One of our Best and Brightest (Dave) got a sneak peek at Caddy’s new ad campaign at one of those focus group thingies that marketing mavens love so much (when they’re not in Aruba):
The spot starts off in a control room with engineers hooked up to headsets and the soundtrack is like mission control getting ready to launch a . . . Saturn V? A garage door opens with dust and smoke explosions and the CTS comes out from the cloud blasting across a desert scene. The voice over says something like launch stage 1 ignition. Cue the next explosion over the car and the sport wagon emerges from the dust cloud to the voice over “stage 2 ignition” and so on for the crossover and coupe and stages 3 and 4. The spot ends with a shot of a Caddy grill and badge with the voiceover re-invented, re-launched, re-born (or something similar) all three words start with re-. The survey then asks a bunch of questions about whether this spot influenced your opinion of caddy, would you recommend, etc. Couple of thoughts – These are the same old cars, how is this a re launch? The “new GM” is still hawking the same old cars, how is that different? I gave the spot very low marks. To me it’s just more about brand image and not the cars.
Flagship? I thought Caddy was going to offer an Lexus ES competitor. Turns out the sub-CTS is now on hold until 2011, after the XTS range-topper. And now we learn that the XTS will share underpinnings with the front wheel-drive Buick LaCrosse. Apparently, the new Cadillac XTS will be wider than the LaCrosse and tuned for a more luxurious ride. Whatever. Caddy is so screwed. The new, woefully underpowered, gearbox-challenged SRX is so bad Car and Driver‘s John Phillips was forced to ask “What else can we say to put a brighter face on this?” Same story here.
This e-mail just came over the e-transom from one of TTAC’s Best and Brightest:
This just in. Some dealers are getting their first CARS [a.k.a. Cash for Clunker] reimbursement checks from the government. And they’re short. The checks. Not the bureaucrats. See, if the dealer who submitted a request OWES ANY FEDERAL BACK TAXES, THAT IS DEDUCTED FROM THE DEALER REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT. Yep. If BillyBob Motors owes the government fifteen-hundred, the dealer gets a check from Obama Money Bags for, um, carry the five, three thousand. If BillyBob owes more than forty-five hundred in federal taxes, he gets back . . . nada.
UPDATE: DOT Spokesman Ray Tyson says the IRS “may” withhold money from Cash for Clunkers dealers’ payments should the dealer owe the federal government back taxes. I’ve heard from a dealer to whom this has happened. I have amended the text of the e-mail above and removed the “Wild Ass Rumor” designation.
How did we miss facesofgm.com? I mean, it’s not like they have four (five?) other websites offering the public a look down the nationalized rabbit hole. But now that we’ve found it, well, way-hey! Clearly, New GM is playing the babe card; all three “faces” are female. Mel Fox by name, Mel Fox by, uh, nature. Needless to say, “the world of Mel” has been carefully sanitized by GM’s spinmeisters. Not so much Mel’s personal blog: theworldofallthingsmel. Here we get the idea that maybe Volt battery engineer Mel’s got mixed feelings about GM. “so i find myself asking… what can i do about this? [the root of the problems that we face in our nation is the mindset of humans, and the way people in power work to manipulate others, and the way that those being manipulated enable themselves to be manipulated again and again] the other question i ask is, how much of my career needs to involve invoking change vs. believing that what i’m working on is “good?” my point here is that perhaps it’s via the time donated to affiliations and public offerings that real change can be fostered as i don’t see too much within corporate america that truly facilitates change (fundamental change, that is).” On the other hand, Mel’s met the enemy and it is us!
At some point, maybe even soon, gm.ebay.com will be up and running. For some reason, the GM – eBay program—highly touted by CEO Fritz Henderson on the day of GM’s re-emergence from bankruptcy—only runs from August 11 (tomorrow) through September 8. So we should expect to see the main site go live at what, midnight? Thankfully, at least in some sense of that word, chevrolet.ebay.com (and the Buick, GMC and Pontiac-related url) is go. Ish. “Our Best Cars. Your Best Offer” doesn’t sound right to me. Shouldn’t that be OUR best offer? And what’s with Pontiac inclusion in the boondoggle? Anyway, what will we see when the curtain goes up?
The taxpayer-funded Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) “free money” program has had its fifteen minutes of fame. When the taxpayer-funded giveaway ran out of money, the MSM went mental. Here, at least, is a stimulus program (a.k.a. bailout) that works! Now that Congress has re-upped to the tune of two billion, you can expect the story to retreat into the figurative shadows, leaving the bankruptcy-dumped domestic dealers’ media meme at least two media cycles behind. Ah, but the axed dealers are rich and reliant. They haven’t given their legislative fight to restore their franchises. Thankfully (for them), New Chrysler is giving the story a new hook: awarding new franchises in the exact same territories where they killed dealers. In other words, they “stole” the stores for their cronies. We’re talking140 “open points.”
I’ve never hid my contempt for run-flat tires. And for good reason. When testing a BMW 5-Series equipped with the technology, the driving experience was so bad I returned it to the dealer to try a car without the tough-as-nails (and then some), tram-lining donuts. Sure enough, the “normal” tires delivered infinitely superior, brand-faithful ride and handling. I also got caught-up in the Honda Odyssey – Michelin Pax class action debacle; I shelled-out huge money for two sets of tires so stiff they’d make French soufflé makers envious. Autoweek recently reported that run-flats are in retreat, accounting for less then one percent of the U.S. market. That’s one percent too many—and not just because of the expense or compromised driving dynamics. As this email from rspaight indicates:
Barron’s [sub] lobs Ford CEO Alan Mulally enough underhand pitches to sink the Yankees, and then offers this strangely incomplete and mislabeled guide to future FoMoCo products. The most convincing part of Big Al’s spiel: cutting costs. Before reading this excerpt [after the jump] from the Q&A, ask yourself this: are these the cars that America wants? Does the Ford brand, and its marketing mavens, have enough oomph to go the distance? Stay tuned . . .
Yes, yes: I’m a Tesla naysayer. Have been right from the start when the media went ape shit for a car that hadn’t been built, repeating performance claims as if they were written on Moses’ stone tablets. (Which were eventually modified.) But I did take them off the “Tesla Birth Watch” when the car deliveries began. And we haven’t posted a “Tesla Death Watch” entry since May 1, 2009. If true, this report from TechCrunch—claiming profitability for the EV maker—indicates that we should cancel the TDW altogether. Cynic that I am, I see some pretty major caveats here. “Silicon Valley’s electric car company, Tesla Motors, says that it hit profitability in July. The private company reports that it made ‘approximately $1 million of earnings’ on revenues of $20 million, and that it shipped 109 Roadsters, its $109,000 all-electric sports car. The revenues reflect GAAP accounting standards and are only for the month of July.” Given that GM used a predicted (but not realized) Department of Energy (DOE) loan in their financial projections, does Tesla’s half billion dollar-or-so DOE suckle have anything to do with this?
I received this report of a delayed showroom arrival for the new Buick LaCrosse. “Hi my folks are interested in the new 2010 Buick LaCrosse. What an outstanding looking vehicle from Buick/GM. My father called the dealership and they said that the new LaCrosse was shipped then pulled back by Buick. Any news on why? Thanks! Michael” I contacted one of our tipsters. Apparently, “The BCM and ECM aren’t communicating properly. Pop the hood, tinker with something and have someone open the door at the same time and BINGO you’ve got trouble codes galore. You have to go to the dealer to clear them—and that wipes out all memory systems. GM’s having major meetings trying to sort it out. They may have to rewire the platform.”
The autoblogosphere is abuzz with debate over the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) list of the top ten Cash for Clunking vehicles. To say the least. Edmunds [via CNN] reports that the DOT counted vehicles EPA-style, tallying differing powertrain or drive wheel combinations separately. For example, the DOT rates a Ford Escape with two wheel-drive as a distinct model from a Ford Escape with all wheel-drive. If you’re Edmunds (or any one else with an ounce of common sense), you combine all the model variants’ sales totals into one stat. And if you do that, you get a horse of a different color. The implication making the rounds: the DOT manipulated the data to hide the fact that a brace of SUVs and pickup trucks made the top ten; the Cash for Clunkers program is supposed to be about saving the environment. Yes, well, high margin pickup trucks offer the best chance of saving the domestics. So, let’s compare the DOT list (as of August 7) with Edumunds’ take . . .
, says that it hit profitability in July. The private company reports that it made ‘approximately $1 million of earnings’ on revenues of $20 million, and that it shipped 109 Roadsters, its $109,000 all-electric sports car. The revenues reflect GAAP accounting standards and are only for the month of July.” Given that GM used a predicted (but not realized) Department of Energy (DOE) loan in their financial projections, does Tesla’s half billion dollar-or-so DOE suckle have anything to do with this?
Recent Comments