????體育專欄作者瑞德?史密斯曾說過：“寫作并不難,，只需掏心挖肺地對待讀者即可?！?/p>

????汽車行業(yè)可能也有類似的表述,。這不是件難事：只需要設(shè)計(jì)并造出好車就行。

????當(dāng)然,，事情并沒有這么簡單,。通用汽車（General Motors）和福特汽車（Ford Motor）最近的負(fù)面新聞表明，最為老道的汽車制造商也會(huì)在傻瓜式點(diǎn)火開關(guān)的安裝或燃油經(jīng)濟(jì)性計(jì)算精確性上面栽跟頭,。

????在汽車營銷領(lǐng)域,，一場爭論正在如火如荼地進(jìn)行當(dāng)中，簡而言之就是：車型數(shù)量與檔次之爭,。

????分析師約翰?墨菲是“數(shù)量”派,，他是美銀美林（Bank of America Merrill Lynch）長期調(diào)查《汽車之戰(zhàn)》（Car Wars）的作者。墨菲鐘愛新車型,，而且車型越多越好,。在他的不懈努力之下，他所得出的結(jié)論是,，市場占有率與制造商推出新車型的數(shù)量和速度有直接關(guān)系,。在承認(rèn)搭配、定價(jià),、執(zhí)行,、銷售和品牌影響力的重要性的同時(shí),，他還認(rèn)為，生產(chǎn)線擴(kuò)張,、更新的速度越快,，銷售業(yè)績的增長也就越快。他寫道：“更新率和展廳年限指標(biāo)是企業(yè)獲得/失去市場份額的主要原因,。成功的新產(chǎn)品會(huì)帶來更高的市場份額,。”

????“檔次”派陣營的主要人物則是資深營銷顧問,、自稱行業(yè)異類的皮特?德?羅倫索,。德?羅倫索常駐底特律，是博客“汽車極端分子”的博主,。他稱自己是一位“非常規(guī),、樸實(shí)無華、最熱門事實(shí)的提供者”,，而且一直是品牌誠信的忠實(shí)擁躉,。他在6月的博文中寫道：“人們對品牌的看法能造就、也能毀掉一家汽車公司,，無論這個(gè)品牌在此前任何一段時(shí)間內(nèi)擁有多么悠久或輝煌的歷史,。”

????德?羅倫索一直都在批評豪華汽車品牌使用新車型來提升銷量的做法,。他認(rèn)為,，這種做法會(huì)有損品牌形象，因?yàn)槠放票挥迷诹伺c其傳承和歷史毫無關(guān)聯(lián)的車型身上,。他指出：“這些廠商認(rèn)為,，如果公司能照顧到每一個(gè)細(xì)分市場（有的是真實(shí)存在的，有的是公司想象出來的）,，他們的生存和利潤就有了保障,。但這是行不通的，而且這種舉措會(huì)帶來痛苦的后果,?！?/p>

????《汽車之戰(zhàn)》的一個(gè)獨(dú)特優(yōu)勢在于，它將競爭情報(bào),、新聞簡報(bào),、觀察評論和傳聞分析進(jìn)行過濾加工，然后整合成為未來產(chǎn)品趨勢的嚴(yán)密分析,。在最近一期涵蓋2015-2018年趨勢的調(diào)查中,，墨菲按照車型名稱和類別分別列出了進(jìn)入美國市場的每一個(gè)重新設(shè)計(jì)的車型和新車型。他發(fā)現(xiàn)了新跨界車型的崛起,，而這些車型出身于過去專注于轎車,、轎跑和跑車的業(yè)界豪門,，例如奧迪、寶馬,、捷豹和賓利,，而且他還以贊許的口吻提到了這個(gè)趨勢對于銷售的積極影響。他寫道：“如果大量的新型德系豪華CUV（混合型多用途車）在市場上得以熱銷,，那么歐洲OEM（原始設(shè)備制造商）廠商的市場份額可能會(huì)面臨一些上行風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。”

????知名品牌這種將產(chǎn)品線擴(kuò)展到陌生領(lǐng)域的做法幾乎讓德?羅倫索感到抓狂,。德?羅倫索并不會(huì)拿什么調(diào)查來說事,，而是有效地借助多年來形成的行業(yè)直覺。他指出,，汽車制造商,，尤其是那些擁有賽車傳承的制造商，應(yīng)該致力于制造轎車,，同時(shí)將跨界車型和SUV交給吉普和路虎這樣的生產(chǎn)廠家。討論迅速崛起的德國豪華車制造商的決策時(shí),，他會(huì)變得尤為刻薄,，因?yàn)檫@種討論似乎總是圍繞增加車型的種類——寶馬Active Tourer車型，有人要嗎,？——它們的目的在于更新產(chǎn)品線,，從而增加銷量：

????“（奧迪）似乎患上了最近所有德國品牌無一幸免的傳染病，這是一種面面俱到的可怕打法,，它讓消費(fèi)者眼花繚亂,，而且也讓這些制造商放松了警惕，開始犯錯(cuò)誤,?！?/p>

????“Writing is easy,” the sports columnist Red Smith once said. “You just open a vein and bleed.”

????The same might be said of the car business. It’s easy: You just design and build great cars.

????Of course, it isn’t that simple. As the recent misfortunes of General Motors GM 0.19% and Ford Motor F -0.30% demonstrate, something as straightforward as installing foolproof ignition switches or accurately calculating fuel economy can elude the most experienced of automakers.

????When it comes to marketing cars, there is an emerging debate that can most succinctly be described as mass vs. class.

????On the mass side is analyst John Murphy, author of the long-running “Car Wars” study for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Murphy is a fan of new models, the more the merrier. He has consistently demonstrated that market share is directly related to the number of new models a company introduces and the speed with which it refreshes them. While he concedes the importance of mix, pricing, execution, distribution, and brand power, he argues that the more rapidly product lines are expanded and refreshed, the more rapidly sales will grow. “Our measures of replacement rate and showroom age are the major driver of market share gains and losses,” he writes. “Successful new products drive higher market share.”

????Leading the arguments for the class side is longtime marketing consultant and self-styled industry curmudgeon Peter De Lorenzo. De Lorenzo, who is based in Detroit, leads the AutoExtremist blog, calls himself “a purveyor of the bare-knuckled, unvarnished, high-octane truth,” and has been a rigorous defender of brand integrity. “How a brand is perceived can make or break a car company, regardless of how long and illustrious a run that brand has enjoyed up until any given point in time,” he wrote in June.

????De Lorenzo has been a persistent critic of luxury brands that use new models to grow volume. He believes they are compromising their identity by using their brand for vehicles that have no connection to heritage and history. “They believe that if they cover every niche in the market–both real and imagined–it will ensure their survival and profitability,” he contends. “But it doesn’t work,” he writes. “There are painful ramifications that come with their actions.”

????One of the unique strengths of “Car Wars” is its distillation of competitive intelligence, press clippings, speculation, and rumor analysis into a rigorous analysis of future product trends. In the most recent edition covering the years 2015 to 2018, Murphy identifies by model name and segment, every redesign and new model coming to the U.S. market. He sees a surge of new crossovers vehicles bearing the badges of luxury manufacturers that previously concentrated on sedans, coupes, and sports cars–among them Audi, BMW, Jaguar, and Bentley–and writes approvingly about the positive impact on sales. “If the numerous new German Lux CUVs are well received in the market,” he writes, “there may be some upside risk” in the market share of European OEMs.

????Such product line extensions into unfamiliar segments by long-established brands induce a state of near apoplexy in De Lorenzo. Brandishing no research but effectively flexing his instinct from years in the business, he argues that automakers–particularly those with a racing heritage–should stick to making cars and leave crossovers and SUVs to the likes of Jeep and Land Rover. He gets especially vitriolic in discussing the strategies of the fast-rising German luxury makers, which seem to keep adding more body styles–BMW Active Tourer anyone?– aimed at freshening up their product lines and adding incremental volume:

????? “[Audi] seems to be falling victim to the disease that’s infecting all of the German brands of late, the dreaded being all things to all people daze that leads these manufacturers to drop their guard and make mistakes.”