This Just In: What is Al Ries Talking About?

I'm in a state of disbelief.

I just read the Al Ries column over at Ad Age and I can't believe they would publish this long-winded diatribe about nothing.

His premise?

Detroit's problems, and specifically GM's problems, are based in the fact that they have weak brands.

Weak brands? Is he on crack?

He goes to extraordinary lengths in the article to illustrate why Toyota stands for something and Cadillac doesn't. He mocks the slogans of all the GM brands as being vacuous.

But ask yourself not what the slogans for each of these brands is and instead ask what do the brands stand for. I think you'll quickly realize that Mr. Ries was stretching for a topic this week.

Frankly, I like Toyota and have nothing against them, but I can't wrap up what the brand means as neatly as I can with Cadillac. They make good cars. They're Japanese. They're kind of expensive. Then I have nothing. Whereas Cadillac is the epitome of American luxury.

Now sure, BMW and Mercedes have excellent brands that I can communicate clearly. I can even say they are more desirable than the Cadillac or the Chevrolet brands. But does that make these latter brands weak or confusing? It may mean there are problems that need to be solved in making the brands more competitive, but Chevy represents everything that is mom and apple pie that no foreign brand can even touch. They may not be leveraging this image effectively enough, but to say that this brand image is "vacuous" is a clear sign of a writer with no topic and confused opinions.

Let me be clear by saying that Detroit and GM have many problems. They are losing their competitive edge. But GM's issues are not rooted in weak branding. They are rooted in the fact that ALL CARS SALES ARE DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE HAS MONEY TO BUY CARS RIGHT NOW. And Detroit's problems are compounded by the fact that they have to spend more to make each car than their foreign competitors. End of story.

Thoughts?