Greenpeace anti-VW protest

I really don't think an organisation as big and serious as Greenpeace would do it without a license so either Star Wars™ or VW will be quite pissed off for the use of the graphics

I think VW being pissed might just be the point of the exercise

Yes. In the 70s, the slogan was that smaller cars would resolve congestion and reduce pollution, which was all complete hogwash. People bought more cars per household and every single problem except for traffic casualties got worse. 'Low emission' vehicles will only lead to more market penetration for closed private carriages and increase hypermobility.

So, your policy is that people should simply stay at home?

I think that would play well with quite large sections of society.

Explain?

Assuming you were replying to Oliver's post.
Your response to it is just silly; even if it wasn't Oliver, who you well know does not put forward simple or easy answers to any problem, you are inferring something which no one else would infer. And when it comes to discussing cars you are always like this; simultaneously defensive and aggressively dismissive, misrepresenting other people's views and tilting at the windmill of anti-car sentiment that I think you alone can see.
It's just weird to see someone who is so intelligent and articulate respond like this whenever this subject pops up.

so back on topic.
what was the result in media terms if any?

theres now thousands more jedi than there was this morning thats for sure.

So, your policy is that people should simply stay at home?

I think that would play well with quite large sections of society.

Well, no, of course it isn't. How would that follow from what I posted?

I am advocating a widely-shared policy objective that can be summarised as 'reducing the need to travel'.

What? They cause more double-jointedness? Are you entirely sure?

I'm afraid so, Niall. In a few years' time, everybody will be reduced to flopping about on the ground if someone doesn't do something.

Curiously, there's also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_%28travel%29

Some pics taken on the way to work around 830 this morning

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/greenpeace-film-competition-turning-cameras-vw-20110805

join the rebellion, film makers needed

I've had Volkswagens from 1963, 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1990 in the last 10 years.

That's green.

is it just me or does this whole anti VW thing feel a bit... misplaced? Don't they have anyone better to target?

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I'm one of the people working on this for GP (both the film challenge and the VW campaign). We're going after VW precisely because of the disconnect between what they say and what they do.

Sure, they've developed BlueMotion, but it's only on 6% of the cars they sell. "But that's just consumer demand, right?" Thankfully not: we've been analysing the mark ups, and VW charge about 1,000 euros above the production costs for the full BlueMotion setup. In other words, they're deliberately keeping cleaner vehicles out of the reach of people.

Secondly, they dominate the car industry's EU lobbying group. This lobbying group - called ACEA - is desperately trying to unpick some pretty crappy 2020 CO2 limits for new cars. They're also trying to stop proposals that the EU should cut its CO2 emissions by 30% (from 1990 levels) by 2020.

I think people expect us to go after the worst companies - the Essos of this world. But one thing we've learned over the years is that the absolutely worst companies rarely change. The ones that move are those with the most to lose. VW, which markets itself as green but spends its profits lobbying against laws to cut CO2 emissions, has an awful lot to lose.

no need to apologise. knowing that whole disconnect between what is said and what is done makes the forum tick,whilst theres plenty people on here in marketing, theres plenty of them that also have solid awareness of its shallow side.
we like subvertising.

makes sense

what do you mean with "VW charge about 1,000 euros above the production costs for the full BlueMotion setup"? Is that their profit? Or do they whack an extra grand on the regular profit? Have you included product development in the production cost?

It seems like a pretty big leap to just say the extra £1000 for blue motion is some sort of deliberate attempt to keep cleaner cars out of reach and leave it at that.

Are you saying they are inflating the pricing only to deter people from buying it? What would be the business motivation for this? Are they just being evil for evil sake? What are you expectations, sell it at cost?

Is £1000 above production costs even exorbitant? That assuming it's £1000 profit, with no other overhead costs.

makes sense

what do you mean with "VW charge about 1,000 euros above the production costs for the full BlueMotion setup"? Is that their profit? Or do they whack an extra grand on the regular profit? Have you included product development in the production cost?

why would they do this?

why dont they just make it standard and charge an extra grand on every car?

I don't think they wake up each morning, rubbing their hands at the prospect of evil :)

From what we've been able to work out, the real profit is in the luxury add-ons and the 'executive' end of the spectrum. So they develop technologies (BlueMotion) knowing that eventually the time to use it will come.

None of the companies are prepared to step up and make it available as standard, in case the rest of the industry doesn't follow suit and leaves them on a limb. But unlike other companies, they're lobbying against proposals which would require the industry as a whole to move.

The development costs are one thing, and they clearly exist. But they've already developed the tech, so its a fixed cost, and one which would fall as a unit cost (i.e. the cost of one vehicle's tech). It's all done in the same factories too, so it' s not like they've got to go adding loads of expensive gear to their production lines.

VW were one of the first companies to pioneer the use of long life oils and extended service regimes on their cars - meaning less cost to the consumer, less servicing, but crucially less oil waste/disposal. I know that franchised retailers don't make much at all on selling cars - over half of VW's global business is in parts, keeping 'older' cars on the road - and retailers core business is servicing and parts/accessories.

VW were one of the first companies to pioneer the use of long life oils and extended service regimes on their cars - meaning less cost to the consumer, less servicing, but crucially less oil waste/disposal. I know that franchised retailers don't make much at all on selling cars - over half of VW's global business is in parts, keeping 'older' cars on the road - and retailers core business is servicing and parts/accessories.

so your saying that the 2 things, extended service regimes, and selling parts to keep older cars on road means less turnover of vehicles overall? would be part of the VW plan?
dont really get how people like the fact you do less services, obv cost is less, but dont people get concerned and want to be sure the car is working well internally, I know if I owned an obesity promoting money guzzling filth spewer I would want to give it regular inspection.

they can charge more for OEM parts than they can for new cars - less overheads etc. However, the extended servicing means cars can go longer between service visits - the franchised retailers (independent businesses lets not forget) weren't entirely happy about this, but the EU competition commission in, what was it, 2002 or something ruled that consumers should not be tied to authorised retailers for servicing to keep warranty instated, they must be allowed to shop around. So retailers had to get with the 21st century and improve their 'soft skills', start speaking to people like humans and try and sell other services (accessories, mid interval services etc)

In answer to your question, modern engines and modern oil can go fine without servicing for long times

but yeah, they wanna sell more new cars too

TBF to VW, they're just harking back to the old days, when they could get slave labour to build cars, and any dissenters could be beaten to death on the spot.

Won't anyone think of the profit margins ?

The development costs are one thing, and they clearly exist. But they've already developed the tech, so its a fixed cost, and one which would fall as a unit cost (i.e. the cost of one vehicle's tech). It's all done in the same factories too, so it' s not like they've got to go adding loads of expensive gear to their production lines.

unit cost? Of course they spread the development cost on every vehicle they make over x months/years

of course they have to add expensive gear to their production lines, developing/producing tools etc is a quite a big part of the expense of developing/building cars. That's why Saab could sell all obsolete tools to an Indian or Chinese car manufacturer. It still has value as it's a huge saving for a manufacturer not having to develop it

So if Greenpeace/Volkswagen do a press release next week saying...

"we're not going to lobby against emissions proposals – were not going over to the darkside"

...this will have been an awesome PR coup. Is Mother behind it?

TBF to VW, they're just harking back to the old days, when they could get slave labour to build cars, and any dissenters could be beaten to death on the spot.

Won't anyone think of the profit margins ?

Yes, a company that was set up by Hitler, used concentration camp labour, and called the Beetle the VW Strength Through Joy. Fuck 'em.

Godwinned.