Why Do Great Companies Make Bad Products? Design Analysis
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Enroll in my online industrial design course, Form Fundamentals. bit.ly/335vsqO .
Learn the process to create beautiful industrial design. Become an expert in design language, visual storytelling, and land your dream industrial design job.
Join my mailing list to get notified of special announcements: www.studioello.com/mail
Join my discord channel and talk to me: / discord
Follow me on Instagram: / mauriellodesign
Follow me on LinkedIn: / mauriellojohn
Check out my Behance: www.behance.net/mauriellodesign
Want to learn more about my work? Check out my portfolio: www.studioello.com
Want to work with me on a design project? Contact me here: www.studioello.com/about-1
How do massive companies with unlimited resources and insanely talented teams still create bad products that no one wants to buy? Product/Industrial Design and Product Development is hard. The path to innovation is uncertain, at best. This video will explore the many reasons behind why companies fail to create innovative product designs, and how it can be avoided.
0:00 Intro
0:24 Team Dynamics Show Through In The Product
1:16 Unclear Vision
3:06 Discerning Between Stupid & Genius
3:36 Management Problems
5:06 Success Was So Close, Yet So Far...
6:17 Being Too Safe
7:00 Sales/Marketing Vs Design
10:00 Innovation is a Threat - Not an Asset
11:09 Kodak & Being Shortsighted
13:38 Fujifilm
14:13 Fear
All content written and edited by John Mauriello. John Mauriello has been working professionally as an industrial designer since 2010. He is an Adjunct Professor of industrial design at California College of the Arts.
Much of the footage of the Aztek is from a channel called "Regular Car Reviews" / regularcars and Doug DeMuro: / @dougdemuro
I've had several product fails of my own, so my intention isn't to bash these companies. Instead, my hope is that we can all learn from each other's mistakes.....also, the chrysler minivans are not part of GM. I misspoke. ALSO also, check out my online industrial design course, Form Fundamentals: bit.ly/335vsqO
Great overview! One noteworthy error in detail is that GM and Chrysler are different companies so the reference about minivans is not accurate.
Woops. You're right. I should have caught that mistake.
Now we don't understand wether you was actually talking about GM minivans or just confused two umbrella companies.
@@ldmtag He thought GM owned Chrysler. In reality, GM tried and failed many times to create their own minivans that could compete with Chrysler's offerings.
- proceeds to completely destroy the Aztec design team
Everyone: It's 99.2% ugly
Heisenberg: It's only ugly when I say it's ugly.
Was looking for this comment 🙌
@@shutg6075 me too
you're god damn right...
Exactly. If it's good enough for Walter White.......
I was looking for a breaking bad comment thanks
The aztek was a design focused on practicality. Weird bump for higher head clearance in the back seats, lower headlights because it's better for foggy conditions, smaller wheels are better for fuel efficiency, plastic paneling are like side bumpers and easy and cheap to replace
Yeah!
Yep that the whole whole eggshell crossover thing.
This sums it up nicely... "easy and cheap"
Some people get cars based on who they are and what they want to appear as and some just get a car to get a car. I have no idea what style the aztek was trying to appeal to besides people.who don't car what they drive as long as it moves
Feels like a movie where various entities (producers, studio execs, the writer and director) start trying to put all their ideas in and end up creating a weird Frankenstein monster instead of a cohesive vision.
An addition to what the video said about polarizing feedback:
If 50% of people love a thing and 50% hate it, it’ll probably succeed, because the people who love it will buy it and the people who hate it were probably not your customers anyway
Free advertising
Even then, some of those who hate it may jump on the bandwagon or change their mind
What happened here, is that they asked 100 people just like me if they liked it. They did. I drove one for 12 years, I absolutely loved it. My family, friends, and coworkers told me how ugly it was, but I thought it looked cool. I liked how it was nothing like any other vehicle out there. It wasn't a bad car. I put 245K miles on it before the engine finally said NO MORE! I'd love to get another one.
That's weird
Same. I LOVED mine and drove it until it completely died and love the look. If they want customer feedback, I'll give it. BRING AZTEKS BACK!
I've never seen this car before, but as soon as he showed it I was kind of thinking it looked kinda cool.
My drawing professor, Brigid, was one of the head concept artists for the Pontiac Aztek. It’s super cool to see some of her sketches in this video as I know that the Aztek was one of her favorite projects, regardless of the end direction that went in. Love the videos by the way!
I looked at her work while I was researching this video. What an incredible talent.
This video makes me feel like we were too hard on her.
DAAP Gang!!!
There you go! Results of another diversity hire.
@@Design.Theory How is that a talent?
One of my professors from freshman year actually made the final sketches for the Aztek that were approved as the production car. From what I remember, their account is basically inline with your story here. There were like 3 competing clay models by 3 different designers, and upper management started slapping ideas together until it became an unrecognizable cluster... The professor in question left early into the design development phase in favor of GM's Oldsmobile division.
Thanks so much for the insight!
it's always the upper management
@@ratamahatta5306 It is not easy in upper management either. It's a constant battle for your position and authority. When you are part of upper management your goal is to stay there and enlarge your budget, your team, your influence and power. Whether the next car looks a bit better of worse is of secondary importance as long as it does not fire back a you personally. Another lesson may be that upper management should include a firm head of design person with a veto-right to form a balance against all the analytical financial minds.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 The problem is upper management has a self imposed hearing problem, yet they ask "HoW DeW wE FiX ThIS?"
Did your prof sell meth?
I absolutely loved my Aztek!! I had a 2003, thing lasted to over 300,000 miles. It was one hell of a reliable vehicle. If I ever find another one, I'm buying it in a heartbeat. I miss that car so much!
it definitely has a certain charm to it
I am guessing the Aztek is also immune to being stolen
GM's old business model of "launch now, fix later" sounds an awful lot like the AAA game industry right now.
On another note, I actually like the look of the Aztek. It has a very practical, utilitarian look to it that I find appealing, especially with the high side bumpers
Yeah. My family had one as a kid. Never thought it was that bad, and it was indeed very practical. It's similar in a lot of ways to vehicles that came out later. Never understood the level of hate it got. Wasn't the prettiest sure, but everyone just loved to hate it
I was in shock hearing that too. Like, how do you even fix a physical product later? Do they offer a product recall or are early adopters just hosed?
The Aztek was not a bad car. It was a hideous car that predicted the future. It debuted so many insanely innovative features for the adventure type , like a removable cooler , folding table , and even a built in TENT! Also this slouching coupe SUV shape is horribly ugly and I hate it , but it’s so popular now. Mercedes and bmw and Audi have like TWO or three EACH of these monstrosities. The Acura ZDX was also ahead of the game like the Aztek. If it came out today, or even just a couple years ago, the Aztek would sell extremely well. Unfortunately.
Don't know if I agree with your last sentence. If they released the Aztek today but with good design, then it might be popular.
You are absolutely correct
The Pontiac aztek was ahead of its time
Ah, just like all those cars today with a built-in cooler, folding table, and tent.
Weirdly I don't think it's any uglier than say, the Subaru outback.
Often larger corporate structures lead to a disconect between upper management and the engineers & designers doing the work. If the middle managers in between are the type to push for quicker progress that often leads to cutting corners. The best middle managers are ones that push back on upper management a bit to temper their expectations.
Very true. Great string of comments, btw
@@Design.Theory Thanks. Changing jobs soon so probalby spending a bit too much time on YT while remote working. More interesting that the nonsense they've got me doing though.
I can accept a different-looking product if it's different for a practical or functional reason, but not if it's trying to be "different for the sake of being different".
The thing to remember about the Pontiac Aztek is that it had a corporate cousin, the Buick Rendezvous. Basically the same vehicle, but much better looking.
With its big round headlights, bulbous rear window and massive taillights, better looking? No, dont think so. It’s just bland.
My chemistry teacher in Albuquerque, New Mexico had one of those. Wonder what he’s up to nowadays…
I hope you paid as much attention to his class as the car he was driving...
He was my teacher too!!
I've never owned an Aztek, being really put off by its looks. I do have a friend that owned three of them over a 8-9 year period. He bought each used, mostly because they were extremely cheap. His summary of them was to close your eyes getting into the car, but enjoy all the features and room the interior design offered. Capacity wise, build wise and performance wise, they were good vehicles. But dang, they looked like the south end of a north bound pig.
Basically like a minivan
bruh this comment was so well writte, funny as fuck too, thank you
I owned the sister car the Buick rendezvous and i rode around with no coolant for days and it never blew up
That's it though. A car's looks is only important to those outside of it. If the Aztek worked as a car and the owner did not give a shit about looks then it works; which is its purpose, after all.
Sadly, though, looks are important. Apple proves this time and time again. Its computers are dreadful but they look cool and cool people tell the world that they are cool, so they become cool. The fact they are overpriced, hyper expensive to fix, designed not to be fixed and that any old beige PC could outperform them becomes moot. Form always trumps function because people are conformists at heart.
Surprised they were good build wise. This was early 2000s GM after all.
as a car designer , 17 years in the industry , well you nailed it , this is my daily struggle , and it's far from over !
I love the Aztek. When my mom kicked me out while I was still in high school, I lived in it, very comfortably might I add. I toured around the United States with the Grateful Dead and Widespread Panic until I joined the Army. THEN, when I got out of the military I just moved back into the Aztek so I could travel freely. This car changed my life for the better.
F nice!
Totally agree
One thing that people forget about Kodak, they had to start selling their crown jewels to keep afloat. One was a electronic subsidiary that made image sensors using the Kodak library of image theory and design. It was bought by Sony, now the world leader for image sensors and it dominates the digital camera world. Imagine that!
they could have also pivoted into health care imaging/instrumentation like Philips did. they had a much bigger presence in health care than Philips in the late 70s-80s.
They didn’t HAVE to, at least not at first. My dad was a Kodak engineer and spent a few years complaining regularly that management were all fools because they kept selling off everything with potential because they only saw the short term bottom line of “someone will pay us for this” and not the potential for future profit if it was actually put into mass production. Every time his department came up with something they were proud of, it was sold off and they were switched to work on something else. It started when someone was brought in from Xerox to take over at the top. Dad said the man was convinced there was no money in camera technology, only in printers. He didn’t like anything they made, except to really push those digital camera printer docks.
What many people don’t understand about kodak was that while we think of them as a film photography company their real business was everything that supported the production of film and paper. They needed massive amounts of high quality polyester and rather than buy it they had a subsidiary that made it and then sold the lower grade polyester to everyone else they did the same with paper, gelatin, chemical reagents, optical glass, precision instruments, and dozens of other products. The film and paper was practically free to produce. Then they decided to sell off the subsidiary companies for a quick profit. This caused there collapse the same thing is going on with GM, with their sale of Detroit diesel and Allison.
Your videos are well produced, and the scripts are incredibly well written. They're better off when you're not face forward, staring at the camera. This isn't about you: it's about Design Theory. Keep up the good work.
Just found the channel… Amazing two videos i’ve seen so far, and this comment section is amazing! You should be really proud of the community you’ve built here.
The Aztek was kind of strange looking, but both my wife and I owned a couple. They were very practical and fit our lifestyle. I wish we would have kept at least one of them. Even my 3 row Ford Explorer isn't as practical as the Aztek was.
My aztek was one of my favorite cars. Park it next to a prius or a model x and you can see the similarities in design.
I had a 1994 lemans hatchback. This was just an suv sized version with a more square rear end. My friend's grandmother had an Aztec at the same time.
It’s funny cause most people who owned one say they loved it.
You're right, it looks as hideous as a Prius or a Model X
JESSE WHY DID YOU BREAK MY WINDSHIELD AGAIN
2 more ugly cars. And an aztek side by side would be a sight.
I rented an Aztec and drove the thing to the Artic Circle....it was a beast. Four wheel drive and yet fuel efficient and practical.
It may not have been the best looking vehicle on the road, but it was very practical, roomy and surprisingly fun to drive in off-road situations.
Again, it made it from Calgary to the Arctic Circle without a problem over severe roads...too bad soccer Moms didn't appreciate its functionality.
And you could get that built-in tent!
As a degree holder in Marketing, and a man who left large corporation work early in his career, in favor of small business ownership (and run on sentences)...
...This video and the concepts covered are both intelligent and well communicated. You hit many nails on the head here, my friend! This is very well done!
Haha, just fix the part where you said that GM introduced the Chrysler Mini Van.
The sad part for the Pontiac is that the prototype was decent looking, they kept the plastic low & it was more coherent.
bullcrap the final product is design bliss
Still, better than the PT Cruiser in the long run. Aztek is something you can live with but the PT Cruiser will let you down.
Non plastic clad it has Silverado fenders. Granted it’s garbage but not far from a minimalistic cyber truck really
@@carlosandleon calm down hermano, i know you wanna stan the aztek because it's name reflects your heritage. But the car is objectively succ
@@charles281 I have little to no aztec heritage my bro. The Spanish colonized more than just the americas.
I come from the old world.
13:38 While you are 100% spot on regarding diversification, Fuji also didn't abandon film nor digital cameras. They instead used their diversification as a way to buy them time and grow their footing in the digital world organically (Similar to Sony) and while digital certainly isn't where they make the majority of their profit, they have emerged to be the #4 dedicated digital camera manufacturer.
I owned a 2001 Aztek, and it was my very favorite car that I ever owned. I got it cheap at the end of the model year, completely loaded with everything, including the tow package. It was the cheapest vehicle that I could buy that had the towing capacity to tow a J/24 (sailboat), and haul 4' x 8' sheets of plywood, without being a pickup truck, and which had AWD and traction control for dealing with winter in the Snow Belt. The "micro RV" bit with the tent, and the fact that the tailgate and stereo controls in the back made it the ultimate drive-in movie vehicle were nice bonuses. The cladding that they got rid of for the 2002 year was badly needed; deleting it on the later models made the thing look slab-sided, rather than like a scaled-up Honda CRX.
It's interesting that you used Rochester garbage plate as the dish to make your point about the Aztek being bad, because I bought mine when I moved to Rochester -- to work at Kodak, no less -- where I discovered garbage plate, and ate it fairly frequently. Regional foodways FTW!
I really loved that thing, and I'm sad that it died because it wasn't built with long-term reliability in mind. If they'd made it as reliable as the Toyota that I'm currently driving, I might still have one.
I just found your channel. I remember seeing a little blurb about the Aztek well over 20 years ago. For some reason it stuck with me all these years.
That the car started out as a joke between designers. I always wondered about the validity of that line.
As an engineer I can only confirm that 90% of the R&D time is wasted on management changing their mind, yet one more time!
Management doesn't like delays, even after they've wasted 90% of our R&D time they expect in time completion of a project. This often means doing the whole R&D phase in less than 10% of the intended projects time-frame. The closer the deadline get's, the more meetings and updates management wants. Thereby wasting another 3 to 4% of the already impossible leftover 10%...
In small companies bad products are often made by inexperienced people, this issue fixes itself after gaining experience. Given enough funds, they will eventually produce a great product. In big corporations bad products are a result of micromanaging (middle) managers, these are the "I know it all" type of people. These people never learn anything new and keep enforcing their dumb ideas on the R&D team, the R&D team already knows management's stupidity won't work out anyways but are forced to implement it against recommendations. Bad products are the result, in conjunction with lot's of skilled technical people leaving for another company.
Man this is so true.
@@teahousereloaded It sadly is, I'm living it every day!
As solo part-time freelancer I do the equivalent amount of work in 1 to 2 weeks, what would take a full team 1 to 2 months at my full-time job. Main reason: Changing requirements, Meetings & Bureaucracy...
I once told my boss we're having to many meetings, he scheduled a meeting to discuss the issue of having to many meetings. Now we've even more meetings than before... Middle management needs to feel important, I guess...
Why even have middle managers if they are screwing it up? Ive only worked in construction industries so I dont know what being a useless water cooler sucking clipboard warrior desk jockey is actually like.
I think another great point is a hidden talent loss behind the scenes. Losing key people in the design process can break a successful design or a cohesive generation of products.
The largest example is HTC, a true fallen titan of the smartphone world. Once led by amazing industrial Designers like Scott Croyle, their designs were interesting, innovative and conversation starting until 2015.
Then... they were gone. HTC still made designs, but were lambasted for coming from iconic designs like the "One" and "Evo" into mere iphone clones.
A loss of talent meant their market appeal and wow card was completely gone, leaving a husk of what once was
You still one of the greatest product reviewers on the internet. Thanks mate. Great content. Keep it up!!
This was an interesting video but I really wish that you had pointed out SPECIFIC design elements from the car. Which ones did you find promising? What about that earlier proposal you mentioned? I am not familiar with this car and would have understood your points better and more interesting if you had elaborated
My hypothesis as someone who has worked in design for a long time is this. In company X there is an authority hierarchy. There is also a meritorious talent hierarchy in a given field. The authority one takes precedence over the latter, leading to absurdities like commercial and financial bean counters making design choices that get imposed, destroying any integrated design strategy. The bosses and commercial parasites f*ck it up essentially
And when they don't f*uck up things because they are busy working on other projects, they still take all the credit for design teams work. Have seen people getting 'designer of the year' awardfor projects where they haven't attended a single meeting.
Sometimes a design was just not meant to be for that era. The Aztek with a few modifications could look like any new electric hatchback SUV that dominate the market right now. Same for the Audi A2, it was ridiculed when it came out, but right now it doesn't even look dated, because the teardrop form is just timeless and it could be rebooted succesfully as a competitor to the BMW i3 for example
It is better looking than the Cybertruck.
the Aztek design was copied by the Renault Koleos, which debuted soon after the Aztec was discontinued
Soooo true! I bet a mix of paint job and stripes will do the work!👍
The model X is an electric Aztec.
The i3 is still terrible though
Steve Jobs gave a great speech on exactly this topic. He posed the question: "by the time a great concept car gets to production, it sucks. Why is that?"
I worked many years for one of the giant Japanese Corp. And believe me, even if they are successful, it is a complete nightmare to work in such "safe" corporate environment, if your nature is being an innovator. At the end I was so unhappy with my life there, that I left the company.
Not know which one you worked for I think from the outside Panasonic looks rather "adventurous". What do you think?
@@Martinit0 I don't know Panasonic from the inside, so I would not be able to make any comment on that, but what I can say is that every true Japanese company will never give power and influence away to not Japanese. It is not a complain, it is just a fact.
On one hand you have companies like Apple who obsess over form to the detriment of function, a beautiful but less useful product than thier competitors. Then you have products like the Aztec that took function to the point of sacrificing form, the car failed because it was considered "ugly", even though it did things the company designed it to do, and people had given it the chance would probably have found the car useful.
I find apple products quite useful. And I’m not an apple supremacist or anything…
@@nocreativename I'm not saying Apple products aren't useful, but it is still known that Apple sacrifices features to "enhance" the look of thier products. Obsession with thinness to the point of removing useful buttons and ports. Unreliable keyboards in the laptops(now fixed). Hard to upgrade hardware. Hard to fix hardware. Oversimplify the user interface in iOS. Etc,
@@oqlapsldim I wouldn't call that "known" so much as "an opinion". But yes, the Aztek is something Google would release, not Apple. That's true enough.
@@oqlapsldim Some points have merit, but the “features” apple products are supposedly missing, are features that get in the way in competing products. (See beginning of this video) I wouldnt call it a minimalist vision (lost its meaning) but an analog vision. Especially in the gui aspect whether iOS or OS X, apple is still on top, because the interface gives you clear choices. Contrast settings or preference menus on apple vs Microsoft. There’s just no comparison. The hardware is a different duck.
@@brmbkl you have to make a difference between hardware design and software design here. OP is right about hardware design. Function includes upgradeability and repairability too. Check out the iFixit score of any recent Apple product.
From the user interface standpoint, you're right. UX-wise, every competitor is subpar compared to Apple (in my opinion)
I gave my wife a 2001 Pontiac Aztec as Saint Valentine's day gift. She was the envy of the agency where she still works today. It was (is) beautiful, comfortable, big size bay, durable, excellent stability, and for fun, beach excellent. Endured almost 20 years THE BEST SRV (R for recreational). Both we still miss the vehicle. It has 360 vision no need to have rear or trunk cameras. I bought several vehicles thru the years and IMO the Aztek was (is) the best buy I ever made. An irony is the "ugliness" the Aztek had is today's standard for some "imported" vehicles. I am writing this to give the Aztek the respect and appreciation that rightfully deserves.
I miss my aztek. Yes you are spot on.
The Aztek may be some of the things you said but it's definitely not beautiful.
Aztec “beautiful”? LMAO.
I like the above shape but the front looks like a van etc but dislike the plastic look below. Love the tent implement.
had one loved the leg room for everyone, plenty of space for my junk, it was yellow so a little flashy but overall a ok SUV, would recommend l. also it came with a camping tent system.
Fujifilm did well to devertisfy their portfolio. The part about fear shows up in many facets of life, from design to policy and regulations.
Yup. Courage doesn't guarantee success...but it certainly makes it a lot more achievable.
Fujifilm was also in a different position becuase they were never only a film company to begin with unless you count only their first 4 years. They were also an optical lens company. This is important becuase Kodak is the only other company in history to share this commonality. However, unlike Fujifilm they generally failed to advance their lens technology in the modern area with high end lenses used for broadcast and cinema for example being made by Fujifilm and Cannon. You can really see how they kept their focus hard on the film. Also, unlike Fujifilm even when it came time to introduce digital cameras to market they failed to have any means to differentiate themselves in the market. For example Fujifilm created the X-Trans sensor for use in its cameras that differentiated itself from all other digital cameras which instead feature a Bayer filter array.
Bryce Bayer worked for Kodak
I worked for Kodak for many years.They failed because the long line of bad managers failed in so many ways.
That's a good point, but there's one other aspect: Kodak thought they were a film company that made cameras and chemicals. Fuji realised they were a chemical company that made film and cameras.
I had an Aztec. It was great for hauling my dj equipment. Tons of space and a good workhorse. The problem was the electrical problems and general maintenance sucked.
1:53 The fact that you subtly call out the Garbage Plate made my night.
The Aztek was objectively really cool, but also objectively had a face only an automotive megacorp could think would sell.
Someone's name springs to mind - Walter White.
Well, at least it ain't a PT Cruiser.
@@GeorgHaeder : The PT sold well. I think it would have sold even better as a V6 RWD.
I also think that many people on C-level don’t really have an incentive to look further ahead than a few months.
Fast job switching is so common on that level that it doesn’t really matter for those people that they’re creating a problem that’s about to pop up in a few months/years. By then they’ll be long gone and it’s their successor’s problem and in the meanwhile they got their bonus…
Absolutely. No incentive to maintain a legacy.
Great insight, thanks, enjoyed it a lot!
The Kodak examples reminds me of the BMW E1 electric concept car from 1991 with a range of 190 km. Also not to forget the GM EV1 car with an interesting story behind it!
When I did my photolab course, we visited the local Kodak film factory.
The guy who did the tour was confident that there was always a place for film, he briefly mentioned digital cameras, and said they would probably have some niche in the future.
This was about 1999. Within five years photolabs started closing en masse.
I think College and Universities should have to offer refunds if you cant get a job. Specially teaching something that is obsolete and telling you not to worry.
Funny, they are restarting film production now. Same with vinyl and cassette tapes. Weird.
@@nobodynoone2500 analog has infinite resolution. Digital is only “better” in practicality.
@@brmbklfar from infinite, the grain is limitation.
Did you say GM introduced the Chrysler minivans? Those responsible for the Chrysler minivans were people like Lee Iococa, who came from Ford, if you did any research at all you might have found the multi years long project Chrysler ram across the us to research customer interest in the minivan and features to include - something the Aztek lacked.
I misspoke, sorry
This needs to be fixed in the video.
my mom had one of these and it was pretty comfy , was able to fit a full size fridge in the trunk too when she picked it up on the used market one time lol
this video is genius. Articulating all the thoughts i've had about innovation and profits.
I was just watching breaking bad and felt attracted by the Aztek, I found it really cool looking and out of the ordinary. It sort of morphs the average car with an exotic sports car.
I think its funky, but in a weird way kinda cool
A “sports car”?? Where do you see a sports car in thát? 😂
I saw an interview with the chief designer of the Aztec, who was actually quite proud of the design. The idea was that Americans liked their comforts -- the cooler, lots of cup holders, etc -- but that they were always trying to avoid looking decadent. Thus with the Aztec, the idea was to make a car that looked really ugly, but which included all the creature comforts. Given the poor sales, he obviously overestimated the appeal of ugly. Then again, he did make one of the few cars that anyone actually remembers from that era.
I worked for a company that did digital demos for Kodak in the mid-2000s. We got them to market leadership in several price segments. There was even hope of selling small SD cards for photo storage like they were film rolls. And the printer-docks were great for people who wanted prints. However, even if there was money in digital cameras, media, and printing, I saw the writing on the wall with camera-phones, which were getting better in quality and I even predicted the tablet-like smartphone a couple years before it came out. I knew those would become the future camera and photo album and would kill the company.
I later bought a Pontiac Vibe, which looks like the Aztek's prettier little sister.
The Pontiac Aztec seems to have had a unique purpose. It appears that GM built that to keep the Chevrolet Avalanche from being the ugliest vehicle on the market. If that was, in fact, the plan at GM then it was moderately successful.
"imposition of design"
This perfectly describes the problem with a lot of architecture for the 1960s onwards. Designed to be impressive on a drawing board but not really looking at what people actually need from a building
The flipside of being "too scared" to innovate is the even more companies going after the latest trend and and tech fail mat an even higher rate than those who go for true and tested.
In short, there is no given formula of success here...
The Aztec concept car, shown at 5:07, was pretty cool. Then they tried to put it on a minivan chassis which SEVERELY compromised the design. Instead of a kind of practical off-roader, they just made a worse min-van
I don't see anyone saying that in order to quickly compete in the emerging crossover SUV market, the car and it's buick brother were built on the existing Minivan platform (U-Body) in order to hit the market before the new Lambda Platform was finished. Hence the weird proportions.
I saw Walt drive this in Breaking Bad, loved the car and googled it only to find out its a crap car and Walt drives it because all his life he's made bad decisions.
Never saw an uglier car in my whole life (though honestly, the PT cruiser, Daihatsu Materia and Fiat Multipla are worthy contenders). I really was taken aback when I started to watch Breaking Bad, I never even heard or had never ever seen an Astec. Had to Google it. Never seen 1 in real life over here in Europe. I started wondering why Mr White would own such a car, but analysing it, it just makes perfect sense. My view in the matter is that WW always preferred rational and empiric solutions over beauty. I mean, he started out (in the series) as a chemistry teacher, hardly a high profile job, and as a family man. So it would make perfect sense for him to own an Astec. His clothes are also nothing fancy, they’re functional, just like the guy is. WW is just a very ordinary, middle of the road family man. It’s only later in the series, when making huge profits as a meth cook, that his attention starts to shift towards fancy cars like the Mustang. Interestingly enough, Walter White also evolves from a rational, unobtrusive individual to a ruthless, hotheaded criminal. From a charming family man to a brutal, toxic character. His car choice reflects that, in my opinion. From an ugly but rugged, sturdy, cheap and practical design to an individualistic, expensive and macho muscle car.
One thing that wasn't really touched on here was that GM (or automakers in general) relentlessly shoe-horn a new design into an existing platform instead of making a new platform. From a manufacturing perspective that makes sense so you don't have to spend money and time making something new (low risk). The unfortunate thing with the Aztek was that the design had different proportions than the current GM mini-van line up (The Aztek was shoe-horned into the Pontiac Montana "U platform"). So part of the ugliness was because they took a concept design, which wasn't all that bad, and re-proportioned it to fit in the minivan platform. From an aesthetic design perspective that's the first problem, you can see the ugliness across that family. From a functional problem, shoehorning the design to the minivan platform meant it couldn't deliver on it's design promises. Mainly it was to be sort of a off the beaten path explorer, but not all out rock crawler, think Subaru liberty or something with equal AWD chops. Seeing as it was shoe-horned into a minivan platform it couldn't deliver that same performance in the design brief. The minivan platform had low ground clearance, although the Montana platform did offer AWD, the platform was not intended for off road.
I guess. I mean a crossover is basically a minivan without sliding doors and more likely to have AWD. Ground clearance isn't necessary for what most people use a CRV or RAV4 (or honestly, a Wrangler) for. (Maybe more Honda Element or Subaru Forester; Liberty was a Jeep with more robust off road ability).
What parts of the U platform dictated the Aztek would be ugly? Wheelbase and ground clearance ought to be in line with other minivans, some of which were not ugly, so it's not those. What else about the platform informs how its vehicles will all look?
I've experienced this in the software industry. People stuck in their ways and refusing to adapt to new technologies that require some initial investment but in the longterm would make the product more stable, easier to maintain and therefore cost less to the company. People really do not like change.
I love the Aztec! just wish it was more reliable. My dad had an 01 and it spent more time in the garage than in the driveway.
Aztek has some design issues. But it's biggest marketing issue was price. It went into the market almost $5,000 more expensive than comparable vehicles. This suggests that mission 1 was to get Pontiac a "high-margin" vehicle (like the SUVs that were booming then) without regard to it making sense. The Aztek was a "2-row" vehicle, but a rather large one (and nowhere as luxurious as say a Lexus 300) . Also the initial models didn't have AWD (that rolled out later).
The first year, GM had to literally "give away" (here read "foist on various employees), enough Azteks to reach 20,000 sales. For most of the remaining years (after the price was adjusted), they sold a bit more than 30,000 (this was AFTER it became joke #1). The problem was than it and the Rendezvous (same plant) were supposed to sell 120,000 vehicles a year combined. And the total was closer to 7-80,000.
Despite all the "quirks" the Aztek was considered pretty reliable (above average for GM, which can seem like damning with faint praise), and got good customer ratings (those who bought them for the most part really liked them). I consider it a minor design error and a major marketing one.
I feel like a big issue is that there is no widely accepted format of consolidation between engineer, mechanic and driver in a lot of design/production sequences. AS far as i can tell its completely up to the whim of the company if they cross reference their designs.
I say this as a person who's frequently owned a car where the only way to change a headlight, was by taking entirely taking off the front tire and shifting the battery. An extra 45 mins- 1 hour of time, just to replace a 10$ headlight that's normally a 5 min job. Kinda makes me wonder who the actual fk designed the interior, and why that team works on cars yet apparently never changed a headlight before? boggles my mind to this day.
Compare that to my 2005 Chevy Silverado pickup. Changing a headlight is at most a 5-minute job, and you don't even need any tools--not even a screwdriver--to get the job done. I bought it new in 2005, and 16 years later it's still going strong. And the styling still looks fresh, much like the current lineup. I've never been happier with a major purchase.
2:00 was dope af and better looking than most of today's SUVs tbh
I was selling Pontiacs when the Aztek came out. They asked us what we thought of the concept and without exception it was negative. We begged the zone managers to pass it up the chain not to build this horrible vehicle. But California polled positive and the exact quote to us was “What polls well in California will do well countrywide.”
Minor point: Fujifilm builds excellent digital cameras that are essentially designed around the characteristics of their film. They managed their transition brilliantly.
Disagree. I was always kinda taken with it. Just look at some of the more recent model vehicles coming to market now, looking a bit familiar to this. I knew back then, that the overall aesthetic of this car was ahead of it's time. There's countless vehicles now with "two faces", swooping back hatch windows and a crossover body type. Anyone who thinks this is bad, is probably not a fan of 2022.
I had an aztek.lots of room and drove nicely but was half assed built.example.the vibrations in the engine caused the battery to move over towards the belt pulley and the pulley would tear into it.had to replace the battery 3 times.the electronics in it were garbage too.none of the stuff in it ever worked right and by the time I got ridd of it nothing inside it worked .what sent it off to the junkyard was when the electricals in the engine caught fire that was the end of it
There is as much personal fear among the execs as there is corporate fear among the board of directors and investors. That is, successful execs will be rewarded and unsuccessful execs will be looking for another job with a bad track record. So risky innovation is often not desirable if the execs want to protect their careers. This is why you find young companies more likely to take risks. They are still trying to win investors. Once a company is established, they need to hang on to their investors and can typically only do so by doing less-risky things.
amogus
I actually like how it looks, it resembles the Aztec artistic aesthetic of bright colors and complex, cluttered construction
It's easy to look back at it now and think "it's not so bad, It's actually similar to the crossovers on the road now". In retrospect it really isn't bad looking. The Subaru Tribeca on the other hand, is just god-awful. But coming out of the 90s where every car was smooth, round, and zero flare, this design was doomed. It was too radical. They couldn't just invent the crossover and be done with it, they tried way too hard to sell an idea that everyone already wanted.
@@beff5058 The 2006/2007 Tribeca doesn't look that bad actually, it's quirky enough. The problem comes with the 2008 facelift, when it became very bland looking.
It is really very simple. Bad, management Uninvolved in design And lack of real design talent. Years back I had interviews with Ital Design and Bertone. That’s where ive learned that it tskes massive and very strong talent to create amazing product. American management is specifically unfitting for accepting embracing this
My neighbor has a light blue Pontiac Aztek and maintains it well. It is still low mileage and in great conditions. These days it really stands out from the other cars in San Francisco - all SUVs have the same puffed up blobby shape IMHO.
The problem with American car manufacturing is the quality. While European brands galvanize their chassis and bodywork, use a primer layer, and then many layers of paint, finished with a transparent layer, The steel plating of American cars is thinner, and they use much more plastic on the outside (i.e. a motorscooter on 4 wheels). Sure, it's all about making a profit, but it's gone too far, risking the drivers safety in the process.
That being said: many American designs are awesome. And besides that, many of you wish Pontiac was still a brand being made....
Shitty cars today are objectively safer than even nice cars from back then.
You go "its all plastic wahhh". Here's the thing. Old cars could survive crashes, but the passengers wouldn't.
Cards today entirely flatten in crashes as a SAFETY feature.
Look up modern crash tests, literally every car on the road is safer than one from 40 years ago.
Car-wise, I think the Aztek should be compared to the original Honda CR-V. It was also Honda's initial foray into the SUV in the mid-90s, and I understand the brief to the designers was to design an off-roader with features that each of them wanted. Mechanically (and budget-wise), it was offered with just one 2.0-litre engine, and only with an automatic transmission with the Real-time 4WD already developed for the Civic Shuttle. So the CR-V was just a clever re-styling of the Civic Shuttle, and it came with cool features such as a foldable picnic table, a walk-thru cabin because there was no centre console - it looked rugged, but wasn't really a bona fide off-roader, but it sold well and that's all that mattered. And other car manufacturers followed the same car-based formula.
The first CRV also had Double-wishbone suspension, a thrifty and reliable DOHC engine that likes to rev, and AWD that still got decent mileage. But When I think "Honda Aztek" My mind goes immediately to the Element. Function before form to a fault, and they are amazing.
That physical concept Aztek car was wayyy better than the actual finished product
I liked the Aztek and the PT Cruiser, I didn't love them, but I didn't hate them, I had a positive attitude towards them a little bit above indifference.
Fun fact: Kodak leveraged their knowledge from producing film to producing things like photopolymer printing plates.
The Last Chevrolet Caprice was one of these. The 1/2 covered rear wheels, Was a thing at Gm . But I worked at a dealer . And even if a client was shopping for anything else , they would say that is the ugliest cat ever! BMW oversized grills are a great example.
But half covered wheels become aerodynamically beneficial (although style was the reason here).
The concept car looks really cool, makes me think of when you're at the barbershop and your hair looks cool in the middle, then bad at the end lol
I remember when the Aztec came out. I got to drive a few of them, but really was not impressed back then. Even now, I have seen some low mileage Buick Rendezvous (Buick version) come up for sale, but who would want them? Yet some people bought both since they did sell some for 4 years.
We should also remember the opposite happens. Companies with a proven winner get set on a vision of something that is by al means innovative but fails to capture the market. Or they just execute the vision poorly or too early. As said in the video, something innovative is by definition unusual and sometimes that doesn't work out. Putting everything in the line to chase it can lead to failure as well.
RCA is a good example of this. They had a huge R&D campus, but that's all they did. Invent stuff nobody ever saw, nobody asked for, and had little if any useful purpose. That R&D facility had no relationship with the marketing department.
See I've always liked the Aztek because it's bold to the point of self-parody. That's what makes it fun to me.
Plastic in the lower regions of the side panels eliminates rusting issues that often develop in vehicles, especially up north in wet areas.
It should also be noted that good and competent people will always get promoted out of their position until there's nowhere to go or they become incompetent, while bad people will stay in their position and continuely bog down the production process. If a company doesn't do a purge here and there, they'll inevitably end with competent people in the very top but every other place is completely incompetent.
An example that I found was Micheal from The Office. He was a good salesman and was therefore promoted to regional manager. The problem was, he wasn't a good regional manager, so he degraded the entire office. He was promoted until he was completely incompetent.
yeah, I love this. Isn't this called the Peter Principle or something?
When I was studying photography at university in the late 90s we had a visit from Kodak with their new digital camera. It was potato quality compared to what started to appear from other companies just a few years later. They seemed to get overtaken by everyone else so quickly. It was clear they weren't that into it.
Great show! Surprised to see Kodak in the mix. Kodak spun their chemical division off as Eastman Chemical which is a profitable, if not sometimes controversial (this week) company.
I was a fan of Kodak since I had family who worked at the Tn facility.
But the writing was on the wall when my dad who worked at the plant showed me his digital camera to assist in inspections. The company gave him a Fuji digital camera. 🙃
And yet, I love my Aztek.I saw one in a parking lot and went over and looked at it. Two years later when we needed a new car for our family, I went to pontiac, tested it and bought a new Aztek in 2004. It is still the family car in 2022, and I have no plans to get rid of it. Practical and utilitarian, I love this vehicle.
How many miles/KM on yours? Ours is at about 240k miles. 2005 AWD and it is a relatively base model. No driver info center, HUD, or tent but I do have the cooler and storage box.
Interesting, the concept is so much better! The swept down roof gives good balance between space and drag. Still the car is way too big though.
I know two people who bought Aztecs (no they didn't work for GM) and they each bought theirs for utility. Both were very happy with the cars.
I liked the tech in the car, which was kewl for the time, but I have to admit I thought it was ugly (although the orange one in video looks nice)
Companies not innovating out of fear:
Every traditional ground based telecoms companies.
The majority of traditional media/entertainment companies.
The majority of traditional car companies.
The majority of traditional farming companies.
If you find a company innovating now, executing well and with solid cashflow then investing now will produce big results over the next 5-10 years. Particularly because companies in early growth stages are not popular at the moment due to inflation.
@ 9:40 cool to watch this in June 2023 just after Apple announced Vision Pro! You were prophetic.
The Pontiac Aztec is the Heisenberg dadmobile.
at least the Aztek was a new idea. look at Ford's new Mustang and you have to scratch your head and wonder what the heck were they thinking. they basically created a new SUV, slapped on Mustang tail lights and called it a Mustang. so sad to ruin such a legacy auto.
I agree with you. At least they tried
Yet here you are talking about it! They could've given it any other name and it would just be one of 13 in a dozen Tesla Model Y competitors. The product design might be lame but the marketing is great.
It's not like they had much of a choice either. They had to do something bold because another compliance car like the Focus EV would make them totally miss the boat on electric cars.
Also, it's Ford, they'll throw anything and anyone under the bus to keep making money: Pinto and 90's Explorer buyers, their century long tire partner, and now the most iconic muscle car brand.
No... they didn't "try"... they butchered a legendary brand name... that's my point.
@BodyDestruction As a HUGE Mustang fan, Ford has lost my business FOREVER with this SUV crap.
Lee Iacocca design was beautiful and tapped into what average Americans wanted. So much so that the 64-68's still dominate the classic car shows. This new Mustang fiasco will long be forgotten and ignored like the Aztek. Great marketing isn't about pissing off your customers - it's about connecting with them and giving them what they've always wanted.
If you watch the evolution of the Corvette, it shows what happens when a car company cares about a brand and its legacy. The only thing that makes the Mach E a "mustang" is the pony emblem on the front and the tri-tail lights. They bloated the sleek design. And ditched the elegant lines it once had.
Despite what you argue - this is still one of 13 Tesla wannabes... the only difference is it has a name that once stood for something... which obviously, today, no longer means anything.
@@SuperKagey1 No, I'm NOT arguing the Mustang Mach-E is anything but a Tesla wannabe, I'm arguing it wouldn't even stand a chance without the name.
The only bad publicity is no publicity. It's a horse and airplane name ffs, marketing gave it its current meaning.
Harley Davidson has been strangled to near-death by a geriatric consumer base opposing any meaningful updates. LiveWire isn't brave, it's necessary to avoid bankruptcy, but I guess you can always count on bailouts when you're one of the "big" three.
Are you sure about businessman Lee Iacocca? All he had to do was trace a Sunbeam Alpine II and slap on the now-dysfunctional (aka FAKE) air intakes from the MR Mustang concept, but he didn't do that - actual designers Americanised the European sports car.
You do realise the Mustang was just a Falcon with "long hood, short deck" styling, right? Exactly like the new Mach-E is just a compact car (majority of cars are crossovers nowadays) with that same design cue.
If you're so pissed off about it as a Ford customer, why didn't you do anything about it like with the Ford Probe?
At least Ford is expanding the Mustang brand instead of replacing it with crossovers (see: Ford Puma, Ford/Lincoln Corsair, Mitsubishi Eclipse, most body on frame people carriers/trucks).
The Corvette wasn't great, eventual chief engineer Zora Arkus-Duntov made it great by giving it performance. Then GM held it back for half a century, while limiting/killing all its other performance cars (like the Pontiac Banshee).
The C2 should've been mid engined, but at least it wasn't as horrible as the 2nd gen Mustang.
"GM cares about its legacy"...
DID YOU FORGET THE PROPOSED CORVETTE CROSSOVER?
The new Blazer?
Pontiac? Saturn? Saab? Opel?
HUMMER, the military brand that got diluted to the point of being defunct, which they are bringing back a decade later, with an ELECTRIC SUV?
I'm in Europe, Chevys legacy here is pretty much only rebadged Daewoos and the occasional grey import.
And since I'm not in Scandinavia, classic car shows here are dominated by the myriad of cars that inspired or surpassed the Mustang, not US iron.
@@BodyDestruction ok cool, misunderstood.
I obviously don't know as much as you do on what goes on inside the car companies... only what I see on the showroom floors. The Corvette was to be the "poor man's" Ferrari. Today, it's much closer to that than ever... but far from a "poor man's" price!
The Mustang also was designed for a reason... much like the Volkswagon Beetle. Classic cars that have staying power start with fulfilling a purpose. What the new "mustang" Mach-E is supposed to do is beyond me.
Here's a scary perspective: In 1965 Ford sold 22,000 Mustangs on the FIRST DAY! In 2022, Ford sold just over 27,000 Mustang Mach-E for the ENTIRE YEAR.
You may call this a "marketing coup" but I call it sad. I would rather have Ford walk away from the Mustang brand, much like Chevy did with Camaro, than bastardize it into a concept it never was.
Yes, agree that companies have to evolve. Just like brands have to evolve. BUT... and this is a very big BUT... the brand must stay true to its "brand promise." Mustang was always a sporty car made for the working man. Can Mach-E say that? No. The Mach-E is more of a soccer mom car for the liberal elite.
I've got no beef with Ford evolving its cars. Had it kept the Mustang or Alpine styling, and gave it an electric motor - I'd be there to purchase one. But Ford walked away from the original intent AND design of the vehicle (regardless of who you want to credit for the inspiration) -- and today the Mach-E looks NOTHING like the original. I hate how the lastest Mach 1 (not the one from the late 60's and early 70's) now has a scrunched up nose... was further shortened in the Mach E. The long, sleek hood was part of the Mustang's appeal.
Anyway -- would love to see @Design_Theory take a deep dive into Mustang's evolution and how sales point to the mistakes and wins at Ford. Would be an interesting essay.
The pontiac Aztek is basically the same car as the 2021 subaru forrester. It was genius, it was just too ahead of its time and they got the aesthetics of the front end a little wrong
Early in the video, you hit on it. "A clear, unifying vision."vs marketing for 2 opposite groups: seniors who want practical transportation vs. Young people who want "cool."..add a manager who doesn't want to hear ANY negative comment, you're DOOMED.
Not a bad product .
The Pontiac Aztek was the worlds first Coupe SUV .
Today they are mainstream .
They are exotics that u can drive everyday .
Even India's Mahindra is launching the Aero .
And it will be a huge success in india .
Thanks to GM for inventing this genre .