var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

January 23, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Well, that's a relief.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 5:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ehh. They look at it as advertising, and it's hard to measure how effective advertising is. While I'm not a fan of the bailout, it would be pretty counterproductive for them to stop all advertising and promotion - that would pretty much ensure that their sales would go down even further and that there is no chance they will pay back the borrowed money (as opposed to the current slim chance).

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

January 24, 2009 5:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: but they need to advertise in the right places... taking out full-page ads saying \"hahaha we took your monies, lololol\" is NOT an effective use of advertising dollars... as you can see, they would have been better off burning the money they spent on those ads.

$\"user-pic\"$

neko613

January 23, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 24, 2009 12:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@neko613: Fine, but people *are* buying jeeps (one of the bright spots in their lineup) and jeeps are considered pretty darn good vehicles (for their intended purpose, at least as good as the competition).

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

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@neko613: Like it or not, dvertising is part of the cost of doing business.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@worrytron: and so is advertising*, sigh.

$\"user-pic\"$

Stubtify

January 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: I agree; this doesn't bother me, really.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: If they think they'll get a return on their investment, why not.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 5:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, the movie is already mostly done, isn't it? It's not like they can renege on the deal after filming is completed - they already put the cars in the movie!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

warf0x0r

January 23, 2009 5:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Great, if there is ever a post apocolyptic future where I am hunted by machines day and night and have to fight for the survival of the human race I'll be sure to pickup a Chrysler vehicle!

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.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Charlotte Rae's Web

January 23, 2009 6:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If@warf0x0r: The non-nuked lot withstanding, I'd take my old school Jeep Cherokee over about any other vehicle I can find.

$\"user-pic\"$

warf0x0r

January 24, 2009 12:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ouiserboudreaux: Well Will Smith had good luck fighting off robots with his Audi, so yeah either an Audi or a Chrysler...

$\"user-pic\"$

MightyDwarf56

January 23, 2009 9:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ouiserboudreaux: Better yet, the old C-7, those things are beasts.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ingram81

January 23, 2009 10:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MightyDwarf56: They should go back to making that quality of vehicle, but with better gas mileage.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ouiserboudreaux: I'd take whatever my mule could pull the easiest.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@worrytron: Kevin Costner?

$\"user-pic\"$

warf0x0r

January 24, 2009 12:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DemolitionMan: 3 Points for a \"The Postman\" reference to DemolitionMan...

-5 points for referencing DemolitionMan

so yeah you're in the negative sry.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 24, 2009 7:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@warf0x0r: -10 points for docking 5 points for Demolition Man. It's a great movie if you don't take it seriously.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

downwithmonstercable

January 23, 2009 6:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If there's a Terminator style apocalypse the smartest choice would be a hybrid with the most miles per gallon. It's not like there will be a working Chevron on every corner. Also, you can still shoot out of the back of a prius pretty well if you smash out the glass.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Project_J187: I bought a Ford, cause i'm a Deceptacon at heart.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Something about a movie with machines trying to kill you featuring American cars... no wait, it does fit nicely, doesn't it?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is the danger of the bailout. Suddenly everyone's an expert on how Chrysler is spending their money. I think that the \"Thank You\" ad and T4 are good spending. They have to continue conducting business.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Justin Holzer

January 24, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: The fact that the bailout was a loan makes Chrysler's irresponsible spending that much worse IMO, as it increases the likelihood that Chrysler will never be able to pay back the loan and have to go in to default.

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

Justin Holzer

January 23, 2009 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SagarikaLumos: The problem is that Chrysler is spending our money! Therefore, we all have a perfectly good reason to comment on how they spend it, whether we are business experts or not. How can you say that the thank you ads, which cost upwards of $250k are a good way to spend their money during a crisis? Chrysler needs to focus money on building a better product, plain and simple. This means they need to seriously cut spending on things like advertising. There is no excuse for blowing money unnecessarily on something that is simply not vital to getting them back on the right track to being a profitable business.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ingram81

January 23, 2009 10:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Justin Holzer: They should make cars that people want to buy. The new Dodge Challenger, for example, if I was in the market for a car, would be something that Id want to buy. However that is the only American car currently (besides a 'Vet or a Viper) that Id even considering buying, but they dont offer promotional financing for those vehicles, you know, the ones people want to buy.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 9:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fenders-Stratosphere

January 23, 2009 7:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 8:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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....

$\"user-pic\"$

Ingram81

January 23, 2009 10:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: Yes I agree, people are talking about it. Negatively. Woot for well spent advertisements. Maybe the next one should be a Hummer running over kittens and babies.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fenders-Stratosphere

January 23, 2009 9:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Squeezer99

January 23, 2009 6:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hooray4Zoidberg

January 23, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well in a way I guess this makes sense right? I mean if we didn't bail out Chrysler, Terminator 4 would basically be us about 2 years....at least that's how I understood it after listening to the auto bailout supporters.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 6:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just curious. How many people went and bought a GM car after seeing Transformers?

Anyone?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

warf0x0r

January 24, 2009 12:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Project_J187: I went and thew up afterward... oh and sitting to closely to the screen gave me stupid. Turns out stupid is a disease you get from watching Michael Bay films or Independence Day.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

January 23, 2009 7:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I saw Chrysler employee pricing plus plus and ventured over to the jeep/chrysler etc websites. In all honesty, you could choose either : 1. High priced cars that were in the 25-40k range, but not really that durable.
2. Cheaper cars in the 15-20k range that were inferior to japanese rivals while being last in their class for most things.

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

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 7:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Putting ads in a movie and in the paper isn't going to make up for the fact that people don't buy their cars because they are shiat.

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.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 8:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I see an item in a movie. I must own it. Yep, makes sense to me.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 8:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Justin Holzer

January 24, 2009 3:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: You are only talking about the short term here. All auto makers, across the board, are hurting right now, because as you mentioned, people don't have the buying power that they had just a few years back. However, Chrysler, GM, and Ford have been in trouble since before there was even a serious threat of any kind of recession or economic downturn. I believe it was 3 or 4 years ago (perhaps a few years earlier even), that Toyota outsold Ford in the US, marking the first time Ford had ever been outsold by a foreign auto maker. The writing has been on the wall for years. The issues with the big 3 are not breaking news. Regardless of Chrysler's recent history, the fact is that they, along with GM and Ford, needed help from a government to stay in business, while other automakers did not. The big 3 need to reestablish customer loyalty by making a better product over the long term. Ever auto maker is going to be hurting in the short term, but what is Chrysler doing to make sure they are able to get back on track for the long term once the economy turns around?

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

January 23, 2009 9:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: Ahh, yes, but Toyota hasn't been in financial trouble BECAUSE of their product for decades, as has Chrysler.

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 9:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

bbagdan

January 23, 2009 9:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Lucky225

January 23, 2009 9:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

omfg are you serious, first they pay for a huge a$$ thank-you card to be ran in WSJ, now they're paying to be featured in T4.. They really must be clueless as to what they should be doing with their money.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 10:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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]

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 23, 2009 11:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

warf0x0r

January 24, 2009 12:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bananaboat: Yeah, but they were all out of the type two that uses trash so I had to get a type one that take plutonium.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 24, 2009 1:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

January 24, 2009 2:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What a relief! I couldn't have enjoyed a movie without a Chrysler in it even if I have to help pay for product placement as a taxpayer.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Quilt

January 25, 2009 5:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's too bad for them I've never based my vehicle purchases on random sci-fi action movies.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 25, 2009 10:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

To all the CU fanboys that are lamenting Chrysler. Toyota reported a 37 percent decline. Sucking to be them. Japan will bail them out also. Hope you don't work for them in the US or UK.

Report: Toyota considers job cuts in North America

[www.autonews.com]

");