Kutr Ritter a Benedict Arnold!
06-25-2003, 06:36 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Kutr Ritter a Benedict Arnold!
I can understand being mad because you didn't get the post you wanted at GM, however going this far out your way to work for the enemy is just wrong IMO. I also blame Toyota in this mess because they are helping him set up his consultancy simply to milk him for knowlege of GM.
From the Car Connection..
From the Car Connection..
DAILY IN DEPTHDAILY IN DEPTH
Behind the Ritter Fiasco at Toyota
DETROIT — Ad agency holding company Publicis has caved in to General Motors’ demands that its Saatchi & Saatchi unit not go forward with hiring former Chevrolet general manger Kurt Ritter as head of its Los Angeles office and thus its Toyota business.
Publicis owns the agency that handles Pontiac, Cadillac and what's left of the Oldsmobile ad business, as well as extensive public relations business with GM. But Ritter, having burned his bridges at GM, is founding a consultancy in L.A. with Toyota as his main and possibly only client, accomplishing the same objective of advising Toyota on market development issues, especially the expansion of Toyota's pickup truck business. Sources say that after GM ad chief C.J. Fraleigh last month publicly blasted Publicis for poaching Ritter, the company was told directly that it risked losing much of GM's business in the future if Ritter took the job.
Ritter's consultancy is little more than a paper shuffle financed by Toyota and Publicis to placate GM. GM has more than $375 million in ad and PR billings at Publicis in the U.S. Toyota has more than $600 million with the agency.
Publicis has been on shaky ground with GM in recent years. The agency was told last year it would lose the Cadillac business if it didn't hire better creative talent for the business, which it did. And its Pontiac work has been openly criticized by GM product boss Bob Lutz. "Either they (Publicis) didn't value our business, or were too stupid to know that we would be angry about this, and either way, they put themselves in a hole," said one high-ranking GM executive on Tuesday.
Ritter worked for GM for over 30 years. As Toyota ramps up and gets serious about selling more than 300,000 Tundra pickups a year after a new plant is built in San Antonio, Texas and increasing its SUV production, Ritter's storehouse of knowledge about dealers, local and regional markets and GM's own product plan will be invaluable to Toyota as it tries to get taken more seriously by hardcore truck buyers and grab share from GM.
Though his work for Toyota has been billed as shaping "overall marketing direction," Ritter, in fact, is not considered a strong marketing mind inside GM. He inherited the "Like A Rock" brand positioning for Chevy trucks and only in the last year showed signs of fixing a Chevy passenger car marketing plan that was as bollixed as its product plan. It was Ritter, for example, who insisted the Malibu name, for example, be carried on a new vehicle built on GM Epsilon architecture, launching this fall, that is far superior to the existing Malibu. And the "We'll be There" advertising for Chevy passenger cars took two years to generate any laudatory work. Chevy has been an also-ran to Toyota in the car market with an aging Cavalier, an imageless Malibu and an overachieving Impala. But Chevy will launch 9 new models in the next 20 months. —Jim Burt
Behind the Ritter Fiasco at Toyota
DETROIT — Ad agency holding company Publicis has caved in to General Motors’ demands that its Saatchi & Saatchi unit not go forward with hiring former Chevrolet general manger Kurt Ritter as head of its Los Angeles office and thus its Toyota business.
Publicis owns the agency that handles Pontiac, Cadillac and what's left of the Oldsmobile ad business, as well as extensive public relations business with GM. But Ritter, having burned his bridges at GM, is founding a consultancy in L.A. with Toyota as his main and possibly only client, accomplishing the same objective of advising Toyota on market development issues, especially the expansion of Toyota's pickup truck business. Sources say that after GM ad chief C.J. Fraleigh last month publicly blasted Publicis for poaching Ritter, the company was told directly that it risked losing much of GM's business in the future if Ritter took the job.
Ritter's consultancy is little more than a paper shuffle financed by Toyota and Publicis to placate GM. GM has more than $375 million in ad and PR billings at Publicis in the U.S. Toyota has more than $600 million with the agency.
Publicis has been on shaky ground with GM in recent years. The agency was told last year it would lose the Cadillac business if it didn't hire better creative talent for the business, which it did. And its Pontiac work has been openly criticized by GM product boss Bob Lutz. "Either they (Publicis) didn't value our business, or were too stupid to know that we would be angry about this, and either way, they put themselves in a hole," said one high-ranking GM executive on Tuesday.
Ritter worked for GM for over 30 years. As Toyota ramps up and gets serious about selling more than 300,000 Tundra pickups a year after a new plant is built in San Antonio, Texas and increasing its SUV production, Ritter's storehouse of knowledge about dealers, local and regional markets and GM's own product plan will be invaluable to Toyota as it tries to get taken more seriously by hardcore truck buyers and grab share from GM.
Though his work for Toyota has been billed as shaping "overall marketing direction," Ritter, in fact, is not considered a strong marketing mind inside GM. He inherited the "Like A Rock" brand positioning for Chevy trucks and only in the last year showed signs of fixing a Chevy passenger car marketing plan that was as bollixed as its product plan. It was Ritter, for example, who insisted the Malibu name, for example, be carried on a new vehicle built on GM Epsilon architecture, launching this fall, that is far superior to the existing Malibu. And the "We'll be There" advertising for Chevy passenger cars took two years to generate any laudatory work. Chevy has been an also-ran to Toyota in the car market with an aging Cavalier, an imageless Malibu and an overachieving Impala. But Chevy will launch 9 new models in the next 20 months. —Jim Burt
06-25-2003, 07:33 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
How is going to a competitor equivalent to being a traitor? Last time I checked, that's how a free market works - the possibility that I might walk next door to a competitor will hopefully compel my employer to keep me happy.
06-25-2003, 08:03 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
How is going to a competitor equivalent to being a traitor? Last time I checked, that's how a free market works - the possibility that I might walk next door to a competitor will hopefully compel my employer to keep me happy.
How is going to a competitor equivalent to being a traitor? Last time I checked, that's how a free market works - the possibility that I might walk next door to a competitor will hopefully compel my employer to keep me happy.
06-25-2003, 08:57 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hebron, KY
Posts: 1,724
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
How is going to a competitor equivalent to being a traitor? Last time I checked, that's how a free market works - the possibility that I might walk next door to a competitor will hopefully compel my employer to keep me happy.
How is going to a competitor equivalent to being a traitor? Last time I checked, that's how a free market works - the possibility that I might walk next door to a competitor will hopefully compel my employer to keep me happy.
06-25-2003, 10:31 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Weare, NH
Posts: 240
Guys, its not whats someone has the abilty to do, its all about business and moral ethics.
Now, i see this issue under two lights.
1. Someone leaves a company on their own, to work for a direct competitor. This is wrong.
2. Someone is fired, then goes to work for a direct competitor. This is fine.
The fact that Ritter is making such a stink about working for Toyota irks me as well. It just doesn't seem very ethical.
Now, i see this issue under two lights.
1. Someone leaves a company on their own, to work for a direct competitor. This is wrong.
2. Someone is fired, then goes to work for a direct competitor. This is fine.
The fact that Ritter is making such a stink about working for Toyota irks me as well. It just doesn't seem very ethical.
06-25-2003, 10:46 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Originally posted by Mervz
Guys, its not whats someone has the abilty to do, its all about business and moral ethics.
Now, i see this issue under two lights.
1. Someone leaves a company on their own, to work for a direct competitor. This is wrong.
2. Someone is fired, then goes to work for a direct competitor. This is fine.
The fact that Ritter is making such a stink about working for Toyota irks me as well. It just doesn't seem very ethical.
Guys, its not whats someone has the abilty to do, its all about business and moral ethics.
Now, i see this issue under two lights.
1. Someone leaves a company on their own, to work for a direct competitor. This is wrong.
2. Someone is fired, then goes to work for a direct competitor. This is fine.
The fact that Ritter is making such a stink about working for Toyota irks me as well. It just doesn't seem very ethical.
Also what did he do in his time at Chevy? Over saw making the brand the most boring in the country. Sure he didn't have his hands many of the decisions, but none the less he was short of noteworthy or outstanding.
Also just because he "was a fan of a new Camaro" doesn't mean crap untill you produce. Also for the record his replacement at Chevy is also a big Camaro fan and has said so in interviews. I think everyone wants a new Camaro at GM, but the need to do it correctly and not at the expense of core products takes precedence here. That is why the Camaro is last in the pipline of the new RWD cars. GM has it's long term financial viability on the line right now with its upcoming core products. If these products fail to gain market share and the stock market stays in the can it's pension plan will eat it alive and bankrupt it.
end rant
06-25-2003, 10:46 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
If I'm not mistaken, GM at the moment is chock full of people brought in by GM itself from other companies in design, engineering, manufacturing as well as marketing.
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets. Anything Kurt Ritter may have on GM is most likely bound by confidentality contracts that resulted from that episode.
Also, BEFORE we start labeling somone, and turning against them, I think we should remember, if it wasn't for Kurt Ritter, we wouldn't have a Camaro in the pipeline, and we wouldn't have a RWD sedan pending at Chevrolet.
If it was up to GM (as a whole), your Camaro today would be a derivitive of the Chevrolet Malibu.
No...I'm not kidding.
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets. Anything Kurt Ritter may have on GM is most likely bound by confidentality contracts that resulted from that episode.
Also, BEFORE we start labeling somone, and turning against them, I think we should remember, if it wasn't for Kurt Ritter, we wouldn't have a Camaro in the pipeline, and we wouldn't have a RWD sedan pending at Chevrolet.
If it was up to GM (as a whole), your Camaro today would be a derivitive of the Chevrolet Malibu.
No...I'm not kidding.
Last edited by guionM; 06-25-2003 at 10:49 AM.
06-25-2003, 11:38 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 1,215
The guy got stiffed for a promotion, and he decided to quit. How do we know he would give Toyota any inside dirt on GM? Bottom line is we don't, and as stated Mr. Ritter is most likely bound by contract to not disclose details of future products.
06-25-2003, 11:40 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Weare, NH
Posts: 240
Originally posted by guionM
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets. Anything Kurt Ritter may have on GM is most likely bound by confidentality contracts that resulted from that episode.
[/B]
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets. Anything Kurt Ritter may have on GM is most likely bound by confidentality contracts that resulted from that episode.
[/B]
06-25-2003, 12:59 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
Originally posted by guionM
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets.
It's not like the guy who left GM's purchasing department some years ago, went to Volkswagen, and essentially sold out GM's secrets.
I don't see a problem with going to a competitor, especially not by the time you get to the OEM level. I mean, where else in the business world would you fit in? This sort of shuffling is pretty typical, and can definitely be healthy for all the parties involved over the long term.
06-25-2003, 01:58 PM
#13
Disciple
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Originally posted by Sixer-Bird
The guy got stiffed for a promotion, and he decided to quit. How do we know he would give Toyota any inside dirt on GM? Bottom line is we don't, and as stated Mr. Ritter is most likely bound by contract to not disclose details of future products.
The guy got stiffed for a promotion, and he decided to quit. How do we know he would give Toyota any inside dirt on GM? Bottom line is we don't, and as stated Mr. Ritter is most likely bound by contract to not disclose details of future products.
Now if a bigwig at Toyota defected to GM ......
06-25-2003, 02:00 PM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Originally posted by jg95z28
Why? It's not like Toyota is going to bring back the Camaro.
Why? It's not like Toyota is going to bring back the Camaro.
GM arguably has a technological lead here with 4 wheel steering, displacement on demand, ect. If he gives Toyota warning on when these new features are gonna be introduced Toyota could match GM taking away percieved advantage.
06-25-2003, 02:53 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
Originally posted by guionM
Also, BEFORE we start labeling somone, and turning against them, I think we should remember, if it wasn't for Kurt Ritter, we wouldn't have a Camaro in the pipeline, and we wouldn't have a RWD sedan pending at Chevrolet.
If it was up to GM (as a whole), your Camaro today would be a derivitive of the Chevrolet Malibu.
No...I'm not kidding.
Also, BEFORE we start labeling somone, and turning against them, I think we should remember, if it wasn't for Kurt Ritter, we wouldn't have a Camaro in the pipeline, and we wouldn't have a RWD sedan pending at Chevrolet.
If it was up to GM (as a whole), your Camaro today would be a derivitive of the Chevrolet Malibu.
No...I'm not kidding.