Save the Foxnews bashing BS.


Thats not relavent to the facts at hand. Take into consideration that all media, all governmental representation is in some way "biased". Whether it's idealogy, politics, power or money that simple fact does nothing to discount the facts of the story in this case.



People are right to be critical. It's a PRIVATELY traded company owned by a hedge fund that got tax payer money. The thankyou is a nice gesture but a ridiculous use of ANY money at this point.

It's bad PR, nothing more.

 

Exactly.

If they had taken out a full page ad to tout the new Challenger / some other model, would that be OK?

Ad money is always in the budget. So they chose to advertise in a slightly different way this time. Big deal.

 

Yes, at least there would be a point to the money spent.

Do you think the mission was accomplished? I've yet to hear anyone say this was a good use of funds, or even a good idea.

 

This advertisement was a ridiculous waste of my money and the amount is not nearly as important as the poor decision this ad represents.

Any company that accepts taxpayer dollars ought to expect and deserves to be and I hope are put under a magnifying glass when it comes to how those dollars are spent.

I also think that the source of information should be less relevant here than the accuracy of the information and as far as I can tell, the information in this case is accurate.

At least, that’s how I see it.

 

Evidently it did not get the reaction they wanted, but that doesn't mean it was a "waste" of the government loan money. It was simply an (apparently) unsuccessful ad.

What about when a company sponsors the broadcast of a sporting event? "This halftime report brought to you by: <insert company name>" and so forth. They aren't pushing a specific product sometimes, just getting the company name out there. In this case, marketing apparently thought it would be a nice gesture to thank the American people for giving a damn about the company, getting the company's name out there in what was meant to be a positive light.

It seems that for many people, the ad failed at that (the positive part). But the ad still served a purpose...

 

To put it in perspective,

even if the cost of the ads was $50,000,000 ($50M)

out of $4,000,000,000 ($4 Billion)

that's only 1.25% of the entire bailout to gain just a smidge of positive PR. If Chrysler only spent $300k like the original thread specified, that's .0075% of the entire bailout.

Because we're taxpayers, we expect that Chrysler switch to single-ply TP, close down half their bathroom stalls, take away things like free drip coffee and sugar packets out of employee break rooms, and otherwise make Mother Teresa's life look lavish...That's not the case. Chrysler is a BIG company, and even though the concept is foreign to us, sometimes companies have to spend a little to get a little. Employees need to be kept happy, the lights need to be bright enough for people to work, things still need to function, and there has to be communication with the public.

How many of us felt so sorry for GM that we thought we might go out and buy a new/car truck? Do you think it's more than 20 people across the entire country? Maybe 2000 people?

To recover $300k in revenue, they'd need to sell about 21 cars priced at an average of $18,000. To recover $50M in revenue, they'd need to sell 2778 cars at an average price of $18,000. Not that hard when you consider their annual sales of vehicles is over 100,000. That's about 3%.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong what they did--but there are a lot of people on here that really don't understand big business (successful or unsuccessful ones) and taking into account things like opportunity cost, advertising, PR, and how "little" some expenses really are, even though they're big enough to buy a couple of really nice houses. The advertising is an operational cost, and it's probably a better move than issuing another set of ads for a single vehicle that's not selling well anyway.

 

Agreed ^^

 

OK. I'll buy that.

I'm still pissed at Fox for backing Senator Shelby's stance against US automakers, so anything they publish that unfairly bashes them, I want to know their source.

So far their record is unimpressive.

 

I have yet to see more than a couple of people complain.

Man, I'm sure glad that the bank that lent me money for my mortgage isn't demanding that I run all expenditures other than bread and water by them first.

 

I don't remember them doing that. Are you one of those people that never watches Fox News, but forms an opinion of them from what CNBC says about them?

 

I’ve found that Fox usually tries the hardest to present both sides of an issue and to give a voice to the left and the right. Many of their staff are conservative but not all of them. What I find useful is that you don’t have to guess at what direction they are coming from.

I do think some people watch Fox News shows and assume that whatever some guest says about an issue is how the network feels or assumes that one host speaks for the entire network.

 

Blah..everyone is so senstive anymore. I mean normally I kinda roll my eyes when people pick at stuff like this..but in reality it is dumb. I mean..the average person would see the ad, roll their eyes and be like WTF?

 

This is a sensitve time for many. When a worker is laid off then hears that companies that are receiving corporate welfare are using it for things like Executive trips, golden parachutes and executive bonuses disguised as retention pay, many are going to be upset. The backlash against the automakers is a part of that, unfair or not. Things like this might not have received scruitiny in the past, but times have changed.

 

The automotive bailout turned out be be a classic "smoke filled room" deal, so I question the wisdom of thanking people who had nothing to do with it.

 

EXACTLY.


What do we say soooooooooo often here in this forum?

"Perception is reality!"

Well....the perception here is that Chrysler just WASTED a LOT of moeny a few days after begging for money to stay alive.