Report: Toyota considers job cuts in North America

[www.autonews.com]

At no point did I say, or wish to convey, that Chrysler should not be advertising. However, I do feel they need to be smarter with their advertising budget, given their current crisis. The money spent on the "thank you" ads could have been much better spent. Are the "thank you" ads going to boost long term customer satisfaction with Chrysler automobiles? Do those ads even tell the consumer anything about a Chrysler automobile or why they should buy one? Better yet, Chrysler could cut back their advertising budget to fund more product development, to work on cars that people want to buy.

As for the T4 product placement, I am pretty sure that deal was done before the bailout was even thought of, so I will withhold judgment on that until all the facts are in. Even so, the big 3 American auto makers have been in trouble for a while, so this may not have necessarily been a wise decision in the first place, regardless of the bailout.

What this all boils down to is that Chrysler is mismanaging their money; money which in large part originated from the American taxpayers. It's not about whether they're spending money on advertising, which of course they will do, but rather how they are spending it.

Also, what will bring people in to the showrooms in droves is a quality product. Why do you think cars like Honda Civic, Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry have been so popular? Because they are constantly featured in movies and in commercials driving through exploding buildings? No, because they are affordable, have decent features, get decent MPG, and are typically low maintenance. That is what the average person wants. Ads can certainly be utilized to spread the word about a product, and perhaps even boost short term sales. However, long term success is only going to happen if the product is something the consumer wants, and isn't that the real issue?

Here's the problem.
Chrysler's problem isnt weak advertising-it is weak product.

What's the point of advertising, if what youre advertising is worth less than the paper/screen/urinal its on?

Cancel 90% of advertising and executive bonus budget, and send all bailout funds on R&D.Thats a good use of taxpayer dollars, rather than spending it on a movie spot.

Besides, isn't this all moot? Isn't Fiat all but owning Chrysler at this point?

-5 points for referencing DemolitionMan

so yeah you're in the negative sry.

That should help them. Didn't everyone buy Deloreon's when Back To The Future came out?

Are the mouth breathers that read this blog that clueless? I freaking guess so. Companies do this all the time. I guess if you watch a movie or TV show the cars, the vehicles, the canned goods, the buildings appear mysteriously? Give me a break, did the Consumers Union bring all of their lemmings with them when they bought The Consumerist?

Look for yourselves:

[www.brandchannel.com]

Ironically, the creation of the car culture by the big3 has led to humanity and urban design being subservient to the machines. And the impending depression caused by these large corporations may very well lead to the end of society as we know it.

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Sorry, it has only been 11 years since Mercedes Benz bought them (and Chrysler was selling product with 37 Billion (1997 dollars) in the bank) and gutted their R&D, product development, money, and sacrificed quality to prop up the Mercedes line. Look up the history please, before you spew some BS on the internet.

@The_Legend: And don't think I'm not pissed off at my ratassed "gubment" giving all that money to those "banks", either. In fact, I'm stuck with one of the biggest of the crappy mortgage companies and I wish they'd fall off the face of the planet. Did I care if I got thanked??? Hell no, and I would have been just as pissed if I saw a thank you post card in my mailbox from one (or all) of them because I didn't want my money going to them. And just because someone talks about something in the news doesn't make it advertising.

@Justin Holzer: Nice analogy, but it was a Loan last time I looked. The banking industry got plain cash no questions asked. In fact, the only questions asked about the bank bailout is the 150 billion (yes that is Billion) that is unaccounted for.

Chrysler is not doing a disservice to anybody by advertising. The government did not loan them money for essentials, like toilet paper, it was to do business. Part of that is advertisement. Product placement is part of that. See it in a movie. Bring people in the showrooms. Get over it.

Here's an analogy for you. The government takes some of your money (perhaps you're even happy to give it up) and gives it to me, because I'm broke and need money for the essentials (food and shelter). When I wasn't broke, I would often buy designer clothes and get expensive haircuts, as I could afford them. Now that I have some money, your money, I decide to go spend some of it on new designer clothes and an expensive haircut, rather than taking care of my essentials. I have not only done a disservice to myself, but to you as well, as you were of the understanding that the money would go towards providing me with essential items. Similarly, Chrysler has done a disservice to their employees, their corporate image, and to the taxpayers that bailed them out, by spending a large sum of money on something that is not going to improve their products, which is truly what they need to do.

People aren't buying cars because they have no jobs, no credit, and no money. Toyota had the same sales drop, and the Prius sales went in the tank by 50 percent. I guess people aren't buying Toyotas because "they suck" according to the flawed logic here.

@Fenders-Stratosphere: I guess the Banking folks thanked us all too for their...oops the banks didn't get a loan, thay got straight up taxpayer dollars. No thanks, not even a reacharound. Oh, and no new loans too, because they had to pony up to their shareholders and execs. All advertisment ends up advertising a product. The Chrysler emblem on a full page ad is an advertisement. And it worked! It has people talking about it. Imagine that....

@SagarikaLumos: I don't have a problem with them advertising...their PRODUCTS. I do have a problem with them taking out a full page ad in a paper that I can't even afford to buy (the WSJ) and thanking me (and all the other tax paying people out there in the good ol' US of A) for a bailout that I didn't even want to give them (and NO, I didn't vote for the assholes in the governmental branch that gave that money). I'm not an expert or claiming to be one, but in my opinion, spending money on an advertisement that didn't advertise any of their products seems to be a huge waste of my (and all the other shafted people's) money.

People know who Chrysler is. Hell, a 6 year old probably knows who Chrysler is, but it doesn't excuse the fact that people aren't buying their cars because they suck.

That money should be going to help fund new technologies so they can keep up with foreign auto makers. There will be no more bailouts for them.

@SagarikaLumos: Thank you! The next thing the whiners here will want is no advertising at all and fire the salesmen because they advertise the brand....I get the feeling that a lot of people that have wandered over to Consumerist the last year know nothing about doing business (outside of asking their mother if dinner is ready). Thanks again for knowing the difference.

@AlteredBeast: Only when they don't produce it yet.

@Saboth: Tell the truth, did you actually go the the Chrysler website or the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep site at all? Or did you just go to the CU website and drink their koolaid?

There were a handful of cars that actually got above 25 mpg average. Like....very very few.

@Project_J187: Could that movie be considered fall advertising when my Camaro doesn't transform in to a giant robot?

I guess Terminator 4 takes place in an alternate future, where machines take over the world, and the majority of people drive Chryslers.

Some Sci-Fi is just too far fetched.

It takes years for a company to develop a car from idea to a vehicle on the road, between the complexity of developing a car and the number of government regulations they have to comply with/pass tests for. Chrysler needs to sell cars NOW. If they stopped advertising/selling cars until they had developed a new product line, they would definitely go out of business.

But what good would a better product be if no one knew what a Jeep was?

None of us know how to run a multi-billion dollar company, despite how easy it seems.

Anyone?

for a second I thought it said "Christian Babe". I'm like, a christian babe? where?!?!?!?!?!?!

I have to disagree. While advertisements are good for a dieing company, it's not going to work if the products it offers are simply crap and undesired. They need to produce more appealing cars before they advertise. If people aren't buying Jeeps now, they're not going to buy Jeeps after an advertisement.

I don't see an issue with this... they probably had contracts years ago when it was being written. It probably comes from an advertising budget too. And heck seeing a car in an action movie makes it look cool. Aston Martins are already insanely awesome, but now that Bond drives them, I would sell a kidney, lung, and half a liver for one.

No not really I'm not that impressionable. I would've done that for an Aston even before Bond.

And since there will be no society what soever I'll probably just walk up to the only non-nuked lot left and take whatever I want.

Well, that's a relief.