Lucid Motors is stuck in a fight over the name of its Gravity SUV

[PhotoEye]

I respectfully disagree, even though I personally don't care what the SUV is called, either. The point will not be what the model is named, but why the company could not avoid legal pitfalls in picking the name. It conveys a naivety or, worse, a sense of incompetence in running a company, whether fairly or not.

Relatively few car buyers really dig into the details about a car the way that owners on this forum tend to. They will not understand the towering assemblage of engineering talent at Lucid. Most buyers go by brand reputation, price, features, and familiarity manifested by the ubiquity of the cars on the roads. Some might go a bit further to read or scan what the big-name reviewers say about the car and the company. But that hasn't been an entirely rosy picture outside the driving performance-oriented sources. There's another thread running right now about how Edmunds -- a very popular research/review site with many car buyers -- trashes the car by doing things such as pitting a Lucid on 19" all-season tires against an Acura NSX on fat summer rubber and then pronounces the Lucid deficient in braking and handling. Or Consumer Reports that pronounces Lucid a poor value for the money. And then there are the stories about the hot mess that Electrify America has been for many users and how deficient the CCS network in general is.

Outside the circle of people who follow the car press closely, Lucid has very little brand reputation at this point -- and a lot of the reputation they do have derives from the miserable software performance of the first year of production. There were way, way too many legitimate stories of people being locked out of their cars, for example, or being stranded when the car randomly demanded a PIN that no one could remember. And there are very few Lucids on the road to create the sense of familiar comfort with a brand one sees so many others drive.

If anywhere near the time of launch Lucid is drawing press attention for having not been able even to pick a name for the car that could clear legal hurdles -- coupled with recurrent coverage about whether the company can survive -- many people who might consider the car for its design and engineering chops might just move on instead, particularly as the EV SUV segment is growing month by month.

If Lucid can sell their SUV only to people who are already familiar with the brand, who dig into its engineering virtues, and are consequently fans of it, then the company is on the skids out.

Sobering analysis.

 

[Lucken]

Sobering analysis.

But probably true.

 

[no gas]

I respectfully disagree, even though I personally don't care what the SUV is called, either. The point will not be what the model is named, but why the company could not avoid legal pitfalls in picking the name. It conveys a naivety or, worse, a sense of incompetence in running a company, whether fairly or not.

Relatively few car buyers really dig into the details about a car the way that owners on this forum tend to. They will not understand the towering assemblage of engineering talent at Lucid. Most buyers go by brand reputation, price, features, and familiarity manifested by the ubiquity of the cars on the roads. Some might go a bit further to read or scan what the big-name reviewers say about the car and the company. But that hasn't been an entirely rosy picture outside the driving performance-oriented sources. There's another thread running right now about how Edmunds -- a very popular research/review site with many car buyers -- trashes the car by doing things such as pitting a Lucid on 19" all-season tires against an Acura NSX on fat summer rubber and then pronounces the Lucid deficient in braking and handling. Or Consumer Reports that pronounces Lucid a poor value for the money. And then there are the stories about the hot mess that Electrify America has been for many users and how deficient the CCS network in general is.

Outside the circle of people who follow the car press closely, Lucid has very little brand reputation at this point -- and a lot of the reputation they do have derives from the miserable software performance of the first year of production. There were way, way too many legitimate stories of people being locked out of their cars, for example, or being stranded when the car randomly demanded a PIN that no one could remember. And there are very few Lucids on the road to create the sense of familiar comfort with a brand one sees so many others drive.

If anywhere near the time of launch Lucid is drawing press attention for having not been able even to pick a name for the car that could clear legal hurdles -- coupled with recurrent coverage about whether the company can survive -- many people who might consider the car for its design and engineering chops might just move on instead, particularly as the EV SUV segment is growing month by month.

If Lucid can sell their SUV only to people who are already familiar with the brand, who dig into its engineering virtues, and are consequently fans of it, then the company is on the skids out.

Do you really think those who are informed of all the naming shenanigans will not be aware of the engineering prowess?

If a buyer is aware of this lawsuit, they would most definitely be informed of the excellent engineering that Lucid has.

What’s in a name really?

I think it’s disingenuous to think that a customer who really wants a lucid will shy away because the name was changed.

 

[hmp10]

Do you really think those who are informed of all the naming shenanigans will not be aware of the engineering prowess?

If a buyer is aware of this lawsuit, they would most definitely be informed of the excellent engineering that Lucid has.

What’s in a name really?

I think it’s disingenuous to think that a customer who really wants a lucid will shy away because the name was changed.

The press coverage most people will see will not be about the the inner workings of the legal debate. The coverage will be mostly shallow but maximally sensationalistic stories about a Google-funded company suing a struggling Lucid for stealing the name of its charging network. I just did a Google search on "Lucid Gravity", and here are the headlines that popped up prominently:

"Lucid Motors Is Stuck in a Fight Over the Name of its Gravity SUV"

"Luicd Faces Showdown Over Gravity SUV Name"

"Lucid in Trademark Battle with Tech Giant-Backed Company for Gravity SUV"

"Stuck" . . . "Faces Showdown" . . . "Battle with Tech Giant" . . . this is what the press coverage is and will continue to be and is NOT what the coverage should be as this SUV launches.

A customer who "really wants" a Lucid probably will not shy away over this issue. But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid. To get anywhere close to meeting its production hopes -- and ensuring the company's future -- Lucid has to convince a lot of people who don't yet really want a Lucid to start wanting one. And they have to do this among widespread fears that the company is not on secure financial footing.

To really come to terms with this issue, we have to quit thinking like the Lucid fans we are and start thinking like a buyer who sees or hears about a Lucid SUV, thinks it's kind of cool, but is not really sure whether to spend their money on a newcomer when there are other EV SUVs available from companies with which they are familiar.

 

[no gas]

The press coverage most people will see will not be about the the inner workings of the legal debate. The coverage will be mostly shallow but maximally sensationalistic stories about a Google-funded company suing a struggling Lucid for stealing the name of its charging network.

A customer who "really wants" a Lucid probably will not shy away over this issue. But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid. To get anywhere close to meeting its production hopes -- and ensuring the company's future -- Lucid has to convince a lot of people who don't yet really want a Lucid to start wanting one. And they have to do this among widespread fears that the company is not on secure financial footing.

To really come to terms with this issue, we have to quit thinking like the Lucid fans we are and start thinking like a buyer who sees or hears about a Lucid SUV, thinks it's kind of cool, but is not really sure whether to spend their money on a newcomer when there are other EV SUVs available from companies with which they are familiar.

I have to admit you make a good point!

 

[efesese]

I mean Lucid could just add an accent: “Grávity” or change the y like Infiniti to “Graviti” you’re welcome Peter

 

[hmp10]

When Lucid first teased their SUV in September 2020 as "Project Gravity", they actually said that was just the project name and might not be the name of the final product.

As much as I like a good legal fight, Lucid really ought to extract itself from this one well ahead of the SUV launch and prominently refer back to this earlier statement when they announce the "final" name of the product before its launch. In fact, they should do this before the coming fleet of prototypes is put in the hands of automotive journalists for test driving so that the journalists start referring to it by the new name ahead of opening up the order books.

Even if Lucid were ultimately to win the legal battle, the many months or even years it might take could be the classic Pyrrhic victory when we mourn the passing of the victor.

And what if Lucid were to put the "Gravity" into production and later be forced to change its name? How would it feel a couple of years out to own a model whose name has already disappeared from the marketplace? What effect would that have on resale value?

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I mean Lucid could just add an accent: “Grávity” or change the y like Infiniti to “Graviti” you’re welcome Peter

Nope, The names still sound the same. It's not like a corporate name, where one letter difference is enough.

 

[hmp10]

Derek Jenkins said that the SUV design was inspired by bullet trains and that his "mood anchor" in his office were airplane models.

How about calling it the "Lucid Lance"? "Gravity" implies something ponderous and, having seen it in the flesh, it is visually anything but.

In announcing the name change, Lucid could say something to the effect of, "in moving from our early project code name of Gravity to our production name, we wanted to reflect the bullet train inspiration of the final design. Hence, we have dubbed our new SUV the Lance."

 

[Bus Driver]

The press coverage most people will see will not be about the the inner workings of the legal debate. The coverage will be mostly shallow but maximally sensationalistic stories about a Google-funded company suing a struggling Lucid for stealing the name of its charging network. I just did a Google search on "Lucid Gravity", and here are the headlines that popped up prominently:

"Lucid Motors Is Stuck in a Fight Over the Name of its Gravity SUV"

"Luicd Faces Showdown Over Gravity SUV Name"

"Lucid in Trademark Battle with Tech Giant-Backed Company for Gravity SUV"

"Stuck" . . . "Faces Showdown" . . . "Battle with Tech Giant" . . . this is what the press coverage is and will continue to be and is NOT what the coverage should be as this SUV launches.

A customer who "really wants" a Lucid probably will not shy away over this issue. But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid. To get anywhere close to meeting its production hopes -- and ensuring the company's future -- Lucid has to convince a lot of people who don't yet really want a Lucid to start wanting one. And they have to do this among widespread fears that the company is not on secure financial footing.

To really come to terms with this issue, we have to quit thinking like the Lucid fans we are and start thinking like a buyer who sees or hears about a Lucid SUV, thinks it's kind of cool, but is not really sure whether to spend their money on a newcomer when there are other EV SUVs available from companies with which they are familiar.

Yes, point taken, specifically your last paragraph. But have you seen the KIA EV9 in the flesh? FUHHHHGLY.

 

[Artemis]

I think Lucid Graviton (although Gravitron might sound better) would be a similar enough name, and still sticks to the 'force of nature' concept that Lucid is going for with the naming of their cars. Graviton - postulated quantum that is thought to be the carrier of the gravitational field. I think it's a small enough change to the naming that Lucid could probably not suffer any losses from losing name recognition for Gravity if they were forced to change the name.

 

[stealth]

Derek Jenkins said that the SUV design was inspired by bullet trains and that his "mood anchor" in his office were airplane models.

How about calling it the "Lucid Lance"? "Gravity" implies something ponderous and, having seen it in the flesh, it is visually anything but.

In announcing the name change, Lucid could say something to the effect of, "in moving from our early project code name of Gravity to our production name, we wanted to reflect the bullet train inspiration of the final design. Hence, we have dubbed our new SUV the Lance."

I always appreciate reading your thoughtful opinions. Excellent off-ramp you suggest to announce a new, “official” vehicle name while reiterating that Gravity is or was the project codename. This seems like the most cost effective route at this point vice expensive litigation that is not a sure bet.

 

[Rob Stark]

But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid.

We know that there ~6k people a year in North America that want a low slung Lucid sports sedan.

We don't know demand for a Lucid crossover with really good ingress and egress, up to 7 seats and cavernous cargo space.

And especially one with a native NACS port.

 

[xponents]

Yes, point taken, specifically your last paragraph. But have you seen the KIA EV9 in the flesh? FUHHHHGLY

Oh

 

[Lucken]

A customer who "really wants" a Lucid probably will not shy away over this issue. But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid. To get anywhere close to meeting its production hopes -- and ensuring the company's future -- Lucid has to convince a lot of people who don't yet really want a Lucid to start wanting one. And they have to do this among widespread fears that the company is not on secure financial footing.

To really come to terms with this issue, we have to quit thinking like the Lucid fans we are and start thinking like a buyer who sees or hears about a Lucid SUV, thinks it's kind of cool, but is not really sure whether to spend their money on a newcomer when there are other EV SUVs available from companies with which they are familiar.

IOW:
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Did I mention advertising?

This is something Lucid has done precious little of. It’s wonderful that most of us try to be ambassadors of the car, but clearly that’s not enough. It just isn’t.

 

[xponents]

IOW:
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Did I mention advertising?

This is something Lucid has done precious little of. It’s wonderful that most of us try to be ambassadors of the car, but clearly that’s not enough. It just isn’t.

I'll agree with that. About 60-70 percent of Lucid's advertising is owners alone... and I've got to admit, I don't really like Lucid ads when I see them on youtube. They are meaningless, just going for that "aesthetical" ad but not putting any actual action or info. I've never seen the car advertised as a driving machine, which is what it really should be, and in more recent months, they have avoided including specifics of ANY headline feature at all (516 mile range, etc). I liked Tesla's new ads (which they just started) as they all focus on each individual feature, such as the sound system, safety, etc. I get Lucid's "Apple-like" aspirations in terms of aesthetic, but there needs to be more advertisement about the ACTUAL features.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

I'll agree with that. About 60-70 percent of Lucid's advertising is owners alone... and I've got to admit, I don't really like Lucid ads when I see them on youtube. They are meaningless, just going for that "aesthetical" ad but not putting any actual action or info. I've never seen the car advertised as a driving machine, which is what it really should be, and in more recent months, they have avoided including specifics of ANY headline feature at all (516 mile range, etc). I liked Tesla's new ads (which they just started) as they all focus on each individual feature, such as the sound system, safety, etc. I get Lucid's "Apple-like" aspirations in terms of aesthetic, but there needs to be more advertisement about the ACTUAL features.

Then you're not looking hard enough. One of the best ads I've ever seen by Lucid was at a speedway in either North or South Carolina. I can't remember which one. And not one of their ads are meaningless. They're shot as they are for a specific purpose.

 

[xponents]

Then you're not looking hard enough. One of the best ads I've ever seen by Lucid was at a speedway in either North or South Carolina. I can't remember which one. And not one of their ads are meaningless. They're shot as they are for a specific purpose.

Sorry, I didn't clarify my point enough. I was talking about their video ads on platforms like youtube, not their print ads (which I havent even seen yet...). In the 5 or so seconds you get before being able to skip, literally nothing is presented when the first 5 seconds should be a hook. I watched one ad through, and even then the point was very lackluster and at the very end. I suppose these ads would work on traditional TV, where you can't skip, but even then I would have liked the ads to be more engaging.


I am curious though... What was the purpose of the ad you saw?

 

[hmp10]

Then you're not looking hard enough. One of the best ads I've ever seen by Lucid was at a speedway in either North or South Carolina. I can't remember which one. And not one of their ads are meaningless. They're shot as they are for a specific purpose.

Maybe, but the point of good advertising is not to have to look hard enough to find it. It should be something hard to avoid, not hard to find.

I admit I watch too little broadcast television to have an informed opinion of Lucid's TV campaign. But the ads I have seen have been preponderantly biased toward the "atmospheric", as are the ads for almost all other car brands.

The important difference Lucid brings to the market is its technology and space engineering, not how cool it looks in a drone shot plying two-lane tarmac through a forest or throwing a cloud of sand while blasting over desert dunes. You can make an AMC Pacer look almost cool with the right photography. It's an act the whole industry has long since mastered.

Lucid needs an ad campaign incorporating excerpts of its superb "Tech Talk" series, if not actually built around that series. Something such as showing an exploded view of the motor and differential (with power figures) fading into a drone shot of the Lucid blasting down a drag strip. Or the computer animation of the space concept fading into a shot of adults stretching out front and rear . . . with opening or closing shots of the Motor Trend Car of the Year and the World Luxury Car trophies.

 

[Steveinarizona]

The press coverage most people will see will not be about the the inner workings of the legal debate. The coverage will be mostly shallow but maximally sensationalistic stories about a Google-funded company suing a struggling Lucid for stealing the name of its charging network. I just did a Google search on "Lucid Gravity", and here are the headlines that popped up prominently:

"Lucid Motors Is Stuck in a Fight Over the Name of its Gravity SUV"

"Luicd Faces Showdown Over Gravity SUV Name"

"Lucid in Trademark Battle with Tech Giant-Backed Company for Gravity SUV"

"Stuck" . . . "Faces Showdown" . . . "Battle with Tech Giant" . . . this is what the press coverage is and will continue to be and is NOT what the coverage should be as this SUV launches.

A customer who "really wants" a Lucid probably will not shy away over this issue. But Lucid's big problem right now is that not enough people really want a Lucid. To get anywhere close to meeting its production hopes -- and ensuring the company's future -- Lucid has to convince a lot of people who don't yet really want a Lucid to start wanting one. And they have to do this among widespread fears that the company is not on secure financial footing.

To really come to terms with this issue, we have to quit thinking like the Lucid fans we are and start thinking like a buyer who sees or hears about a Lucid SUV, thinks it's kind of cool, but is not really sure whether to spend their money on a newcomer when there are other EV SUVs available from companies with which they are familiar.

Excellent points. I would only add that by the time the Gravity (or whatever it will be called) is released and produced, there will be more competition. The EV9 is already out; the Lyriq is finally being produced in quantity, the Polestar 3 will be out, The electric Macan will be out, etc.

In some ways, even if the name has to change, it might be a plus for Lucid as it will give it some name familiarity. What it loses in having to call it XYZ instead of Gravity, it might make up and more in folks hearing about it whose idea of automotive names is governed by whose facility they drive by on their way to work.