Bristol Article in Octane June '11 issue

[Markus Berzborn]

Originally Posted by jimfoz

he isn't so juvenile as the other two!

Very friendly understated expression. One could as well call them moronous and idiotic.

Regards,
Markus

[TBC]

Originally Posted by jimfoz

Unfortunately these customers have been dwindling without new blood replacing them.

There unfortunately is the flaw in ignoring the outside world and relying upon a few wealthy individuals.

[geo]

Originally Posted by jimfoz

The same people who have ancient Roberts radios in the kitchen. Unfortunately these customers have been dwindling without new blood replacing them.

Hey, hang on, I have two of these — you will be having a go at my oil-fired Aga next!

(For the record, my excuses would be that there is not digital radio in Orkney and the only gas passes by in a huge pipe on its way doon sooth!)

Geo

[GREG]

[quote=Kevin H;5149]

Originally Posted by Kevin H

But Bristol were effectively taken over more than 10 years ago and I am sure they would not have survived until today had they not been.

Why are you sure ? A lot say they would have been fine without the cost of the Fighter project.

How do you know?

Toby told me and it would be public record if they had

As for supporting the manufacturer, you can do that by either buying new cars, having your old car serviced or restored by Bristol or by buying parts from them, rather than going to great lengths to find out where the part came from originally so you can buy it elsewhere and save a few quid.

There are a lot of people who take great pleasure in doing the latter, including yourself if I'm not mistaken!

Very mistaken - Bristol first, but they don't have everything so they work with BODA to source and make some parts.

Never assume !

Every other notable car manufacturer gave their cars to Clarkson to test drive, almost certainly because of the massive marketing value. Whatever the outcome of the test, you can bet Bristol would have ended up at the sub zero end of the "cool wall"

Silly comment / silly car show

[TBC]

Top Gear, the TV show as opposed to the magazine, have been known to ignore or turn down manufacturers in the past who have offered their products to be tested; not sure whether BCL fall into that category?

Ultima certainly claim to have been snubbed in the past.

[GREG]

Originally Posted by geo

Hey, hang on, I have two of these — you will be having a go at my oil-fired Aga next!

(For the record, my excuses would be that there is not digital radio in Orkney and the only gas passes by in a huge pipe on its way doon sooth!)

Geo

I recently bought a Roberts too. I was surprised that they are still in business.

They are good quality and simple like a Bristol -- not sure about the gull wing version .:-)

[Markus Berzborn]

Roberts is not exotic at all. They are the market leader for portable radios in the UK. And they aren't expensive either.
I'd rather compare Bristol Cars to something like Audio Note UK.

Regards,
Markus

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by GREG

Silly comment / silly car show

You may view my comment as silly and you may think Top Gear is a silly car show, but the fact is that there are tens of milllions of people around the world who would disagree with you.

That's why every notable car manufacturer have their cars on the show, including cars that cost a lot more than Bristols! There is no way they would risk doing that unless they thought it was worthwhile.

Originally Posted by jimfoz

Tony Crook willingly gave Top Gear magazine cars to try on several occasions and they were given good appaisals.

I know TG mag was able to review a Fighter in 2008, but I didn't know Tony Crook gave them cars to review, particularly after they described one of his cars as donkey shyte*. Do you know what issues of the TG mag they appeared in?

*referred to in an Evo article

Originally Posted by jimfoz

Clarkson either had no interest in testing them or wasn't allowed.

I can't imagine that was because there was no interest, particularly in the Fighter.

[GREG]

You may view my comment as silly and you may think Top Gear is a silly car show, but the fact is that there are tens of milllions of people around the world who would disagree with you. (Quote)

Getting your car knowledge from Top Gear is the same as getting your knowledge of how people live in northern England from Coronation Street !

They are both very popular entertainment telly shows. Car manufacturers like product awareness. Top Gear is a safe bet in some ways , as if they love the car , great , but if they don't , their opinions are not worth much anyway.

[lord sward]

Bristol Cars had a large feature in Top Gear Magazine way back in issue 12 (1995ish), and it was a glowing review by Quinton Wilson and a Blenheim 2 road test by Andy Wilman (now current TopGear TV show producer). CROOK is also interviewed by Wilman for the magazine. However, in the past CROOK had prevented Top Gear (the show) from having a car, although I understand that James May was looking to arrange a road test of a current vehicle for the next series before the failure of the firm. Clarkson is also said to have been refused a road test of a Blenheim 3 in the last few years for one of his newspaper columns.

Crook is also on record as saying the company had never received any help from any Government - quite the opposite in fact.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by GREG

Getting your car knowledge from Top Gear is the same as getting your knowledge of how people live in northern England from Coronation Street !

It's not about "knowledge" or facts, it's about brand exposure, it's about marketing! It's quite important if you want to sell cars.

[jimfoz]

Originally Posted by lord sward

Bristol Cars had a large feature in Top Gear Magazine way back in issue 12 (1995ish), and it was a glowing review by Quinton Wilson and a Blenheim 2 road test by Andy Wilman (now current TopGear TV show producer). CROOK is also interviewed by Wilman for the magazine. However, in the past CROOK had prevented Top Gear (the show) from having a car, although I understand that James May was looking to arrange a road test of a current vehicle for the next series before the failure of the firm. Clarkson is also said to have been refused a road test of a Blenheim 3 in the last few years for one of his newspaper columns.

Crook is also on record as saying the company had never received any help from any Government - quite the opposite in fact.

TC used to get quite aggrieved if any slight criticism was made about his cars whether it was a noisy ventilation fan (the journalist hadn't used the system correctly) or the fact that the 603 didn't have any door mirrors (bad wind resistance - hmmm, right). I recall he even wrote in to C&S mag in relation to a newly restored 409 that suffered from fuel starvation (I can confirm it wasn't restored by us!).
I guess he got fed up with lending them out and correcting the testers and considered his cars above that kind of scrutiny. I imagine if I had a small concern like his I would be quite defensive over my product. Top Gear magazine were probably quite clever in that they gave sufficient praise without being too toady in order to secure future try-outs.
Surprising that Car magazine never got to test them considering the LJKS connection, but I wonder if TC still held a grudge over the slight disagreement they had over the BOC in the 70's.

[Peter Grace]

As far as marketing is concerned, communication can simply be divided between paid (advertising, web etc) and unpaid (PR). And again, the simplest view of both is that paid gives you control of the message, and unpaid very little control at all.

A quick look at the old website (in Tony Crook's time) showed little regard for the quality of the paid message. The website, like the showroom, was amateur. There was virtually no advertising attempted, no sponsorship aside from Le Mans, much earlier, in the mid-50s. The little money Bristol spent on controlling the message, they spent badly.

I think it has been argued many times that Bristol, under Crook's stewardship, had masterly control over myth-making. This is the unpaid area of communications.

Yet for much of that, Bristol has Setright to thank. Certainly Tony Crook added some wonderful anecdotes that added to Bristol's image as an eccentric choice. But I am not sure he did much to give the engineering credibility. It was Setright's journalism that helped the marque shine. There are plenty of other examples of journalists who were mostly uncritical of the cars, Martin Buckley's tribute in his Encyclopedia of Classic Cars was one of them.

I am just not so sure Mr Crook and perhaps even Mr Silverton ever understood the subtleties of controlling the message. For Mr Crook, the message was something chaotic and out of control, something he didn't like dealing with and maybe even feared.

I would have recommended Top Gear didn't test the car on tv. The show is deliberately chaotic and you would never know what they would poke fun at. But I would have pushed Bristol to find a 'friendly' journalist, someone perhaps that could understand the technology vs bespoke argument, and someone Bristol could work with to address any quality problems and overcome them. Too often Bristol abdicated any chances of control over the message, or in Mr Crook's case, made the story not about the car itself, but why the manufacturer didn't give access to the car. In any other industry, and probably in this one too, that's just plain suicide.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by Peter Grace

There are plenty of other examples of journalists who were mostly uncritical of the cars, Martin Buckley's tribute in his Encyclopedia of Classic Cars was one of them.

I am just not so sure Mr Crook and perhaps even Mr Silverton ever understood the subtleties of controlling the message.

Maybe that's why TS took an ill humoured swipe at Buckley in a letter to Classic & Thoroughbred Cars back in 2000. Buckley's article and TS response can be found here .
.

[lord sward]

I've only known Steve Cropely ever be allowed a full road test of a Blenheim. Aside from the one-off that was Wilman.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by Peter Grace

As far as marketing is concerned, communication can simply be divided between paid (advertising, web etc) and unpaid (PR). And again, the simplest view of both is that paid gives you control of the message, and unpaid very little control at all.

Here's a good example of the latter. This dreadful review is what can happen when you shun the media. Eventually they get hold of an example that you have no control over and as one of the article comments says, it might the worst example out there.

Crook clearly had the opportunity to avoid this. He had the opportunity to supply a known good car which wouldn't come with the horror stories of the owner, who had presumably bought a secondhand lemon.

Thanks to the internet and the lack of alternative articles, the bad review remains near the top of the Google search results 6 years later! The best way to counter this is to drown it out/bury it with more positive reviews and some smart SEO. It would take months to achieve, but it can be done. You would of course need to have your cars test driven in order to achieve this.

Didn't Bristol engage a PR firm a couple of years ago....

[Peter Grace]

I personally thought the new website was just a tarting up of the original. There was not the level of investment that would begin to pit Bristol against a brand like Aston, for instance. There is a charming blog, which you would have thought Bristol particularly suitable for, Once Was England, and he won't post a story about them, citing a lack of any decent photography. It's true, I think, that no-one has ever taken a beautiful studio shot of a Bristol, and that speaks volumes. Not even the manufacturer has invested in a hero shot of their cars.

Putting the website into the hands of a PR company would not normally be the route you would take if you expected a stunning result. Some PR companies work really well with designers, but I don't think in this case a great job was done. PR people are wordsmiths, they don't usually excel in pictures. A case in point is the photo of the Fighter on the website. Why would you put it in front of an ugly old Victorian warehouse? This, to me, demonstrates a total lack of care, not understatement.

Another interesting blog, Made by Hand- the great Sartorial Debate, aimed mostly at tailors, makes an interesting point (somewhere in one of his articles) about technology vs bespoke. If you go and have a suit made at a Savile Row tailor, you are paying for something made largely by hand. Yes, they do have machines, and they do use them. But a Savile Row tailor, who makes so few suits a year, cannot afford some of the high tech sewing equipment that a big manufacturer like Canali can, making thousands of suits a year. So the process is not only slower, it's also flawed. The new machines are more precise and more 'perfect' in their results than any hand-stitched buttonhole or lapel can ever be. The Savile Row tailor, even the very best of them, can easily be criticised for bad sewing, taking shortcuts, or adopting new ideas in suit-making that don't work. This blog takes apart suits worth thousands of dollars, from very famous tailors, and often finds them wanting.

The artisans who make persian rugs often put a deliberate mistake in the weave. Because "only Allah is perfect".

That is the difference between bespoke and technology. So long as a Bristol is safe to drive, and so long as the manufacturer is prepared to iron out the bugs when an owner requests it, and so long as there are not too many faults with a new car (that the quality is evident), I can't see why you can't promote handmade with natural flaws over machine-made, perfect and without a soul.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted by Peter Grace

I can't see why you can't promote handmade with natural flaws over machine-made, perfect and without a soul.

You can, but they don't.

I remember when TVR launched the new Tuscan Speed Six. On their web site they provided an enormous amount of information about the car, including a detailed story of how the car was developed and built, even down to the detail of the aluminium switch knobs and LED lights that they made themselves. The site was really well done, with nice photography and was a great example of using the web to create a valuable promotional tool. It's gone now of course, along with the company.

[Markus Berzborn]

The whole point about hand made suits and cars is not so much quality, it is perfect fit.
With mass-produced clothes and cars you choose from a pre-manufactured range and pick the product which suits you best. As opposed to this, bespoke products are made to fit the individual customer from the beginning on.
So this aspect should be stressed in marketing texts, rather than the quality of manual work.

Regards,
Markus