wiegie Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Anybody have any thoughts about the Big 3's Super Bowl commercials. Particularly the ones from GM and Chrysler. I'm going to be interviewed about them in about an hour, so any thoughts you have might be interesting. Particularly, given that GM and Chrysler got a bailout, it is appropriate (or effective) for them to spend so much money on Super Bowl advertising? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How much did we bailout the Jap and German automakers after WWII? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Anybody have any thoughts about the Big 3's Super Bowl commercials. Particularly the ones from GM and Chrysler. I'm going to be interviewed about them in about an hour, so any thoughts you have might be interesting. Particularly, given that GM and Chrysler got a bailout, it is appropriate (or effective) for them to spend so much money on Super Bowl advertising? Funny you mention, the chevy truck commercial came on, I looked at my dad and said... "so, you think it's appropriate for a company that got a bunch of our tax dollars and who our govt. owns a huge portion of to be dropping 3 mil on a commercial" He said, "you know, I didn't think of that" I don't think it was the smartest thing, but, hey, superbowl commercials are as american as apple pie, corporate welfare and government ownership of industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 None of the car commercials were all that memorable. I think Audi's where they were breaking out of "jail" was the only one I really remember. It bothers me to see companies that got bailout money and in some cases still owned by the government paying that kind of money advertising. I guess if you could quantify how much sales increase based on having a SB commercial and not having one, and were able to show that it increases sales enough to justify it, that it is a smart move, but since my money went to bail them out it still would leave a sour taste in my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 None of the car commercials were all that memorable. I think Audi's where they were breaking out of "jail" was the only one I really remember. It bothers me to see companies that got bailout money and in some cases still owned by the government paying that kind of money advertising. I guess if you could quantify how much sales increase based on having a SB commercial and not having one, and were able to show that it increases sales enough to justify it, that it is a smart move, but since my money went to bail them out it still would leave a sour taste in my mouth. That was my thought. It is my hope that these ads actually generate a return for the businesses and aren't just about who's got the biggest dick. So, if it is essential to sales to put an ad out there like this, then I don't think you can include that as a stipulation for getting your bailout. I could see something like making sure the execs aren't just writing themselves massive bonuses with it or some such, but if not running these ads hinders needed exposure in the market, that seems excessive. Understand that it pains me to say that because I do have a particular beef with paid marketing. It's made itself needed when it really never needed to be. You have to run ads because other people run ads. If everyone just stopped, we'd all make more money. You'd have to pay more for TV and such because it would no longer be subsidized by ads, but that's cool. That money wouldn't vanish. You'd either make more money doing what you do or pay less for what you buy. Sometimes I wish I could get all the restaurant owners in town together in one room and say, "let's all agree to stop running any ads at all" If you want to send out an e-mail newsletter or have a website, that's one thing. But let's stop the "arms race" of trying to grab the public's attention through expensive print and media ads. Would people eat out much less? I sort of doubt it. Ads about restaurants only affect where I want to go, not if I want to go out. So, we're all spending money fighting against each other when we'd all get the same effect if none of us did. Of course, it would never work because the chains still would so all of us Indy owners would just lose shares to them. So, I actually sort of hate media advertising and still don't really have a problem with letting the bailed out companies do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It takes money to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sometimes I wish I could get all the restaurant owners in town together in one room and say, "let's all agree to stop running any ads at all" If you want to send out an e-mail newsletter or have a website, that's one thing. But let's stop the "arms race" of trying to grab the public's attention through expensive print and media ads. Would people eat out much less? I sort of doubt it. Ads about restaurants only affect where I want to go, not if I want to go out. So, we're all spending money fighting against each other when we'd all get the same effect if none of us did. Of course, it would never work because the chains still would so all of us Indy owners would just lose shares to them. So, I actually sort of hate media advertising and still don't really have a problem with letting the bailed out companies do so. If the bolded is true, that is all the more reason for the advertising. If we assume their is a fixed amount of consumer spending to be done for dining out, then the restaurant that better markets itself will secure the larger piece of that pie. If they have a larger piece of the pie, then they have greater revenue, which means that either advertising expense is a smaller percentage of gross revenue or they can afford to do even more advertising, potentially increasing the size of their piece of the pie even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 If the bolded is true, that is all the more reason for the advertising. If we assume their is a fixed amount of consumer spending to be done for dining out, then the restaurant that better markets itself will secure the larger piece of that pie. If they have a larger piece of the pie, then they have greater revenue, which means that either advertising expense is a smaller percentage of gross revenue or they can afford to do even more advertising, potentially increasing the size of their piece of the pie even more. Obviously, but assuming that the total pie is unaffected by marketing (which is just that, an assumption and nothing more) and that marketing only affects how that pie is divided, then, on average, everyone who divides that pie would end up with more money if nobody did any advertising. Keep in mind, that I also realize this is not remotely feasible or realistic, but rather a realization that paid marketing is a necc. evil. In my case, much like OpenTable, which I despise and yet need because others in my market use it. However, I've identified other reservation software that is way cheaper but only allows people to make on-line resos through your own website, not a main one like Opentable. However, there's a few of us in Durham who are trying to band together to get all the major players in the market to join us and all move to this other software. After all, if nobody does it, then nobody loses out by not doing it and all of us save $500-$1000 per month. Again, that money might be well spent if you've got to keep up with everyone else, but wasted if you don't. So, there's a version of paid marketing that I think I actually have a chance of eliminating from my expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) As a Detroiter I loved the Chrysler Eminem commercial. I liked it more because it shined a good light on the city when we normally only get bad press (many times deservedly so). And for if they are worth the money? I heard today that Googles number one search today was Chrysler 200. I bet it wasn't in the top 10,000 searches prior to last night. Edited February 7, 2011 by Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Particularly, given that GM and Chrysler got a bailout, it is appropriate (or effective) for them to spend so much money on Super Bowl advertising? Whoa, slow down. I thought the narrative from you obamazombies was the money was paid back and then some and how awesome it was they he did such a great smart thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 As a Detroiter I loved the Chrysler Eminem commercial. I liked it more because it shined a good light on the city when we normally only get bad press (many times deservedly so). And for if they are worth the money? I heard today that Googles number one search today was Chrysler 200. I bet it wasn't in the top 10,000 searches prior to last night. +1 (obviously I'm a non-detroiter though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 the money was paid back and then some and how awesome it was they he did such a great smart thing Nailed it. How cool is it that a company, operating in an industry vital to our nation's well-being, that was on the brink of elimination, be helped by its government, right itself, pay back everything it was given and then some, and be in a position to advertise effectively during the most watched program of the year? Oh, and you do know that those ad dollars went from one American company (GM) to another (Fox)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, for all of your amusement, I will say that as I was being interviewed live on television I forgot what I was going to say in mid-sentence and had to sheepishly admit that I had lost my train of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Nailed it. How cool is it that a company, operating in an industry vital to our nation's well-being, that was on the brink of elimination, be helped by its government, right itself, pay back everything it was given and then some, and be in a position to advertise effectively during the most watched program of the year? completely false Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, for all of your amusement, I will say that as I was being interviewed live on television I forgot what I was going to say in mid-sentence and had to sheepishly admit that I had lost my train of thought. An absentminded professor. Who woulda thought? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 completely false That is one hellava link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 For the record, the most recent estimates I have seen have GM and Chrysler not paying back about $19 billion on the $80 billion auto-bailout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 An absentminded professor. Who woulda thought? I could feel my train of thought leaving the station too -- oh well, I'm not going to worry about it too much--I have done much more embarrassing things in my life before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Obviously, but assuming that the total pie is unaffected by marketing (which is just that, an assumption and nothing more) and that marketing only affects how that pie is divided, then, on average, everyone who divides that pie would end up with more money if nobody did any advertising. As you said, just an assumption, and not being argumentative but enjoying discussing this theoretical scenario (and not intending to hijack the thread), but I would postulate that in fact not everyone would end up with more money by not advertising, as it is quite likely that someone with an effective ad campaign is generating a lot more in additional sales (by getting a larger piece of the fixed size pie) compared to what they would have generated with no advertising compared to their cost of advertising. If their increased sales are greater than their advertising cost, it's a win for them. Obviously, with a fixed size pie this is a zero sum game so there will be those that lose sales to those doing a better job with their advertising, thus they would benefit from a scenario where no one did advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 completely false incorrect. the money that was set up as a loan was indeed paid back, plus interest. They used escrow funds set up from the equity investment made in their company...so what? We do that all the time with our working capital when we have a project under construction. Its smart business. The rest is an equity position in the company. The government has not put any timetable on the equity, nor should it....at the current growth rate on that equity (as compared to what they thought they'd get), it is generating returns far better than they could have imagined, and even the righties in the article you quote think there's a solid chance it will all be returned once the positions are liquidated. Now they are applying for a 5% loan to rehab the existing facilities....another smart business move. 5% money is dirt cheap, and GM would be idiots not to want some at that rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 As you said, just an assumption, and not being argumentative but enjoying discussing this theoretical scenario (and not intending to hijack the thread), but I would postulate that in fact not everyone would end up with more money by not advertising, as it is quite likely that someone with an effective ad campaign is generating a lot more in additional sales (by getting a larger piece of the fixed size pie) compared to what they would have generated with no advertising compared to their cost of advertising. If their increased sales are greater than their advertising cost, it's a win for them. Obviously, with a fixed size pie this is a zero sum game so there will be those that lose sales to those doing a better job with their advertising, thus they would benefit from a scenario where no one did advertising. While we're hijacking and assuming, please understand that I am talking about the money saved, on average. Obviously there are people who run effective ad campaigns that net more than they cost. I would hope that most do or everyone is wasting their money. However, in the Utopian situation, everyone just makes their product as good as they can and uses more grassroots type marketing and the far more expensive forms are shunned by all. Tell you what, let's stick to cars. Because I think it's a safer assumption that auto advertising has far less impact on the overall desire to go out and get a car and everything to do with swaying someone who has already decided they want one to buy yours. Simply because it's a far less impulsive decision. And, of course, these guys put tons and tons of money into ads and the playing field is somewhat level, because there's not many "little guys". I mean, in my business, you've got guys like me who are running an ad every month in the local Indy paper and McDonalds who is spending a ton. Both of us sell food, we're both fighting for dining dollars (admittedly, a different sector, though not such a huge one at lunch time). But pretty much every auto make runs ads, a lot of them and at very expensive times, with fancy agencies coming up with very slick ads. And there's few enough of them that they could all make a backroom deal to just stop. Limit it to websites and such. Think about how much more money they would all net. And none of them would be disadvantaged by the situation, they'd just all cut out that massive chunk of their budget. Again, very theoretical and unrealistic. Just ultimately trying to make the point that advertising is only needed because someone else does it as well. It doesn't need to exist. Plumbers need to exist because plumbing needs to exist. Otherwise, we'd be standing around in our own crap. It's one of those things, like lawyers, who only exist because we let other lawyers invent a language that none of us understand, so we need them. They created themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 incorrect. the money that was set up as a loan was indeed paid back, plus interest. They used escrow funds set up from the equity investment made in their company...so what? We do that all the time with our working capital when we have a project under construction. Its smart business. The rest is an equity position in the company. The government has not put any timetable on the equity, nor should it....at the current growth rate on that equity (as compared to what they thought they'd get), it is generating returns far better than they could have imagined, and even the righties in the article you quote think there's a solid chance it will all be returned once the positions are liquidated. Now they are applying for a 5% loan to rehab the existing facilities....another smart business move. 5% money is dirt cheap, and GM would be idiots not to want some at that rate. General Motors Now Admits It Didn’t Repay Bailout Money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 incorrect. the money that was set up as a loan was indeed paid back, plus interest. They used escrow funds set up from the equity investment made in their company...so what? We do that all the time with our working capital when we have a project under construction. Its smart business. The rest is an equity position in the company. The government has not put any timetable on the equity, nor should it....at the current growth rate on that equity (as compared to what they thought they'd get), it is generating returns far better than they could have imagined, and even the righties in the article you quote think there's a solid chance it will all be returned once the positions are liquidated. Now they are applying for a 5% loan to rehab the existing facilities....another smart business move. 5% money is dirt cheap, and GM would be idiots not to want some at that rate. your statement was that they "paid back everything they were given and then some". they clearly have not. the taxpayer is still on the hook for billions, some of which they are highly unlikely to ever recoup. your statement was either ignorant and gullibile or dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swashbucklers Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wiegie, what channel was it on, and is there a link to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I loved the Chrysler Eminem commercial. I thought this was an excellent commercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.