Not an outlier...precisely on point! Coca-cola decided what product to offer the public, produced it, and pushed it to consumers via advertising. I believe this was in response to somone's opinion that mfrs simply 'decided' to make inefficient vehicles and 'tell' the public what to buy.
Okay then, let me give a refresher course in "How to screw up a major branded product 101", since it seems that the new coke debacle isnt well remembered.
Coke was a flagship worldwide branded product with a rapidly growing competitor that had a sweeter, somewhat different tasting product, Pepsi. Seeing that Pepsi was quickly catching up to them in product sales, Coke elected to change their product recipe to simulate Pepsi, drop their regular product, and "join them if you cant beat them". Clearly this was a fundamental error in judgment on behalf of company management.
People bought Coke because they liked Coke, it was what they wanted to drink, and because it was probably what they'd been drinking for years. Changing the formula meant that most of your existing customers would stop buying it because it was no longer the same. In parallel, there was no reason for existing Pepsi drinkers to say "well hey, this new coke tastes almost the same, lets abandon what we know and like for this other thing!". All the advertising in the world wouldnt change that, because there was no impetus for existing customers to stay and no reason for prospective customers to switch.
The approximate equivalent would have been Chevy saying "well, those Ford truck guys were right and they make better trucks, so we're going to make a near duplicate of the Ford pickup, except we're going to put a Chevy badge on it.". Ford buyers arent likely to stop buying Fords and start buying Chevy's that are just about the same as Fords. And your long time Chevy buyers arent going to be thrilled with it either.
This isnt a case of "lets make something people dont want and then shove it down their throat with advertising that makes them do things they otherwise wouldnt", its "Lets excite people about buying what they want anyway - a big powerful heavy safe vehicle that makes them feel big and powerful, then build lots of what they really want."
The advertising isnt creating the demand, its simply helping elevate the original desire in the customer.
Creating an advertising and product strategy around small fuel efficient cars would be like the Beef industry putting up ads telling you that tofu and broccoli are better for you, so eat that instead. Its not what you want. On the other hand, putting on a "BEEF! Its whats for dinner!!!" while showing large sizzling slabs of meat on a grill? That'll work.
Perhaps theres a fundamental disconnect in that people here think that the average american consumer cares about oil economics and politics and wants to do the right thing for the country and the earth.
People are largely interested in being comfortable, serving their own base needs, covering up their inadequacies and avoiding things they fear (or conquering them).
Marketing and advertising simply plays on those instincts.
Except for a small percentage of intelligent, earth-crunchy people, gas mileage isnt of interest for most people. In a recent survey I saw of car buying criteria, gas mileage hovered in the #4/#5. With $3.25 gas in evidence.
The car buying public is more interested in speed, safety, power, comfort and reliability, not mileage or emissions. The car companies make more money selling big, feature rich vehicles with big motors and aggressive looks.
Its a win/win for the car makers and the buying public...all the latter needs is just a little push.
By the way, I'm not getting the Lexus stuff. Its just proving my point. My wife was advertised into believing that a Toyota with a different name on it would tell everyone that she's wealthy and powerful and has "arrived", and she never had a nice new expensive car before. I had no need to deny her something that she wanted.
