Thread: The Power of Advertising

I don't think Toyota advertising is the whole story.

There's a principal in Information Science called Mooers' law that, in one interpretation, tells us that information will be used in direct proportion to how easy it is to obtain.

Personal experience, and information recieved through relational channels (from those with whom one has a personal relationship), will in almost all cases trump information recieved through any other channel.

I think that brand loyalty among consumers and consumers social networks plays a major role in these purchasing decisions.

If you've had a Toyota Camry in the past, or have friends who have had, and nobody you know has had any problems related to the recall issues, you're likely to buy a Toyota Camry on the weight of that alone.

I loved the only Toyota I've ever owned, but reports of sludged engines on a newer model Toyota I was going to buy about 10 years ago, where Toyota was unwilling to stand behind their product made me go for a Honda instead. I now have 2 Hondas and they're both excellent. So in my own case, I was tempted to stay with the brand I knew but a little bit of research scared me away from the brand I liked and try a different brand. Before I buy another Honda, I would likewise check out how they're doing with customer service and safety.

Originally Posted by ConLib

I'll start by saying that my wife's car is a Toyota Camry, purchased long before the latest string of accidents caused by bad engineering and thinking it would be cheaper to pay a few lawsuits instead of correcting extremely dangerous design defects. We'll not be purchasing another Toyota.

And the Toyota problem was mostly floor mats and people pressing the wrong petal. Hope your non-Toyota car fixes that engineering problem. (Oh and the Camry is pretty much an American car these days, if your patriotic.)

Originally Posted by ConLib

With all of the safety problems, recalls and deaths caused by known flaws in the Toyota cars, advertising seems to be more important than facts. Remember how Ralph Nadar's book, "Unsafe at Any Speeds" virtually killed the Corvair, and the exploding gas tanks did the same for the Ford Pinto?

NHTSA conclusion on the Corvair (and why I hate Nader): "the 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."

IMHO, Americans didn’t know how to handle a rear engine/rear wheel drive car, which can be a beast if you don’t know what you’re doing (Porsche 911).

“Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time.” (from wiki) So the Pinto was also hype.

Originally Posted by ConLib

Last year, even with all the many very dangerous safety features that Toyota shipped in cars, with a lot of advertising, they were still the largest auto manufacturing company in the world for last year. Showing people will buy anything if enough is spent to make them all warm and fuzzy feeling. After all, Toyota tells us how good and safe their cars are, it must be true.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Toyota is number one because of its sales in non-US markets.

BTW. My Toyota Supra’s fine handling and brakes saved me from a serious accident – the tailgate of an American pickup fell off in front of me. (True story.) Yet the people behind me did have an accident. Granted, that is anecdotal.

Originally Posted by ConLib

Kind of like the politics of today, and the gullible in our nation that are convinced of the truth of so many lies.

And the coup-de-grace! Yes, you believe the hype and not look for the facts!

I owned a 1961 Corvair. First new car I ever bought. It had rear wheel drive, but so didn't all cars back then. It also had the engine in the back, which most other cars didn't. The problem was that because of the engine in the rear, the rear axle was not sprung like other cars; the rear wheels were independently sprung. As a result it was possible to maneuver in such a way as that the rear wheels would over-camber and the center of gravity would rise and the wheel gauge would shrink. Bob's yer uncle, your on roller blades.

Other than that. and a badly assembled flywheel, i loved that car.

Maybe there shouid be a new bottle regulation so that bottles can't roll under the brake pedal.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Maybe there shouid be a new bottle regulation so that bottles can't roll under the brake pedal.

There probably already is such a rule, if you read the fine print.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I loved the only Toyota I've ever owned, but reports of sludged engines on a newer model Toyota I was going to buy about 10 years ago, where Toyota was unwilling to stand behind their product made me go for a Honda instead. I now have 2 Hondas and they're both excellent. So in my own case, I was tempted to stay with the brand I knew but a little bit of research scared me away from the brand I liked and try a different brand. Before I buy another Honda, I would likewise check out how they're doing with customer service and safety.

I've owned Hondas for the last 25 years, and have loved them all!
I especially liked my 2003 Honda Accord. . .but I traded in for a CRV, and I don't like it quite as much.

I had a Honda. It was a long time ago, and it was a disaster. 9 mpg when tuned up. 7 mph otherwise. It rode like a wheelbarrow and handled like a forklift. It was cramped, ugly, and could only get up to 70 mph on a long downhill run, with the pedal to the metal.

Gads I hated that car.

Like I said, it was a long long time ago.

We had an '88 Accord LX that we drove into the fuckin' ground. In 2002, it got to the point where it wouldn't pass the California smog test. It had about 160,000 miles on it. We ended up selling it to some guy who came up from, and would be taking it back to, Mexico. I think we got a grand or so for it...

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I owned a 1961 Corvair. First new car I ever bought. It had rear wheel drive, but so didn't all cars back then. It also had the engine in the back, which most other cars didn't. The problem was that because of the engine in the rear, the rear axle was not sprung like other cars; the rear wheels were independently sprung. As a result it was possible to maneuver in such a way as that the rear wheels would over-camber and the center of gravity would rise and the wheel gauge would shrink. Bob's yer uncle, your on roller blades.

Other than that. and a badly assembled flywheel, i loved that car.

What you described just sounds like sheer fun to me. Never driven a Corvair, but my dad had one. I hate Ralph Nader.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I owned a 1961 Corvair. First new car I ever bought. It had rear wheel drive, but so didn't all cars back then. It also had the engine in the back, which most other cars didn't. The problem was that because of the engine in the rear, the rear axle was not sprung like other cars; the rear wheels were independently sprung. As a result it was possible to maneuver in such a way as that the rear wheels would over-camber and the center of gravity would rise and the wheel gauge would shrink. Bob's yer uncle, your on roller blades.

Other than that. and a badly assembled flywheel, i loved that car.

Ah, I bought a turbo model, used, a deep maroon color, and very sporty for the era. I loved that car!! Then right before I was to take it with me to A School in the military, the transaxle locked up!! So, I caught a jet instead of driving. Mom sold the car for me, as I still think about it til this day. I drove it only once, before the thing locked up. Unrequited love sort of deal.

My dad bought a Corvair when I was a kid the only car he ever took back. Not sure why but he did use his cars in his business so I am sure that must of factored in.

Perhaps... if people who are too fucking stupid to figure out how to safely operate a simple and common machine like an automobile crashed the aforementioned automobile and died, that would be a boon to the gene pool.