Automotive News [sub] reports that GM Ad Czar Bob Lutz is large and in charge of the nationalized automaker’s ad campaigns. The combative former Car Czar has a favorite ad [this one] and . . . a plan! From now on, New GM will—
— Change the way it works with its agencies. Lutz will take an early and active role in directing the creative work.
— Shift to more product-driven advertising.
— Give vehicle designers a powerful influence over the look of advertising.
— Develop viral ad campaigns that rampage through the Internet. “It’s got to be a funny story; it’s got to be humorous; it’s got to be unexpected,” Lutz says.
— Conduct high-level weekly meetings to decide budgets and spark marketing ideas. The meetings will include brand leaders; Ed Welburn, the global design chief; Chris Preuss, the head of public relations; Betsy Lazar, the executive director of advertising and media operations; and a top finance executive.
And if that doesn’t do it, nothing will! Just kidding. I’m no Ad Czar, but even I know something is better than nothing. If only just.
Consumer organization Which? surveyed more than 84,000 drivers in The Land of Hope and Glory to establish which new cars suffered the fewest breakdowns, faults and niggles. In the process, they established which vehicles suffer the most breakdowns, faults and niggles. While we wonder about the exact definition of “niggle,” if not the survey’s complete methodology, here’s the bottom of the list. In the perverse dark lining in the silver cloud way of this site, see the winners after the jump. [thanks to G Arlt for the link]
We sounded the alarm on the cost of cleaning-up abandoned automotive manufacturing sites before the bailout began. We sounded the alarm after the feds instructed GM set aside $1.1 billion to clean its 14 closed plants (so far). Although $78,571,428.60 per plant seems more than merely adequate, it may not be so. Reporting on the clean-up of GM’s Mansfield-Ontario Stamping Center, The Mansfield NewsJournal does a little comparative analysis. “At Ohio Brass, which, at 10 acres, was a small fraction of the size of the 270-acre stamping plant, that number [for the cost of the cleanup] was $2 million.” Extrapolating, that would be a $54 million laundry bill. BUT, it’s dwarf apples to “Rainy with a Chance of Meatballs” sized oranges. Many of GM factories stretch back decades, before there was anything remotely resembling environmental awareness or, more to the point, an EPA. Of course, a description of the pollutants at the plant would be very helpful in making a cost assessment. New “transparent” GM says uh-uh.
The Wall Street Journalconfirms TTAC’s report that Chrysler killed its “Double Ca$h” for clunkers ad campaign because they ran out of popular, qualifying vehicles. “The marketing change comes as Chrysler is struggling with low inventory of its most popular products because of prolonged factory shut-downs and after the success of the government program further depleted stocks at dealerships.” How’s this for a quote? “Unfortunately the problem that we face with Chrysler is the lack of inventory,” ChryCo dealer Bill Rosado told the WSJ. “I can’t believe I’m saying this, I need more Chrysler inventory. My goodness, I’ve got to rehearse that line a couple times.” This gives credibility to Ken Elias’ contention—as yet unreported by the MSM—that Uncle Sam’s entire Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program fell afoul of low inventories, rather than limited funds. In other words, the program did not run out of cash. It ran out of cars. Which makes me wonder . . .
If you include the comments from TTAC’s Best and Brightest (and why wouldn’t you?), this website publishes the same amount of editorial material as a car magazine. Every week. Or less. A lot less. Some of our best stuff goes up on the weekends, when the news flow slows and our commentators are less temporally challenged. I invite those of you who leave us for the weekend to peruse this weekend’s output. Don’t get me wrong: I’ll put TTAC’s Monday through Friday posts up against anything you’ll find surfing the autoblogosphere. I do, in fact. But today, tonight, a special shout-out to our weekend authors and commentariot. Not to coin a phrase, you guys rock. Switching metaphors, I’m honored to provide fresh grist for our B&B’s mill. Which reminds me: there’s some primo Genoa in the ‘fridge with my name on it. Enjoy! (The site, not my . . . you know.)
Despite GM CEO Fritz Henderson’s promise to a Senate committee that the new GM would be transparent to you, the taxpayer, the company’s reinvention website doesn’t provide an embed code for its videos. So if you want to see the worst body language/cognitive dissonance since Richard M. Nixon told the world he wasn’t a crook, you’ll have to click across. If you do, notice that Fritz is getting very comfortable indeed with his job, despite the discomfort of having to pretend to believe that some 138 million taxpaying Americans are the boss of him.
All this talk about cash for clunkers (a.k.a. gas guzzlers) had me thinking: what are the least fuel efficient new cars currently for sale in the US? Over at fueleconomy.gov, the feds name names—only they don’t give us a straight “bottom ten” list. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s “worst” ratings list one car for each genre. As it’s Sunday, I’m not going deep data diving. (Feel free.) So here are the most environmentally reprehensible rides, from the least least-efficient to the most least-efficient, by vehicle category:
AdAge reports that Chrysler is deep-sixing it’s “Double Ca$h” for clunkers ad campaign, some thirty days before the ads were due to expire. “We saw the spike in the interest and decided to change our direction,” a Chrysler spokeswoman told Ad Age. Chrysler is now switching to a “summer clearance” ad campaign. Huh? AdAge doesn’t explore the rationale behind the move, but here’s a couple of theories . . .
“Before you play the video of Glenn Beck’s latest loony-tunes conspiracy theory, keep in mind that it’s totally nuts. Here’s the key information debunking it:
1. If you are a consumer visiting cars.gov (the “cash for clunkers” website) the Federal government cannot take control over your computer, nor will it ask permission to do so.
2. The “Terms of Use” statement to which Beck refers in this clip is not from cars.gov. Rather it is a login page for dealer transactions located at esc.gov.
3. The only people who can get login credentials for the esc.gov site are dealers who have been screened and registered for the “cash for clunkers” program.
4. To summarize: the page in question isn’t on cars.gov and can only be used by dealers who have already registered. Consumers won’t be impacted by any of this.”
TTAC commentator Corky Boyd offers a timely analysis:
“The administration has loaned or agreed to loan a total of $65 billion to GM and Chrysler in exchange for 60 percent ownership of GM and an 8 percent stake in Chrysler.”
If the two produce 3.5 million vehicles for the year (and that’s on the high side), that’s over $17,000 per vehicle of subsidy. And that doesn’t include the $15 billion loan to GM the government forgave in the bankruptcy and the infusion Chrysler will need before the end of the year.
Last year brought the use of a new term in finance, “Cash Burn.” I guess it’s a take off on the aviation term of fuel burn. It’s a very casual term for billions of taxpayer dollars that have to be used to make up the “burn.”
Ford’s taking a page out of its own history (and Hyundai’s playbook), positioning the refreshed Ford Taurus’ talents against significantly more expensive competition. According to The Detroit News, “In one spot, the Taurus and the $67,000 Infiniti M45X have their radar systems challenged by an obstacle course and a pair of aggressive drivers. It is designed to show the [$26k starting] Taurus’ blind-spot detection system, which the Infiniti doesn’t have.” Passive construction aside, props to Bryce G. Hoffman for getting Infiniti to play the dozens with The Blue Oval Boyz. “We’re flattered that Ford would pick us,” Infiniti spokesman Kyle Bazemore to the DetN. “But features don’t tell the whole story. The M45X is a world-class luxury sedan. Our entry-level Infiniti G beat the Taurus in a head-to-head test by Edmunds.com.” ZING! Point – counterpoint on Lexus after the jump.
Recent Comments