GM was the leading Advertiser in 1999. They spent more on advertising then Ford and Diamler Chrysler COMBINED. Says so in my friends sociology book. GM actually has a marketing division. Pretty interesting considering many here (including me) blamed the lack of advertising for the f-bods death.

1999 Top 10 Advertisers in Advertising Dollars (In Millions)

1. GM----------------------------4, 040
2. Procter & Gamble--------- 2,612
3. Phillip Morries-------------- 2,202
4. Pfizer------------------------ 2,142
5. AT&T-------------------------1,951
6. Daimler Chrylser---------- 1,804
7. Ford--------------------------1,640
8. Sears-------------------------1,505
9. PepsiCo----------------------1,316
10. Verizon Communications--1,313

Now here's my question, which is REALLY to blame, lack of Camaro sales or GM's lack of advertisement? one thing my friend told me was how his teacher told him that if a commercial isn't having the kind of positive affect it was supposed to be having, it is pulled OFF. Dispite a few commercial attempts by GM, sales of the f-bod didn't really increase. That probably has lead them to give up on spending advertising $$$$ on the f-bods cause they probably saw it as $$$$ not well spent or a lost cause. Keep in mind that they are a business.

What's your take on this?

 

So in '99 GM spent FOUR BILLION (with a "B") dollars on adveritising with dubious effectiveness....but had no money to spend on cars.

 

Does that list include all marketing dollars spent, or just on advertising? I ask this because you can count GM's sponsored "Buick Classic" golf tournaments as marketing tools, but aren't really advertising, per say. I, however, would be inclined to think that it is included in the tally. And as such, GM DOES sponsor alot more sporting events than the other manufacturers do. (As opposed to traditional print/media advertising).

One thing that is crucial to any advertising campaign is REPETITION. A company must continue to bombard would-be consumers with advertising, print, televesion, whatever..over and over. I saw none of this with the Camaro in any specific market. You do, however, see those damn Impala commercials every 10 seconds. Especially the ones with that idiot who's father "had one just like this in the 60's." Guess it wasn't too bad of a marketing ploy, I still remember the damn thing.

Among the other millions of things described on this board in great depth, advertising (or lack there of) was definitely a leading contributor to the demise of the f-body.

Look at the marketing blitz Nissan is doing for their 350Z....and look how good the commericals are. I dont even own one (or even like them), but they almost make me want to own a new one since they show a kind of close-knit relationship of all the years.
And while Im on that topic...every time that commercial comes on I must yell out to my roomates that there is only one "Z"..and it has the numbers 2 and 8 after it.

Just my $.02

-Rich

 

As said before when they advertised the cars they sold. they had good sales numbers in 94 and 95. Beating the Mustang in 94 and 97. Advertisement stopped in 98 and that was when sales fell dramatically.

 

I think it's marketing as whole.

I did a search on advertising alone and got $2,876,242,400 for GM in 1999. That's $2.876 billion. That's on Tv, radio, newspaper, and magazines ads alone. GM still ranks 1st in this category among parent companies. Some other annual figures for GM. In 2000 it was $2.931 billion and in 2001 $2.188 billion. So far, for the 1st half of 2002 they were at $1.126 Billion dollars. If the 2nd half continues at this same pace, it'd be around $2.252 billion by december.

Some BIG advertising $$$$ being spent by GM. Total marketing $$$ would probably be closer to that $4 billion figure.

 

Let's also not forget that GM is bigger than all those companies so it stands to reason that they spend more. I do believe that they were the largest corporation in the world for many years up until last year when Walmart surpased them.

 

True. But also consider the many redundant makes and models they have that other corporations do not. For example, they had only to advertise the mustang, but GM had to advertise both Camaro and Firebird. Ford has to advertise the Focus. GM - Cavalier and Sunfire. Ford - the Taurus and Sable. GM - Impala, Grand Prix, Aurora, Grand Am, Alero, Regal, etc. Then add in the mostly redundant Saturn division and the entirely redundant GMC division and you've got some big advertising bucks...

While that many models may have been good for GM in the past - it now puts an unnecessary drain on their bank account. That money could be used on newer and better products.

Really, would anyone miss GMC?

 

Well, I truely like the different divisions and thier own take on a platform, or type of car. This is true as long as they differentiate the models enough to not be redundant. I love the fact that you can have a Firebird or Camaro with much different styling in and out. As far as GMC, I would miss the Danali brands and the Envoy. GM has done a much better job recently in making thse models different than Chevy's. Five years ago, there really was no point of GMC, but I think that has changed now.

 

If you look at where the VW group is moving, maybe "division" marketing isn't dead. Consider that Volkswagen has VW, Seat, Skoda and Audi as mainstream brands. Moreover, they seem to be serious about perpetuating Bentley, Lamborgini and Bugatti - with a possible tie-up with Porsche. Has Ferdinand Piech gotten it totally wrong - don't bet on it!

That said, the problem with "division marketing," as practiced by GM, is the utter lack of vision in their advertising. With the possible exception of the "Wide-Track" promotion at Pontiac, I haven't seem a coherent message from GM in years.

 

I agree with Sneaky, GM has been working hard to get out of the bad habit it developed in the 80's, where its brands basically started pumping out the exact same cars to an ignorant public who didn't know what was going on. The public smartened up and stopped buying their redundant crap so GM now is differentiating their brands, thats where the whole 'GMC Professional Grade' commercials came from, I mean do you really think Chevy trucks are any less professional grade than GMCs? No, but at least they look different and are coming with some different options now. I think it will get better with Lutz.

 

Yeah, but how much advertising was put into the CAMARO???

 

Yeah, but if they really got rid of GMC and made those options available on Chevy trucks, would anyone miss GMC? Would those customers go elsewhere? probably not. Then they could use that money in PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT instead of marketing something redundant and supporting a dealer network for it. What if they used that money to make Chevy Trucks the best in the world by far? What if they used it on a Camaro? What if they used it to finally redesign the Cavalier?

BTW, VW is in trouble in europe. They are competing with themselves too much. Seat, Skoda, VW and Audi all offer similar cars in a comparable price range.

 

GM could learn ALOT from DODGE as far as advertising vehicles. I have only seen 1 or 2 camaro commercials my whole life, along with a couple firehawk commercials..

 

It doesn't matter how much GM spends... if none of it goes towards promoting the F-body.

 

Intresting take WERM. Why does GM have both GMC & Chevrolet Trucks?

One can also expand that question farther: Why does GM have Saturn and Malibu and Cavalier at Chevrolet? Isn't Saturn's cars taking the same direction that Chevrolet's once did? Why is does Pontiac need a Grand Prix and a Bonneville that beyond styling is identical and aims for the same buyer?

There is alot of things I don't understand about GM's marketing, and how GM can continue to make multiple vehicles that basically overlap or canabalize each other.