+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Walking in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=189)
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-22-2024
(02-21-2024, 03:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(02-21-2024, 12:41 AM)bravado Wrote: Then it’s just a coincidence that the only cars they are selling these days are higher margin monstrosities, spurred along by “consumer choice” in the highway mad max arms race.
It's not coincidence. But don't confuse correlation with causation.
If you look at the sales data by model (a lot can be found with the right search phrases) you'll see that the sedan sales, from Taurus and Impala to Corolla and Jetta have been in a steady decline for a decade or so, which is why many of those are not being replaced. (Jetta and Corolla still exist as the cost-conscious sedans still have more demand than the large ones.)
That said, many of the smaller SUVs/crossovers are really just slightly taller hatchbacks/wagons with "tougher" styling. But it seems that this what most people (not including me, though) are looking for.
The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 03:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(02-21-2024, 03:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's not coincidence. But don't confuse correlation with causation.
If you look at the sales data by model (a lot can be found with the right search phrases) you'll see that the sedan sales, from Taurus and Impala to Corolla and Jetta have been in a steady decline for a decade or so, which is why many of those are not being replaced. (Jetta and Corolla still exist as the cost-conscious sedans still have more demand than the large ones.)
That said, many of the smaller SUVs/crossovers are really just slightly taller hatchbacks/wagons with "tougher" styling. But it seems that this what most people (not including me, though) are looking for.
The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
The model discontinuations are indeed an industry decision. But they are a consequence of consumer preferences: if not enough people buy Tauruses or Fusions, Ford is not going to spend the millions needed to design the next generation of cars. And the sales numbers dropped steadily, for vast majority of sedans, as people chose to buy SUVs or (mostly) crossovers instead.
Our car is a hatchback, not a crossover or an SUV. But I have followed automotive industry for the past two-plus decades, and the change in consumer preferences is real. Just as people switched from station wagons to minivans in the 80s/90s, and manufacturers discontinued wagons as their sales dried up. Small sports cars (from MGB to Miata) went out of style and new there are few left. Muscle car era ended, and there are few sold today. Sales didn't go to zero in any of these examples, but low enough that designing, building and selling such models no longer made economic sense for them. You can make money building less expensive cars, too, but building low-volume models is very expensive.
There are still companies that focus on low-cost cars (such as Dacia, for example) but even their sales are mostly crossovers now. Do you really think that most people today would prefer driving a sedan?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 10:59 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(02-22-2024, 03:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
The model discontinuations are indeed an industry decision. But they are a consequence of consumer preferences: if not enough people buy Tauruses or Fusions, Ford is not going to spend the millions needed to design the next generation of cars. And the sales numbers dropped steadily, for vast majority of sedans, as people chose to buy SUVs or (mostly) crossovers instead.
Our car is a hatchback, not a crossover or an SUV. But I have followed automotive industry for the past two-plus decades, and the change in consumer preferences is real. Just as people switched from station wagons to minivans in the 80s/90s, and manufacturers discontinued wagons as their sales dried up. Small sports cars (from MGB to Miata) went out of style and new there are few left. Muscle car era ended, and there are few sold today. Sales didn't go to zero in any of these examples, but low enough that designing, building and selling such models no longer made economic sense for them. You can make money building less expensive cars, too, but building low-volume models is very expensive.
There are still companies that focus on low-cost cars (such as Dacia, for example) but even their sales are mostly crossovers now. Do you really think that most people today would prefer driving a sedan?
As I've said several times now, I think what most people want is dictated in large part based on what they see and experience. For example, seeing people living the kind of life people want for themselves, doing the same thing 20-100 times per day. That's the whole point. Advertising is driving this.
If the auto industry in Canada and the US spent the last 20 years running advertising showing positive images of interesting people doing interesting things in small efficient sedans, Canada would look more like Europe. Instead we've had the past two decades of toxic auto advertising pushing the most aggressive most angry most problematic vehicles and vehicle drivers around, and that isn't without effect.
Even leaving aside the vehicles that are on our roads...it also affects how people drive them. When they see people speeding through an empty city, it plants a subconscious expectation that's what it should be like, then they're angry when that isn't the case....and when it is, they're reckless.
Like I said, it is shocking just how much of our culture is dominated (determined) by advertising.
I couldn't really find good numbers on the numbers of ads people actually see on a daily basis...the common number thrown around is between 3,000 and 10,000. Some have questioned this, a google glass study found 250 advertisements were in view in a 90 minute period just walking around London UK. But leaving aside some...frankly, questionable low ball suggestions, the number would clearly be in the 1000s...
You think that seeing some media 1000s of times every single day doesn't affect us?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 02-22-2024
OK, so the real issue you have is toxic advertising. I understand what you are saying now.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 12:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: OK, so the real issue you have is toxic advertising. I understand what you are saying now.
I mean, yes, I have a general problem with advertising...
But I do think it plays a large part in this specific issue...I don't think it's correct to say that people in North America prefer SUVs and Pickups. I think they are exposed to considerable advertising (and now the world around them) which influences their preferences.
And I think saying that "The auto industry responds to consumer demand" fundamentally misstates the facts...the auto industry influences (at a minimum, and arguably even creates/controls) consumer demand.
But I do also think this is more/less relevant for every product category. But few product categories are we so convinced to buy such a destructive product that provides us so little benefit. Yeah, I also have an iPad and that's influenced by advertising to be sure, but an iPad is not inherently dangerous to my neighbours, and contrary to owning a short bed pickup truck, actually provides me new things I can do that I couldn't before.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 03:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
I, as I mentioned before, agree regarding the effect of advertising. But to deny that a consumer influenced by advertising is still free to make a choice is quite an extreme position to take. Would you suggest a consumer in the 80s purchasing a sedan after seeing an advertisement has any more agency or less agency than someone today buying an SUV after seeing an advertisement? Is one more a "consumer choice" than the other?
I'm also curious why you think different markets (such as Europe) have consumers making different choices when, broadly speaking, the same companies are involved?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 04:02 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-22-2024, 03:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
I, as I mentioned before, agree regarding the effect of advertising. But to deny that a consumer influenced by advertising is still free to make a choice is quite an extreme position to take. Would you suggest a consumer in the 80s purchasing a sedan after seeing an advertisement has any more agency or less agency than someone today buying an SUV after seeing an advertisement? Is one more a "consumer choice" than the other?
I'm also curious why you think different markets (such as Europe) have consumers making different choices when, broadly speaking, the same companies are involved?
So...for why Europe is different, it is because the context is different. The government, laws, costs, and infrastructure are all different. This changes the profit motive for car companies. In some cases pickup trucks and large SUVs are simply not allowed, in others, they are simply made more expensive by policies. But in the US and Canada, the opposite is true, SUVs and Trucks are exempt from restrictions which apply to sedans. And finally, we are indeed seeing an increase of larger SUVs in Europe too.
As for whether people have any agency...that is a wildly philosophical question. I am not suggesting that you see an SUV ad and you become an automaton who goes to the dealer and buys a truck immediately.
But the point is this has been a slow progressive movement. Advertisements influence culture, but they are not the whole experience of a person in society. Now they also see other cars on the roads, have friends and family who have cars, all these influence as well...and guess what, over time, more and more of these other experiences also include trucks and SUVs...but the thing CREATING that gradual change has, IMO been the auto industry. So yes, even if you isolate yourself from advertising, you're not going to be isolated from the effects of a decades long campaign by the auto industry.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - plam - 02-22-2024
(02-22-2024, 04:02 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-22-2024, 03:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The causation is explicit, like, companies exist to make money, moving towards higher margin vehicles isn't an accident, or luck, it's the explicit intentional goal of every corporation.
The "steady decline" isn't consumer choice, it's an intentional strategy by the auto industry.
I, as I mentioned before, agree regarding the effect of advertising. But to deny that a consumer influenced by advertising is still free to make a choice is quite an extreme position to take. Would you suggest a consumer in the 80s purchasing a sedan after seeing an advertisement has any more agency or less agency than someone today buying an SUV after seeing an advertisement? Is one more a "consumer choice" than the other?
I'm also curious why you think different markets (such as Europe) have consumers making different choices when, broadly speaking, the same companies are involved?
It's never going to be yes-or-no. I think that more advertising, at some level, does mean that more people make purchase decisions to buy the thing that is being advertised. Can't point to any specific case, but surely it's got to be true in general.
There's also the arms race aspect of it where you feel surrounded by big SUVs and therefore the need to get one yourself. (I mean, I ride a bicycle around, or sometimes a Mazda 2, but generally.)
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ac3r - 02-22-2024
Europeans are buying more SUVs and similar vehicles because they like them. While partially true, it isn't really because car companies and advertising firms are brainwashing them into buying these things. Consumer demand is why a company like Citroën's current range includes numerous North American style large sedans, crossovers, SUVs and so on. People just want these sort of cars, and it makes sense because they're larger and nicer.
Europe is no "different" than anywhere else and it's an amusingly naive statement to imply they are haha. I'm half Irish and was born there, spent nearly half my life living across Europe so I understand the European mentality quite well. They've always enjoyed big vehicles the same way we do. If you know anything about cars, that's super easy to see. Or have ever done more than a week trip or lived there for a few months to a year. But they also love small ones because sometimes they make more sense, especially in cities where the roads are super chaotic and dangerous. They're easier to drive and cheaper. Being cheaper is good because if you've ever lived in Europe long enough and have owned a car, you understand it'll get destroyed. Dings, bumps, taps, kisses, scrapes etc. It'll quickly have scars. It might even get burned...cities like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin etc are full of burned out husks of cars. People just like to set them on fire for the hell of it, haha.
But there has always been a desire and market for nice, big vehicles all over Europe. Europeans are no different than anyone else, they want the same things. And now thankfully, manufacturers are starting to react and offer products they want. That's a good thing for business and everyone. If they want something and it can be provided, cool. Not Just Bikes fangirls might seethe at the sight of SUVs on French, Spanish or Dutch streets, but they don't really matter outside their echo chambers. Some governments - be it mayors, national leaders or the fascists in Brussels - are trying to ban them though it won't be all that successful, especially because people have grown absolutely sick and tired of shitty North American liberalism which had been exported around the planet through capitalism and neoliberalism. Europeans want a unified and functioning Europe, but they don't want to be told what they can think, say or do. That includes driving.
Consumers will want what they want and the market reacts. It's not advertisers calling the shots, it's us. The best thing auto manufacturers can do now is pivot towards electrical sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks. Electric vehicles still need a heck of a lot of work since they're environmentally destructive and compared to gas/diesel vehicles tend to suck in a million ways, but improve that and then there's nothing wrong with owning an SUV or whatever someone wishes to drive (not that there's anything wrong with owning a traditional combustion engine SUV).
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 02-23-2024
(02-22-2024, 04:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for whether people have any agency...that is a wildly philosophical question. I am not suggesting that you see an SUV ad and you become an automaton who goes to the dealer and buys a truck immediately.
But the point is this has been a slow progressive movement. Advertisements influence culture, but they are not the whole experience of a person in society. Now they also see other cars on the roads, have friends and family who have cars, all these influence as well...and guess what, over time, more and more of these other experiences also include trucks and SUVs...but the thing CREATING that gradual change has, IMO been the auto industry. So yes, even if you isolate yourself from advertising, you're not going to be isolated from the effects of a decades long campaign by the auto industry.
I totally agree with that, but I still think the end result is consumer choice. The population can't wash their hands of any negative consequences of following through on propaganda, advertising or otherwise.
Maybe it's a meaningless philosophical distinction to you or others, but it feels like giving up any capability to fight back against those who put information before our eyeballs.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 02-23-2024
(02-22-2024, 07:27 PM)ac3r Wrote: But there has always been a desire and market for nice, big vehicles all over Europe. Europeans are no different than anyone else, they want the same things. And now thankfully, manufacturers are starting to react and offer products they want. That's a good thing for business and everyone. If they want something and it can be provided, cool. Not Just Bikes fangirls might seethe at the sight of SUVs on French, Spanish or Dutch streets, but they don't really matter outside their echo chambers. Some governments - be it mayors, national leaders or the fascists in Brussels - are trying to ban them though it won't be all that successful, especially because people have grown absolutely sick and tired of shitty North American liberalism which had been exported around the planet through capitalism and neoliberalism. Europeans want a unified and functioning Europe, but they don't want to be told what they can think, say or do. That includes driving.
Blessings of strength and courage for the European people in their fight against American hegemony and it's notable cultural exports: small cars, public transport, pedestrianization, and low car or car free cities.
Look, I get the desire to push against the unbending dogma of progressive zealots. I don't identify with that, or really any ideology (therein being a reason why I can't really identify with progressivism). But every single post you make solidifies their view that straying from their righteous path is for uninformed, illogical liars and idiots. It's counterproductive. Unlike others who have blocked you for offending them, I might end up doing it to save having to erase the last two minutes of nonsense I just read from my brain every time you post.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-23-2024
(02-23-2024, 12:28 AM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-22-2024, 04:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for whether people have any agency...that is a wildly philosophical question. I am not suggesting that you see an SUV ad and you become an automaton who goes to the dealer and buys a truck immediately.
But the point is this has been a slow progressive movement. Advertisements influence culture, but they are not the whole experience of a person in society. Now they also see other cars on the roads, have friends and family who have cars, all these influence as well...and guess what, over time, more and more of these other experiences also include trucks and SUVs...but the thing CREATING that gradual change has, IMO been the auto industry. So yes, even if you isolate yourself from advertising, you're not going to be isolated from the effects of a decades long campaign by the auto industry.
I totally agree with that, but I still think the end result is consumer choice. The population can't wash their hands of any negative consequences of following through on propaganda, advertising or otherwise.
Maybe it's a meaningless philosophical distinction to you or others, but it feels like giving up any capability to fight back against those who put information before our eyeballs.
I'm not sure of your point here...I know this is an uncomfortable fact, but the reality is that a few wealthy people do control a considerable portion of our lives.
The way in which we push back on that is by recognising it. Simply pretending we have free will and that we are not influenced by these things is how they continue to maintain control.
Cigarettes are an instructive example...because they are strongly cultural, and we have managed to change that culture slowly but consistently away from smoking. We have done so not by ignoring the power that wealthy companies have, but by seeing it, checking it, and progressively restricting it.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-23-2024
(02-22-2024, 05:44 PM)plam Wrote:(02-22-2024, 04:02 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I, as I mentioned before, agree regarding the effect of advertising. But to deny that a consumer influenced by advertising is still free to make a choice is quite an extreme position to take. Would you suggest a consumer in the 80s purchasing a sedan after seeing an advertisement has any more agency or less agency than someone today buying an SUV after seeing an advertisement? Is one more a "consumer choice" than the other?
I'm also curious why you think different markets (such as Europe) have consumers making different choices when, broadly speaking, the same companies are involved?
It's never going to be yes-or-no. I think that more advertising, at some level, does mean that more people make purchase decisions to buy the thing that is being advertised. Can't point to any specific case, but surely it's got to be true in general.
There's also the arms race aspect of it where you feel surrounded by big SUVs and therefore the need to get one yourself. (I mean, I ride a bicycle around, or sometimes a Mazda 2, but generally.)
I agree that seeing SUVs everywhere affects people, but like I said, why are you surrounded by SUVs...it's a self reinforcing aspect of our culture now, but we only got here because auto executives wanted us here. In fact, none of the major domestic automakers as far as I'm aware, advertised during the superbowl...they don't need to anymore...
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-23-2024
(02-23-2024, 12:47 AM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-22-2024, 07:27 PM)ac3r Wrote: But there has always been a desire and market for nice, big vehicles all over Europe. Europeans are no different than anyone else, they want the same things. And now thankfully, manufacturers are starting to react and offer products they want. That's a good thing for business and everyone. If they want something and it can be provided, cool. Not Just Bikes fangirls might seethe at the sight of SUVs on French, Spanish or Dutch streets, but they don't really matter outside their echo chambers. Some governments - be it mayors, national leaders or the fascists in Brussels - are trying to ban them though it won't be all that successful, especially because people have grown absolutely sick and tired of shitty North American liberalism which had been exported around the planet through capitalism and neoliberalism. Europeans want a unified and functioning Europe, but they don't want to be told what they can think, say or do. That includes driving.
Blessings of strength and courage for the European people in their fight against American hegemony and it's notable cultural exports: small cars, public transport, pedestrianization, and low car or car free cities.
Look, I get the desire to push against the unbending dogma of progressive zealots. I don't identify with that, or really any ideology (therein being a reason why I can't really identify with progressivism). But every single post you make solidifies their view that straying from their righteous path is for uninformed, illogical liars and idiots. It's counterproductive. Unlike others who have blocked you for offending them, I might end up doing it to save having to erase the last two minutes of nonsense I just read from my brain every time you post.
I just sprayed my breakfast all over my table...that's the most insane absurd thing I've read this year.
But just to be clear, I didn't block ac3r because they offended me personally, I blocked them because they said extremely dehumanizing offensive things. If you aren't offended by referring to a vulnerable group of people as "vermin" I have a party you might light to join...but you'll not be welcome in my feeds if you do.
We should not tolerate such behaviour.
This on the other hand, is something completely different...this is a pitch for a right wing extremist podcast...someone wants to be the next Alex Jones.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-23-2024
(02-22-2024, 07:27 PM)ac3r Wrote: Consumers will want what they want and the market reacts. It's not advertisers calling the shots, it's us. The best thing auto manufacturers can do now is pivot towards electrical sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks. Electric vehicles still need a heck of a lot of work since they're environmentally destructive and compared to gas/diesel vehicles tend to suck in a million ways, but improve that and then there's nothing wrong with owning an SUV or whatever someone wishes to drive (not that there's anything wrong with owning a traditional combustion engine SUV).
Besides the fact that it is verifiably true and well understood that the US emissions standards, incentives like crash safety ratings, and margins on the sale price of larger vehicles are all reasons car manufacturers would want to bias towards larger cars, it is wild to assert that you think the billions spent on automotive advertisement and cultural influence have no impact on customer preferences.