@IfThenElvis: i have no idea why i am replying to your cooment. i really don't care.

want pictures of both of my & my wife's disabled UNDER WARRANTY GM vehicles? BOTH have been in the shop at least (checking paperwork) 15 times within the past 12 month period for an issue (for 1-2 weeks at a time). we got FUCKED purchasing GM w/a warranty. we want vehciles that work; not some bullshit that someone is practicing their enginnering on. if that's the case, sell me the car for $3k. not $30k.

and by the way, douche, i said GM. not toyota, honda, and nissan.

and if you think that our dealerships here suck, come here and fix the problems. otherwise, shut the fuck up.

-Joseph Goebbels

...seems they could cut out a couple superbowl ads and dump HFCS.

For the price they charge, it's amazing they'd save a few fractions of a cent per bottle by making it taste much less desirable.

I just want to get this straight.

She said it. She also said this, in front of a very friendly audience:

Actually, that comes out to approximately $360.00 in advertising per car sold. (provided those are somewhat accurate numbers in the statistics)

@AirIntake:

Just because YOU are still buying those products doesn't mean that business won't decrease even if you retain 100% customer loyalty, just from people dying if you don't advertise enough to attract new customers.

If they want to stay in business and compete against Honda, Ford, Toyota, etc. cutting back or stopping advertising would be a DISASTER.

A recent survey by Ad-ology Research showed "More than 48% of US adults believe that a lack of advertising by a retail store, bank or auto dealership during a recession indicates that the business is likely struggling."

Can the Consumerist keep that in mind when bashing a struggling company for running ads with their money?

@IfThenElvis:
I friggin agree... the LS / LT series are great engines. Now if only they would stop doing stupid things like putting tees in their radiator lines (causing a radiator hose to go from $30 to $150)...

I thought they were beginning to do something right when they started differentiating brands (Pontiac=RWD, sports / GMC = Trucks / Caddy=Luxury), but they blew a gasket and blended everything together again.

Really, for advertising, you couldn't have beaten what Saturn was doing at its inception. I haven't seen devotion like that except from Harley riders. But they blew the grassroots stuff and devoted everything to "professional" advertisers that make things that no one remembers.... how much would a "Roving BBQ / Autocross" that goes from dealership to dealership cost?

@HiPwr: You know... that might be a helpful change from "we make cars."; similar to Ford's "Drive One" campaign.

The Camaro, Truck, Malibu (err... if that's "the [only] standard of quality"), and Corvette, I don't know what's out there.

Lots of "Coming" stuff, but...

@varro: @veg-o-matic:

You're posting an entertainment video VS my video of a speech on the floor of congress. Those "so-called" news shows are nothing more than entertainment and use "setup questions" which they ask a question and then give only two choices ... their view and then the crazy view. They go out of their way to make someone look crazy. If you did any research at all you would know why they do this. They do it because she is standing up to them and they want to discredit her. And unfortunatly their trick works on weak minds.

So, yes, it BLOWS MY MIND that they had a #2 ad budget when their advertising was craptastic.

@IfThenElvis: More like a factor of a million :)

I don't know what the hell was wrong with me when I wrote that. I'm sitting there thinking "there's no way this can be real, but the numbers don't lie". I guess they did. I guess that's why everyone wasn't up in arms about GM dropping $160 million in advertising per car sold. Because they weren't. :)

Yeah, sure, stop advertising. You know how they could save even more money? By not making vehicles of any sort.

Late last week, the fallen auto maker said it will maintain an ad budget between $40 million and $50 million a month while in bankruptcy proceedings -- much less than in years past, but about the same as in the months leading up to its June 1 bankruptcy filing.

So, yes, they did cut back. By 90%, in fact. I voted no on the survey, but every one should be satisfied that they've cut back enough.

In a market like cars where, yes, they are under constant attack from other companies foreign and domestic, mindshare is key.

No, you don't cut back on advertising while the economy is in a recession. It's stupid business sense not to and it's irrelevant that they are in bankruptcy when considering this issue. That's Economics/marketing 101.

Not to mention the Starbucks cup was in the hands of characters on television and in movies - you think that happens for free? And do you really think that celebrities in magazines are "accidentally" photographed with name-brand anything? Oh, Starbucks advertises plenty.

GM (like much of the American auto industry) has done many things really, really wrong - why so many cars with crappy mileage, bloated dimensions, hideous designs. Why do they depend on planned obsolescence and constant turnover among car buyers, instaed of building great vehicles that last a good long time?

And don't even get me started on ad agencies. Sheesh. What a bunch of high-maintenance assholes. (I work in the industry, so I know what I'm talking about.)

Both GM and the "suffering" ad industry deserve a lot of what they're experiencing, so I don't really think they need any defending here.

I don't know about anyone else out there but there are so many car ads on TV, I pretty much tune them all out. The point I am making here is that the effectiveness of the ads counts for a lot.

Cutting ad budgets, and marketing efforts in general for that matter, does not make a great deal of business sense in this economy. The same number of car makers is chasing a much smaller pool of car buyers. The sellers need advertising to attract and retain customers no less than they ever did.

It's really no different in other sectors of the economy. In my own line of work not only is there less business in general, but we are facing more competition as other firms look for work outside their traditional client base. I see it from other sides as well. Jobs where we used to have trouble attracting three bidders are now getting eight or more. So, it goes without saying, we haven't cut our marketing department one bit.

Likewise, companies that can get through the economic slump without going into absolute survival mode are going to be very well positioned to grow quickly again once the economy comes back. Once you've lost market share or clients they are very difficult to get back.

@vincedia: @vincedia: shouldn't the hordes of gm cars disabled on the side of the road be enough advertising?!?

So let's do some new math here. In 2008, GM sold 8.35 million cars WORLDWIDE. Then they went and spent $3 billion on advertising. So when you divide that, you get a total of just under $360 million per car sold

Those cars could be made of gold and they still wouldn't have brought in that kind of money. But I guess with the new advertising budget, they're doing a lot better.

@BluePlastic: That they're bankrupt has NOTHING to do with why I'll never buy a car from them. It's the fact that I'm an unwilling part owner in their company- how 'bout they address that concern?

But I HAVE been to one hosted by Maybach.

But unlike a near lux car they do more than ads. Its not uncommon to if your income is high enough be invited to exclusive dinners to show off a Ferrari or like car.

But also take into account that up until recently GM was HUGE, bigger than any other car manufacturer in the world. EACH brand gets ad money, and its that money lumped together thats GMs ad budget.

Japanese car companies do the same thing - share engines across product lines. Honda's V6 J35 engine was used in the Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline, MDX, Acura RL, 2007 Acura TL Type-S, and Saturn Vue. Toyota's AR engine is used in the RAV4, Highlander, Venza, and Camry.

I think there is a "lipstick on a pig" comment in there somewhere... talk amongst yourselves...

@Unsolicited Advice: I also think the wording of the poll is a little weird. They are advertising to reassure us?

Nothing about any improvements in their products or anything like that. Just, hey, we went bankrupt but we're still here!

i think GM should change their name to Generic Motors or Government Motors. because they use a few engines across so many product lines (generic) or because they are mostly government owned now.

@kepler11: Maybe their next series of TV advertisements should feature nothing more than the dashboards of their newest models to lure you into their showrooms.

Starbucks does not and never has advertised (their pre-packaged drinks with their label are done through a different company, and you occasionally see those; ie. double shot ads) and while their business is down, it is certainly not over. They invest every dollar that would go into advertising into capital projects, like new locations. Fairly remarkable given how wide-spread they are as a company.

@Radi0logy: Where do you think that $2 billion went? We worried so much about the ripple effect of GM going under, what about the people whose salalries depend on GM advertising?

Only if it's a fake luxury item. How often do you see Ferrari adverts? True luxury items DON'T advertise; they're too exclusive to dilute their cache that way. The stuff that's advertised is "aspirational," not luxury.

Their ad spending is too big to fail ...I mean it would wreck the ad industry if they cut back spending.

She's crazy, you know.

@HiPwr: Never said that. But 2 billion a year will pay a lot of salaries... about 67000 employee's at $30,000 per year... Just think about in perspective how much cash they are blowing. Think about how much food it will put on regular folks' tables.

Example: the Malibu is a *great* car, as reliable as an Accord or Camry, but no one knows it.

@44 in a Row: Thanks for the link. Seems fairly obvious that if a company needs to sell more product, advertising is a way to achieve that. When in bankruptcy, without intending to liquidate, doing things that will diminish sales isn't a sound strategy.

Thank you :)

Lest we forget a article from only a few hours earlier about consumers not being loyal to brands....

[consumerist.com]

The more expensive a "luxury" item is, the MORE you have to advertise.

New cars are luxury items, they require a LOT of though for people to commit to. Because of this they require a LOT of money to sell people on their virtues.

And not for nothing, but GMs product was good, and often significantly cheaper to buy, maintain, and repair than Honda or Toyota.

But its amazing what happens when you have people outright lie about something being bad enough. The dumb public believes it.

@vincedia: Agreed, I think. I often complain about the rediculous advertising budgets of companies and question the true effectiveness of it. In this case, GM sold roughly 3 Million autos in 2008, and at 40 Million per month in advertising that works out to about 160 dollars per vehicle. That's a relatively insignificant portion of the cost of a vehicle, so I'm inclined to say advertise away (while doing a better job of designing and building future autos of course). Are those numbers correct though? Yes, the dollar figures are, but in reality how many purchasers were swayed to buy GM vehicles because of the advertising? One in two, in five, in ten? If even one in five and certainly if one in ten, GM could have gained more sales by using the marketing budget to build better, more reliable, more desirable autos.

Well that and making cars that aren't junk. Just have to look at JD Powers, Consumer Reports and word of mouth to realize besides Malibu, GM doesn't make anything worth buying. (Well honestly if they cut prices about 25%, I'd consider them, but currently their prices come too close to better made foreign cars that actually hold their resale value). I don't envy your friends that have to try and come up with ads to convince consumers that GM is anything but dead last in the car wars.

But I have come to expect utter republican garbage from you these days do this is just par for the course isnt it.

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese... I didn't even Google that!

@Radi0logy: If you think GM's advertising budget drove them into bankruptcy, you are sorely mistaken.

@hi: I'm not too familiar with Google's newest features (if that is an indication of something), but it is not a fair comparison to use a search engine feature versus the new Chevy Camaro. By showing people the Camaro, people get excited about it and want to buy it.

If anything, they need to advertise more. If you have a brand image problem, you need to do everything in your power to help yourself out. Advertising is the most immediate way to help yourself out.

Of course their problems aren't just too much spent on advertising, but do they really need advertising at saturation level above and beyond other huge massive advertisers just to stay viable?

Seems pretty common sense, to be honest. Glad there was a study done to back it up, though.

@HiPwr: Google also updates their products and produces new ones.... try again.

@smartmuffin: Maybe the government can just declare the advertising industry "too big to fail" and take it over.

@Radi0logy: Comparing Google to GM is an apples to umbrellas comparison. Automobile manufacturers continuesly update their models and produce new ones. They have to get the word out to the public about their products.

Um, they're never going to pay back the taxpayer. The $50 billion in loans floated to these bloated dinosaurs in late '08 and 09 have already been forgiven and will never be repaid. Just like anyone with an ounce of sense knew they wouldn't.

GM, Chrysler and the UAW can go to hell.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I think they had to spend more because the hype was much better than reality. Ever notice that people and companies start yelling how great and wonderful they are when reality is the opposite? The more I hear how great something is, the more suspicious I get.

If something is really great, you don't have to advertise that much.

Its funny actually - I would like to see what the advertising budget is for Google. Then re-present your argument with that fact to back it up.

If GM is trying to advertise cars, then the ads are all wrong. GM is actually in the stock price market. GM is like the old .COM companies: there was nothing but hype and an implied promise. The ads should be directed towards the investors trying to pump up the stock price. Forget the cars. My bet is that GM is not going to change anything except try to pretend they're in the car business with more vigor.

@craptastico:

What's amazing to me is that the context is always "should they or shouldn't they spend this?!" Advertising isn't evil. It can be stupid, but it isn't evil. GM has been inarguably stupid with its advertising expenditures - a real company evaluates the effectiveness of its behaviors.

Wow -- WHY? P&G advertises thousands of products, many of which are bought on a monthly basis. GM advertises far fewer, people buy them only every few years, and GM is like, "Here's a car. Here's another car. Here's a car ad you're going to want to stab your television over when you see it the 5,000th time."

That blows my mind that they were SECOND in advertising.

Yea, because i shop at amazon.com and newegg.com because they advertise SO much. Not because of their steller service, outstanding prices, fast shipping. Hell, i got a 2010 camaro in my driveway because i saw that GM commercial... i mean transformers 2 trailer.. now im just waiting for megan fox to come over and "do me" cause i bought one.

[www.newyorker.com]

For those who don't want to read the whole thing:

Numerous studies have shown that companies that keep spending on acquisition, advertising, and R. & D. during recessions do significantly better than those which make big cuts. In 1927, the economist Roland Vaile found that firms that kept ad spending stable or increased it during the recession of 1921-22 saw their sales hold up significantly better than those which didn't. A study of advertising during the 1981-82 recession found that sales at firms that increased advertising or held steady grew precipitously in the next three years, compared with only slight increases at firms that had slashed their budgets. And a McKinsey study of the 1990-91 recession found that companies that remained market leaders or became serious challengers during the downturn had increased their acquisition, R. & D., and ad budgets, while companies at the bottom of the pile had reduced them.

Why?

It would be helpful if

1) they didn't make cars where the dashboard looks like it was designed by a kindergartener. That has been my main criticism, regardless of how good their engines/bodies have been -- the dashboard feels plasticky and cheap. Just copy BMW if you can't design it yourself, at least.
2) how about an accelerator response that doesn't feel like a wet paper bag? You know the difference between a German pedal and a US one. Floppy, floppy, floppy. and the sound is completely different. It doesn't just look cheap, it feels cheap.

I'm more optimistic than most and doubt that we will lose the GM & Chrysler names.

I was in both Honda and Chrysler showrooms this week. Surprisingly both were very busy with customers. Due to a factory shutdown earlier this year Chrysler dealers are depleting their inventory and have few options in stock for customers to choose from - until the 2010 models come out at the end of the summer.

@Unsolicited Advice: i was reading this and my first thought was that i can't come up with the names of any new GM models that've come out over the last few years. I know they relaunched the Camaro, but that's about it. Maybe GM should learn to advertise more effectively.

They should be advertising and focusing on selling cars, not selling the bailout.

I worked for a store chain that eventually went bankrupt, but before they did cut way back on their advertising. It was like a patient who is bleeding to death pulling out an IV blood line because the needle represented a point of blood loss.

I remember back 20+ years ago when Lee Iacocca played a prominent role in Chrysler and Dodge commercials at a time when the auto industry was struggling. I found his message to be very reassuring.

@Trulymadlyme: Actually their latest crop of cars are pretty damn good. See all Cadillacs, Pontiac G8, Chevy Malibu, Saturn Sky, etc etc.

An another front, the 2010 Ford Taurus looks really good too (once again have only seen photos).

@Applekid: You're trying to blame their current condition on one isolated variable. Rarely are things that simple.

If they want to keep getting business, and if they want to have a company after the bankruptcy is over, given these factors, they almost have no choice but to keep advertising.

Granted, I'd like them to pare down their ad buying — by a lot — but for them to "run silent" is just not a great idea. It certainly would not help them in the long run ... it might force them to come back, and beg for more government funding.

They should advertise. And they should evaluate the efficacy and necessity of the nation's second-largest ad budget.

The more I see GM advertising the more I think of all the money that we as taxpayers are flushing down the drain to support them. The only GM cars I would ever buy would be a Cadillac or a Corvette, and even then thats pretty iffy.

Now that they're an official arm of the government, why should they even have to pay for advertising? Can't we get some special legislation that allows government owned industries to advertise for free? How dare those greedy capitalist media outlets put profits over the good of the nation!

@vincedia: This guy knows the score. The business that quits advertising is the business that quit all together.

They should not be getting any money in the first place.


+ Watch video

you gotta spend money to make money. i would be worried if they slipped another spot or two.

Cutting advertising when trying to survive a rough patch only leads to a larger rough patch.