GM, Chrysler Bailout Pleas Turn Off Buyers

GM, Chrysler Bailout Pleas Turn Off Buyers
http://tinyurl.com/ctzcvo

GM, Chrysler sales hurt by mixed messages
The automakers painted a dire picture of their health to win bailout aid
from lawmakers. But car buyers were listening too.
By Ken Bensinger

March 29, 2009

For six months, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler have been trying to
convince the government that they need billions of dollars in aid, while
assuring the American consumer that everything is A-OK.

It's proved to be the marketing equivalent of trying to stuff a Hummer
into the trunk of a Corvette.

The negative PR campaign appears to have reached the right ears in
Washington. On Monday, President Obama will announce his plan for
supporting the two automakers beyond the $17.4 billion they've received,
his press secretary said Friday. Obama is widely expected to offer them
further financial help in exchange for deeper restructuring concessions.

But car buyers have also been listening, and they've been taking their
business elsewhere.

Since the first congressional hearings on the auto industry in November,
U.S. sales by GM and Chrysler have fallen a combined 45% compared with
the year-earlier period; all other carmakers slid only 33% during that
time. Taking federal money is keeping people away from their lots,
consumer surveys suggest.

By comparison, Ford Motor Co., which has not accepted any government
aid, saw its share of the retail car market rise for four consecutive
months through January, the first time that's happened in 14 years.

Now, as Chrysler and GM extend their hands for as much as $21.6 billion
in additional taxpayer cash, experts question whether the automakers can
recover from the damage to their image that the drawn-out and painful
bailout process has inflicted. Ultimately, they say, no amount of
federal aid can guarantee the key to their long-term survival: getting
buyers behind the wheels of Chevys, Buicks, Dodges and Jeeps.

"GM and Chrysler are sending out messages that are very definitely in
conflict with each other," said Kelly O'Keefe, a professor at Virginia
Commonwealth University's Brandcenter and the son of a former Chrysler
executive. "On the one hand they're saying they're in trouble, and on
the other they want consumers to keep buying. It's a marketing nightmare."

A survey released this month by polling firm Rasmussen Reports found
that 88% of Americans would prefer not to buy a car from an automaker
receiving government aid. That's worse than the 63% who said they would
eschew buying from a bankrupt car company.

In the first two months of the year, the number of buyers considering a
GM or Chrysler vehicle fell 12% and 33%, respectively, according to CNW
Marketing Research, which specializes in the auto industry. At the same
time, Ford saw a 12% increase in consideration.

"The companies seem to be hoping that if they can continue to get
federal cash, then they can figure out how to restore public confidence
in the long term," said Jim McCarthy, president of crisis management
firm CounterPoint Strategies. "It's a risky approach to say the least."

The automakers contend that they had little choice but to go to
Washington. With sales collapsing and costs sky-high, the companies
found themselves running out of money heading into last fall.

So amid the collapse of Lehman Bros., and public furor over bailouts to
American International Group, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GM and
Chrysler mounted a campaign to spread the bad news.

Using websites, grass-roots letter-writing efforts and even YouTube
videos, the automakers threw themselves at the mercy of Capitol Hill.
They predicted nothing short of an industrial apocalypse -- GM pegged
the hit to the economy at $400 billion -- if even one of them declared
bankruptcy.

On Thursday, Obama weighed in. "I know that it is not popular to provide
help to autoworkers -- or to auto companies," he said. But on the
condition that the automakers make hard restructuring choices, he added,
"we will provide them some help."

The same campaign, however, galvanized public sentiment against the
automakers.

Although last fall's Capitol Hill hearings will be remembered for the
embarrassing revelation that executives flew to Washington on private
jets, perhaps the most damage came from the pressure Congress put on the
automakers to stop doing the one thing that could help: advertise.

Repeatedly, House members questioned their marketing budgets, which are
among corporate America's biggest. GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner
assured them that GM would not advertise during the Super Bowl broadcast
for the first time in memory.

GM also dropped out of the Oscars and Emmys, and it canceled sponsorship
of big names like golfer Tiger Woods. Chrysler ended its sponsorship of
the National Hockey League. According to CNW Marketing Research, total
ad spending by GM in the fourth quarter of last year declined 18%, while
Chrysler's was off by half.

So while the government has demanded the automakers cut debt, reduce
costs and rework union contracts, it has done little to encourage car
sales in the short term.

"The irony is that while they need to look like responsible corporate
citizens, they also need to be out there reassuring consumers that they
are going to be around and that they are truly building some great
vehicles, and building some enthusiasm," said Kevin Smith, a former
advertising executive at agencies for automakers, who now owns a
consulting firm.

He and others contend that a strong, positive marketing push -- along
the lines of that taken by Lee Iacocca when Chrysler sought a bailout 30
years ago -- would help.

Yet Chrysler was roundly criticized for wasting taxpayer money in
December when it attempted to address the matter more directly, taking
out full-page ads in major newspapers thanking the American people for
the bailout. The company has since stuck to regular car commercials.
"We're committed to meeting the guidelines" of the government loans,
said Chrysler spokeswoman Carrie McElwee. "We have had to scale back
some of our activities."

GM, for its part, pledged last month to cut $800 million from its
advertising budget this year, forcing it to stick to the script of
traditional vehicle marketing. "We're really focusing our marketing and
advertising efforts on continuing to push the product message hard,"
said Mark LaNeve, GM's head of sales and marketing in North America. "We
want consumers to be confident in GM and our products."

GM is tackling the issue with a recent round of commercials for its
Saturn brand, which the company pledged last month to shutter or sell by
2012. The ads sought to assure buyers that Saturn is "still here," but
marketing experts say the spots instead reminded consumers of GM's woes.

"It's like water torture," said George Peterson of research firm
AutoPacific. "The public is reminded over and again about how much
trouble these companies are in."

That's a major reason Ford steered clear of federal support. Ford too is
burning through billions every month and lost a record $14.6 billion
last year, but it found itself in slightly better shape thanks to $23
billion it borrowed in 2006.

"From a corporate reputation standpoint, we absolutely considered the
impact that taking the [federal] loans would have," said Jim Farley,
Ford's global head of marketing and communications. "Saying no to the
money in D.C. was really a door that opened to us so we could start
talking to our customers again."

 

There would be a 2009 Challenger in my driveway right now, if it weren't
for one thing.

They don't come in Front Wheel Drive.

Chrysler's former German management at Daimler is responsible for that.

But I don't have a 3-car garage. So my daily driver needs to have FWD.
So for now, my daily driver will continue to be my '00 300m. A 9 year
old car that still looks and runs great.

I knew the LX platform was going to be an albatros for Chrysler. Big,
heavy, full of expensive yet inferior Mercedes suspension and drivetrain
components. What a way for a once great company to fade away.

 

Oh, puhLEEZE! Hamstringing a muscle car with rear-drive is like putting
monster truck tires on a Viper.

The one thing they did right was bring back a rear-drive model. FWD
sucks rocks if you don't live in the snow belt.

 

Even the "real" Challengers and Chargers of the late 60's and early 70's
came with a slant-6 as an option. How do you square that?

If I wanted a muscle car, I'd already either own a Viper or an SRT-300,
or a restored '7x challenger or cuda.

But my choices for a MoPar sedan are limited. I don't like the styling
of the 300, avenger, magnum or charger. Most or all of those are
available with AWD. The Challenger isin't. It's only RWD.

But do I want a muscle car? Where am I going to drive it? In this
world of 6 billion people, there just isin't any space anymore on the
road to be able to open up and enjoy the muscle. Not when the road is
filled with 50-ish year-old housewives driving their empty minivans to
god-knows-where or 60-80 year old Q-tips on their daily drive to
Walmart. Always to Walmart.

The Germans at Daimler should be shot and hung for fucking with
Chrysler's product evolution.

The LH platform was capable of RWD. Again, and for countless times, I
point to the 300N hemi concept shown at the 2000 Detroit Auto show.
That is the car I would be driving now. And not just now - I'd have
bought one the moment it would have been available. And not necessarily
the convertible 5.2L hemi. A FWD 3.5L vs would have been just the
ticket at 3600 lbs. Not the 4000 lb fucking monster LX-based sedan that
Chrysler has no choice but to try and sell today.

Welcome to my world.

Me and about 100 million other people in North America.

 

There would be a 2009 Challenger in my driveway right now, if it weren't
for one thing.

They don't come in Front Wheel Drive.

Chrysler's former German management at Daimler is responsible for that.

But I don't have a 3-car garage. So my daily driver needs to have FWD.
So for now, my daily driver will continue to be my '00 300m. A 9 year
old car that still looks and runs great.

I knew the LX platform was going to be an albatros for Chrysler. Big,
heavy, full of expensive yet inferior Mercedes suspension and drivetrain
components. What a way for a once great company to fade away.[/QUOTE]

I agree.
Daimler leveraged their Chrysler ownership by sharing their RWD drive
train with Chrysler's cars. Lower cost for Daimler Mercedes cars.
They also reverse shared Chryslers engines.

I solved my LH upgrade problem by getting a used lovely 2004 300M for a
very good price, when car consumers freaked out at the high gas prices
last summer.

My brother in law confused 300M with the 300, saying he couldn't believe
I'd buy such a boxy thing. He said: "I can't believe you got one of
those ugly boxy cars with the truck grill". When I straightened out his
misunderstanding, he said loves my 300M and wishes he could buy a new
one.
My suggestion to him is the Lexus ES 350, a very close upgraded copy of
the 300M, at a good price. Lexus copied Chrysler's best ever car;
according to my Chrysler dealer.