Why do automakers use contractors, such as for coachbuilding?

[MIE1992]

I love looking at the design work from contractors like Pininfarina, Bertone, Giugiaro, or Zagato. And this is isn't just in regards to their work done for automakers, but also other clients they may have. For example, I was once in Portugal, and I saw that a train that I was boarding was designed by Giugiaro. Another example was how Pininfarina has designed at least one building.

I also understand a decent amount of these entities came about in the pre-car era, when horsepower was a more literal term. But what I wonder, is what's the economic benefit to this sort of relationship? What's to keep these automakers from doing design work in-house? Other than the obvious - the design house gets paid, and the automaker gets a design - what do both parties get out of this sort of relationship?

My guess would be how you may have a given profession, and be a homeowner, but you may require an electrician to fix something. The respective skills is not something you may need all the time, nor may you have a sufficient level of knowledge to do the job personally. It's not like you'd need to hire the electrician to always be waiting on standby, as if they were a servant, either. So I think that's the best way I could imagine why contractors are used.

Now, if you could all forgive me for this coming tangent, but could game design be contracted, in a similar way to the coachbuilders that I admire? I'm not 100% sure. I want to say that something like a Game Design Document (GDD) could have similarities to a screenplay in film, where the director/producer buys the document from its creator, but then has control over how the document is interpreted - and that's if the concept gets produced, as I've heard that buying a script and not producing it isn't entirely unheard of. I would think that the reason game design would not be capable of being contracted is because of how much things can change in game development, especially when certain unforeseen constraints or issues are discovered, and especially when a deadline is involved. But then again, is the same not true of the aforementioned film/TV production? At any rate, I am adamant of the notion that I'm capable of being sympathetic to both the creative and financial interests of the parties involved in these sorts of things, as I love learning about the economics behind the things I enjoy as much as I love appreciating the creative aspects behind them. Indeed, it's a balance of idealism and pragmatism, between being a dreamer and a realist. And I'd like to someday be able to let someone out there know, in the relevant profession(s), that I'd like to further appreciate this balance.

 

[TheCracker]

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head already 👍

The likes of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Alfa etc and to a lesser extent Fiat, were not manufacturers to the same scale that they are today. They didn't churn out new or revised models in anyway as regularly as they do now. They'd have a small team of engineers and mechanics who'd work projects, but an exterior stylist would of spent most of their time sat idle. The body shells - back in the day they were not unibody in construction as they are now, they were largely thin alloy sheets formed over a network/frame of narrow metal tubes which was dropped onto a completed chassis. A proper artisan skill set is needed to construct in this way. This means it could be built at the styling house, who had they're own workshops for this, and shipped to the manufacturer - as small companies themselves would have limited workshop/factory space. It's a system that just suited everyone. Building a vehicle and styling a vehicle are different procedures. Why not leave the styling (and body manufacturing) to those with the skills and knowledge?

Up until fairly recently (and without checking, perhaps still to this day) Bertone and Karmann had big enough manufacturing facilities to be able to construct or assemble complete vehicles, as well as the exterior styling, as subcontractors to the main car companies when they themselves lacked the space or facilities to do so if they produced a new model or spin-off from an existing one (like a soft-top/convertible version).

 

[daan]

I would add Pininfarina to @TheCracker list. They designed and built many different cars usually convertible/coupe versions of mainstream models. For example, Peugeot built the 406, but Pininfarina built the Coupe.

 

[Liquid]

An interesting case of contracted car body manufacturing is Pressed Steel Ltd. An English company founded in 1926 to build car parts for Morris, they later acquired the contracts to build bodies for Austin, Rover and Jaguar. When Austin and Morris merged to form the British Motor Corporation, BMC decided to purchase the independent car body manufacturer Pressed Steel and therefore BMC knew everything about the manufacturing of its rivals Rover and Jaguar. This left Rover and Jaguar in a hole where they were at the mercy of their largest rivals and BMC acquired Rover and Jaguar very shortly thereafter. After latterly acquiring Leyland, the beloved British Leyland Motor Corporation was born.

A telling case of an industry swallowing itself whole.

 

[VXR]

Also, there is a certain cachet to acquiring the services of a Bertone or Pinifarina to build specialised models.