The evaluation criteria for technology are actually the most basic, and higher-level brand, culture, and cognitive construction are the high-level operating ideas.
Therefore, when we look at a car, we cannot simply analyze it from a technical perspective. Technology is just the fundamentals of building a product, but in this passenger car market, what people pursue when buying a car is not simply the product itself, but also the subsidiary value brought by the brand and design.
Looking back at what I’ve said, many companies have stumbled on these things.
The Volkswagen Phaeton produced by the same factory as Bentley is no less expensive, luxurious, and prestigious than the A8L, an executive-level sedan, but it has been beaten up in the market.
The fundamental reason is that brands are out of touch with market awareness, positioning, and pricing.
For example, the Lexus ES and Camry have similar platforms and power structures. The opinion of the Lexus ES "shell replacement" Camry has always been there, but it does not affect the sales of the Lexus ES at all.
On the basis of product technology, analyzing and considering the acceptance of user groups, brand culture construction, and product pricing differentiation, a car can be reasonably and rationally evaluated.
Using technology to market upwards is actually the most entry-level and lowest-level marketing strategy.
For example, Lynk & Co 09 is a very typical, primary, and entry-level "technical marketing" product. It is deeply similar to the Volvo XC90 in terms of marketing, and the two cars of the same platform and size are hard to move.
Indeed, from a platform perspective, Lynk & Co 09 is a platform subsidiary of the Volvo XC90, but it is not very closely related to the Volvo XC90.
On the one hand, the commonality of products can not be interpreted by pure technology, especially more than 200,000 high-end models, product support is no longer in cost, technology, but in the brand, product premium ability, design ability to pay.
On the other hand, there are not many technical similarities between the products themselves, and the modular vehicle manufacturing platform is very complete. It is impossible for enterprises to create an independent platform for each size of vehicle. The cost is too high and the cycle is too long. It is very necessary for the existing platform to produce models such as 369.
For example, Volkswagen’s MLB platform can produce both A4L and Urus. The platform is just one of the technologies that determine the product’s capabilities, but it is not the only one.
Basic materials: boron steel strength and ratio of body-in-white, sound insulation cotton materials, material selection, procurement cost of detailed configuration, excellent grade, core debugging aspects: data support for autonomous driving, debugging of power system, injection of control genes, control of quality control system, pros and cons of production line, and supplier requirements.
These are all invisible gaps.
Indeed, 300,000 Lynk & Co 09 has become the king in this level, but the results of the dead Volvo XC90 are not outstanding, the main reason is that users do not pay, 300,000 and 600,000 models have a huge sense of tearing.
On the one hand, the client base is completely different, on the other hand, Volvo’s competitiveness in the brand safety, brand culture construction direction, Lynk and Volvo have different directions, Lynk 09 client base and Volvo XC90 users also have a certain deviation.
Taking a step back, if the Lynk & Co 09 and Volvo XC90 that 300,000 can buy are products of the same level, then it means that 600,000 Volvo XC90 is not necessary for mass production.
So did Lynk & Co, the joint venture between Geely and Volvo, do it right, or did Geely’s Volvo do it wrong?
Upward must not be wrong, but from the current point of view, Lynk & Co 09 on many of its own highlights did not speak out, belonging to its label should not be closer to Volvo, but how to shape 300,000 client base better cognition and more accurate understanding.
From a technical perspective, the dismantling of the Lynk & Co 09 does use some Volvo technology, but it does not mean that it has much to do with the Volvo XC90.
From a production perspective, co-platform production is the ultimate direction of the enterprise. The fundamental purpose of producing the Lynk & Co 09 on the Volvo XC90 platform is to save costs, but the brand building, cultural cultivation, and consumer resonance, the Lynk & Co 09 and the age of consumers are far less than the Volvo XC90.
At present, the average monthly sales of Lynk & Co are around 1000-2000 units, and the sales of Volvo XC90 are also in this range, which can explain some problems.