Evaluate Saturn’s brand equity in 1995 and 2005. How and why has it changed?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

As discussed above, Saturn’s brand equity in the 1990s was very strong. This was reflected in some of the awards the brand received, including number one in JD Power Associates Sales Satisfaction Index and number three in the Customer Satisfaction Study. In 2005, rapidly waning sales were a clear indicator that this brand equity had significantly eroded. Repeat sales had dropped from an impressive 50% in 1990 to 39% in 2000 and apparently continued to decline. This was due in large part to the fact that Saturn did not grow with its customers. Evaluating the history of successful car companies like Honda and Toyota, they also started with economy cars, but they grew up with their upwardly mobile customers to offer a diverse array of vehicles across classes. When Saturn customers outgrew their economy cars, Saturn did not offer any upgrades, so they moved on to other brands. Saturn’s brand equity was further eroded by GM’s decision to co-design, develop, and manufacture Saturn’s along with their other make’s in order to cut costs. The result of these efforts was not only to reduce the quality of the product, but also, and more importantly, to change the image of the brand. Saturn was no longer “a different kind of car” and “a different kind of company”, but rather just “another nameplate in the GM portfolio”.