Car News Articles

As readers of our General Motors Death Watch know, GM e-rotweiler and junket dispenser Christopher Barger thinks TTAC is WAY too negative. At least we’re not double negative. Check out the Director of GM Global Communications Technology’s response to a CNBC poll. Phil LeBeau asked readers to choose one of four culprits– management, unions, SUVaphilia or Toyondissan– for GM’s sagging stock price and rapidly declining fortunes. Barger sent a “now hold on a god damn minute” email to LeBeau which tells us exactly how GM’s spinning their [death] spiral: it’s the economy, stupid. “In fact, these economic headwinds are taking their toll on virtually every American business and industry — and consumers from all walks of life too. Singling out one company for criticism when the entire economy is struggling seems a bit unfair, don’t you think? It’s kind of like blaming one person for being out of work when unemployment is on the rise.” (Tell that to Honda.) There’s a lot of B.S. to wade through, from GM strengthening its brands, to the fact that the automaker sells eight (count ‘em eight) hybrids, to “our products can go toe-to-toe with anything on the market today.” Barger’s central message: fuck the past. “I think it’s more constructive to look forward and to try to continue improving things, don’t you?” As the old saying goes, those who don’t learn from history have a bright future in corporate PR.

CNBC »

7 Responses to “
GM Blog Cop: “I’m not saying we haven’t made some mistakes” ”

• Nemphre :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  10:37 pm

  No surprise here. Barger is a PR man. This means he deals in bullshit. Bullshit is his life. It’s his way of living. It also means that to any legitimate news medium or rational human being, whatever he says has zero value.

• holydonut :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  10:39 pm

  This gets me thinking… I remember a time when Mazda blamed their misfortunes on the Japanese Financial Crisis and weak markets during the 90s.

  If this site were around then; imagine the “Mazda Deathwatch” pieces that would have been batted around. Mazda had a few low volume niche cars, a lot of low margin and uninspiring pedestrian cars, and a slew of mismanaged sub-brand s. From 1995 on the company just got hammered with one bad decision after another. It took Ford coming in to save them.

  Imagine what would have happened if the PR folks for Mazda weren’t around in the late 90s. Somebody had to still perceive value in the company… so it’s important for PR to continue its role even if it is a load of fluff. Their goal isn’t to tell you the truth; their goal is to keep their company going. In the 90s, these guys proclaimed Mazda’s excellence at powertrain and chassis development, and they’d vocally blamed externalities beyond the company’s control.

  So who’s going to come in and save Ford? Anyway, I think it’d be fun to do a what-if time machine where ya’ll write about how bad Mazda was as a business and how stupid their management was back in the 90s.

• Robert Farago :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  10:46 pm

  holydonut:

  Imagine what would have happened if the PR folks for Mazda weren’t around in the late 90s. Somebody had to still perceive value in the company… so it’s important for PR to continue its role even if it is a load of fluff.

  Spoken like a true spinmeister. You WANT me to lie! You NEED me to lie! If I don’t lie, hundreds of thousands of people can’t put food on their table.

  A company that tells the truth– both internally and externally– avoid dangerous self-delusion AND earns credibility/loyalty it can use when times are tough. Ford MAY be learning that lesson. GM? No.

• Dan8000rpm :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  10:49 pm

  Read the first sentence from RF then Nemphre’s post. He may have a point….

• holydonut :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  10:56 pm

  RF: Yes, Ford needs people to lie on their behalf and they pay out the nose to get that service. It’s all about maintaining the notion the company isn’t going to go tits up next week. At a basic level, it makes sure on-the-fence consumers somewhat confident that the company isn’t going to leave them with a Merkur or Renault that cannot get warranty work.

  At a more important business level, it makes sure banks continue to lend them money; that their employees actually still try; and that investors still perceive some value in Ford’s assets.

  If you ran a business that relied on delivering consumer goods, you’d need a pretty fluff-filled PR staff as well. If your business relies on the failure of other businesses - well - your PR staff is probably less important.

• Robert Farago :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  11:01 pm

  holydonut:

  If your business relies on the failure of other businesses - well - your PR staff is probably less important.

  My business depends on telling the truth about cars.

  I do NOT accept that lies/outrageous spin are an acceptable part of doing business. They may be normal and predictable, but that does not make them right, or even tolerable.

  While you’re free to disagree, this being America and all, I believe consumers deserve the truth. Besides, a sense of morality– fairness, honesty, integrity– makes good business sense in this country. And thank God for that.

• holydonut :
  
  
  June 1st, 2008 at
  11:20 pm

  Personally, I believe 100% truth is a bit idealistic. And adhering to this ideal will result in a situation where you become a martyr to prove a point that is exposes a weakness of the human condition.

  Even if deep down in your heart feel that your company’s pizza is merely average, would you have a slogan that says “we make average pizza” in place of “world’s tastiest pizza?” A advertising campaign with th message “we’re #4 in the industry and damn proud” really doesn’t get the right point across to the audience. Sure, some people will value your honesty - but most will just think you’re stupid.

  I’ve said it a few times in comments before, but I think there’s a huge amount of value to be had with industry and business experience. I find it repeated numerous times that the “truth” is what is intuitively correct and rationalized. But there is almost impossible to operate a business by telling truths all the time. While I believe a Utopian ideal would allow creditability to offset a default on debt, the real world thus far doesn’t allow it.

  And besides - no matter how much you believe in your message, somebody will label you as a liar. How many times has Toyota verbalized a commitment to the environment only to have people accuse them of touting inefficient technologies with negative externalities in order to get credit for for some HOV exemptions in California? Same goes with Nissan believing they have the best sports car under 100K only to have ‘Vette vans decrying all the electronics on the car.

Leave a Reply Back to Top

You must be logged in to post a comment.