No, but again it sounds pretty improbable. I do not believe GM feels they can increase market share/volume in NA. They want to keep about 25% after dropping a significant portion of the rental fleet business.
Now it is possible they build a specific plant for a hybrid/alternative fuel vehicle.
“Oh well, I suppose everyone knows that a Chevy is American. Between the days of Doris Day and the song, " See the USA in a Chevrolet", and " This is our country", we get the point. Enough already about that, show me the car - what does the car do for me. The real puzzler is what An American Revolution means in respect to a Chevy. As the new stuff trickles in, one could call it a GM evolution, or a Chevy Evolution, but an American Revolution not. Well we do have occupying forces from Toyota and Honda which have taken over the homelands garages and driveways. Is that what the revolution is about?”
Amen! That is exactly what I think about when I see those “American Revolution” ads. At least “See the USA in a Chevrolet’ makes some sense. i.e. This is a nice car to go driving cross country in. What happened between then and now?
They will probably drop the fleet sales just a bit more. Question will be if they can continue to increase the retail sales as they have been with the new models coming out (mid cars and crossovers)
Zero to 60 mph: 9.4 sec FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 28/35 mpg C/D-observed: 23 mpg
We could get better fuel economy and better performance from other vehicles, but could we do it for less than $23,070? Well, actually, yeah, we could. How about a four-cylinder Honda Accord or Nissan Altima?
...a new Impala for a couple of days last week. This one had the 3.5 V-6 which delivered excellent fuel economy and decent performance. If I want to be nit-picky, the steering wheel looks out of place in this car. With its huge Chevy bowtie in a large round circle, it would be more at home in a small truck. The kick panels underneath the dashboard seemed flimsy, but it didn't seem overly plasticky and cheap like some other posters described it.
"For Chevy, all I remember is "An American Revolution". And all that means to me is "We can't compete on quality of product, so please buy us because of your patriotism. We have jobs to protect."
Thats your personal interpretation and honestly considering Chevy's sales success I dont think many at Chevy care much about your opinion of their marketing campaign. ONe has to look at the sales of the brand if one is going to criticize an ad campaign as misguided and ineffective. I fail to see why people consider an ad campaign as an important criteria in liking or disliking a car. I continue to read comments by anti GM people like yourself that basically amount to "I would never buy a Chevy because their ads are too patriotic". I dont really care one way or another about the American Revolution ads, but I surely wouldnt let the tone of the campaign discourage me from buying a Chevy. Considering Toyota is now painting itself as an American company (Check some of its print ads bragging about how many jobs Toyota has created) I find it interesting that people only have a problem with US based brands using patriotic themes.
I'd like to see Toyota put in their "We're So American" ads how many jobs they destroyed. That number would be much larger, I'm sure. These guys complaining about Chevrolet's "American Revolution" ads probably wouldn't care if Toyota's ads were like "Toyota: Buy Our Cars, Chumps!" They'd probably run right out and get a new Camry or Prius.
I don't particularly like Toyota's ads either if all they can play on is people's patriotism versus actually selling their cars.
And an ad campaign is not only important, but CRITICAL. Take it this way: Joe Sixpack is shopping for a midsized car. He sees ads all over the place for the Mazda6, Camry, Accord, Altima, and Fusion, so these are the cars he looks at. People can't shop for a car if they don't know it exists. Building the car is important, but so is getting the message out that A: the car exists and B: why it's better than the competition. Otherwise Mr Sixpack might not even bother, and drive off with a new Altima before he even makes it to the Chevy dealer.
That's the reality of advertising, and why marketing departments exist. GM already has a problem there, because their marketing department's budget gets drained by all of the rebates GM runs. They've also tended to rely heavily on their individual dealers to be the ones to do the advertsing (I see MANY more GM dealer ads than GM corporate ads for particular brands, with the exception of Hummer and Caddy).
And if people dislike the "American Revolution" ads, as mentioned on here, it gives them a reason to NOT consider the brand...which means some other brand now has an advantage. If people feel that ads are failing to sell a car on features and resorting to patriotism...well, some Fox News viewers might buy a GM, but others will buy a car that's sold to them based on features, rather than patriotism. The patriotism bit can backfire too, when the label says "Assembled in Mexico." Or when a Japanese company tries to use it. :P
If you want to see some good ads, check out Nissan's, which effectively communicate the new technology in the Altima, and check out Hyundai's, which are pretty good at communicating the value of their cars.
Bottom line: you can have the best car in the world, but if no one knows about it, it won't matter because it still won't sell.
These guys complaining about Chevrolet's "American Revolution" ads probably wouldn't care if Toyota's ads were like "Toyota: Buy Our Cars, Chumps!" They'd probably run right out and get a new Camry or Prius.
Is there any hard data available over say last 10 years of quantity of "U.S. based employees" of GM, Toyota and Honda? Seems that all we have read in newspapers over last decade of how many U.S. employees of GM are laid off or forced to retire vs Toyota and Honda building new plants and "adding" employees. Who has better record of creating jobs in U.S. in last decade - GM or Toyota?
I suppose there are stupid consumers in US who will buy any American branded product, regardless of merits or quality of same, if it is draped in US flag, has apple pie, baseball, hotdogs, children and motherhood in the product ads.
If people feel that ads are failing to sell a car on features and resorting to patriotism...well, some Fox News viewers might buy a GM, but others will buy a car that's sold to them based on features, rather than patriotism.
With that reasoning, CNN viewers in America don't buy GM and don't even drive a vehicle. There are no vehicles, that reflect their ideology, that are sold in U.S. for them to pick from.
Is there any hard data available over say last 10 years of quantity of "U.S. based employees" of GM, Toyota and Honda? Seems that all we have read in newspapers over last decade of how many U.S. employees of GM are laid off or forced to retire vs Toyota and Honda building new plants and "adding" employees. Who has better record of creating jobs in U.S. in last decade - GM or Toyota?
Are you really serious? The downturn of the domestic auto makers vs. the few jobs brought in by the plants the non domestic makers have is a huge difference. Almost half of Toyotas vehicles are imported. Assuming that those used to be built here that would be over 1,000,000 vehicles alone no longer made here. About 4 manufacturing plants, all the industry to support those plants and the sources that used to make all the product here.
There are plenty of articles/studies out there that show how many jobs we have lost. It is a huge number.
There are plenty of articles/studies out there that show how many jobs we have lost. It is a huge number.
How many GM jobs were moved to Mexico and Canada? Might as well add in Ford and Chrysler. How many jobs of American branded vehicles were moved out of continental US? Are American brand companies such as GM supposed to be loyal to the U.S. or is their interest strictly "business", namely trying to make quarterly/yearly profits? Can loyalty and pursuit of profits coexist?
Evaluating ads is extremely subjective so it pointless to say that all GM ads stink and all Nissan ads are great. I think Nissan's ads are mostly ridiculous. The whole "shift_" thing was lost on me and didnt tell me much about the car. Some of the launch ads for the 2007 Altima were OK but thats about. I think Toyota's advertising is amongst the lamest on the airwaves. Lexus ads are always good, but Toyota ads are usually bland, feel-goody, and corny. I dont think Toyota's adverstising has much to do with their sales right now, their reputation is established by personal experience, word of mouth and nonstop praise from the press. I find the majority of their ads to be forgettable.
"Bottom line: you can have the best car in the world, but if no one knows about it, it won't matter because it still won't sell. "
Bottom line, if you have a strong brand you can sell a lot of ANYTHING, just ask Toyota. If you have a weak brand no amount of advertising and strong product reviews will gurantee steady sales, ask Saturn about the Aura. Toyota does NOT need strong advertising to introduce or maintain the sales of any model. If its a Toyota its usually going to be considered a desirable product regardless of the ad campaign.
"And if people dislike the "American Revolution" ads, as mentioned on here, it gives them a reason to NOT consider the brand...which means some other brand now has an advantage. If people feel that ads are failing to sell a car on features and resorting to patriotism...well, some Fox News viewers might buy a GM, but others will buy a car that's sold to them based on features, rather than patriotism. "
How many people are being driven away when Chevy is the best selling brand in the US? Just curious. Whose campaign should Chevy emulate if Chevy is outselling Ford, Toyota and Nissan? I would like to know what tone or theme YOU feel is acceptable for Chevy since they apparently are turning off so many buyers with their offenisve campaign.
THis is a lame argument. Even with the jobs in Mexico the Big 3 emply far more people than the import companies. You also fail to realize that the Big 3 have to build in Mexico because their US plants are at a huge cost disadvantage compared the the US plants owned by the foreigners. If everyone was stuck with the same cost issues it would be no big deal to keep all assembly jobs in the US, but to counter the expensive US labor force the Big 3 opened plants in labor cheap Mexico. The jobs in Mexico werent goint to be in the US anyway so its not like the Mexicans "stole" US jobs. The high cost of labor and benefits faced solely by the Big 3 means that in order to compete with global rivals they had to look for ways to build cars cheaper. More efficiency isnt the answer because their North American plants are already very efficient.
So long as there's more competition out there there's more sales to be had. Now you sound like that Toyota salesman DrFill..."We're #1, why should we be trying to get more sales?" Answer is before someone else takes MORE. Good advertising helps, bad advertising hurts. A company doesn't stay #1 unless it continuously tries to earn sales. The people who have been driven away are still buying Ford, Mazda, Subaru, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. Wouldn't you rather they buy GM?
I cannot for the life of me figure out how a make that can squeeze 31 mpg out of an Impala can't get more than 32 out of the Cobalt.
That's one thing that's always bugged me, too. I think a few things that are working against the Cobalt's economy though, are weight and power. I think the Cobalt weighs about 2800-2900 pounds, whereas the Corolla's more like 2500 I think. As for acceleration, I think I've seen 0-60 times of around 8-8.4 seconds for the Cobalt (base engine/auto), whereas the Corolla's more like 9.5-10 (base engine/auto).
I don't know if there's much that can be done about the Cobalt's weight, at least not short of a major overhaul/redesign. However, If they offered a de-tuned/slightly smaller engine, they might get a few more mpg out of it.
And if it's any consolation, GM's not the only one guilty of making small cars that aren't much more efficient than their big ones. I remember back when I bought my Intrepid, which was rated at 20/29 with the 2.7 V-6, the Stratus, which used a Mitsubishi-sourced 2.5 V-6, was only rated at 19/27. And even with the 4-cyl, it was 21/29. Heck, even the Neon was only rated at 25/31!
Let me ask this a different way since you continue to miss the point: what evidence do you have that Chevy sales are suffering due to its ad campaign? As far as I can tell you have decided that because you dont like the AR ad campaign that Chevy is in trouble and is losing tons of sales to Toyota and others. I am not aware of any proof of this and I dont see how anyone can honestly believe that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. have stronger adverstising than Chevy. I find Honda's ads to be incredibly dull and forgettable. IN fact, most of their ads are promoting lease deals and not product attributes.
I will give Ford credit for their recent marketing moves, I like the comparisons to Toyota and Honda. Smart move in my book although I'm sure most import fanboys arent impressed and think its stupid of Ford to mention superior products in their ads.
I find Honda's ads to be incredibly dull and forgettable.
Honda ads probably appeal to people with discriminating tastes. Honda has the actual quality and reliability to back up its ads.
Don't know the percent of which good ads such as Honda's contribute to overall sales and sales growth and market share. But, if ads contribute materially, then GM's ads have not done well given that Honda has upped its market share over last couple of decades while GM has lost.
So, if marketing and tv ads are a key part in securing sales growth, then Honda has clearly beaten GM.
m1miata: Oh well, I suppose everyone knows that a Chevy is American. Between the days of Doris Day and the song, " See the USA in a Chevrolet", and " This is our country", we get the point.
Actually, it was Dinah Shore who served as the Chevy spokeswoman through the early 1960s, and urged viewers to "See the USA in your Chevrolet."
See the USA in your Chevrolet America is asking you to call Drive your Chevrolet through the USA America's the greatest land of all
On a highway, or a road along the levy Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA And see it in your Chevrolet
Traveling East, Travelling West Wherever you go Chevy service is best Southward or North, near place or far There's a Chevrolet dealer for your Chevrolet car
So make a date today to see the USA And see it in your Chevrolet.
See the USA in your Chevrolet America is asking you to call Drive your Chevrolet through the USA America's the greatest land of all
That would be irresponsible today what with US consumption of 25% of global oil, global warming, carbon dioxide, etc. A patriotic GM commercial for today/tommorow might ask drivers to buy GM products but try to carpool, combine trips, drive slower, walk, bike, use public transportation, live near where you work, etc as much as possible.
Those ads were aimed at encouraging national travel, which was a new concept at the time for the middle classes (1950s). My grandparents rarely traveled prior to World War II, but took more trips (usually by car) in the 1950s and 1960s.
Today, even most middle-class people fly to their destinations. I can't think of the last time I heard anyone say that they took a long trip by car.
How is it the fault of Toyota for GMs problems, when in fact all they did over the years was to build the superior cars. If that is the setup for success, then so be it. Are people now saying that Toyota is to blame for making a better car and for making high gas mileage cars people want to buy. Only the communist or socialist party would think the better product is not worth buying. Free enterprise means you much sell the best product to compete.
As for the " An American Revolution " ads, it was a very simple question. What does it mean? No one can explain what it means. Makes no difference to me personally about any buying decision, but it seems so off in that it is meaningless, evidently. The BMW, " Ultimate Driving Machine" has meaning, and even the simple Toyota " Moving Forward " has meaning. Oh, GM knows what that means! Guess Ford could have the slogan, " We're in Reverse " or something. Oh well, " Shift 3.0 " ! At Nissan, they are on Shift 2.0 it seems, yet have few if any Shifting with a stick cars -- doh, it means shift to their cars I guess. Loren
Since Toyota's on top and the one-time Big Three are spiralling around the drain maybe it should go like this?
See America in your Toyota GM, Ford, and Chrysler hit the wall Drive your Toyota! Screw America! The economy is heading for a fall
On a potholed road within the Rust Belt The poverty's sharply felt -what a rotten hand life's dealt Life is bleaker 'cause of 'Yota
So your neighbor lost his job? Look past him like a snob! And ignore him in your Toyota
Cleveland's bad! Detroit's Worse! Who cares? Toyota's first! In South Bronx or North Philly, it looks like a war The unemployed will jack your 'Yota car
So you just got robbed? Too bad, you luckless slob! The crackheads stole your Toyota!
Honda ads are humorous and fun to watch. As for Ford, I can not think of a single good ad now. Current ads blare out the you are having More Fun! Hummm? It is more fun per gallon, I think it says in print = what?
The GM advertising overall is mediocre. The truck ad for " This is our country " is pretty good = selling America back to America, USA. The new ad with all the people moving and a grovin', even the hip-hop and rapper loves the Impala is a stretch, but what the heck. Guess it is the humorous one. The American Revolution is just there, as in not saying it is winning or losing customers, but rather, what the hell does it mean?
Worst ad is the new Got Milk ones with the family in search of a glass of milk. Odd -- very odd. Would take some serious drugs, I am afraid, to understand its meaning or purpose.
As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing?
"As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing?"
Yep. Of course, it helps that the Fusion is a recent redesign, and the other two hadn't been redesigned yet, but that's just "taking advantage of timing in product release cycles" or something. If the new Malibu and Aura can do the same (QUICKLY, before the new Accord comes out!) it'll be a big positive. Provided they PUBLICIZE it rather than screwing it up...
Too bad I need something AWD. The new Saturns DO look sharp.
As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing?
I got to take part in one of those comparison tests. Car and Driver and Road & Track were co-sponsoring it, along with Ford, and had a local event set up back in December. Of the three cars they had, a V-6 Camry, V-6 Accord, and the V-6 AWD Fusion, I preferred the Accord! Now I don't think the Fusion was a bad car, but the Accord just seemed like it was faster through the test course, handled better, begged you to throw it around harder, etc. It also felt a little roomier to me, and a little nicer inside.
It wasn't leaps and bounds better than the Fusion in any respect, but all those "little better's" here and "little nicer's" there do add up.
That being said, I liked the Fusion better than the Camry. The Camry could handle, but road feel and feedback just seemed better in the Fusion. There was something about the shape of the Camry's dash and center console that made it feel more claustrophobic on the inside, and the door armrests were probably the poorest designed things I've ever seen. The pull handle is mounted too far back on the door to make the armrest itself very useful.
Yep. Of course, it helps that the Fusion is a recent redesign, and the other two hadn't been redesigned yet, but that's just "taking advantage of timing in product release cycles" or something.
Actually, only the Accord was an old design, dating back to 2003. The Camry they used in that comparison test was new for 2007.
I think the point of the slogan is to say that Chevy, an American car company, has turned a corner w/ it's products and is poised to take back it's share of America from the competition (if you believe that), and not that they are going to revolutionize the auto industry.
As for the Canadian plants, I assume that the Canadian cars are built on the same assembly lines as their American counterparts thereby saving money, and they are union jobs as well. As for Mexico, well, since NAFTA.......(need I say more)???
As far as jobs created/lost, I think that is muddy water. While it is true that Foreign investment is up and American investment is down, the Big 3 still employ more in America that the others do. I think that foreign investment has "slowed" job loss, but not completely offset it. I believe that if all cars were built in their manufacturers home countries as opposed to here, they would lose SOME sales. How much, 1%,10%, who knows???? But it would be some, and I think you would have to take that into consideration. Also, the pay and benefit disparity for the new jobs, as opposed to the old jobs, hurts some, even if you take into account the disparity for cost of living in Ky. or Ala. as opposed to Mich.
I drove the Fusion FWD, not the AWD, and the Accord, and bought the Accord. The drive test was not all that convincing to me compared to the Accord or the Aura. Both seem more solid, smoother engines, and without squeaks, and both handle great. The Ford wasn't bad - just wasn't as good. Loren
Troy Clarke became president of General Motors North America on July 1, 2006, plunging into the troubled region's turnaround.
But he's no stranger to GM's Detroit headquarters. Clarke was group vice president of manufacturing and labor relations from 2002 through 2004, when he became president of GM's Asia Pacific operations.
Clarke spoke with Managing Editor Richard Johnson, Staff Reporter Jamie LaReau and News Editor Dave Guilford.
Can you sum up where you think GM North America is in its turnaround?
I think there's ample evidence to suggest that the kind of things we're working on are generating real and very tangible results. But we're not prepared to say that we're done.
What might we see in the year to come that would be a sign of progress?
We think we're continuing to make progress on our retail sales, and that's the measure that we put up in front of us that we think is important in the immediate term. We've been able to do that while average transaction prices have been going up, so we've been, we think, putting better cars out there with better contents and the right kind of features and refinements that customers want.
We asked a little bit more money for those, and by and large they've been willing to pay us for that. And then we've been able to continue to reduce incentives.
Pontiac has had a high percentage of fleet over the past six months -- over 40, 45, 50 percent. Is that a sign of a troubled brand? What's Pontiac's future?
Our view for Pontiac is this concept of performance. Internal to the company, we call it seductive performance. These are fun-to-drive cars that in most applications work best when they're in a rear-wheel-drive application.
So, you take a look at the Pontiac Solstice, that's certainly the halo product for the brand and I think represents our vision of how we build that brand going forward. The next critical entry to that product is the G8, which we'll actually start the production of, I think, yet this fall and will be on sale in volume the first quarter of next year.
But we're in transition, so the high percentage of rental sales that you see is the current Pontiac Grand Prix -- which is at a stage in its life cycle where it's very attractive to rental fleets, and it's very attractive for us to sell it to rental fleets. But as those products transition out of the portfolio and the new products transition in, I suggest they'll be less attractive to rental fleets.
Does your sales growth remain outside the United States, or do you see future sales growth here in this market?
As the eternal optimist, I'm hoping for sales growth in this market.
Where would you like to see market share go in a two- or three-year period?
The index that I use is retail share. If you take a look at that, retail share is about 22½ percent. And I could see a scenario where, as our rental fleets come down, our retail sales go up.
notice no mention of Saab and Pontiac. Also looks like GMC and Chevy have enough segments.
Look for expanded product lineups at Buick, Cadillac and Hummer, says Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president of vehicle sales, service and marketing.
Speaking at a press event here to launch the Buick Enclave crossover, LaNeve said GM first needs to rebuild Buick's identity as a luxury brand. Then GM will add products to its U.S. lineup, he said.
"You've got this whole complete lineup in China that we can always leverage because the vehicles we develop for the Chinese market would certainly be interchangeable with plants in the U.S.," LaNeve said.
He said the Cadillac line has potential for new vehicles, too, as GM positions it as a global brand. The possibilities include a small crossover; a premium large, rear-drive sedan; a large crossover; and a sedan smaller than the CTS. GM currently sells the BLS, a compact sedan, in Europe.
"I'm not announcing these programs - these are all things we're looking at," LaNeve said.
He also said GM needs to expand Hummer's lineup. Hummer is expected to offer an H4, a Jeep Wrangler-sized vehicle, by the end of the decade.
Asked when GM would launch the H4, LaNeve said: "I'm not ready to tell you that. But there will be an expansion of the Hummer lineup in the future, probably multiple products beyond what it is today."
How about the Bacon Lettuce Salad, or is that Be a Little Smaller, smaller CTS, as a rear wheel drive car? Looks pretty good, as a baby Caddy. That platform could also be used to make a smaller Camaro, which would be cool. Get the weight on down. GM needs to go on a diet for lots of the cars.
Saw a couple Solstice cars at the local dealership. One was priced at $27K and the other was side stickered at $36K. Sure, it had the turbo and some extras, but really now, that is rediculous. Discounted Corvettes start around $41K. The Solstice has those tall doors, so the arm rest should be the place to lay the elbow down. Well the arm rest tilts the wrong way, is too short to work and ends up painful. Noticed a rather high brake in relation to the gas pedal, which is not so good an idea. Once they fix a few things with this car, I may consider a test drive, if they sell in the $20-22K zone for non-turbo. Currently, they are sucker priced. Don't believe me, ask the people that paid thousands over sticker to buy those PT Crusiers in the early years of that model. Loren
Thats your personal interpretation and honestly considering Chevy's sales success I dont think many at Chevy care much about your opinion of their marketing campaign. ONe has to look at the sales of the brand if one is going to criticize an ad campaign as misguided and ineffective.
Thanks so much for your insight. I see the stats
2006 Chevy sales Jan-Apr 779,940 2007 Chevy sales Jan-Apr 734,452 Sales drop of 5.8%
Of course I don't really care whether Chevy is concerned about my opinion of their marketing, after all they are the ones who are trying to sell cars. Seems I've seen other posts supporting this opinion, perhaps it's not uncommon?
I fail to see why people consider an ad campaign as an important criteria in liking or disliking a car.
I don't like or dislike the cars based upon the ads, I'm suggesting that the purpose of getting people interested in the cars may not be furthered by appealing to patriotism rather than by the virtues of the cars themselves. When I see ads that aren't even talking about the advantages of the product I wonder what they're hiding.
The Chevy ads are proclaiming that the primary advantage of Chevy is in fact that the cars are from an American nameplate. If that was enough to sell cars then we wouldn't have the steady erosion of GM market share. Perhaps a different approach is warranted. Can you get that point?
There are plenty of articles/studies out there that show how many jobs we have lost. It is a huge number.
This is a complex subject.
The number of vehicles sold annually in the US has greatly increased over the past twenty years, so you would expect more jobs if "per capita labor hours per vehicle" was a constant.
Overlay on top of that the fact that most manufacturing industries have gotten far more automated and labor efficient. If there were no competition for US auto manufacturing then the unions would probably have greatly limited the amount of efficiencies that would be obtained. Yet the competition has caused the American nameplates to try to compete with greater efficiency while their own workforces have resisted the changes. This puts companies like GM in a very difficult situation.
It looks pretty logical why quite a bit of the Ford/GM manufacturing has moved offshore. It is a lower percentage than most other manufacturing industries (clothing) and companies like Apple, Eli Lilly, etc.
Given the changes in the world it would be naive to think that the same number of labor hours would be used to build a car today as 30 years ago. Those days are gone and would have been gone one way or another.
I guess what I'm saying is that none of us may like it, but we can complain or we can embrace the reality of the world and learn to compete in spite of it. Many American companies have learned to do so.
"So, if marketing and tv ads are a key part in securing sales growth, then Honda has clearly beaten GM. "
Only problem is that I doubt that Honda's ads have much to do with their incremental increases in marketshare. I would think high gas prices and the expansion of their lineup has more to do with their current marketshare. As I said before, most Honda ads are about deals, not products. Ironic that others here were criticizing GM ads for doing the same thing. I dont buy into the theory that Honda ads are good as long as you're "discriminating" and intelligent, or whatever you were suggesting. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent and sophisticated and HOnda ads are still boring. Acura ads are slightly better, but still far short of Lexus ads.
YOu have made it painfully clear over and over and over again that you dont like much of anything from the domestic automakers. You dont like their ads, their products, their value or anything else. Somehow I'm not surprised that you are impressed by Honda's ads (shocking considering you own one) and have little clue about current GM or Ford ads. I dont even know what ads you are referring to from GM and Ford so I assume they are old. FOrd's current ads use the tagling "Bold Moves" and challenge viewers to compare their products to various imports. Sorry, but I think this is good advertising. If you are losing ground to the imports it only makes sense to let people know that you feel your products can stand up to the imports.
"As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing? "
Short answer is "yes". We can get into the particulars and excuses about how Ford shouldnt be allowed to compare an AWD car to a FWD car and what not but the bottom line is Ford made a smart move. They allowed regular people (as opposed to "experts" from CR or Edmunds or C&D) to compare their car to the class leaders and draw their own conclusions. I have read every excuse in the book by import fans about how those results arent legit and the Fusion had an unfair advantage. Its really all a bunch of whining because people dont like the idea that unpaid people actually liked a Ford product over a Japanese product.
> I dont buy into the theory that Honda ads are good as long as you're "discriminating" and intelligent,
That's a fallacy in my evaluation of ad science also. The Honda ads appeal to youths' values which is usually "me"-oriented. They show pictues of cute Hondas that will make a teener say "Wheee, I'd look good driving one of those." Nothing about the merits of or engineering of said vehicle.
The same can be said for the Toyota ads I saw of their cars driving around neighborhood streets. Same emotional theme but aimed at an older crowd. The last ad I saw about the Dundra truck last evening I haven't really seen enough to analyze. it's like they're trying to criticize another brand and say that they replace it by fitting into the silhouette of the other vehicle. Then they hook it up to an enormously large, alleged 100000 pound towed object, and that would appeal to the testosterone-oriented folk viewing that they can pull a bigger load than other men can pull. Of course the longevity of the vehicle doing that and the gas mileage when not pulling an extra alleged 10000 pounds isn't mentioned nor is the frame stucture of the vehicle. So I would conclude they can buy all the auction trucks they want and put them on the front rows of Toyota deals as supposed tradeins, but I believe Chev and Ford have the point here.
"Yep. Of course, it helps that the Fusion is a recent redesign, and the other two hadn't been redesigned yet, but that's just "taking advantage of timing in product release cycles" or something."
PLease tell me you realize Ford used the 2007 Camry in its comparisons. Do you really think Ford would be stupid enough to use the last gen camry vs the Fusion? Check the ads again.
"The Chevy ads are proclaiming that the primary advantage of Chevy is in fact that the cars are from an American nameplate. If that was enough to sell cars then we wouldn't have the steady erosion of GM market share. Perhaps a different approach is warranted. Can you get that point?"
First of all, I would like you to show me where a Chevy ad proclaims that the sole reason you should buy a Chevy is because its American. Secondly, I am still waiting for you to explain why Chevy should ax its ad campaign if its the largest brand in the market and will be no worse than the 2nd largest brand in 2007. You show me CHevy sales are down 5.8% but dont show me where they rank in brand sales thus far in 2007. What part of Chevy's success are you not understanding? You say GM's lower marketshare is "proof" that GM shoulnt mention "American" in any ads but you fail to mention that Chevy is one the GM brands that isnt struggling. If Buick, Saturn and Pontiac were as strong as Chevy GM wouldnt have 24% share right now. Chevy is the brand that keeps GM afloat and allows the other brands to exists. What part of that point dont you get? GM's other brands make VERY LITTLE mention of being american and interestingly enough most of them havent been doing well in the last few years. You theory is totally off base.
"When I see ads that aren't even talking about the advantages of the product I wonder what they're hiding. "
You must not like most car ads since the majority of them do not get into specific features.
>then we wouldn't have the steady erosion of GM market share
There are more and more companies competing for the same pie. It gets cut into smaller pieces as that happens. Marketshare goes down. The same thing happens with restaurants in an area as new restaurants open stores. "Can you get the point?"
I think this entire debate is a bit much, but I wanted to chime in on a few things:
1. I really like that OnStar Ad with the different gm models. I think that's like the best GM ad in a while.
2. The ads I'd like to see GM emulate/study are the VW/Holy S*** ads and the Mazda/"Zoom-Zoom" ones. Both are very memorable (the only ads I can seem to remember) and both emphasize important distinctions the brands have that make them unique; mazda's sportiness, and vw's safety. Maybe GM could have a catchy phrase and emphasize why GM cars should be favored, and while I agree that GM, Ford and Chrysler all provide many more jobs and domestic investment than the imports, I will not buy a car through patriotism, so GM should let that go. The notion that one could be offended by the ads and be turned off of Chevy is pretty funny to me, though, because I don't find them all that rememberable long enough to get offended.
...ooh and I don't think there is anything special about Honyota ads. The Honda ones actually annoy me.
Comments
Now it is possible they build a specific plant for a hybrid/alternative fuel vehicle.
Amen! That is exactly what I think about when I see those “American Revolution” ads. At least “See the USA in a Chevrolet’ makes some sense. i.e. This is a nice car to go driving cross country in. What happened between then and now?
They really do need better marketing.
BMW may buy Volvo.
Loren
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 28/35 mpg
C/D-observed: 23 mpg
We could get better fuel economy and better performance from other vehicles, but could we do it for less than $23,070? Well, actually, yeah, we could. How about a four-cylinder Honda Accord or Nissan Altima?
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/13052/tested-2007-saturn-aura-green-line.html
Thats your personal interpretation and honestly considering Chevy's sales success I dont think many at Chevy care much about your opinion of their marketing campaign. ONe has to look at the sales of the brand if one is going to criticize an ad campaign as misguided and ineffective. I fail to see why people consider an ad campaign as an important criteria in liking or disliking a car. I continue to read comments by anti GM people like yourself that basically amount to "I would never buy a Chevy because their ads are too patriotic". I dont really care one way or another about the American Revolution ads, but I surely wouldnt let the tone of the campaign discourage me from buying a Chevy. Considering Toyota is now painting itself as an American company (Check some of its print ads bragging about how many jobs Toyota has created) I find it interesting that people only have a problem with US based brands using patriotic themes.
And an ad campaign is not only important, but CRITICAL. Take it this way: Joe Sixpack is shopping for a midsized car. He sees ads all over the place for the Mazda6, Camry, Accord, Altima, and Fusion, so these are the cars he looks at. People can't shop for a car if they don't know it exists. Building the car is important, but so is getting the message out that A: the car exists and B: why it's better than the competition. Otherwise Mr Sixpack might not even bother, and drive off with a new Altima before he even makes it to the Chevy dealer.
That's the reality of advertising, and why marketing departments exist. GM already has a problem there, because their marketing department's budget gets drained by all of the rebates GM runs. They've also tended to rely heavily on their individual dealers to be the ones to do the advertsing (I see MANY more GM dealer ads than GM corporate ads for particular brands, with the exception of Hummer and Caddy).
And if people dislike the "American Revolution" ads, as mentioned on here, it gives them a reason to NOT consider the brand...which means some other brand now has an advantage. If people feel that ads are failing to sell a car on features and resorting to patriotism...well, some Fox News viewers might buy a GM, but others will buy a car that's sold to them based on features, rather than patriotism. The patriotism bit can backfire too, when the label says "Assembled in Mexico."
If you want to see some good ads, check out Nissan's, which effectively communicate the new technology in the Altima, and check out Hyundai's, which are pretty good at communicating the value of their cars.
Bottom line: you can have the best car in the world, but if no one knows about it, it won't matter because it still won't sell.
Is there any hard data available over say last 10 years of quantity of "U.S. based employees" of GM, Toyota and Honda? Seems that all we have read in newspapers over last decade of how many U.S. employees of GM are laid off or forced to retire vs Toyota and Honda building new plants and "adding" employees. Who has better record of creating jobs in U.S. in last decade - GM or Toyota?
I suppose there are stupid consumers in US who will buy any American branded product, regardless of merits or quality of same, if it is draped in US flag, has apple pie, baseball, hotdogs, children and motherhood in the product ads.
With that reasoning, CNN viewers in America don't buy GM and don't even drive a vehicle. There are no vehicles, that reflect their ideology, that are sold in U.S. for them to pick from.
Are you really serious? The downturn of the domestic auto makers vs. the few jobs brought in by the plants the non domestic makers have is a huge difference. Almost half of Toyotas vehicles are imported. Assuming that those used to be built here that would be over 1,000,000 vehicles alone no longer made here. About 4 manufacturing plants, all the industry to support those plants and the sources that used to make all the product here.
There are plenty of articles/studies out there that show how many jobs we have lost. It is a huge number.
How many GM jobs were moved to Mexico and Canada? Might as well add in Ford and Chrysler. How many jobs of American branded vehicles were moved out of continental US? Are American brand companies such as GM supposed to be loyal to the U.S. or is their interest strictly "business", namely trying to make quarterly/yearly profits? Can loyalty and pursuit of profits coexist?
"Bottom line: you can have the best car in the world, but if no one knows about it, it won't matter because it still won't sell. "
Bottom line, if you have a strong brand you can sell a lot of ANYTHING, just ask Toyota. If you have a weak brand no amount of advertising and strong product reviews will gurantee steady sales, ask Saturn about the Aura. Toyota does NOT need strong advertising to introduce or maintain the sales of any model. If its a Toyota its usually going to be considered a desirable product regardless of the ad campaign.
"And if people dislike the "American Revolution" ads, as mentioned on here, it gives them a reason to NOT consider the brand...which means some other brand now has an advantage. If people feel that ads are failing to sell a car on features and resorting to patriotism...well, some Fox News viewers might buy a GM, but others will buy a car that's sold to them based on features, rather than patriotism. "
How many people are being driven away when Chevy is the best selling brand in the US? Just curious. Whose campaign should Chevy emulate if Chevy is outselling Ford, Toyota and Nissan? I would like to know what tone or theme YOU feel is acceptable for Chevy since they apparently are turning off so many buyers with their offenisve campaign.
That's one thing that's always bugged me, too. I think a few things that are working against the Cobalt's economy though, are weight and power. I think the Cobalt weighs about 2800-2900 pounds, whereas the Corolla's more like 2500 I think. As for acceleration, I think I've seen 0-60 times of around 8-8.4 seconds for the Cobalt (base engine/auto), whereas the Corolla's more like 9.5-10 (base engine/auto).
I don't know if there's much that can be done about the Cobalt's weight, at least not short of a major overhaul/redesign. However, If they offered a de-tuned/slightly smaller engine, they might get a few more mpg out of it.
And if it's any consolation, GM's not the only one guilty of making small cars that aren't much more efficient than their big ones. I remember back when I bought my Intrepid, which was rated at 20/29 with the 2.7 V-6, the Stratus, which used a Mitsubishi-sourced 2.5 V-6, was only rated at 19/27. And even with the 4-cyl, it was 21/29. Heck, even the Neon was only rated at 25/31!
Cars (not trucks or SUVs)
year car total NA blt transplant% imports import%
1974 8.853m 7.454m 0% 1.399m 15.8%
1979 10.673m 8.341m 1.3% 2.332m 21.8%
1984 10.391m 7.952m 2.0% 2.439m 23.5%
1989 9.898m 7.073m 7.3% 2.825m 28.5%
1994 8.990m 7.255m 16.9% 1.735m 19.3%
1999 8.698m 6.979m 24.3% 1.719m 19.8%
2004 7.506m 5.357m 29.9% 2.149m 28.6%
I will give Ford credit for their recent marketing moves, I like the comparisons to Toyota and Honda. Smart move in my book although I'm sure most import fanboys arent impressed and think its stupid of Ford to mention superior products in their ads.
Honda ads probably appeal to people with discriminating tastes. Honda has the actual quality and reliability to back up its ads.
Don't know the percent of which good ads such as Honda's contribute to overall sales and sales growth and market share. But, if ads contribute materially, then GM's ads have not done well given that Honda has upped its market share over last couple of decades while GM has lost.
So, if marketing and tv ads are a key part in securing sales growth, then Honda has clearly beaten GM.
Actually, it was Dinah Shore who served as the Chevy spokeswoman through the early 1960s, and urged viewers to "See the USA in your Chevrolet."
America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
America's the greatest land of all
On a highway, or a road along the levy
Performance is sweeter, nothing can beat her
Life is completer in a Chevy
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet
Traveling East, Travelling West
Wherever you go Chevy service is best
Southward or North, near place or far
There's a Chevrolet dealer for your Chevrolet car
So make a date today to see the USA
And see it in your Chevrolet.
America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
America's the greatest land of all
That would be irresponsible today what with US consumption of 25% of global oil, global warming, carbon dioxide, etc. A patriotic GM commercial for today/tommorow might ask drivers to buy GM products but try to carpool, combine trips, drive slower, walk, bike, use public transportation, live near where you work, etc as much as possible.
Today, even most middle-class people fly to their destinations. I can't think of the last time I heard anyone say that they took a long trip by car.
As for the " An American Revolution " ads, it was a very simple question. What does it mean? No one can explain what it means. Makes no difference to me personally about any buying decision, but it seems so off in that it is meaningless, evidently. The BMW, " Ultimate Driving Machine" has meaning, and even the simple Toyota " Moving Forward " has meaning. Oh, GM knows what that means! Guess Ford could have the slogan, " We're in Reverse " or something.
Oh well, " Shift 3.0 " ! At Nissan, they are on Shift 2.0 it seems, yet have few if any Shifting with a stick cars -- doh, it means shift to their cars I guess.
Loren
Loren
See America in your Toyota
GM, Ford, and Chrysler hit the wall
Drive your Toyota! Screw America!
The economy is heading for a fall
On a potholed road within the Rust Belt
The poverty's sharply felt -what a rotten hand life's dealt
Life is bleaker 'cause of 'Yota
So your neighbor lost his job? Look past him like a snob!
And ignore him in your Toyota
Cleveland's bad! Detroit's Worse!
Who cares? Toyota's first!
In South Bronx or North Philly, it looks like a war
The unemployed will jack your 'Yota car
So you just got robbed? Too bad, you luckless slob!
The crackheads stole your Toyota!
The GM advertising overall is mediocre. The truck ad for " This is our country " is pretty good = selling America back to America, USA. The new ad with all the people moving and a grovin', even the hip-hop and rapper loves the Impala is a stretch, but what the heck. Guess it is the humorous one. The American Revolution is just there, as in not saying it is winning or losing customers, but rather, what the hell does it mean?
Worst ad is the new Got Milk ones with the family in search of a glass of milk. Odd -- very odd. Would take some serious drugs, I am afraid, to understand its meaning or purpose.
As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing?
Just trying to be helpful.
Loren
Yep. Of course, it helps that the Fusion is a recent redesign, and the other two hadn't been redesigned yet, but that's just "taking advantage of timing in product release cycles" or something.
Too bad I need something AWD. The new Saturns DO look sharp.
Travel by car is great !
Loren
I got to take part in one of those comparison tests. Car and Driver and Road & Track were co-sponsoring it, along with Ford, and had a local event set up back in December. Of the three cars they had, a V-6 Camry, V-6 Accord, and the V-6 AWD Fusion, I preferred the Accord! Now I don't think the Fusion was a bad car, but the Accord just seemed like it was faster through the test course, handled better, begged you to throw it around harder, etc. It also felt a little roomier to me, and a little nicer inside.
It wasn't leaps and bounds better than the Fusion in any respect, but all those "little better's" here and "little nicer's" there do add up.
That being said, I liked the Fusion better than the Camry. The Camry could handle, but road feel and feedback just seemed better in the Fusion. There was something about the shape of the Camry's dash and center console that made it feel more claustrophobic on the inside, and the door armrests were probably the poorest designed things I've ever seen. The pull handle is mounted too far back on the door to make the armrest itself very useful.
Actually, only the Accord was an old design, dating back to 2003. The Camry they used in that comparison test was new for 2007.
As for the Canadian plants, I assume that the Canadian cars are built on the same assembly lines as their American counterparts thereby saving money, and they are union jobs as well. As for Mexico, well, since NAFTA.......(need I say more)???
As far as jobs created/lost, I think that is muddy water. While it is true that Foreign investment is up and American investment is down, the Big 3 still employ more in America that the others do. I think that foreign investment has "slowed" job loss, but not completely offset it. I believe that if all cars were built in their manufacturers home countries as opposed to here, they would lose SOME sales. How much, 1%,10%, who knows???? But it would be some, and I think you would have to take that into consideration. Also, the pay and benefit disparity for the new jobs, as opposed to the old jobs, hurts some, even if you take into account the disparity for cost of living in Ky. or Ala. as opposed to Mich.
Loren
2006, plunging into the troubled region's turnaround.
But he's no stranger to GM's Detroit headquarters. Clarke was group vice
president of manufacturing and labor relations from 2002 through 2004, when
he became president of GM's Asia Pacific operations.
Clarke spoke with Managing Editor Richard Johnson, Staff Reporter Jamie
LaReau and News Editor Dave Guilford.
Can you sum up where you think GM North America is in its turnaround?
I think there's ample evidence to suggest that the kind of things we're
working on are generating real and very tangible results. But we're not
prepared to say that we're done.
What might we see in the year to come that would be a sign of progress?
We think we're continuing to make progress on our retail sales, and that's
the measure that we put up in front of us that we think is important in the
immediate term. We've been able to do that while average transaction prices
have been going up, so we've been, we think, putting better cars out there
with better contents and the right kind of features and refinements that
customers want.
We asked a little bit more money for those, and by and large they've been
willing to pay us for that. And then we've been able to continue to reduce
incentives.
Pontiac has had a high percentage of fleet over the past six months -- over
40, 45, 50 percent. Is that a sign of a troubled brand? What's Pontiac's
future?
Our view for Pontiac is this concept of performance. Internal to the
company, we call it seductive performance. These are fun-to-drive cars that
in most applications work best when they're in a rear-wheel-drive
application.
So, you take a look at the Pontiac Solstice, that's certainly the halo
product for the brand and I think represents our vision of how we build
that brand going forward. The next critical entry to that product is the
G8, which we'll actually start the production of, I think, yet this fall
and will be on sale in volume the first quarter of next year.
But we're in transition, so the high percentage of rental sales that you
see is the current Pontiac Grand Prix -- which is at a stage in its life
cycle where it's very attractive to rental fleets, and it's very attractive
for us to sell it to rental fleets. But as those products transition out of
the portfolio and the new products transition in, I suggest they'll be less
attractive to rental fleets.
Does your sales growth remain outside the United States, or do you see
future sales growth here in this market?
As the eternal optimist, I'm hoping for sales growth in this market.
Where would you like to see market share go in a two- or three-year period?
The index that I use is retail share. If you take a look at that, retail
share is about 22½ percent. And I could see a scenario where, as our rental
fleets come down, our retail sales go up.
Look for expanded product lineups at Buick, Cadillac and
Hummer, says Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president of vehicle sales, service and
marketing.
Speaking at a press event here to launch the Buick Enclave crossover,
LaNeve said GM first needs to rebuild Buick's identity as a luxury brand.
Then GM will add products to its U.S. lineup, he said.
"You've got this whole complete lineup in China that we can always leverage
because the vehicles we develop for the Chinese market would certainly be
interchangeable with plants in the U.S.," LaNeve said.
He said the Cadillac line has potential for new vehicles, too, as GM
positions it as a global brand. The possibilities include a small
crossover; a premium large, rear-drive sedan; a large crossover; and a
sedan smaller than the CTS. GM currently sells the BLS, a compact sedan, in
Europe.
"I'm not announcing these programs - these are all things we're looking
at," LaNeve said.
He also said GM needs to expand Hummer's lineup. Hummer is expected to
offer an H4, a Jeep Wrangler-sized vehicle, by the end of the decade.
Asked when GM would launch the H4, LaNeve said: "I'm not ready to tell you
that. But there will be an expansion of the Hummer lineup in the future,
probably multiple products beyond what it is today."
Saw a couple Solstice cars at the local dealership. One was priced at $27K and the other was side stickered at $36K. Sure, it had the turbo and some extras, but really now, that is rediculous. Discounted Corvettes start around $41K. The Solstice has those tall doors, so the arm rest should be the place to lay the elbow down. Well the arm rest tilts the wrong way, is too short to work and ends up painful. Noticed a rather high brake in relation to the gas pedal, which is not so good an idea. Once they fix a few things with this car, I may consider a test drive, if they sell in the $20-22K zone for non-turbo. Currently, they are sucker priced. Don't believe me, ask the people that paid thousands over sticker to buy those PT Crusiers in the early years of that model.
Loren
Thats your personal interpretation and honestly considering Chevy's sales success I dont think many at Chevy care much about your opinion of their marketing campaign. ONe has to look at the sales of the brand if one is going to criticize an ad campaign as misguided and ineffective.
Thanks so much for your insight. I see the stats
2006 Chevy sales Jan-Apr 779,940
2007 Chevy sales Jan-Apr 734,452
Sales drop of 5.8%
Of course I don't really care whether Chevy is concerned about my opinion of their marketing, after all they are the ones who are trying to sell cars. Seems I've seen other posts supporting this opinion, perhaps it's not uncommon?
I fail to see why people consider an ad campaign as an important criteria in liking or disliking a car.
I don't like or dislike the cars based upon the ads, I'm suggesting that the purpose of getting people interested in the cars may not be furthered by appealing to patriotism rather than by the virtues of the cars themselves. When I see ads that aren't even talking about the advantages of the product I wonder what they're hiding.
The Chevy ads are proclaiming that the primary advantage of Chevy is in fact that the cars are from an American nameplate. If that was enough to sell cars then we wouldn't have the steady erosion of GM market share. Perhaps a different approach is warranted. Can you get that point?
This is a complex subject.
The number of vehicles sold annually in the US has greatly increased over the past twenty years, so you would expect more jobs if "per capita labor hours per vehicle" was a constant.
Overlay on top of that the fact that most manufacturing industries have gotten far more automated and labor efficient. If there were no competition for US auto manufacturing then the unions would probably have greatly limited the amount of efficiencies that would be obtained. Yet the competition has caused the American nameplates to try to compete with greater efficiency while their own workforces have resisted the changes. This puts companies like GM in a very difficult situation.
It looks pretty logical why quite a bit of the Ford/GM manufacturing has moved offshore. It is a lower percentage than most other manufacturing industries (clothing) and companies like Apple, Eli Lilly, etc.
Given the changes in the world it would be naive to think that the same number of labor hours would be used to build a car today as 30 years ago. Those days are gone and would have been gone one way or another.
I guess what I'm saying is that none of us may like it, but we can complain or we can embrace the reality of the world and learn to compete in spite of it. Many American companies have learned to do so.
Only problem is that I doubt that Honda's ads have much to do with their incremental increases in marketshare. I would think high gas prices and the expansion of their lineup has more to do with their current marketshare. As I said before, most Honda ads are about deals, not products. Ironic that others here were criticizing GM ads for doing the same thing. I dont buy into the theory that Honda ads are good as long as you're "discriminating" and intelligent, or whatever you were suggesting. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent and sophisticated and HOnda ads are still boring. Acura ads are slightly better, but still far short of Lexus ads.
All facts, no BS yet interesting.
YOu have made it painfully clear over and over and over again that you dont like much of anything from the domestic automakers. You dont like their ads, their products, their value or anything else. Somehow I'm not surprised that you are impressed by Honda's ads (shocking considering you own one) and have little clue about current GM or Ford ads. I dont even know what ads you are referring to from GM and Ford so I assume they are old. FOrd's current ads use the tagling "Bold Moves" and challenge viewers to compare their products to various imports. Sorry, but I think this is good advertising. If you are losing ground to the imports it only makes sense to let people know that you feel your products can stand up to the imports.
"As for the comparison test of an AWD Fusion vs, the rest top selling brands. Do you really think that was convincing? "
Short answer is "yes". We can get into the particulars and excuses about how Ford shouldnt be allowed to compare an AWD car to a FWD car and what not but the bottom line is Ford made a smart move. They allowed regular people (as opposed to "experts" from CR or Edmunds or C&D) to compare their car to the class leaders and draw their own conclusions. I have read every excuse in the book by import fans about how those results arent legit and the Fusion had an unfair advantage. Its really all a bunch of whining because people dont like the idea that unpaid people actually liked a Ford product over a Japanese product.
That's a fallacy in my evaluation of ad science also. The Honda ads appeal to youths' values which is usually "me"-oriented. They show pictues of cute Hondas that will make a teener say "Wheee, I'd look good driving one of those." Nothing about the merits of or engineering of said vehicle.
The same can be said for the Toyota ads I saw of their cars driving around neighborhood streets. Same emotional theme but aimed at an older crowd. The last ad I saw about the Dundra truck last evening I haven't really seen enough to analyze. it's like they're trying to criticize another brand and say that they replace it by fitting into the silhouette of the other vehicle. Then they hook it up to an enormously large, alleged 100000 pound towed object, and that would appeal to the testosterone-oriented folk viewing that they can pull a bigger load than other men can pull. Of course the longevity of the vehicle doing that and the gas mileage when not pulling an extra alleged 10000 pounds isn't mentioned nor is the frame stucture of the vehicle. So I would conclude they can buy all the auction trucks they want and put them on the front rows of Toyota deals as supposed tradeins, but I believe Chev and Ford have the point here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
PLease tell me you realize Ford used the 2007 Camry in its comparisons. Do you really think Ford would be stupid enough to use the last gen camry vs the Fusion? Check the ads again.
First of all, I would like you to show me where a Chevy ad proclaims that the sole reason you should buy a Chevy is because its American. Secondly, I am still waiting for you to explain why Chevy should ax its ad campaign if its the largest brand in the market and will be no worse than the 2nd largest brand in 2007. You show me CHevy sales are down 5.8% but dont show me where they rank in brand sales thus far in 2007. What part of Chevy's success are you not understanding? You say GM's lower marketshare is "proof" that GM shoulnt mention "American" in any ads but you fail to mention that Chevy is one the GM brands that isnt struggling. If Buick, Saturn and Pontiac were as strong as Chevy GM wouldnt have 24% share right now. Chevy is the brand that keeps GM afloat and allows the other brands to exists. What part of that point dont you get? GM's other brands make VERY LITTLE mention of being american and interestingly enough most of them havent been doing well in the last few years. You theory is totally off base.
"When I see ads that aren't even talking about the advantages of the product I wonder what they're hiding. "
You must not like most car ads since the majority of them do not get into specific features.
It's ouuuuuuurrrrrrrrr couuunnnntry...
There are more and more companies competing for the same pie. It gets cut into smaller pieces as that happens. Marketshare goes down. The same thing happens with restaurants in an area as new restaurants open stores. "Can you get the point?"
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
1. I really like that OnStar Ad with the different gm models. I think that's like the best GM ad in a while.
2. The ads I'd like to see GM emulate/study are the VW/Holy S*** ads and the Mazda/"Zoom-Zoom" ones. Both are very memorable (the only ads I can seem to remember) and both emphasize important distinctions the brands have that make them unique; mazda's sportiness, and vw's safety.
Maybe GM could have a catchy phrase and emphasize why GM cars should be favored, and while I agree that GM, Ford and Chrysler all provide many more jobs and domestic investment than the imports, I will not buy a car through patriotism, so GM should let that go. The notion that one could be offended by the ads and be turned off of Chevy is pretty funny to me, though, because I don't find them all that rememberable long enough to get offended.
...ooh and I don't think there is anything special about Honyota ads. The Honda ones actually annoy me.