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
@@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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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 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.
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.
@@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.
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
I love the model at 6:55 in the North Face fleece opening the tailgate, pulling out the backpack to get a drink from the thermos. The message is something like, 'mountaineers sit like this!'
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.
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 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!
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 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.
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
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.
@@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.
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 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…
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 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.
"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 kodak-film example is my go-to for explaining how an industry can actually, indeed, be TOO profitable for it's and societies' own good. Make too much, more than you 'should' via exploiting and 'biz secrets' (AKA control supply, create demand. Subscriptions over products, etcetc), all you're REALLY doing in reality is becoming very fragile but successful....... FOR NOW! *ominous music* If you're very successful, you'll inherently resist change and disruption, but the human race demands, WAY more than any one random successful mook's personal success, progress and innovation. Unless you're one of those freaky Steve Jobs worshippers still in his narcissistic grip or something, even from beyond the grave.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hah, i thought that footage looked like the Regular Car Reviews style! I'd recognize those Pennsylvania back roads anywhere. If you haven't watched his actual reviews I highly recommend them.
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.
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.
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.
That is the beauty of venture capital funds - they never put everything on the line. If I was a car maker I'd have a venture capital arm and fund risky little skunk works. Its the way to deal with the Chinese EV threat to them - much better than getting tame politicians to kill the competition and screw consumers for you.
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.
I've always said that if an airplane looks right it will fly right. This is true of cars as well. Companies try to foist gargoyles on the driving public and it almost never works. Toyota is the only exception, and I am convinced that their buyers collectively have bad vision and/or simply don't care. Great video!
Design by committee is the most direct path to design failure. A design needs to have a single mind, or a group of people operating as a single mind (like the two Eames'). There aren't statues to committees. Suggestion: please do a whole series on the products of Henry Dreyfuss, the greatest designer in history. He makes Dieter Rams look like a minor talent; Dreyfuss was a super genius, and his products stood the test of time, and were minimalistic in a different way; his products came out of the device's usage scenarios, while Rams' products all tried to look like they came from the same family (bunch of circles inside rectangles). What really pisses me off about big companies is when they hire a crack team of designers, get feedback from the customer base, and then refuse to build the product even though people are drooling. GM for example, showed the Escala at Pebble Beach in 2016, and you can't a higher compliment than the connoisseurs of cars going nuts for this car. Never authorized a project for that car... Cadillac is dying, needed that car, they still couldn't bring themselves to make it because they want to keep making minor variations of the previous year's crappy sedans, which is cheaper in the short run, but ruinous in the end. I can recall at least a dozen concept cars that got rave reviews, and the only one i can think of that made it to production was the Porsche Boxster, which saved the firm. Why do big corporations get stuffed with gutless wimps? That is an interesting question, that perhaps C. Northcote Parkinson could answer if he were still around.
I want to do a design history series, for sure. I may consult Matthew Bird (a design history youtuber - check him out) or one of my former professors, Barry Katz. Both are imminently more qualified to discuss this.
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)
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. 🙃
The Aztec was my family vehicle, after my mom won one. The day it came home, we optimistically hated it. But, it eventually grows on you if you start feeling sorry for it.
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?"
Minor point: Fujifilm builds excellent digital cameras that are essentially designed around the characteristics of their film. They managed their transition brilliantly.
The problem with the Aztek is it looked like an innovative SUV body on a standard GM car (like the Grand Am) platform, so you knew something was up from the jump. That was communicated by the small tires, short wheelbase and narrow track. I still like its looks, even with its Pink Floyd-ish double face.
@@Design.Theory Exactly. It should have been designed entirely from the ground up. Maybe even cut down an S-10 frame to start from. Don’t remember if you crapped on the smoked lower half of the hatch. Car folks often do, which is weird because the successful and well-like Honda CRX was like that.
1. It would've been good to end on a car company that did a successful launch to contrast with the Aztec. 2. You should make a whole video about your last point: companies that took a piece of their business and transitioned into a new product (ex. Slack who took an internal chat app and made it their whole business).
The part about Kodak was interesting because George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, built the original company on the idea of putting photography into regular people's hands without the necessity of carrying the huge plates that early photographers had to carry. He would have see the transition to digital as the same basic idea translated to a modern technology. If he'd been alive and still had his early mindset, he'd have jumped at digital before anyone else did. Another interesting case study would be Kerr-McGee. In the early days of oil exploration when a geologist looked at the land, "tasted the dirt," and found oil based on the primitive technology of the forties and fifties, Dean McGee could find oil better than most of his colleagues. He was the best at using the technology of his day, and he made Kerr-McGee a strong company considering the smaller amount of money behind the company. The problem was that advancing technology allowed geologists who were nowhere near as smart or as talented as he was to find oil and drill fewer dry holes just by following a cookbook formula based on the advancing science. Dean McGee held onto the old ways just a little too long because he had always been the best. Another problem is that Dean McGee bought companies just because the technology of making something interested him and he thought that maybe he could jump into the field and innovate a little bit. When he held the reins, the company just bought and sold businesses based on his whims as much as based on any solid analysis of business strength. In one sense, I understand that doing things this way made his life more interesting. He was able to pursue a bunch of things that interested him. However, that strategy wasn't always best for the stockholders.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nicely done, John. One of the reasons American companies fail in the face of a changing market is a lack of long-term planning and foresight. Sounds obvious but it comes down to culture. U.S. companies focus on the next quarter. Japanese firms and other companies in the East focus on the next quarter century.
From my perspective the Aztek was the first real cross over as you hint at 6:05. This sector is HUGE (so much so that many manufacturers are no longer producing cars in favor of crossovers). They owe this success to the game changer that was the aztek.
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
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.”
When I was in school for engineering we had to co-op to graduate. The auto company jobs were the “glory” jobs usually because they paid the most. For GM if you were not a 4.0 gpa you were not even considered. For all the top grade folk they hired GM continued to produce crap designs and at best middle-ground quality / performance. Clone vehicles across 5 platforms at the time just rebadged. Poor across the board management and too much internal strife. One of the smart moves they did was dumping the Olds and Pontiac brands.
One thing I could never figure out, how did Oldsmobile and Pontiac go from best sellers to busted in only 10 to 20 years? What happened to them that didn't happen to Buick or Chevrolet?
@@mrdanforth3744 Olds had been a dying brand for years. In the end it was less than 10k cars per year. The demographics who bought these were dying out. We had some employees from Japan over in the early ‘90’s I was driving to work, got behind an Olds…they saw it and asked it was a car for old people. 🤣🤣 Pontiac was just a rebadged Chevy for most models. They suffered from the duplicate models from GM too. Plus a few model flops: Aztec, Sunfire, Fiero… Too many brands. More competition. Same fate as Mercury, Plymouth, AMC…GM was 20 years late in getting its act together.
@@TheBeingReal : Pontiac and Olds reason for being was killed in the mid 70's with the shared platforms, and this was caused by reduced market share. For the same reasons how Plymouth held on as long as it did is equally a mystery. The dealership system of selling vehicles contributed to this.
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 .
I would like to see you delve into this further, contrasting the Pontiac Aztec vs the Buick Rendezvous. They are effectively the same vehicle, but different styling. The Rendezvous had a more expected styling vs the Aztec having some very sharp lines, that included jarring flow between them. The same type of sharp lines that would later sell well on Cadillac CTS, but minus the jarring elements. We also, see elements on other mfgs cars later in time. An in-depth look at how the Aztec happened in the same GM corporation would be a very interesting follow-up to this video.
I just want to know exactly what tf GM was smoking in these days. Somehow the Mustang stays profitable but let's discontinue the F-body with no replacement. Wait, yes we'll replaceme it - with the SSR sport-truck-thing. Saturn was a big success and 1990s examples will still be all over the roads for the next 20 years - let's make Saturns no better than Chevys now. What else... GTO was a good last-minute backpedal about having a sports coupe entry, but got the wrong name. At least Cadillac, Corvette, and the GMT800 trucks were either great or getting great, NUMMI wasn't dead yet, and the Kappa cars were coming.
It's still funny to me that even after seeing how poorly received the Aztec was Nissan decided to still copy that homework but in bubbly font with the Juke 😂
@@mikelavoie8327 they can do that with extreme age or improper sealing, but plastic cladding is essential espcially if you live in an area with road salt... it will essentially keep air and water away, so no rust (if applied properly, this is very important)
There was nothing actually wrong with the Pontiac Aztek (or at least not to me, I've always liked the car, as do a lot of fellow millennials, hence why it's hard to find one of these for sale since Millennials tend to snatch them up and keep them until the wheels fall off) other than the fact that people in America at that time in particular generally had conservative taste, and therefore anything that was called an SUV that didn't look like a block on wheels was considered "unattractive." The only way they could have avoided controversy and people not liking the Aztek would have been to make it look like every other SUV on the market, hence why most crossovers / SUVs nowadays look virtually identical and barely stand out from one another. Guess it's better to play it safe and be boring than to stick out and be hammered for sticking out. Ironically, it's fastback SUV shape went on to be a smash hit when produced by other automakers like BMW, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi. Of course, most of these vehicles dropped by the time Millennials started hitting the market. Go figure.
Family briefly had an Aztek when I was young. It unfortunately ended up being a lemon. Other than the electrical issues, mum swears it was her favorite vehicle to drive of all time. Ended up replacing it for a Buick Rendezvous, which was basically a Aztek (shape, inner volume, driving characteristics) without all the things that made an Aztek (no cooler, no tent, no built in seating on the tailgate, etc). She considers that a close second for favorite vehicle to have driven.
Funny. I love it. I really want one. My wife just doesn't like the back window because of replacement cost. I think Pontiac had some of the coolest cars. I was really bummed that it shut down.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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?
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.
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?
Also every tech company. It is the same as Microsoft's philosophy of "Ship by monday, patch on thursday"
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!
@@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?
So she made the "final sketches approved for production" but also left "very early during the initial design phase?"
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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 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
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.
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
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.
10:38 “They (companies) don’t usually assassinate anyone…..”
Me: ***glares at boeing****🖕🏼
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.
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.
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 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.
That physical concept Aztek car was wayyy better than the actual finished product
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!!
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.
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
I love the model at 6:55 in the North Face fleece opening the tailgate, pulling out the backpack to get a drink from the thermos. The message is something like, 'mountaineers sit like this!'
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 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
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.
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.
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.
You still one of the greatest product reviewers on the internet. Thanks mate. Great content. Keep it up!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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? 😂
The Pontiac Aztec is the Heisenberg dadmobile.
1:53 The fact that you subtly call out the Garbage Plate made my night.
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.
"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 kodak-film example is my go-to for explaining how an industry can actually, indeed, be TOO profitable for it's and societies' own good. Make too much, more than you 'should' via exploiting and 'biz secrets' (AKA control supply, create demand. Subscriptions over products, etcetc), all you're REALLY doing in reality is becoming very fragile but successful....... FOR NOW! *ominous music*
If you're very successful, you'll inherently resist change and disruption, but the human race demands, WAY more than any one random successful mook's personal success, progress and innovation. Unless you're one of those freaky Steve Jobs worshippers still in his narcissistic grip or something, even from beyond the grave.
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.
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?
the concept car actually looked pretty nice
The Aztek is what the Cybertruck wishes it could've been.
Fun fact: Kodak leveraged their knowledge from producing film to producing things like photopolymer printing plates.
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.
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
Hah, i thought that footage looked like the Regular Car Reviews style! I'd recognize those Pennsylvania back roads anywhere. If you haven't watched his actual reviews I highly recommend them.
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.
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.
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.
That is the beauty of venture capital funds - they never put everything on the line. If I was a car maker I'd have a venture capital arm and fund risky little skunk works. Its the way to deal with the Chinese EV threat to them - much better than getting tame politicians to kill the competition and screw consumers for you.
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.
I've always said that if an airplane looks right it will fly right. This is true of cars as well. Companies try to foist gargoyles on the driving public and it almost never works. Toyota is the only exception, and I am convinced that their buyers collectively have bad vision and/or simply don't care.
Great video!
I appreciate the kind words :)
Design by committee is the most direct path to design failure. A design needs to have a single mind, or a group of people operating as a single mind (like the two Eames'). There aren't statues to committees.
Suggestion: please do a whole series on the products of Henry Dreyfuss, the greatest designer in history. He makes Dieter Rams look like a minor talent; Dreyfuss was a super genius, and his products stood the test of time, and were minimalistic in a different way; his products came out of the device's usage scenarios, while Rams' products all tried to look like they came from the same family (bunch of circles inside rectangles).
What really pisses me off about big companies is when they hire a crack team of designers, get feedback from the customer base, and then refuse to build the product even though people are drooling. GM for example, showed the Escala at Pebble Beach in 2016, and you can't a higher compliment than the connoisseurs of cars going nuts for this car. Never authorized a project for that car... Cadillac is dying, needed that car, they still couldn't bring themselves to make it because they want to keep making minor variations of the previous year's crappy sedans, which is cheaper in the short run, but ruinous in the end.
I can recall at least a dozen concept cars that got rave reviews, and the only one i can think of that made it to production was the Porsche Boxster, which saved the firm. Why do big corporations get stuffed with gutless wimps? That is an interesting question, that perhaps C. Northcote Parkinson could answer if he were still around.
I want to do a design history series, for sure. I may consult Matthew Bird (a design history youtuber - check him out) or one of my former professors, Barry Katz. Both are imminently more qualified to discuss this.
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)
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. 🙃
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.
The Aztec was my family vehicle, after my mom won one. The day it came home, we optimistically hated it. But, it eventually grows on you if you start feeling sorry for it.
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?"
Minor point: Fujifilm builds excellent digital cameras that are essentially designed around the characteristics of their film. They managed their transition brilliantly.
The problem with the Aztek is it looked like an innovative SUV body on a standard GM car (like the Grand Am) platform, so you knew something was up from the jump. That was communicated by the small tires, short wheelbase and narrow track. I still like its looks, even with its Pink Floyd-ish double face.
in order to "fix" the aztek you'd basically have to scrap everything and start over imo
@@Design.Theory Exactly. It should have been designed entirely from the ground up. Maybe even cut down an S-10 frame to start from. Don’t remember if you crapped on the smoked lower half of the hatch. Car folks often do, which is weird because the successful and well-like Honda CRX was like that.
1. It would've been good to end on a car company that did a successful launch to contrast with the Aztec.
2. You should make a whole video about your last point: companies that took a piece of their business and transitioned into a new product (ex. Slack who took an internal chat app and made it their whole business).
The part about Kodak was interesting because George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, built the original company on the idea of putting photography into regular people's hands without the necessity of carrying the huge plates that early photographers had to carry. He would have see the transition to digital as the same basic idea translated to a modern technology. If he'd been alive and still had his early mindset, he'd have jumped at digital before anyone else did.
Another interesting case study would be Kerr-McGee. In the early days of oil exploration when a geologist looked at the land, "tasted the dirt," and found oil based on the primitive technology of the forties and fifties, Dean McGee could find oil better than most of his colleagues. He was the best at using the technology of his day, and he made Kerr-McGee a strong company considering the smaller amount of money behind the company. The problem was that advancing technology allowed geologists who were nowhere near as smart or as talented as he was to find oil and drill fewer dry holes just by following a cookbook formula based on the advancing science. Dean McGee held onto the old ways just a little too long because he had always been the best.
Another problem is that Dean McGee bought companies just because the technology of making something interested him and he thought that maybe he could jump into the field and innovate a little bit. When he held the reins, the company just bought and sold businesses based on his whims as much as based on any solid analysis of business strength. In one sense, I understand that doing things this way made his life more interesting. He was able to pursue a bunch of things that interested him. However, that strategy wasn't always best for the stockholders.
Pleasing stockholders is no recept for innovation either.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nicely done, John. One of the reasons American companies fail in the face of a changing market is a lack of long-term planning and foresight. Sounds obvious but it comes down to culture. U.S. companies focus on the next quarter. Japanese firms and other companies in the East focus on the next quarter century.
They used to... but honda left chat around 2000 after Mr Honda passed.
From my perspective the Aztek was the first real cross over as you hint at 6:05. This sector is HUGE (so much so that many manufacturers are no longer producing cars in favor of crossovers). They owe this success to the game changer that was the aztek.
Yes, this was GMs express purpose and decision to get these to market on an existing minivan platform
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
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.”
When I was in school for engineering we had to co-op to graduate. The auto company jobs were the “glory” jobs usually because they paid the most. For GM if you were not a 4.0 gpa you were not even considered. For all the top grade folk they hired GM continued to produce crap designs and at best middle-ground quality / performance. Clone vehicles across 5 platforms at the time just rebadged. Poor across the board management and too much internal strife. One of the smart moves they did was dumping the Olds and Pontiac brands.
One thing I could never figure out, how did Oldsmobile and Pontiac go from best sellers to busted in only 10 to 20 years? What happened to them that didn't happen to Buick or Chevrolet?
@@mrdanforth3744 Olds had been a dying brand for years. In the end it was less than 10k cars per year. The demographics who bought these were dying out. We had some employees from Japan over in the early ‘90’s I was driving to work, got behind an Olds…they saw it and asked it was a car for old people. 🤣🤣
Pontiac was just a rebadged Chevy for most models. They suffered from the duplicate models from GM too. Plus a few model flops: Aztec, Sunfire, Fiero…
Too many brands. More competition. Same fate as Mercury, Plymouth, AMC…GM was 20 years late in getting its act together.
@@TheBeingReal : Pontiac and Olds reason for being was killed in the mid 70's with the shared platforms, and this was caused by reduced market share. For the same reasons how Plymouth held on as long as it did is equally a mystery. The dealership system of selling vehicles contributed to this.
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 .
I would like to see you delve into this further, contrasting the Pontiac Aztec vs the Buick Rendezvous. They are effectively the same vehicle, but different styling. The Rendezvous had a more expected styling vs the Aztec having some very sharp lines, that included jarring flow between them. The same type of sharp lines that would later sell well on Cadillac CTS, but minus the jarring elements. We also, see elements on other mfgs cars later in time. An in-depth look at how the Aztec happened in the same GM corporation would be a very interesting follow-up to this video.
I just want to know exactly what tf GM was smoking in these days.
Somehow the Mustang stays profitable but let's discontinue the F-body with no replacement. Wait, yes we'll replaceme it - with the SSR sport-truck-thing. Saturn was a big success and 1990s examples will still be all over the roads for the next 20 years - let's make Saturns no better than Chevys now. What else...
GTO was a good last-minute backpedal about having a sports coupe entry, but got the wrong name.
At least Cadillac, Corvette, and the GMT800 trucks were either great or getting great, NUMMI wasn't dead yet, and the Kappa cars were coming.
It's still funny to me that even after seeing how poorly received the Aztec was Nissan decided to still copy that homework but in bubbly font with the Juke 😂
this video is genius. Articulating all the thoughts i've had about innovation and profits.
I expected a little more analysis of tthe car's actual design. Rather this was more of an abstract essay on how companies make bad products.
Almost like that's the title of the video
Thats literally the title of video
Plastic paneling was actually a smart move, all the cars from the 90's and 2000 suffered from heavy corrosion issues.
They still rust under the plastic. Plastic just hides it better
@@mikelavoie8327 they can do that with extreme age or improper sealing, but plastic cladding is essential espcially if you live in an area with road salt... it will essentially keep air and water away, so no rust (if applied properly, this is very important)
The Pontiac Fiero was all plastic paneling...ding resistant was the advertisement.
There was nothing actually wrong with the Pontiac Aztek (or at least not to me, I've always liked the car, as do a lot of fellow millennials, hence why it's hard to find one of these for sale since Millennials tend to snatch them up and keep them until the wheels fall off) other than the fact that people in America at that time in particular generally had conservative taste, and therefore anything that was called an SUV that didn't look like a block on wheels was considered "unattractive." The only way they could have avoided controversy and people not liking the Aztek would have been to make it look like every other SUV on the market, hence why most crossovers / SUVs nowadays look virtually identical and barely stand out from one another. Guess it's better to play it safe and be boring than to stick out and be hammered for sticking out. Ironically, it's fastback SUV shape went on to be a smash hit when produced by other automakers like BMW, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi. Of course, most of these vehicles dropped by the time Millennials started hitting the market. Go figure.
I’m sorry, but none of the designs you are mentioning in the end are as bad or ugly as the Pontiac Astec.
Family briefly had an Aztek when I was young. It unfortunately ended up being a lemon. Other than the electrical issues, mum swears it was her favorite vehicle to drive of all time. Ended up replacing it for a Buick Rendezvous, which was basically a Aztek (shape, inner volume, driving characteristics) without all the things that made an Aztek (no cooler, no tent, no built in seating on the tailgate, etc). She considers that a close second for favorite vehicle to have driven.
Funny. I love it. I really want one. My wife just doesn't like the back window because of replacement cost. I think Pontiac had some of the coolest cars. I was really bummed that it shut down.
@ 9:40 cool to watch this in June 2023 just after Apple announced Vision Pro! You were prophetic.
This looks like the car Homer in The Simpsons designed for his brother. The car was so ugly in bankrupted the company