Bob Lutz recently wrote a Road and Track opinion piece in which he identified designers as the most valuable person to an automotive manufacturer. Upon hearing this we frantically grabbed for reasons to prove him wrong, but as we slunk back into our chairs we realized that he’s likely right.
Looking at the auto industry in terms of profit – a much too common condition – shows that the majority of consumers care more about the looks of a car rather than its actual performance. Lutz says that this is a strong suit for Hyundai and Kia with their lead designer, Peter Schreyer. Could this be true, is form truly better than function?
As we mentioned, this is in terms of profit, but that’s how manufacturers see it anyway, isn’t it? Does this mean the General should pay designers more than the engineers who produce wonders like the LT4 V8 engine? Or that, perhaps GM should cut pay for the engineers who aim to improve crash and safety ratings? These are a couple of opposing points we came up with. Another issue we had was the idea of what qualifies something as a ‘good’ design. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t the perception of how the car looks more important than how the car actually looks?
Before this gets too meta and weird, let’s just think about this question; if the Chevy Cruze was as good looking as the Corvette or Camaro, would sales increase? In this sense, we think Lutz is correct.
What do you think? Is design truly the most vital component of a new car? Give us your thoughts in the comment section below.
Comments
He was certainly right that there has never been a better time to buy a quality car. They last longer, go faster, and get better mileage that ever before. One thing he didn’t make clear is that designer, who are constantly trying to produce designs that don’t offset the efforts made by engineers to produce better mileage, are having to become even more creative with simpler, streamlined shapes. It’s remarkable what they are able to do.
Design may be more important to the consumer, but that’s because the engineers have done their job. The engineers work goes unseen and unmentioned because everything works. So no, designers should not get paid more.
An architect may design a great looking building, but thank that engineer(s) it’s still standing.
A landscaped boulevard may look nice, hat nod to the landscape architect, but how about that engineer that made sure your sewage goes where it’s supposed to, and rain water doesn’t pool and drains properly, and a highway over pass stays standing for 50+ years.
It’s a complementary relationship with the Engineers and the Designers. If the Engineers do their job well, the customer is allowed to focus on the design. A car that has an intuitive feel to the controls (both in driving dynamics and interior controls) becomes second nature to the owner thanks to the engineering. A well Engineered car lets the owner enjoy the design. So while its true that a well designed car gets the sale, a well Engineered car ensures the owner keeps it.
Well it is a game of both. You need the engineers to make he car meet all the needs of the segment.
Then you need the designer to make the styling compelling enough to attract the attention of the buyer.
Japan for so long has always followed the engineers but today the market is so competitive the designers are now taking president in the car.
Just look at how long the Accord and Camry were pretty much generic bla styling and today now we have cars like the Fusion, Scion and coming Malibu that have upped the game in styling.
Lets face it Kia, Hyundai have never been segment leading cars but sales have taken off with the push for more than generic styling.
Two areas you reach customers first is Sight. As they see the car it can make or break a cars appeal with them not even coming with in 100 feet of the car. Next is touch. Make it feel as good on the inside or even the door handle as it is the first place people touch in a car.
See a generic car and grab a cheap plastic door handle and you can lose a sale before the key is turned.
Note Lutz changed GM culture here. This is why we are now getting much better styled cars.
Everyone should agree that well designed interiors are a must for repeat customers. Exterior design should not go so far as to impede visibility but cars should look good to imbue personality to a brand.
Design is simply King now, but the definition of design has broadened.
Apple has lead a design revolution that is being felt in all industries. At Apple ‘design’ isn’t simply exterior. There’s a famous story where a young Steve Jobs looked at the inside of a computer and thought it was ‘messy’. So he asked the engineers to make the inside elegant and beautiful too.
Also — Apple was so unhappy with the crappy stores their computers lived in they re-invented retail and became the most profitable per square inch store — besting Tiffanys.
So in cars it’s not just if you have a spiffy looking car. The car’s interior, the tech, the performance, the mileage, the reliability, where it is sourced, the car’s name, the car’s showroom, the car’s salesperson, the street the dealership is on, their rep on Yelp, the buzz, the logo, the ads, the movies the car appears in — ALL OF IT — is now ‘design’.
Even who the CEO is matters. Out with the Carlyle Group and in with Mary Barra. Things like this get noticed now.
The reason why I mention Apple here is that every car manufacturer wants to be using a version of Apple’s approach before Apple does. For if Apple releases a stunning electric car that many people will want… industry disruption will follow. Yet if GM is already there with a gorgeous Bolt (and it is pretty), not so much disruption.
As the article stated, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the fifth gen Camaro isn’t something that I look at and need one by the afternoon. But obviously people love it because sales say different than me.
But I really don’t think that this is a discussion on “Will people buy a shitbox as long as it looks good?” To a point, yes they will, but really people will buy something as long as it’s claimed to be the best in something. The Prius is ugly as hell but it gets 50 mpg, so it sells. Honestly if you made a complete square car that looks just like a box with wheels, but it handled better than a Ferrari, it would sell.
wrong.flavors is different. However, if the design will succeed, and more people will like it, of course, is even better.
But most important of all the others. the quality, new solutions and timeliness of technical and so on.
Vehicles also have different classes. Why can not compare a Ferrari or bought a Prius. Ferrari is also economical.
and buyers are often different people. who buy a Prius or a ferrari
I’m fairly certain you were replying to me. I don’t know for sure because I really can’t work out your response, I’m assuming English isn’t your first language. What I can work out, or so I think, is you think I was comparing Ferrari to a Prius. I simply wasn’t. I wasn’t talking about classes of cars or anything. I was saying how the Prius is ugly but it gets one of the best mpgs so a lot of people buy it. The grand scheme I was getting at was that people will buy a car as long as it’s the claimed best at something. If Chevrolet, for example, made a box with wheels but it handled better than a Ferrari, it would sell because it handles better than a Ferrari even though it’s an ugly box.
Lutz is saying that perception trumps reality. With quality becoming more common, looks will be the deciding factor.
This wasn’t always true. Toyota once produced high quality yet bland cars. Now they run on the fumes of pay success.
Imagine and branding are overlooked by Lutz and the new Malibu will test his hypothesis.
You can build the best car in the world and if it is not priced right and looks good it will not sell.
Today people are not brand loyal as they once used to be and will change companies on a whim. One of these whims is Styling
:Lutz has proven when he was at GM that even if it puts you little over budget the little details are worth the cost. Case in point.
Bob had asked a designer if he put the chrome around the window openings on an Impala would it not look better and sell better. The designer said yes but it would put them over budget. Over budget was a mortal sin in the old GM culture. Bob said would you rather not get in trouble and have a car sell poorly or would you rather get in trouble for being a little over budget and selling more cars?
It about doing the right thing visually.
Case in point the 5th gen Camaro has horrible sight lines but because of the styling it sold as well as any Camaro for years. While you do not want to make things unsafe styling will at times take president over practicality in some classes of cars. Bad sight lines in a CUV would be a different story. These things can vary from class to class and model to model.