Yes, Car Companies That Take Government Loans Should Advertise
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
So last night as Green Bay held on to its early lead against a surging Steelers, this ad appeared:
And for those who can’t watch, it’s a long ad (two minutes) where first a narrator claims that Detroit is coming back, and then Eminem appears. I don’t remember if he actually sang or just almost did. I thought it was a pretty effective ad, myself, although 1) I wonder how much middle America even cares about Vanilla Ice Eminem, and 2) I was faintly annoyed by how drawn out the Eminem part was, including about 3 seconds of just allegedly meaningful silence. Why can’t rap stars just get to the point in their (alleged) mini-masterpieces?
Anyhoo, so this morning I wake up to see, via Instapundit, J.P. Freire complaining about it as follows:
Chrysler releases $9m Super Bowl ad while requesting more taxpayer dollars
You may have noticed that Chrysler released the longest ad in Super Bowl history on Sunday night, featuring the new Chrysler 200 driven by Detroit native rap star Eminem, an ad that CEO Sergio Marchionne says cost less than $9 million. But given that the company’s CEO also announced this past week that is seeking a “better deal” on government loans, it is likely that this ad had more to do with getting political support than selling cars. Besides, is spending millions on a Super Bowl ad appropriate for a company that received a taxpayer bailout to recover from a bankruptcy?
Well, first, I don’t think it is so obvious that it was purely aimed at Washington, D.C. Of course the way to know, one way or the other, is if the ads are repeated nationwide or just where I live, in the greater D.C. area. I mean if you just visit D.C. for a week you will hear constant ads that can be characterized as nothing more than lobbying, such as “X company deserves Y contract. It’s good for America and puppies. You don’t hate America and puppies, do you?” (Or alternatively, “Tell Congress you like America and puppies.”) But I don’t think this ad is obviously only meant to get more money. Lots of companies play the patriotism and/or local pride card to sell their stuff. I remember in 2002, the Budweiser Clydesdale bowing toward the ruins of the World Trade Center. The justification for this expense was certainly the theory that they wanted to be associated with that kind of patriotic sentiment.
But more basically, no, I don’t regard a company advertising its product as suspicious or unreasonable. And spending a lot on the Super Bowl is just how the game is played. This isn’t a trip to Vegas supposedly for a seminar but mainly to gamble, etc. Making good cars isn’t going to do this company a lot of good if no one buys them. And as much as I despise the bailout, the fact is we will never see any of that money back if they don’t sell any cars. Advertising is not a luxury. It’s a necessity.
That being said, I do oppose giving them more bailout money or even a better deal on the bailout they received. But the reason for that has nothing to do with the fear that they will induce necessary expenses to move product. In fact, I positively hope they will do that, so long as they have my money.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Urban Legend has it that the Bud ad was paid for by the board personally in 2002
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:41 amI thought the ad was a little strange in that it seemed about 85% an ad for the city of Detroit.
If Chrysler wanted a really good add, have the E-Trade toddler talk about buying shares of Chrysler stock, or looking forward to buying shares of Chrysler stock when they are openly traded again.
The careers of child actors are so brief, I liked him better as an infant… by the time he’s 3 he will need to be teaching his little sister or brother (intellectual property claim on the idea).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:42 amMD
actually the brilliant thing about the e-trade baby thing is that since its all or mostly computer generated, you have to wonder if there is any concern about the baby growing up at all.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:54 am1. Was angry at the car companies for giving in to government cake and always found it interesting that Ford, the only big one who didn’t take Washington money, was also the only big one to keep posting a profit in the months after the bailouts. (Don’t know how they’re all doing now.)
2. How was GM not able to keep making Saturns? It was one of their most popular cars IIUC (really miss my two – a bad driver totalled my last one last fall).
no one you know (325a59) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:57 amBTW: for some reason I really like Eminem — he’s got great rapping talent (unlike the actual Vanilla Ice) – but he used his talent badly, and, along w/ others, coarsened the culture.
Never bought his albums or movie, just because I didn’t want to support that coarsening. But he is a good musician IMO.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:57 amGood Point, AW. I imagine there was an original child scanned for the basis of the image, right?
If the maker’s of the ad use a computer generated image (based on the original picture) for an older child, does the child (or his trust fund) still have a financial interest? I would think so, or anybody could do a slight edit of a photo of someone and claim “but it’s not so and so”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:59 amGood post. Patriotism has always been a big part of Super Bowl commercials (lets not forget the John Cougar Mellancamp “My Country” ads, for example). And Chrysler has a specific problem worth addressing, I think – it was bought by Fiat! To the extent that’s a stumbling block to sales, it ought to be addressed in the commercials.
Personally, I thought that it was the best ad of the Super Bowl. Much better than the overhyped Volkswagen-Darth Vader ad (an ad about the *key*? really?).
Not to mention that Chrysler had to advertise in the Super Bowl when (almost literally) every single other car company in the country advertised on the same program. Not advertising would mean losing ground.
A.S. (23bc66) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:00 amNOYK
well, the rumor about killing saturn is that it had everything to do with their lack of unionization. its really hard to understand it, otherwise.
And yeah, i have liked that company from the beginning. I got one in 1998, a leftover on the lot from last year, so a 1997 SL1. that lasted me until two summers ago when the car was totaled in the moving day from hell. i mean seriously if it didn’t get hit by an idiot driver i would be driving it today.
and now i drive a 1995 Vue (their smaller SUV). and its running great.
btw, my wife was in the car in that accident. she had some minor neck injuries, but she has pretty much recovered. if you saw what the car looked like, though, you would be very impressed she wasn’t seriously hurt.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:09 amChryler should of been let to die the first time. Then( maybe ) Ford and GM would of been in better shape.
Chrysler can go now. We already have plenty of choice in the market place.
Frankly, I support foreign car makers now. They don’t get the government to assfist me to give them money. Let the Japanese, German and soon Chinese citizen get worked over, again and again, by their corporations government.
No domestic auto company means one less big, really big, corporate/union welfare teat sucker.
Paul (190db0) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:13 amI’m not much persuaded by the opinion of musicians… or of almost-musicians like Eminem. But I did like the tag line, “Imported from Detroit.”
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:20 amPaul, also, Honda and Toyota PAY taxes to the US Government. They also pay their workers a very fair wage in places like Texas and Ohio.
Like Chrysler, they are not American owned, but they do have a lot of engineering and management in the USA.
I see them as better citizens than Chrysler. Unfortunately, Toyota and Honda don’t make a truck I really like, nor do they make cars like the Suburban or the Mustang.
Fortunately, Ford has me covered (the new Explorer is the only SUV that doesn’t look ridiculous to me, too). They are still union tainted, but they make a good product and I think their success relative to GM and Chrysler sends a message.
I really hope GM and Chrysler fail. Sure, that would mean all the bailout money was wasted, but if these companies succeed, those bailouts will be repeated over and over in other industries. Companies fail. We should let them, so new blood can succeed.
Anyway, I think the Chrysler commercial was ghastly and wonder about the mind of the person who thinks their cars are better because Eminem likes D-Town. At least GM, for all their many faults, sometimes shows some effort (like Volt or Camaro). Look at that Chrysler 200! It wouldn’t have turned heads ten years ago.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:22 amComment by Aaron Worthing — 2/7/2011 @ 7:09 am
Very glad your wife was OK. That driver last fall hit me in such a way, in the driver’s side, that I should have been injured but not a scratch. (Seat belts help too, but those cars are sturdy.)
Have always felt about cars “don’t need any bells and whistles, just start up every single time and get me where I want to go with no breakdowns.” That’s why I was so loyal to Saturn. Can count on one hand the problems I had with those two cars in almost 20 yrs.
What’s funny is, bought the second one when the first was about 10 yrs old and I’d just gotten a new good job. “It’s getting old so I’ll play it safe so I can get to the new job w/ a new car.” Sold that Saturn locally in a private sale, and still see the woman on occasion, almost nine years later, driving my old car around town. *weeps* 😛
no one you know (325a59) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:24 amCar companies that have taken bailout money can indeed advertise.
And I can complain about it. And will.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:25 amAaron, the mid 1990s Saturns were quite good, though noisy. Cheap, reliable American cars. I know one guy’s SL1 is over 300k miles.
the car company took a major turn for the worse when GM started rebadging Chevies with Saturn logos. The Saturn experiment worked, but the union bosses understood that meant their days were numbered if they didn’t kill it. GM kills a lot of their most interesting ideas (EV1).
There’s a lot of legacy and heritage in their company, and I had hoped some of their IP would be bought in bankruptcy. Some Aptera or Tesla style young company could take a stab at making Corvettes. It could have helped the economy quite a lot, I think.
Instead, GM won’t sell their Pontiac or Oldmobile IP because it’s obvious if someone began selling 442s and GTOs untainted by bailout and unions, GM would cease to be relevant to a lot of people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:28 amWhile I understand the temptation to compare Vanilla Ice to Eminem in the way you did, you really shouldn’t.
For all his faults – and he has many – Eminem is a *top notch* rapper, easily one of the best, and he remains one of the few musicians to make a *good* movie when trying to make the jump into film.
Vanilla Ice, on the other hand, was just awful.
aphrael (9802d6) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:33 amaph
actually yeah, it was harsher than deserved. but i just felt cranky this morning.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:37 amaphrael, you don’t seem to be willing to credit Vanilla Ice’s creativity as expressed in his current reality show … as a general contractor.
😉
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:39 amYes, they can advertise, but I expect them to be a bit more frugal with their money. Chrysler paid for the longest Superbowl spot in history, and retained an expensive spoiled rap star to star in it. Only the rapper didn’t *rap*, you see, and he also starred in a silly cartoon soft drink commercial earlier in the game, so his gravitas is somewhat, um, questionable. You’ll have to excuse me if I see this as but an extension of their previous mismanagement.
mcg (5cf983) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:42 amEminem is driving a minivan in his rap commercial.
Come on. Sellout. I thought the rules were that we can mock him a lot now.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:44 amwell, the rumor about killing saturn is that it had everything to do with their lack of unionization. its really hard to understand it, otherwise.
It actually was unionized but the union boss at Saturn was really interested in new quality initiatives. This caused resentment in GM (not Chrysler) executives and the UAW president, Yokich, was not interested in cooperative ventures, He is remembered as the UAW president who built the country club for UAW executives.
The story is in “Crash Course.”
Mike K (8f3f19) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:48 amfwiw, Eminem is having a resurgence and is up for 10 Grammy Awards this year. Drug issues had him down for a few years. I haven’t paid attention to him since his big 2001 year but apparently he is blacker music-wise than many black rappers and can actually rhyme. Also he starred in 8 Mile with Kim Basinger playing his mom. He admits to taking pills he had no idea what they were at times, along with vicodin.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:52 amEminem and Vanilla Ice? That is like comparing Scalia to timmah, or Clapton to Yelverton, or a normal non-obsessive human to epwj.
JD (306f5d) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:59 amYou know, I still remember how the Cutlass Supreme was a ridiculously obvious rip off of the Saturn SL1, even though Saturn wasn’t cooperating on design. GM simply ripped the hard work from Saturn and put the Olds out first. It wasn’t a rebadge, it was simply a lack of creativity.
And even though the Olds was bigger, had a more powerful motor, and a much more prestigious brand, the Saturn SL1 was a much bigger success because it was built better.
But that episode was a great example of how Saturn was constantly fighting uphill.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:10 amSPQR – I know nothing about Vanilla Ice’s current tv show. I’m mostly out of the tv loop. 🙂
aphrael (9802d6) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:18 amSPQR – I actually checked after I first saw an episode of The Vanilla Ice Project…
Seems that after we all thought he died (seriously, who here hadn’t thought he was dead?), he actually did end up flipping McMansions and the like in Miami.
My only problem is the fact that he apparently doesn’t use a lot of licensed trade-folks to do the work. I highly suspect the people doing the plumbing, for example, are actual plumbers.
Mike Holmes would have a heart attack.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:25 amI found it quite appropriate that Diego Rivera’s “Detroit Industry” was featured in this commercial. Rvera was a an outspoken communist which he reflected in his art and specifically in this fresco. Not really the best imagry to use for a company trying to convince the American public that it’s a solvent, self reliant business. Do you think the director was being sly?
Jason Moss (d217fe) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:47 amScott, Holmes has created a career out of having hissy fits.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:50 amYeah, but it would be hard to argue that his hissy-fits aren’t justified.
Have you seen some of the stuff he’s had to fix?
The fact that he frequently goes out-of-pocket personally when doing a job is impressive to me. I think the line was “It isn’t unusually for him to have put in $50,000 by the end of a season – if he thinks that the kitchen would be vastly improved by custom cabinets, he’ll pay for them himself.”
Yeah, he can be a slight drama-queen, but for what he does, I’m willing to let that slide. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/7/2011 @ 9:01 amWho watches sports events in real-time anymore? What % of viewers run the feed thru a DVR, wait 30 min, then watch the game but skip the commercials & other mindless downtime? Do the Nielsens audit this? What’s happened to rate cards over the past 5 yrs? Or are the media geniuses (& the clueless board members who enable them) stuck on 1995?
Sporf (0a8e26) — 2/7/2011 @ 9:48 amJason Moss – interesting, I didn’t know who the artist was but I immediately thought “New Soviet Man art? Really?”
Phil Smith (1cf25d) — 2/7/2011 @ 10:56 amWhat a completely liberal ad.
Run down into the ground by Democrats and now they are claiming the city is NOT what others who “have never even been here” have being saying for decades.
Yeesh. That place deserves to remain economically savaged.
RogerCfromSD (660519) — 2/7/2011 @ 12:52 pmI sink Eminem stink. Chrysla stink too. Whez Bobby? Themz wuz da daze. Eminem is a peanut dipped in chocolate. Vuzzz is loos?
All kidding aside, the ad was stillborn. Eminem is dated goods. The ad was as enticing as the lame Black Eyed Peas. Why can’t we just have the Negro College bands play at halftime? All those white suits reminded me of the sperm cells in that old doofus Woody Allen movie about “Sex”.
There were so many government made car ads. And then the MVP gets that red pile of junk called a “Camaro”. Hell, give him a full restored Camaro muscle car. It was made during the era when GM didn’t stand for Government Made.
$100,000 per second for that tripe on American cars. The Euro car ads were just as stupid. Puff Doody? Are you kidding me? Looking helpless and ripped off. The boy has zero shame. Like President Zero. So glad I didnt have to see his mug at all yesterday. His face is a nightmare.
How many ribs did Moo-Chelle eat yesterday? Any red soda to wash it down? I hope she has the trots today. Go walk the Presidential Pooch.
Lawrence Welk (5bd1a2) — 2/7/2011 @ 1:57 pmHi, Kilgore Trout.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 2:01 pmYahoo has a list of the 20 most miserable cities in the US. Eight are in California. Miami would have been #1 instead of 2 if not for sun and no state income tax. Corruption beyond rampant. Of course plenty of northern liberal heavily black cities on list too. My own area is #8 despite the wealth, mostly because of unemployment and housing market still crashing. Funny I don’t see Arizona in the toilet in the same way. Few states are not going bankrupt. Unemployment very low in the Dakotas but who wants to freeze their asps off there?
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 2/7/2011 @ 3:25 pmSeems the Koreans are making top-quality cars now. GM has bigger sales in China than do in USA. I was thinking how the ouster of Gov. Gray did not guarantee improvement in Ca. government. Is that because of liberal unions, legislature and catering to Latinos? Auhnuld tried to get along with liberals but I expect Collyfournya got what it wanted. But then we are told W was responsible for the Housing mess and Barney,Dodd and Obama blameless. I wonder if that tomato picker in Ca. who made $14k a year still has his $750k house?
I no longer root for GM’s or Chrysler’s success. I will never again buy a product from either of them under any circumstances.
I realize that this may be contrary to my indirect financial self-interest. The Obama administration turned them into corporate zombies, undead companies that aren’t allowed to die even though they really, really deserve to and that would be the best result for the American economy in the long term. The Obama administration trampled on the rule of law to reach that end.
So no, I will no more buy a GM car or a Chrysler car than I would have bought a Lada from the Soviet Union.
Beldar (e2dd38) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:05 pmTagline should have been, by the way: “Imported from Detroit (but controlled from D.C.)”
Beldar (e2dd38) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:10 pmAgreed, Beldar. Never a GM or a Chrysler.
Though I’d be willing to buy a Ford.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:33 pmWhatever union and internal company politics may have had to do with the shutdown of Saturn, I think you’re overrating the brand. The extra safety of the early models was lost after the first few years, and from the Wikipedia page about the company, it seems the later models were really just Chevrolets or Opels with a different logo on the back. (Parts of that Wikipedia page seem frozen in amber.)
And I don’t think it was as popular as your anecdotes suggest. I can remember one neighbor on my whole street who ever bought a Saturn, and they eventually traded it in for a Honda Civic, which is parked next to a Toyota truck. They told me that Saturn was simply too pricey for their budget.
My parents, when I was a kid, stuck to Chevrolet–the ones I remember are my father’s Impala and my mother’s Nova. Eventually my mother switched to Mercury Cougars and then Toyota Camrys, and my father went for Buick because my stepmother worked for a dealership. I myself now drive a Corolla. It’s the fourth one in a row I’ve owned, and I’ll probably be trading it in sometime in the next twelve months for Corolla number five. The only complaint I have with the Corolla is that the brakes seem to wear out rather quickly. But that may be me. I drove it almost exclusively to work and on errands, and almost never more than an hour’s distance from the house–standard metropolitan traffic.
kishnevi (fb9343) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:43 pmYeah, I’m driving a 2000 Taurus made in Atlanta. It’s not nearly as much fun as the BMWs I used to drive, but I’m a more sedate driver now than I was then, and it’s been a pleasant, safe, and reliable car. When I replace it I’ll surely give Ford’s lineup a close look.
Beldar (e2dd38) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:43 pmI will always think of Nissan as my first love for cars.
My first car was an 1987 Nissan Sentra, and it only was gotten rid of because I treated it like crap. My fault, and a lesser car would have died way sooner than the 2+ years I owned it.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:46 pmI think the new Taurus is one of the best cars America has ever produced. It’s also sharp. Ford really has caught up with the other great automakers.
A car like that should be low hassle. One of the reasons Chrysler and GM failed was that their cars were often quite a hassle to keep on the road. I’ve only owned one Ford (my present vehicle), but it’s on par with the two Hondas we’ve had.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:48 pmFrom my grandfather down my family owned Impalas/Caprices for 40 years until they stopped making them. My mom (the little lady who drove it 2 miles to work and back every day) still has her 1989 Caprice. Trading in my 199-something caprice wagon was a mistake.
Just bought a Ford Focus today. Having a brother-in-law with the company helps get a better deal, as well as “inside scouting reports”. Even without that, though, I would still not buy GM or Chrysler. (FYI, the 2012 model year Focus will be coming out soon, so if you want a good deal more than the latest style, big incentives on the 2011 Focus.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:57 pmBeldar
Well, i think that is a reasonable view, to say that you hope they fail so that this horrible experiment will not be repeated. i can respect that.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/7/2011 @ 9:04 pmComment by MD in Philly — 2/7/2011 @ 8:57 pm
Best wishes on the car..may the wind be at your back and the traffic jams only on the other side of the highway….
I can’t say I intend to boycott GM because of the bailout. I boycott GM because of the lousy engineering they did. My first two cars were Chevy Cavaliers, and they had constant engine problems after the second year on each one. That was the main inducement to switch to Toyota. Much better in comparison (although the onboard computer in my current car seems to be getting finicky, but only after it hit the five year mark, past the time I usually trade in my cars (after five years I got a new one on the premise that engine problems were to be expected in a car that old. But not this year–combination of less income last year because of the recession and the recall hoo-has. Probably a new Corolla before the end of 2011, however.)
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:01 pmThank you, kishnevi.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:05 pm