As readers of our General Motors Death Watch know, GM e-rotweiler and junket dispenser Christopher Barger thinks TTAC is WAY too negative. At least we're not double negative. Check out the Director of GM Global Communications Technology's response to a CNBC poll. Phil LeBeau asked readers to choose one of four culprits– management, unions, SUVaphilia or Toyondissan– for GM's sagging stock price and rapidly declining fortunes. Barger sent a "now hold on a god damn minute" email to LeBeau which tells us exactly how GM's spinning their [death] spiral: it's the economy, stupid. "In fact, these economic headwinds are taking their toll on virtually every American business and industry — and consumers from all walks of life too. Singling out one company for criticism when the entire economy is struggling seems a bit unfair, don't you think? It's kind of like blaming one person for being out of work when unemployment is on the rise." (Tell that to Honda.) There's a lot of B.S. to wade through, from GM strengthening its brands, to the fact that the automaker sells eight (count 'em eight) hybrids, to "our products can go toe-to-toe with anything on the market today." Barger's central message: fuck the past. "I think it's more constructive to look forward and to try to continue improving things, don't you?" As the old saying goes, those who don't learn from history have a bright future in corporate PR.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
No surprise here. Barger is a PR man. This means he deals in bullshit. Bullshit is his life. It’s his way of living. It also means that to any legitimate news medium or rational human being, whatever he says has zero value.
This gets me thinking… I remember a time when Mazda blamed their misfortunes on the Japanese Financial Crisis and weak markets during the 90s.
If this site were around then; imagine the “Mazda Deathwatch” pieces that would have been batted around. Mazda had a few low volume niche cars, a lot of low margin and uninspiring pedestrian cars, and a slew of mismanaged sub-brand s. From 1995 on the company just got hammered with one bad decision after another. It took Ford coming in to save them.
Imagine what would have happened if the PR folks for Mazda weren’t around in the late 90s. Somebody had to still perceive value in the company… so it’s important for PR to continue its role even if it is a load of fluff. Their goal isn’t to tell you the truth; their goal is to keep their company going. In the 90s, these guys proclaimed Mazda’s excellence at powertrain and chassis development, and they’d vocally blamed externalities beyond the company’s control.
So who’s going to come in and save Ford? Anyway, I think it’d be fun to do a what-if time machine where ya’ll write about how bad Mazda was as a business and how stupid their management was back in the 90s.
holydonut:
Imagine what would have happened if the PR folks for Mazda weren’t around in the late 90s. Somebody had to still perceive value in the company… so it’s important for PR to continue its role even if it is a load of fluff.
Spoken like a true spinmeister. You WANT me to lie! You NEED me to lie! If I don’t lie, hundreds of thousands of people can’t put food on their table.
A company that tells the truth– both internally and externally– avoid dangerous self-delusion AND earns credibility/loyalty it can use when times are tough. Ford MAY be learning that lesson. GM? No.
Read the first sentence from RF then Nemphre’s post. He may have a point….
RF: Yes, Ford needs people to lie on their behalf and they pay out the nose to get that service. It’s all about maintaining the notion the company isn’t going to go tits up next week. At a basic level, it makes sure on-the-fence consumers somewhat confident that the company isn’t going to leave them with a Merkur or Renault that cannot get warranty work.
At a more important business level, it makes sure banks continue to lend them money; that their employees actually still try; and that investors still perceive some value in Ford’s assets.
If you ran a business that relied on delivering consumer goods, you’d need a pretty fluff-filled PR staff as well. If your business relies on the failure of other businesses – well – your PR staff is probably less important.
holydonut: If your business relies on the failure of other businesses – well – your PR staff is probably less important. My business depends on telling the truth about cars. I do NOT accept that lies/outrageous spin are an acceptable part of doing business. They may be normal and predictable, but that does not make them right, or even tolerable. While you're free to disagree, this being America and all, I believe consumers deserve the truth. Besides, a sense of morality– fairness, honesty, integrity– makes good business sense in this country. And thank God for that.
Personally, I believe 100% truth is a bit idealistic. And adhering to this ideal will result in a situation where you become a martyr to prove a point that exposes a weakness of the human condition.
Even if deep down in your heart feel that your company’s pizza is merely average, would you have a slogan that says “we make average pizza” in place of “world’s tastiest pizza?” An advertising campaign with th message “we’re #4 in the industry and damn proud” really doesn’t get the right point across to the audience. Sure, some people will value your honesty – but most will just think you’re stupid.
I’ve said it a few times in comments before, but I think there’s a huge amount of value to be had with industry and business experience. I find it repeated numerous times that the “truth” is what is intuitively correct and rationalized. But there is almost impossible to operate a business by telling truths all the time. While I believe a Utopian ideal would allow creditability to offset a default on debt, the real world thus far doesn’t allow it.
And besides – no matter how much you believe in your message, somebody will label you as a liar. How many times has Toyota verbalized a commitment to the environment only to have people accuse them of touting inefficient technologies with negative externalities in order to get credit for for some HOV exemptions in California? Same goes with Nissan believing they have the best sports car under 100K only to have ‘Vette fans decrying all the electronics on the car.
GM’s PR guy gets paid a lot to do spew fluff because if he fails at his job there will be indirect costs experienced by the company. And I would imagine he knows that people will criticize him. So the cycle continues where he keeps spewing and people keep criticizing. It keeps the ball moving and provides us all something to talk about.
I knew I shouldn’t have opened that 2nd beer… I’m starting to forget how to type and form sentences.
Lies and outrageous spin are not an acceptable part of doing business – there’s even legislation against that, particularly as far as keeping stockholders abreast of real developments within the company are concerned.
There’s seeing the facts from your point-of-view, and then there’s making up your own facts. And I want to support RF in stating that there should be no made up facts used to trick and lure customers, from a company such as GM.
Looking at Barger’s argument, from the blog above:
“In fact, these economic headwinds are taking their toll on virtually every American business and industry — and consumers from all walks of life too. Singling out one company for criticism when the entire economy is struggling seems a bit unfair, don’t you think? “
No – many companies in the same business as GM are not suffering from the economy in the same manner. GM is taking a lot of hurt because management has been clueless in its approach to reality, probably helped by such corporate spin.
It’s kind of like blaming one person for being out of work when unemployment is on the rise.” (Tell that to Honda.)
Well, if that person insists on working on the wrong thing, then that person deserves blame. When the entire car industry should be shifting to smaller, less fuel thirsty and more compact cars – preferably with alternative drive-trains, your contributing to a rise in unemployment by building what the market doesn’t want deserves blame.
“GM strengthening its brands”
Huh? What did I miss? When did GM do that? Have they stopped selling cars over at GM.com? No, just checked – GM is still busy destroying a number of originally quite fine brands.
” … to the fact that the automaker sells eight (count ’em eight) hybrids …”
He-he.
“our products can go toe-to-toe with anything on the market today.”
Sure, Mr. Barger. But not head-to-head.
Mr. Barger is representative of the kind of spokesman, PR-spimeister and flack who will twist the facts when needed, and who then stands back expecting a pat on the head from their corporate daddies. “You did fine, sonny. Keep up the good work.”
Remember those videos with Japanese top managers tearfully begging for the public’s forgiveness, as they apologize for a transgression their company has committed? Often something unrelated to the top-managers entirely, but part of their responsiblity?
That’s called recognizing when you have broken the public’s trust. A friend or relative who lies to you constantly isn’t worth much — same with a company.
Let’s play pick your GM Spokespersons’ attributes:
Spinmeister
Penny Pincher
Angry Old Man
Shit Smells Like Roses
Queen of Denial
Blame Game
Lying in Waiting
To play, pull out this sheet and listen or read the GM spokeperson’s comments and select their attributes – note there maybe more than one answer!
There always has to be a scapegoat. Heaven forbid that anyone actually stands up and takes any responsibility for GM’s faults (ahem, management). This is the way things are done in large corporations. Everyone is there for the money. Why make real progress when the illusion of improvement is much easier and just as (personally) profitable? Why admit to your mistakes when it will make you look bad and might get you fired? You cash your paycheck and just make sure it keeps coming.
While GM can say the economy is partly responsible for GM’s falling sales, you can’t blame the economy for GM’s dwindling market share. Yes, the pie is smaller, but why is GM’s peice of that pie shrinking, too?
So with all 8 of those hybrids on the market, surely they combine to match the Prius’s sales! No? Half the Prius sales? 10%? It’s more like 1% (843 in 3 months vs 107k in 4 months.
Lastly, I only see 5 hybrids here:
http://www.gm.com/shop/results.jsp?fuel=hybrid&cs=1
The guy in the picture is definitely the muscle for a loan shark. I don’t know what it has to do with cars.
@seoultrain
He did say eight hybrids by the end of the year — he-he, I guess it’s GM’s way of spreading the pain.
Whenever I see this kind of delusional trash from what should be a major carmaker, I sense it’s still going to be a long time before that company is in true turnaround.
The main reason for GM’s collapse – corporate delusion.
Eight hybrids? Eight truly unique hybrids? Or are some of them just badge engineered, like the Tahoe and Yukon.
Because if they aren’t unique, how exactly is it that you are strenghthening all 8 brands?
SAAB — they’re one of those 8 stronger brands, presumably, right? How exactly is SAAB stronger? Was it the introduction of a rebadged econobox Subaru that did it? Or dropping the rebadged econobox Subaru that strengthened the brand? Was it the rebadged TrailBlazer, or the fact you moved the ignition?
We’re all waiting here for the answer. Well, waiting, and watching SAAB sales tank.
GM is going to sell eight hybrids by the end of the year?!?!!? Three Malibus, two Auras and two Yukons?
If I were a large multinational car company who was introducing hybrids to marked, I’d hope to sell thousands, tens of thousands. But eight?
Oh wait, I misread the original statement. They’re selling eight hybrids, not like eight customers have actually bought GM hybrids…
That Honda link in the article takes us to a 2006 sales report. Is that what was truly intended?
If that clown doesn’t have UsedCarSales written all over him ….
KixStart:
That Honda link in the article takes us to a 2006 sales report. Is that what was truly intended?
No. Text amended.
Imagine if they were honest, saying “we are in tough times, and we are going under without serious changes”. Wouldn’t it be a LOT easier to get UAW members (not UAW officials) to approve cuts? And suppliers to take cuts?
Instead, they put out the “no problems” B.S. and then have to fight incredibly hard for even the slightest concessions.
The main reason for GM’s collapse – corporate delusion.
Exactly. Obviously Wagoner, Lutz and at least most of the bystanders, have been in denial for years and remain so. This reminds me of Nixon’s final months. More evidence would come out pointing to him as the culprit and he’s schedule a speech. OK I thought, now he HAS to come clean. But no, more bullshit and lies. I have no doubt that Wagoner & company will continue down the same path to the bitter and devastating end. And when they say there was nothing they could have done, they’ll be right. THEY were incapable of fixing the problem due to their lack of integrity. But they’re all filthy rich so what the hell.
The main reason for GM’s collapse – corporate delusion.
Too true! But why? In part because they believe their own PR. It’s one thing to say “we make the world’s tastiest pizza” as an advertising slogan and quite another to say “problems? what problems? Nothing to see here!” As Mel said, Wagoner & co will ride this down to the bitter end in total denial and all because they believed their own nonsense. At the end of the day GM’s minority shareholders will be left with worthless paper. With every passing day I am begining to think Buickman is right about what’s going on because it gets more difficult to believe that there could be so much incompetence in RenCen. That being said, the alternative explanation is much much worse.
This comment is unrelated: I can’t seem to locate the e-mail address that sends directly to Robert Farago’s inbox. If anyone has it readily available to share, please let me know. I’ve seen it posted before, but can’t seem to find it. I’m sure I’ve just missed it somehow. Thanks.
robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com
holydonut :
You need to get your facts straight on several fronts.
“From 1995 on the company (Mazda) just got hammered with one bad decision after another. It took Ford coming in to save them”.
Fact: Ford has had a controlling interest (33%) in Mazda since 1984. And Ford had a strong hand in Mazda’s product and marketing miscues that occurred from that time until the development and launch of the Mazda 6. Since that launch, Mazda has flourished because Ford left them alone as a byproduct of their distractions with other ventures Jag/Land Rover/Aston Martin/Volvo. Their success is a testimony to the power of LESS Ford management.
Your post concludes with the question: Who will save Ford? Given all of the Ford products in the mid-size segment that are built around that Mazda 6 platform (Fusion/Milan/MKZ) it seems Mazda is doing all that it can to save Ford.