Skip to comments.GM’s Dubious Super Bowl Ad Claims
Posted on 02/06/2012 11:59:36 AM PST by jazusamo
Some very humorous (if not cost-effective) ads were exhibited by General Motors during this year's Super Bowl game. GM continues to freely spend its stockpile of taxpayer supplied cash reserve as it even aired a spot touting the Chevy Volt. At a cost of $3.5 million for a 30 second spot the expense equals about 15% of the total revenues GM brought in during the entire month of January for the Volt when sales fell to a dismal level of 603. What is the reasoning behind spending so much to advertise a vehicle that sells in such small numbers and is not profitable if not political? But the ad that may lead to more controversy than the Volt folly was the one in which GM claims their trucks are more dependable than Ford's; a claim that is highly debatable and not backed by studies at Consumers Reports (CR).
The ad in question features survivors who gather together in their GM trucks after a 2012 apocalypse. One friend is missing because he drove a Ford and didn't have the "longest lasting, most dependable" GM truck. The disclaimer on the bottom of the ad pointed to registrations of GM trucks on the road since 1981 as evidence for the unsubstantiated claim. Since GM has pointed to CR to tout Chevy Volt reliability, I thought they could give a much more accurate depiction of GM truck dependability. And GM does not stack up well.
According to CR's December 2011 issue which rates auto manufacturer's reliability, GM has the bottom two ratings in the category of full sized trucks. The Chevy Silverado 2500 and GMC Sierra 2500 each had such poor ratings of 123% worse than average that the graph bar was off the chart! Of the bottom 10 trucks on the list, GM had six entries compared to Ford's two and three of the bottom five compared to one for Ford. GM seems to be continuing with its habit of spinning the facts to suit their needs.
What makes this situation interesting is the fact that Ford pulled its ads that criticized GM for receiving a bailout while Ford was able to succeed without massive taxpayer assistance. GM is not returning the favor as they arrogantly take on both competitors and critics with a strategy that appears political in nature. From twisting facts on the Super Bowl truck ad to condemning "right wing" media outlets for daring to criticize the Chevy Volt, GM is living up to the nickname of Government Motors. The problem with this strategy is that, while it might work in politics where only 51% of the public needs to be convinced (or fooled), in the very competitive auto field it is a dangerous strategy to alienate any group of individuals including those that are still sensitive to the fact that GM has costs taxpayers billions of dollars. And I don't think GM should instigate a battle with Ford that may see Ford reviving the bailout theme.
It is a very dubious claim for GM to make in touting their trucks as more "dependable" than Ford's. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the Ford F-series has been the top selling vehicle in America for 30 years and remains the class of the field. If GM wants to better compete, it should focus on building quality vehicles that offer better value for consumers, not on a costly and deceptive ad campaign that does not have the facts to back it.
The last twist I found amusing was the offering of a Twinkie by one GM truck driver to another. It is ironic that GM exhibits a Hostess product in its ad after Hostess had to file for a second chapter 11 bankruptcy due to unsustainable union legacy costs . Perhaps that can be viewed as a foreshadowing of a different type of apocalyptic event for GM if UAW costs are not kept in check while the company continues with a free-spending strategy (side note: Ford did not splurge on costly Super Bowl ads) that is better suited to politics than to free market capitalism.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
LOL! I missed the twinkie irony. I did find the commercial a hoot. The great Chevy truck that survived the apocalypse, but it couldn’t make it past the UAW, their inferior products, or mediocre management without a government handout.
Yep, the twinkie thing is a hoot. :)
The disingenuousness of Government Motors had better come to a halt, they’ve been fast and loose with the truth since the bailout.
Everything about the superbowl was political. All designed to help NBC’s beloved obama.
GM is still the best reason to buy a FORD.
Well, GM assuming a 2012 Romney-Obama match-up will result in the Apocalypse seems about right.
I thought the GM truck apocalypse ad was the hands-down, absolute, winner of the game. (I also have a cat and Doritos came in second).
PS: I took the Twinkies more in keeping with their reputation of being no less edible after the fall as on the day they were sold.
For those afraid to ask, that comes to $5804 per vehicle.
Perhaps Ford should put the “No Bailout” ad back in the rotation.
GM continues to freely spend its stockpile of taxpayer supplied cash...................
We paid for that crappy ad.
Am I the only one pissed off about that?
I sure hope not. This is yet more fuel added to the fire of Government Motors ripping off taxpayers, in the original bailout, ongoing subsidies, tax credits and advertising.
"There's a box of Twinkies in that grocery store. Not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go... empty."
I saw the ad. I thought they made a bid mistake at the end by saying, “he had a Ford.”
It would have been far more effective and less offensive if they had just said, “He didn’t have a Chevy.”
Notice the Chevy commercial which touts the idea that it is the "car that America had to build"?
Believe Henry Ford's idea was that his auto was one citizens would want to own. Therein lies the difference.
Exactly, and Henry Ford’s idea was a product most could afford whereas the Volt is not.
Instead of using the hard-earned taxpayer’s money to, oh, I don’t know, say, put more money into their cars, or reduce the price of their cars, they use that money to attack Ford. If only the taxpayers required the government to show their Return On Investment (ROI), we’d be tossing these jokers out of office and out of their fancy chairs faster than they can make Twinkies. That’s it! GM went under and Hostess went under. The new nickname for GM vehicles.....TWINKIES!!!!
The F150 ( etc ) is apparently scheduled for a redesign / freshening by then according to the auto rumor mills / blogs.
The big rumor is light weight materials, and people forget the joint agreement with Toyota to develop a hybrid drive-train for Truck Applications.
What if they repeat their success ergo the new Fusion (and how it will potentially crush the Volt especially from an engineering standpoint) in the 2014ish F-150?
If so, Mr. Smarty Pants GM taking smack might get his engineering @$$ handed to him too...
At one time I was a chevy man, but haven't been for many, many years. I have a ford truck that has 166,000+ miles on it and have replaced exactly One each clutch and water pump. Both of these well after the 100,000 mile mark.
Yep, Twinkies. Survival Food for teenagers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.