Automotive News reports, “General Motors Co. will launch a broad post-bankruptcy advertising campaign next week with an introductory TV spot featuring new Chairman Ed Whitacre . . . The idea is to showcase GM’s best products, with Whitacre urging consumers to take a look at what the automaker has to offer.” THIS is what Old GM Car Czar/New GM Ad Czar Bob Lutz thinks will turn around the nationalized automaker’s sinking fortunes? More pan-brand feel good advertising? Or is it worse than that; some kind of sick, twisted Motown plot to get Eddy boy to become a GM insider? I mean, guys, this is the former AT&T exec who celebrated winning his seat at the GM BOD table by publicly pronouncing, “I don’t know anything about cars.” The guy who said he’d only need to jet into Detroit for a day or so. PER MONTH.
Aside from the aforementioned conspiracy theory, what possible justification could there possibly be for making Whitacre the public face of GM?
GM’s research showed that consumers now want to know that the new GM is a different company from the one in bankruptcy, two of the sources said. Whitacre is enough of an outsider to be viewed as representing the taxpayer, one of those sources said.
I know Lee Iacocca, Ed. You, sir, are no Iacocca.
Sounds like they’re trying to portray him as GM’s big Al Mulally. That may not be the worst idea they’ve ever had.
This idea is so bad that I can only believe it is a canard to pave the way for ads featuring a certain nationally-elected spokesperson for GM’s majority stakeholder.
I spoke to Lee in Palm Springs several years ago. His only optimistic view for the domestic car business, was the retro market. The picture above with the 65 Mustang, is telling.
Who else do they put out front?
What the domestic car manufacturer’s need is someone to build a car that fits into the culture the way the Mustang did in ’64, rather than trying to build retro Mustangs.
Lack of imagination and risk aversion has stifled them into oblivion.
Nooooooooooo – they’ve learned nothing!
– Spending money on image advertising for the holding company of 4 brands: NOOOOO!
– Taking that money and spending it on diversified products and marketing for those 4 brands: YES!
Has anyone at GM ever taken a class on or studied marketing and branding principles? It’s insane! It’s annoying! I’ll never buy a GM product! Never I tell you!
*sigh* OK, sorry for all the exclamation points; I’m just that annoyed.
GM needs a “The buck stops here” leader. If Whiteacre is the guy, then I think it is a good idea. If he is just a talking head, then bad idea.
Just because Whiteacre doesn’t know anything about cars doesn’t mean he can’t hold those at GM who do accountable.
@ Farago,
I have to ask, have you ever worked for GM? Ford? Chrysler? How about Toyota/Honda/Nissan? MB/BMW/Audi? Hyundai?
The reason I ask is that for someone who is so virulently anti-GM, it would seem reasonable to me that you have/had intimate personal experience in the auto industry.
Ed Whitaker doesn’t need to be in Detroit 24/7. It’s called videoconferencing. Odd, in my job I work with people in Germany & Australia and I’ve never needed to work face to face with them. Microsoft netMeeting & VOIP do just fine and save lots of money…. hmm saving money… Now that’s just insane.
The first thing I want to hear out of his mouth is, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. This COMPANY fucked up. I only hope I can bring it back, that we can earn your dollars beyond the ones your government has forcibly taken from your pockets.”
Wait! Iacocca said what? What did he mean by ‘retro’? If he meant a unibody replica of a ’57 Chevy with a modern drivetrain and suspension, I believe that would sell. So would a replica (any year) El Camino. But how long would a company last mining their own history, instead of looking to the future? It sounds like even the Great Iacocca has run out of ideas.
yankinwaoz
“Just because Whiteacre doesn’t know anything about cars doesn’t mean he can’t hold those at GM who do accountable.”
The idea that a good exec (especially one with an MBA) can run any kind of company has been disproven time and time and time again.
stopwhining
No, I haven’t worked for an automaker. I’ve been a car journalist (and salesman and other things) for over 30 years. FWIW
As for videoconferencing, nothing that can replace [unannounced] face time with the people who count. Which is, of course, everyone from the designer to the factory worker to the dealer to the customer; probably in reverse order.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: a decision is only as good as the information it’s based on. When it comes to dependable information gathering, if you’re not THERE, you’re nowhere.
“Edward Niedermeyer :
Who else do they put out front?”
How about some competitive product?
Something, anything but not a suit. GM has been lying to its customers (and to itself) for decades. Only the terminally gullible will believe a word they say now.
The idea that a good exec (especially one with an MBA) can run any kind of company has been disproven time and time and time again.
Katsuaki Watanabe would be the counterpoint to that argument in the automotive forum. Expand the search a little and you net people like Lou Gerstner (ex-IBM) or Cisco’s John Chambers.
Quite a lot of MBAs and acountants actually do quite a good job, they just don’t often make the news for it. The problem is that people who are not accountable and not responsible will eventually make very bad decisions, regardless of their professional designation or lack thereof. Whitacre may or may not be a good leader, but he has the handicap of steering an organization were accountability and responsibility simply haven’t happened in half a decade.
More pan-brand feel good advertising?
C’mon, let’s be fair and give credit where it’s due. They’ve obviously decided this is the way forward, and they’re making a consistent, coherent go of it. Adding the “GM” chiclet to the front fender of each of their vehicles, for example.
Oops, I mean, um…
Never mind.
Jerry Flint did an editorial on Ward’s Auto World on Aug 25th here: http://wardsauto.com/commentary/Detroit_exceed_competitors_090825/
If I remember this guy correctly, he could be eyeball deep in GM poop and declare at the top of his lungs it is a bright and sunny day for everything GM. In a complete reversal of his incessant rah-rah for GM, in the editorial he goes right down the list of things wrong at GM.
Unfortunately, General Motors has a tin ear and won’t hear any of it.
What Jerry did not spotlight is GM’s biggest problem is it’s attitude. General Motors has a seething, searing, burning hatred for its suppliers, dealers, customers, the cities where it has facilities and all levels of government. All are held to the highest contempt and treated with unbridled arrogance. GM doesn’t much care for cars and trucks either.
Parking a stuffed shirt out at the front fender is just more of the same.
GM continues to miss the plot. They must be a LOT better than the competition to have a chance, and they are not even close. The Big 3 largely pioneered the move to make cars into appliances and have lost the boomer generation forever due to well known factors (making anonymous crap with abominable dealer experiences) nothing will ever change that. They’ve lost the next generation and dont know it. What’s left?
Product, boys, product is the only chance. And there is no chance. Ever hear high school kids talking about Chevy’s? Me neither.
They are already toast. The faux Iacocca hail mary just proves it.
It’s hard to see how messages from corporate bigwigs will do anything to close the “perception gap”. If anything, it widens that gap. If they want a spokesman to convey the message to buyers that they’ve got some truly competitive products, they should try using people that the buyers can relate to. Suits with degrees, fat salaries and expense accounts currently rank about the same as congressman on the trustworthiness scale.
2 points. First, the idea of GM corporate advertising is foolish. Iacocca could sell corporate Chrysler because the cars never had much differentiation to begin with. If a person did not like a Dodge, well they wouldn’t like a Plymouth or a Chrysler either, because the cars had the same look and feel. Top to bottom, the cars were always the same, but different.
GM was built on individual divisions. If they are going to continue with 4 separate brands, then they need to fill those brands with product and sell them. If we are going to sell “corporate GM”, then why do we need brands? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Second: If the purpose of selling this “New GM is really New GM” idea, then it will be another example of telling us that it was not our father’s Oldsmobile when it plainly was. We need to hear “Hi, I’m the new GM chairman. I know this business. This is why I have assembled a top team of fresh executive talent to kick tail and take names. We are going to make GM the seller of the cars and trucks that you want to buy, starting now.” Problem is, he is one guy at the top who doesn’t know the business and has done virtually nothing about the culture issue. He is going to tell us how everything is different, and maybe it is in and around his office. But when you get over 350 ft. away from his office, its the same place.
What a joke. It’s “Road to Redemption”, the TV ad.
Arrogance rules at Government Motors. Always has, always will.
Are they crazy or just truly out of ideas?
Actually, this sounds like a desperate agency pulling one last rabbit out of its hat to eke a little more out of a dying account: “Hey, the new guy admits he knows nothing about cars, and heaven knows AT&T’s customers are even more dissatisfied than GM’s, but he seems to have an ego bigger than the Renaissance Center. Maybe we can suck up to him enough to milk one more big campaign out of them!”
General Motors has dumped on so many people for so long they have alienated everyone except a few groups at the fringe. It appears that the new current ploy will be to sell to the young, those who have not had a General Motors experience up close and personal.
How do you market to a group at the low end of the income, savings, and credit score end of the scale?
The answer, structure the car loan along the lines of the failed home loans: very little down, low payments, then a balloon payment in 3-4 years. Think along the lines of a lease but instead of just turning in the keys at the end, you get hit with a bill approximating twice the car value.
General Motors bundles the car loans, sells them to Wall Street, gets their money, and then lets Wall Street take the hit when about 100% of these loans go into default.
General Motors had a choice to make: build desirable cars and trucks or play financial games. Every indication out of the Tubes points to the latter being General Motor’s choice.
Lee Iaccoca was already a household name when he went on T.V. to promote Chrysler. Because people knew who he was, and because they respected him, Iaccoca had the credibilty to argue Chrysler’s case to a skeptical public.
Whitacre does not have this level of name recognition and credibilty. When he pops up on the T.V., most people will just tune him out. GM would do better to hire a paid celebrity spokesman. Perhaps a prop comic Gallagher or Carrot Top.
“Honey, why are we driving an old, 6-year old car when we could get us one of them brand new General Motors cars for a hundred dollars every two weeks??”
Forget all that nonsense about RWD, AWD, platforms, balance shafts, sound insulation, transmissions, and warranty stuff. Now we’re talking the General Motors white belt and shoes way of doing car bitness.
I have a feeling this ad campaign will be about as successful as the last car company to use a member of their management team in a series of commericials; Chrysler and Dr. Z a few years ago.
jpcavanaugh:
GM did use corporate ads in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember seeing ads in the 1950s featuring cars from all five divisions, or highlighting a new styling feature (the one that sticks in my mind is an ad from 1956, announcing that four-door hardtops are now available from every GM division).
GM continued this practice in the 1960s, although it was more difficult given that each division, except for Cadillac, was on its way to offering a full line of vehicles. I recall an ad from the late 1960s that featured the muscle-car version of the A-body from each division that offered it.
The ads promoted the idea that these brands were all under the GM umbrella. It worked because, in those days, people respected the GM name. Each division also used its own engines and was far more involved in suspension and chassis tuning, so there were more differences among the divisional offerings. There were also fewer choices in the marketplace.
Today, the GM name has become a liability, and drivetrains are shared across divisions. There may be some differences between a Buick and a Chevrolet, but with so many REAL choices out there, the differences are hard for most consumers to see.