What is the potential impact of GM's advertising pull-out?

Some of the short-term fall-out could conceivably affect the GTO, for which California is the second–largest market after Detroit, nationwide. That said, a rather peripheral media has been quick to label the GTO as something less than a success, even as March, 2005 sales are up 84.2% over March, 2004 (largely thanks to a boost in horsepower, and a little glamour courtesy the hood scoops).

As we have suggested earlier, the GTO was a Bob Lutz-mandated exercise – a quick car to bring over from Australia; to show GM what rear-wheel-drive was capable of doing, and to get the company thinking in global terms.

That the LA Times piece on the G6 called for Vice Chairman Lutz's resignation, while an exercise in freedom of expression and less blatantly problematic than the inaccurate sales comparison, demonstrates a severe lack of perspective.

Whether you ask industry insiders or the vast majority of automotive journalists, Robert A. Lutz is an extraordinarily talented product planner. To call this quality mere instinct (as was implied in the piece) is to sell it short; rather, Lutz has continually demonstrated an inherent understanding of the balance between consumer expectations and consumer desires. A cursory study of Lutz's track record shows that few rival his ability to determine how far today's consumer preferences should be allowed to dictate tomorrow's vehicle.

Anyone who purports to understand the automotive industry well enough to review it could note that product development processes regularly take between three and four years. Lutz arrived at GM precisely three years before the G6's debut – enough time to change the name, and to force a delay while the vehicle's styling and performance was tweaked, but not enough to inspire a complete redesign of a vehicle whose parameters were largely set.

This notwithstanding, G6 is a good car: an agile corner-carver with quick steering that could use more feedback; a distinctively-styled mainstreamer with short overhangs and an aggressive stance in a sea of bland bulbousness, and the beginning of a product line that will field some very interesting sister models.

There is nothing here to support the LA Times' comments.

In light of all this, we commend GM for taking a stand on inaccurate reporting; and, more philosophically, reporting whose nature seeks not to further the industry, but the careers of reporters at the expense of the people who design, engineer, and market these products.

Quite frankly, Ford should do the same. The LA Times' Mercury Montego review last year was little short of a travesty, the headline itself being so unbelievably crass that we consider it unprintable. Amusing it might have been, but it was peripheral at best, and hardly the timeless work of a knowledgeable writer of the caliber of LJK Setright; Ian Fraser, or the late George Bishop.

We've seen figures that suggest the LA Times may lose $10 million annually as a result of this move. Certainly, money appears to have got their attention. LA Times spokesman David Garcia said on Friday that the Tribune-owned paper would "look into any complaints GM has about inaccuracy or misrepresentation and will make any appropriate corrections."

GM, meanwhile, is better off placing ads in newspapers whose editors fact-check before printing, and – better yet - on ride-and-drives in California. Consultants Al and Laura Ries’ excellent book, The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, illustrates why. Advertising is gradually being considered both too peripheral – and too cynical, given the fragmentation of the market – to provide genuine information.

Automotive journalism, however, is perceived as being more credible and deals with products too expensive for its comments to be peripheral in nature. GM made the right move.

 

Does this mean you're back? [/hoping rather naively]

 

Agreed. I think GM made the right move. I like the G6 and I think its a wonderful car from what Ive seen of it. If I were in the market for a fwd daily driver this car would probably be at the top of my lists of prospects.

 

Not necessarily......but I thought it was time that an outsider set the record straight......

 

Glad you did. And, glad GM's fighting for itself and not just rolling over on these issues.

 

This may be a bit off topic, but am i the only one who thinks the G6 convertable looks like a Solara convertable? Ive been in the 4 door g6 and loved it, but the looks of the 2 door hard top and convertable just scream Solara to me.

 

Thank you for that Fbod!

Yes, it is time that GM takes the initiative and starts fighting back at idiocy with facts, and I applaud GM for doing so.

 

Sweet! Ya gotta love it.

 

Now I'm curious... what was the headline for the Montego?

 

If I may, those GTO numbers are a bit misleading. Total GTO sales for march 2005 are indeed up over 84% from March 2004 (when dealers were asking stupid markups on them). However, if you break down the numbers, you'll find that ~30% of the March 2005 sales (408) were left-over 04s, while ~70% (967) were new 05s. Stated a different way, this means that March 2005 sales of 05 GTOs are up ~35% over March 2004 sales of 04 GTOs (967 vs 719).

Of course, those 408 2004 GTOs didn't sell because of a boost in HP or hoodscoops.

 

1. So the Fbodfather is familiar with the British automotive press? Impressive.

I'm sure the Fbodfather can also remember the old GBU (Good, Bad, Ugly) section in CAR magazine. CAR's GBU was far more critical back in the 1980s than anything ever published by the L.A. Times. Every car available in the United Kingdom was characterised as "Interesting," "Adequate" or "Boring." Of course, some companies just plain refused to allow CAR staffers access to their press fleets. Ironically, those companies were Japanese.

Sadly, CAR's lost it's edge years ago - and so did the GBU.

2. Compared to their British counterparts, American automotive writers have traditionally been very reserved when it comes to criticising any product for fear of "reprisal" from the manufacturer. The sort of scribblers who pen so-called "automotive reviews" for newspapers are normally the most spineless of the bunch.

 

That's certainly true if you've ever watched or read Top Gear. When a car is turd, they don't hesitate to say so. The once photochopped the BMW roundel on a pile of dog crap and said something to the effect "you'll buy it because of the name". Can't picture Road & Track doing that. Only problem is, they suffer greatly from NIH syndrome and are even more unfair to American cars than the California press. Still, overall their TV show makes pap like Car and Driver TV look like infomercials for every warmed over pile of junk the manufacturers lend them.