big of a deal, many many ways to put 4×8’s in there comfortably.
      2) Have you tried it? Didn’t think so, it is another way to adapt. The other two have limitations outside of the box where this can adapt to carry larger bulky items such as canoes, bikes and ladders…
      3) Rolls eyes, a tailgate like that can’t handle truck stuff such as driving stuff up into like lawn mowers and motorcycles. A trunk will not be able to handle weight in the bed properly and then you have to go to a space saver spare tire which wouldn’t work for a truck that can go off road
      4) It is coming, just delayed; try reading…
      5) Flat floor who cares, I have never once wanted or needed that on a truck. I would prefer when I put stuff on the floor it has a middle hump to keep it from sliding. Glad they don’t have that. For the under seat storage the pics look great, I exactly want something like that. Unlike some who want to take up bed space with a tool box I keep my trailer hitch, tie downs, tow strap and many other items in my cab under the seat, I have been itching for a storage compartment to have and now there is one. Great job GM making that standard. For those that want a flat area the back seat folds down and takes care of that. Maybe you want it for your dog? I dunno, but it has a flat area for you. Again, go do some research…
      6) (corrected the number because apparently your number counting is kindergarten poor yet you want us to take you seriously with idiotic and childish complaints) Normally I would agree and prefer a column shift but I am pleasantly surprised on the storage they offer here. I always take out my wallet and phone and as long as it doesn’t go in the cup holder I am good, they left plenty of options.
      7) Dumbas*, it is a truck not a pansy minivan on steroids. Try taking AWD up a mountain pass. This is supposed to steal some cross over sales my the ride and interior options, not the drivetrain. It still needs to tow, haul and leave the pavement which an awd system is not for.
      8) This again? Yes I would prefer the 4.3 (as would many) but this is still a great option and gets better mpg’s. Not to mention is handily out powers the competition and gets much better mpg’s to boot (their main reason for going with it). All those issues you mentioned were on older versions and have been addressed. Go do a little research.
      9) I am sure you could go on with pathetic nit picks that are irrelevant. Point is these trucks severely out class the competition and will sell well. Yes when the redesigned Tacoma and Frontier come out some sales will be lost but they did a great job with this truck, it is a great position to be in when the others are gunning for you and your ideas.

      Reply
      1. 1.) No retard, there is ONE way to put 4′ wide materials in the bed, and that is way up high 2/3 of the way up the bed. MAJOR FAIL in design.
        2.) Yes dbag I have tried it, see above. Its inferior to to the track systems that already exist for tying things down. Its inferior to having a 4′ wide bed or a tacomaesque plastic bed designed to load 4′ wide materials on the wheel wells. Its inferior to a real ladder rack. Do you get it? Its another lame attempt to get an extra few hundred dollars out of the consumer and its an inferior approach to everything.
        3.) Just stop posting. You have no idea what you’re talking about and when you keep posting ignorant nonsense you just look stupid. The dual swing tailgate on the Ridgeline can handle loading ATVs up and down it all day, and I am confident GM could make a better one. The Ridgeline bed can carry 1200+ lbs in it, which is as much as several trims of the new colorado. And again, that is a 10 year old design, I am confident GM can do better. A full size spare can fit in a trunk – you’re really reaching here, seriously what a moronic comment, and if you want it out of the trunk because you are hauling you can pull it out and attach to the bedside. Honda managed this 10 years ago. GM should be able to do better now.
        4.) These trucks have been hyped for over a year. Sliding rear window is currently not available. It is a MASSIVE FAIL. I would suggest that *you* try actually reading my comment above.
        5.) Congrats, you get to be one of the 5 iconoclasts that likes the idiotic design of the underseat storage in the Colorado. Everyone else recognizes it as the giant waste of space that it is. You can add your own underseat storage with a flat floor, you cannot add a flat floor with the stupid system GM installed in these trucks. Finally you do not store your hitch under your seat. Just the fact that you said this indicates you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and you’re just another sad GM fanboy posting from his mom’s basement. Grow up.
        6.) Not even a coherent response.
        7.) Once again you’re showing your ignorance. GM wants crossover buyers. THEY want AWD. Period. End of discussion. If you don’t get this then you’re hopeless. SECONDLY AWD vehicles go up mountain passes all the time. Are you even serious here? Try spending 5 minutes at ANY “mountain pass” in CA or CO and you will see hundreds of AWD vehicles going up no problem. Finally they have an AWD (auto4, same thing) transfer case in the Colorado, so really, you’re a fool who has no idea what she’s talking about.
        8.) The lfx does not get better fuel economy. EVER. Under any condition. It is a bad engine and a bad choice in this truck.
        9.) You are ignorant and a fool. These new truck can ONLY “outclass” the 10 year old mid sized trucks. They don’t come remotely close to “outclassing” crossovers or half ton pickups. They are full of compromises which detract substantially from their value proposition. This would be fine if they were priced to kill, but they’re not. If half ton matching incentives don’t show up these will manage to do well until the updated Frontier and Tacoma come out, and then they will get to fight over the tiny mid sized truck market. Only a fanboy would say that GM did a great job with this truck. It is half assed across the board and highly compromised. GM had a chance to dramatically grow the mid sized truck market here and slaughter the competition. Instead they produced a nice 2012 era vehicle that will be rapidly faced with fresh competition from its japanese rivals, one of which has owned this market for a long time.

        Reply
        1. Hey now, there’s nothing wrong with being iconoclast. It harms no one.

          Reply
  2. I may not be young but I am replacing my Enclave with one.

    I went to my dealer and they cannot keep them on the lot. Comes in and hours later it is gone. I know they just started shipping but dealer said there is a lot of interest. I have yet been able to see one in real life.

    Reply
  3. The engineers and designers may want to read “right’s” comments as an inkling into how some consumers are thinking. This writer has really scrutinized this little (not so) truck. I went to see the truck and thought it really nice but it is going to cost us. It is not cheaply made. I thought it a good looking truck for me, a lady. I had considered a cross over but it is too much like a car and I didn’t think it could handle the hauling I needed it to do for a gardening business. The truck “is functional” for certain things but not for everything. When it was designed, I don’t think it was being made specifically for utility work any way. Look at the commercials on the advertisement pages…..You do not see lumber and building equipment in any of the ads. You see recreational stuff….
    I would purchase it tomorrow, but like “right” said, it has no rear window for air circulation if you wanted not to use your AC as an option. This among other things was a major mistake and I can’t understand why they didn’t offer this up front. It is claimed it will be offered next year as an option. Why then, and not now? Is this a way to charge us more? Boy, these Guys don’t think!
    Now they say the truck has problems with some of its air bags and is on hold until this can be fixed. I tell you, GM needs to get a grip or hire civilians/customers to help them make more smart decisions. Its awful!!!!

    Reply
  4. I agree totally with the lack of rear sliding window criticism. Extended cabs should have a manual slide option, crew cabs with a full sliding option(eg. Tundra, Titan). Why not one up the competition? This feature fits perfectly with how they are trying to market it.

    Reply
  5. I am beginning to understand why GM has such a low market cap and comes in as the forth most profitable automaker…it makes too many products!
    These trucks are great, but will be cannibalizing half ton sales. Also, GM now produces both global and NA exclusive mid sizers, as opposed to biting the cost bullet and producing just one mid sized truck in the pursuit of scale.
    GM needs to trim both its global and domestic line up just like Ford, PSA, and Honda.

    Reply
  6. I particularly like the comment about aging midsize trucks needing replaced. There are many just like me that aren’t interested in a Nissan or Toyota for this size truck and think these will be just fine. I am glad to see GM now back in the game in this size truck.

    Reply
  7. Well a sliding window is a must for me, growing up my dad always used his for 2X4s and copper piping and stuff plus the dog always had his head out the window. Price is a big thing for me, it’s hard to justify getting this truck when you can get a RAM 4X4-4 door for cheap with decent MPG. And I’m far from a Dodge fan boy.

    Reply
  8. GM lost my interest after I got to see the Colorado’s interior in person. For a $35K vehicle to use cheap feeling, hard plastic dash and door materials is shameful. For them to brag about how nice it is compared to the decade old competition, is ridiculous. It’s like GM wants to punish Colorado owners for not buying the Canyon. Moreover, the exclusion of an Auto 4WD mode in the Colorado is a pathetic mistake. Also, why can’t I buy full leather in the Z-71? $35K for this?

    GM simply doesn’t understand that people born in the 80’s and 90’s want to be able to choose option in a flexible, a la carte way. We don’t want to be tied to limiting packages, or corporate shenanigans used to manage brands. Colorado fans should not be punished for liking the Colorado’s looks more than the Canyons. Both trucks should have an option for a luxury interior, not just the GMC. The exterior is enough to differentiate them.

    I guess the bean counters are back in charge again.

    Bottom line, I anxiously waited for this truck as the diesel, when it arrives, is the perfect vehicle for my situation. But after seeing the interior in person, and realizing that GM just went back to doing exactly what got it in trouble years ago, I’m not longer interested.

    Reply
  9. I also looked at the Colorado and the Canyon and from what I see they are way too expensive for what they offer. I mean at 40K you can get a nicer full size. Plus this will not fit in my garage – why did they make It larger that the older model? Then at the dealer I couldn’t even drive them – right out of the gate they had airbag problems and the dealers didn’t allow test drives…. I went with a Nissan Frontier, at 30K it has all of the options I was looking for and has a nice torquey engine- a 10 year design but still looks nice and the ride is smooth.. I recommend if you are not happy with what GM is offering.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel