Exclusive: Dacia CEO joins our podcast to preview brand's next steps
"We could take a Renault Australe and try and make it simpler to make a Dacia Bigster, but you would have all the spec still. We don't have an 'A' brand, and try and then make that car into a 'B' brand.
"If you look at the Jogger against its rivals, they are all 250kg heavier as they are carrying that higher spec. This has a cost.
"We're not rooted by a minimum spec. We come from the bottom up, and add the minimum technology we need. Rivals come from the top down as they have to platform share." Bigster market research
The Bigster breaks new ground for Dacia in going into the C-segment for the first time. As part of its development, Dacia researchers went to Germany to speak to 400 owners of German SUVs to find out what they considered to be 'essential' technology for a model in the family SUV segment.
That's what has led to the likes of a powered tailgate, a powered driver's seat and dual-zone air conditioning being offered on a Dacia for the first time.
"We wanted to make sure that buyers here didn't feel like they had downgraded, to get the right level of essential kit. We really talked to people, and played a game of to buy or not to buy based on different kit. It was hard to guess!
"We did a bit in the UK too but the 'codes' between German and British buyers are very similar. The proportion of buyers from Germany versus France is much higher than with our other models."
The Bigster has had the most successful pre-sales period in Dacia history and more than four in five had never had a Dacia before. More than 90% of buyers have gone for the top trim level, too.
"We need to make sure people 'cross the road' to come and check out Dacia. We have offered a €25,000 Bigster but most have bought a €30,000 one. They're happy and we're happy." Market positioning
Dacia has more than doubled its sales over the last seven years from around 300,000 to almost 700,000 in 2024, and the brand enjoys strong loyalty with more than two thirds of buyers staying with the brand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Should workers who don't come into the office have their pay cut?
The UK was named the working-from-home capital of Europe last week, with university graduates revealed to work 1.8 days a week from home on average. We're nearly world-beaters too, with only employees in Canada found in the office less, averaging 1.9 days at home. Worldwide, the average is 1.3 days, according to the Global Survey of Working Arrangements, a poll of 16,000 full-time university-educated workers across 40 countries. However, the winds could be changing, with companies such as HSBC threatening to cut pay packages if workers don't come into the office more. But are they right to do this? Oliver Chapman, the chief executive of OCI, a supply chain company As a company, we pride ourselves on transparency, performance and long-term value. That's why I believe it's time we address the widening gap between in-office and remote work and change the pay structures that have failed to adapt. I'm not here to say remote work doesn't have its place. It does. During the pandemic, it kept businesses alive and people safe. But we are no longer in crisis mode. What we face now is a choice between what's convenient and what drives collaboration, innovation and growth. When employees choose to work remotely full-time, often from locations with a significantly lower cost of living, they are making a lifestyle decision. That decision has real economic implications. Yet in many cases, their salaries remain tied to cities they've left behind, often London, where pay reflects not just talent but living expenses, access and availability. If you're living in Cornwall instead of Canary Wharf, but drawing the same salary, we have to ask: is that fair to the company or to colleagues showing up in person every day? In-office work brings tangible benefits. It facilitates mentorship, spontaneous problem-solving and stronger team dynamics. It builds culture. These aren't just perks — they drive productivity. The people commuting daily, navigating the rising costs of transport, lunch and childcare, are investing in the business in ways remote workers simply are not. Compensation must reflect contribution — real, measurable, and holistic. If a role no longer requires city-based presence, great, we're flexible. But flexibility works both ways. Geographic-based pay is not about punishment. It's about equity. If you choose not to be where the work most needs you, that should be factored into how you're compensated. Some will call this regressive. I call it responsible. Businesses need to adapt to a post-pandemic reality, yes, that's true, but that means balancing flexibility with fairness, and performance with presence. Remote work isn't going away, nor should it. But it should evolve. And part of that evolution includes acknowledging that when you change where and how you work, it might also change what you're paid. That's not exploitation. That's economics. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts Gemma Dale, a former HR director and senior lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University No, workers who don't return to the office shouldn't have their pay cut. Firstly, there are the legal issues. Any unilateral pay cut to a contractual salary is likely to result in a wave of claims from workers for unlawful deductions from wages, or breach of potential legal issues aside, it is still a very bad idea. Organisations need productive, engaged, healthy employees. Remote and hybrid work can help to deliver this. We learnt during the pandemic that a great deal of work can be successfully undertaken remotely. Employees want to retain that flexibility — and who can blame them? Remote work is good for wellbeing, work-life balance and inclusion, helps people manage caring and domestic responsibilities, provides them with time for family, friends and exercise, and saves money. In contrast, commuting can be expensive, stressful and, if you add in public transport, unreliable. When you get there, many offices aren't conducive to deep work, and, spoiler alert, watercooler conversations don't magically spark innovation. There is a growing body of evidence, which the debate too often ignores, that shows that workers are just as productive working at home than they are in the office. In fact, it has been found that people work harder and longer from home. • Bosses shouldn't discipline staff for working from home, judge rules Forcing people back to the office unnecessarily, even without a pay cut, runs the risks of talent attrition, disengagement and difficulties attracting the best people. Cutting workers' pay if they don't fulfil an attendance requirement, especially if they are performing well, is the very opposite of trust and motivation. It's also poor people management. Good managers focus on outputs and outcomes, not performative presence. People are paid a salary to undertake a role; what should matter most is how they do it and what they contribute. Cutting pay for employees working remotely conflates presence with performance. It's about lack of trust. Underneath lies an assumption that if people work from home they might skive or spend all day watching Homes Under the Hammer. There is no need to penalise people for wanting to work in a way that is practical, suits their family and supports their wellbeing. Flexible work is now an employee expectation, not a nice to have. The office still has a place, but when we empower people to choose how they work, everyone wins.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Abramovich billions may never reach Ukraine – and ‘Government knew it' from day one
The row centres on the interpretation of a 'deed of undertaking' between the Government and Abramovich in which he agreed for the money to be committed to charity 'for the purposes of helping victims of the war in Ukraine'. When putting Chelsea up for sale, Abramovich publicly stated that he wanted the proceeds to be used 'for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine' – including those from his native Russia, something successive governments have refused to countenance. An official involved in the negotiations in 2022, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Telegraph Sport: 'Day one, we were concerned. We went eyes open with the fact that this was a possibility. But there genuinely wasn't an alternative.' The official said the danger of Abramovich blocking the release of the Ukraine fund had taken a back seat to fears he 'would let Chelsea go to the wall' if a deal was not struck to sell the club before the end of that season, or that he would try to 'legally get the money back himself' if sanctions against him were lifted. 'The decision was to put it in a place where we knew he couldn't get at it, and then there was a principle that this charity would be formed and that it would spend the money wisely,' the official added. 'That it's dragged on to this point is just as much a testament to the fact that the Government hasn't invested financial pressure, resources or political capital in dealing with what was, from day one, very clearly going to be a problem.' Three-year delay 'incomprehensible' Indeed, Reeves and Lammy have taken until this week to threaten legal action, something Telegraph Sport has been told the previous Conservative government had ruled out. That is despite a report by a House of Lords committee in January last year finding it 'incomprehensible' the issue had not been resolved and urging ministers 'to use all available legal levers to solve this impasse rapidly, so that Ukraine can receive much-needed, promised, and long overdue relief'. The report was published by the European Affairs Committee, chaired by cross-bench peer Lord Ricketts, a former permanent secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British ambassador to France and national security adviser. He told Telegraph Sport it had taken too long for the Government to act upon the report's recommendations and acknowledged an acrimonious legal battle could delay things much further when it comes to accessing a fund likely to have accrued more than a hundred million pounds in interest. 'It's getting ridiculous that this delay should be dragging on and on,' Ricketts said. 'I'm not a lawyer and I can't explain exactly what the Government are going to do, but I think it's now really urgent to get this sorted. And I think 'incomprehensible' is still a pretty good word to describe why, three years later, we're still waiting for the money to go to the people who really need it in Ukraine.' Concerns over the delay had been raised even earlier, including by Mike Penrose, the former chief executive of Unicef UK, heading the independent foundation set up to administer the fund. He was joined two years ago by Oxfam, Save the Children, Kyiv-based charities and UK families hosting Ukrainian refugees in calling for then prime minister Rishi Sunak to urgently break the deadlock. That was after the European Union, like the Government, ruled the money could only be spent within Ukraine's borders, an edict the charities urged Sunak to ignore. Labour peer Lord Foulkes also wrote to then chancellor Jeremy Hunt in September 2023 over the 'unacceptable delay' in releasing the funds, adding in his letter: 'The only barrier, as far as I can tell, seems to be bureaucracy, and it strikes me as ridiculous that we should let a matter of paperwork confound these efforts, when our Ukrainian allies overcome incredible adversity on a daily basis.' Foulkes told Telegraph Sport: 'The trouble is we've been playing by the rules that the Russians never acknowledge, never play by, and we have been trying to get some agreement on it. 'That was always likely to fail – and certainly take a long time. I'm glad that, at last, they're now taking action and I think it's the right thing to do, and they should press ahead with it as quickly and as forcibly as possible.' Seizing of Russian assets 'politically explosive' Telegraph Sport has been told the previous government ruled out legal action after concluding there were too many downsides, including the risk investors could shun the UK. Various sources with knowledge of negotiations with lawyers for Abramovich have branded the ongoing row as a 'nightmare issue', describing the seizing of Russian assets as 'politically explosive'. Explaining the difference between freezing and seizing assets, a source said: 'Seizing assets is a whole new ball game. There's a sizeable chunk that is frozen in Britain that are Russian-state assets. There are huge numbers of countries and lots and lots of lawyers who would explain to you that if you even try taking it and just seizing it and say that money is now ours, you are facing intense pressure.' The source said that could include 'lobbying' from other countries which invest in the UK who might say: 'OK then, we're pulling out billions of billions from your economy now.' Bart De Wever, the Belgian prime minister, also warned in March that confiscating almost €200 billion (£168 billion) of frozen Russian assets would be 'an act of war' and would carry 'systemic risks to the entire financial world system'. Telegraph Sport has also been told the last government was split on whether to compromise on Abramovich's demands, with Andrew Mitchell said by one source to have discussed ways ministers could 'cut a deal' with the oligarch when he was at the Foreign Office. Explaining the power Abramovich currently held over the frozen Chelsea sale fund, a source said: 'He can't access the money. He can't spend the money, but he can stop the trust spending it and, at the moment, he's always hidden behind, 'No, the terms that I agreed to the sale are not quite the same as the terms that the British Government are now insisting on'.' Telegraph Sport has approached a representative for Abramovich for comment on the Government's legal threat against him. A book entitled Sanctioned is being released next week in which he is expected to be quoted about the sale of Chelsea and the sanctions imposed on him.
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The spirit of Liz Truss, ridiculous but relentless, stalks British politics
We need to talk about Liz Truss, although there are reasons not to bother. The prime minister who failed faster than any previous holder of the office has much to say about her dismal record, but nothing insightful. She cuts a pitiful spectacle padding out the schedule at rightwing conferences, chasing attention and relevance with an addict's fervour. Last week, Truss was at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, sharing the big lesson she learned in government. It was that British institutions have been captured by a leftist doctrine and that they 'hate western civilisation'. She couldn't possibly counter this threat from No 10 because supposedly the real power was wielded by a well-financed 'globalist network', operating through such engines of anti-democratic subterfuge as the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organization. Truss believes these nefarious forces authored her downfall. They taught her that gradual reform is impossible. Only a 'Trump-style revolution' will do. This is her routine spiel. Indeed, it was the theme of her paranoid, self-pitying memoir-cum-manifesto, Ten Years to Save the West, published last year. Her disquisitions on the topic go unreported in her home country. She made more headlines last week from a two-month-old cameo appearance in a promotional video for a whiskey brand launched by a bare-knuckle fighter with a conviction for violent assault. (How that endorsement advances the restoration of western civilisation was unclear.) But a thorough summary of the CPAC speech was dutifully published by Tass, Russia's main state news agency. Their report led with the claim that 'globalists are trying to control the political process across Europe'. It is standard practice for Russian news channels to weave selective quotes from western politicians into tendentious propaganda, except there is no need to take Truss's words out of context. She narrates the west's slide into godless decadence without an edit. She provides the frothy conspiracy theories that Kremlin-friendly bots amplify on social media, and hallmarks them with the authority of a former prime minister. A British audience knows the caveats to that status: Truss was ousted within 50 days; a lettuce had more staying power. But the title stands. She really did rise to the top, and not through some freak system malfunction. She played and won the Westminster game by its rules. She had multiple ministerial briefs under three prime ministers. She persuaded a clear majority of members of Britain's venerable establishment party to make her their leader. Colleagues who suspected (or knew from experience) that Truss was unhinged stayed silent or endorsed her candidacy once her momentum looked unstoppable. Client journalists who had benefited from her notorious indiscretion, and looked forward to ever greater intimacy with power, colluded in the fiction of her fitness to govern. Even now, when the former prime minister's name is a byword for economic incompetence, Conservatives are euphemistic in contrition. When invited to apologise on behalf of her party for the disastrous mini-budget of September 2022, Kemi Badenoch has said only that she wants to 'draw a line' under the episode. The obstacle is not a residue of loyalty but a continuity of belief. The dogmatic engine of Trussonomics – that tax cuts always pay for themselves by stimulating enterprise to generate growth – is still an axiom of mainstream Conservatism. So is Trussite suspicion of the public sector as a redoubt of bureaucratic socialism. Badenoch, like Truss, backs a Maga-style revolution to rip chunks out of the government apparatus. She has spoken enthusiastically about Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, adding that Doge methods are not 'radical enough' for the bloated British state. The fact that Musk's purgative rampage through Washington has failed to produce the advertised cost savings doesn't deter imitators. Nigel Farage has announced the creation of a mercenary Doge 'unit' to hunt down waste in the councils that Reform UK won in last month's local elections. This exercise serves a double function. First, Farage will scapegoat any local officials whose duties can be branded under the rubric of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Second, he will overstate the expense of such schemes, generating improbable nationwide savings to justify tax cuts in a Reform manifesto. Trussonomics will be rehabilitated and rearmed with imported US culture war rhetoric. Farage was once a fan of Truss's economic policy. He praised her fiscal farrago as 'the best Conservative budget since 1986'. The year harked back to the heyday of Thatcherism. These days Farage has to be careful about fetishising the Iron Lady. His party's electoral base lives in Labour's former heartlands, so he is a convert to the cause of industrial nationalisation. He now shakes his magic money tree to the left as well as the right. The Tories lack such ideological elasticity. In any case, Badenoch doesn't seem interested in economics. She is more animated by the crusade for free speech. This, like the demonisation of DEI, is a fixation borrowed from the US right. When JD Vance declared that European democracy was more imperilled by censorious liberals than by Russian military aggression, Badenoch admired the US vice-president's deployment of 'truth bombs'. Here, too, she is on the same page as Truss, who told last week's CPAC audience that free-thinking dissidents from Keir Starmer's Britain find refuge in Viktor Orbán's Hungary. (Orbán is Europe's foremost admirer of Vladimir Putin. He has suffocated independent media and political opposition.) It is hard to know how much of this derangement is conviction and how much is cupidity. There is money to be earned bad-mouthing Britain on the ultra-nationalist lecture circuit, but it is also easy to self-radicalise in that milieu. It is also hard to know how receptive a UK audience is to US conservative manias. Much of the UK right dwells in a US-coded online hallucination of Britain where criminal hordes of migrants have turned city centres into no-go areas and liberal thought police harass law-abiding white Christians. The danger is not that millions of voters will recognise the bleak dystopia as a factual representation of their country, but that it resonates as an allegory of national decline. It is not the complaint that Britain is in bad shape – dilapidation and economic strife are self-evident – but the cultivation of despair by projecting hard problems through a facile, conspiratorial lens. It is the insinuation that existing democratic institutions are not merely failing to make life better but maliciously orchestrating misery. This is the nihilistic cynicism that vaporises trust, corrodes civic culture and makes simple, authoritarian solutions attractive. It is music to Vladimir Putin's ears and grist to his digital disinformation mills. Perhaps we should be grateful to Liz Truss for playing the archetype of unwitting accomplice to tyranny – the 'useful idiot' of cold war parlance – so ineptly. She contaminates any cause she touches. That is why the British right shuns her. But social ostracism isn't ideological repudiation. The current Tory and Reform leaders are embarrassed by association with Truss, not because they despise what she says but because she looks ridiculous. Her offence was not the grift, but its exposure in ways that might discredit more skilful practitioners. She is not too extreme, only artless in applying the camouflage. She is the crumpled, discarded packaging from a product that, rewrapped, could be delivered once again to Downing Street. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist One year of Labour, with Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr and more On 9 July, join Pippa Crerar, Raf Behr, Frances O'Grady and Salma Shah as they look back at one year of the Labour government and plans for the next four years
