[member12]

Okay, so this www.chevy.com website has a great layout, in my opinion. It's better than:

http://automobiles.honda.com/

but looks similar to (same web design firm?):

http://www.walmart.com/

The content:

We all know the content on this chevy.com website is crap. For example, you'd have no idea you can get a 6.2L V8 with the Silverado. You'd have no idea you can see a price difference between a 4 and 6 cylinder Malibu LTZ. You can't build a loaded cobalt with a manual transmission (although that one might actually be just a really funny move by GM).

What I have to say is: WTF, MATE?

The color scheme is aweful. The pictures are crap. The content is not updated as it should be.

Fire your web design firm or give them an idea of what they want. It's so easy to update the content and color scheme on the website...especially since the layout is pretty darn good already.

The images on the website:

And look at the effort Toyota actually went through to get their 4Runner's dirty for the photo op. Granted, some of these images are of the 4Runner superimposed over a rugged background-but at least they dont' hire a web designer to change their wheel design in the pictures or something and expect the customer not to think it looks funny.
http://www.toyota.com/4runner/photo-gallery.html

Vs: The pain enducing computer generated images (poorly done). The color scheme is particuarly aweful.

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/photogallery/
http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/photogallery/
come on...it's a muthafu-king Suburban! It should be the last car you ever need...capable of anything you can possibly throw at it. Why isn't there a picture of it towing a yacht somewhere? Why is the only off road picture a computer generated (poorly) of it going through a little snow? What is this sitting on the beach crap? There's 4 pics of it on the beach. Really, a Suburban?

And look at this: There isn't a single picture of the Trailblazer doing anything that couldn't be done in a Honda Fit:
http://www.chevrolet.com/trailblazer/photogallery/
I realize there is no way to make the new wheel designs of the Trailblazer look good (what happened to the 5 spoke designs from 2002-2004?), but these pictures suck. They sure are not helping anyone sell SUVs.

And look at this? Can you get any more low effort for Chevy's hottest model? All pictures are of a car on a light and bland background....WTF? Cadillac get's Kate Walsh and Chevy gets a pink and blue background?
http://www.chevrolet.com/2009malibu/
http://www.chevrolet.com/2009malibu/photogallery/

I know Toyota's website layout is lame, but it looks much better. Check out how they show the Camry to net surfers: Not much better....but the pictures are clear.
http://www.toyota.com/camry/photo-gallery.html

Maybe I'm just picking on things that shouldn't be bothered.

 

[Neanderthal]

When I owned my Buick Regal, I registered at the website etc. etc.

The site was about as useful as a Worshington politician at an ethics seminar.

Perhaps not the best example of excellence, but in forays to the local USPS hive we've asked numerous questions of the gals behind the counter.
You know: On your website, it says..."Oh, I've never been to our website." Or, "Oh, you meant Australia, not Austria?"

In a rational world, multi-zillion dollar corporations would matter-of-factly run spiffy, up-to-speed, attractive, useful websites.

In The Age of Insanity, it apparently matters not. :bounce:

 

[civilzues]

add almost all of GM's site are bad. DON'T USE FLASH! sorry for the outburst.

 

[Mr. Burns]

If there's one thing that will eventually doom GM it's their half assed attempts at marketing. Check out the Tundra page on Toyota.com:
http://www.toyota.com/tundra/photo-gallery.html
vs the Silverado page on chevy
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/photogallery/

Now assume you're an average joe surfing those sites and looking at those pics in the galleries, which truck would you think is a real truck and which one is the sissy truck?

 

[member12]

^^Yes, one of the worst things about their website is the image quality.

This is GM's chance to pitch their products to the market, and they don't even try. WTF?


It really makes me furious when they complain that certain models are not even selling. When people look at their website, I can see why they'd get frustrated and move on.

 

[Subtle_Cynicism]

I don't understand how GM can think they can be considered high-up in image unless they bother to put effort into their marketing and their websites.

As it stands, the Chevy website is fantastic compared to the nightmare that Saturn and Pontiac's website is in.

I used to like to build cars on Pontiac's website. Now the freezing, crashing, lagging, and dead page links mean I don't even bother.

Saturn's website is colorless and the images of the cars are awful at best (and way too small).

Shape up GM. People look online: you can easily pull some sales out of this.

You can start by making srue that when someone builds a car on one of your pages, it doesn't give them an error.

That's as much of a buzzkill as Madeline Albright in a bikini.

 

[MonteCarloSS86]

Wow, Toyota's photography really sucks... I could take pictures as good as or better than those. At least GM's vehicle photography actually looks like a professional took them and not a 16 year-old with a DSLR.

 

[Neanderthal]

If there's one thing that will eventually doom GM it's their half assed attempts at marketing. Check out the Tundra page on Toyota.com:
http://www.toyota.com/tundra/photo-gallery.html
vs the Silverado page on chevy
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/photogallery/

Now assume you're an average joe surfing those sites and looking at those pics in the galleries, which truck would you think is a real truck and which one is the sissy truck?

It all comes back to managerial incompetence.

GM's ad budget has been in the top five nationwide for years. It runs in the billions with a B, about three bil last I checked.

Yet 90+ percent of their ads have been markedly mediocre at the very best.

Incompetent management rarely self-corrects.
GM's planning and strategic deficits have been detailed in countless books and articles.
Yet even with the wolves at the door, in the internet age, their half-assed efforts continue to stick out like a sore thumb, for all to see. :sad:

 

[MonteCarloSS86]

Yet 90+ percent of their ads have been markedly mediocre at the very best.

Those Saturn commercials with the Noah and the Whale song on them were pretty great though... Other than that I agree with everyone else on GM's ads sucking.

 

[Neanderthal]

Wow, Toyota's photography really sucks... I could take pictures as good as or better than those. At least GM's vehicle photography actually looks like a professional took them and not a 16 year-old with a DSLR.

I am not kidding when I say a select group from this website could surely put together a better effort than some of GM's, or Toyota's, ad or web efforts.

But who the hell in their right mind would want a 90 percent improved product at 10 percent of the cost? :fall:

Those Saturn commercials with the Noah and the Whale song on them were pretty great though... Other than that I agree with everyone else on GM's ads sucking.

GM's Olympics ad was a huge Way Forward. I haven't seen much since that I can even remember.

 

[SDRacing]

I couldnt agree more with the comments regarding the chevy site, and the Tundra pictures embarrass the Silverados too.

 

[drew630]

Wow, Toyota's photography really sucks... I could take pictures as good as or better than those. At least GM's vehicle photography actually looks like a professional took them and not a 16 year-old with a DSLR.

Except most of the Silverado pictures aren't even real. Just a truck with a superimposed background. Makes the truck look almost cartoonish and not real. At least the Tundra ones show the truck doing actual things.

 

[1979RS]

That's why I generally order brochures if I want to look at the vehicles. The photography is usually better, and the specs are easier to find and compare. Then I can go to dealer sites and check pricing if I'm moved to.

 

[MrReMeat]

I also HATE stylized pics and prefer real ones in real light conditions.

I am also curious why I can see gadzillions of photos on flickr and other websites but GM feels they can't afford to show photos of all their various cab, wheel, and trim line offerings.

And why can't one "build" a vehicle online and get an actual representation of that vehicle, not a generic photo that isn't accurate. With some other brands you can add mud flaps and watch them appear on the vehicle. It's like my 75 y/o father is running the website.