Obama Administration: Chrysler's Marketing budget will be halved

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
THE CHRYSLER BANKRUPTCY

Obama halves Chrysler's planned marketing budget
Lesson for GM: U.S. will have plenty of influence


Advertising Age
May 11, 2009 - 11:01 am ET

DETROIT -- Chrysler wanted to spend $134 million in advertising over the nine weeks it is expected to be in bankruptcy. The U.S. Treasury's auto industry task force gave it half that.

So if General Motors, which is wrestling with the possibility of a Chapter 11 filing itself, is wondering how much influence the task force will have over marketing, the answer is plenty. Transcripts from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which is hearing the Chrysler case, showed that the task force at least understands that advertising is a necessary expense -- even if it doesn't think Chrysler needs $134 million for nine weeks of car ads.

Robert Manzo, executive director of Capstone Advisory Group and a consultant to Chrysler, testified at a May 4 hearing that the task force "believed that it was not feasible to not spend anything on marketing and advertising for fear of eroding the image of the brand," during the company's bankruptcy. Manzo also testified that this "hotly discussed" matter resulted in the task force basically slashing in half the amount Chrysler wanted for advertising in the period.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Gonzalez then asked the witness: "Idle plants; why market?" referring to Chrysler's shutdown of its factories for nine weeks.

"The belief on all sides was that it was essential for Chrysler not to lose its brand image in the marketplace," Manzo testified. "Advertising and marketing dollars are critical to make sure the right message is out there about Chrysler, what's happening to Chrysler during this interim period and why Chrysler will be a brand going forward that is one that a consumer should continue to look at as one of their purchase opportunities."

Chrysler's national campaign

Indeed, that's what the automaker is attempting with the national TV campaign from BBDO, Detroit, that's running in prime time on ABC, NBC and Fox to try to calm consumers' fears about the future of its Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler vehicles.

The first of two 30-second spots is dubbed "Bright Future," and it refers to Chrysler's reorganization and alliance with Fiat S.p.A. that will build a "meaner and leaner" company for the future. The push is a departure for Chrysler, which earlier this year cut network broadcast out of its budget in favor of more inexpensively priced local TV.

Steven Landry, Chrysler's executive vice president of sales and marketing, said in a statement that the effort "gives us the opportunity to reinforce that it's business as usual and demonstrate a bright future ahead for Chrysler."

That sentiment struck a discordant note with some readers of Automotive News' sister publication Advertising Age after a story on the campaign was published on AdAge.com.

"Business as usual? Isn't that what got American car companies in trouble in the first place? Business as usual gave us cars no one wanted to buy, zero innovation, outdated labor practices and a lot of taxpayer money thrown in to keep a sinking ship from going under," commented Jeff from Boston. "How about some unusual business -- like a successful American car company?"

Bargain hunters

Consideration for Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles on Edmunds.com did jump 15 percent in the days after the company filed for bankruptcy April 30, the auto site reported.

But news of the filing attracted buyers looking for rock-bottom sticker prices. Dealers said customers made "outrageously low offers" for Chrysler vehicles expecting them to take any price, Edmunds said. The consideration boom lasted only five days and is now back to previous levels in spite of Chrysler's new incentive program, which can add up to $6,000 per new vehicle purchased through June 1.

While Chrysler's filing lists BBDO as its second-largest unsecured creditor, owed $58.1 million, one executive close to the matter said the agency will be paid. The executive said the auto task force agreed to Chrysler's plan to give the ad agency "critical supplier" status, which moves it up the payment list. A Chrysler spokeswoman declined to confirm that information. An auto task force representative did not respond to calls for comment.

As Chrysler prepares to spend the $67 million the task force approved, GM is cutting back as it tries to slim down to satisfy a June 1 deadline set by the task force. Few, however, believe GM can avoid following Chrysler into bankruptcy court, and GM CEO Fritz Henderson said on a conference call today that bankruptcy is becoming more probable.

Reduced spending

GM reduced ad spending "some" in the first quarter, CFO Ray Young said after the automaker's report last week of a $6 billion net loss in the period. He noted on a conference call that GM is closely following Chrysler's procedures "in case we have to go through it."

Charts that GM shared on its investor Web site during the call show $300 million of the $3.1 billion in spending it cut globally in the first quarter was in advertising. Although the figure was worldwide, most of the slicing likely happened in North America since the region accounted for nearly half GM's total loss. GM told the United States it will trim $800 million from advertising this year.

A GM spokeswoman declined to comment. GM's Young said talk of bankruptcy has already had "a lot of impact" on the market although he was unable to quantify how much of GM's first-quarter market-share loss was directly tied to that. GM said its North American share fell to 17.9 percent from 21.7 percent a year earlier.

Said Young: "We just need to get out of the front page of the newspaper every day, and get this thing behind us."

So, not only does Obama now have control of Chrysler, it is now telling it what to do with what money... Awesome free market we have
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Phokus

$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

QFT! :thumbsup:
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Phokus
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

ill give you the benefit of the doubt since i had originally said 'Ad" in the title, however it is the marketing budget... which while ads are marketing, all marketing is not ads... marketing is basically key to any and all recovery possibility...
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

You're only begging the question - why did we bail out this sorry-@ss company again? Money.com states dealers still have over 36,000(!) unsold '08 models, and over 286,000 '09s awaiting buyers. The market has clearly spoken on Chrysler products - almost no one wants them! It's so smart the feds are putting our money into this pig.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: OCguy
Viva Chavez!

No shit. The worst thing you can do when a company is in trouble is slash marketing.

-edit-
It's like Obama purposefullly wants these industries to fail, only then can he gain control of them.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

Yeah dont want to advertise or anything. Nothing sells better than not letting people know about your products. The advertising and marketing industry has it all wrong and has since its inception. Coke became a household name by word of mouth alone!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
The issue is not whether $134 million is the correct amount for marketing/advertising, the issue is government control of decision-making in an area where they have no experience or competence.

I don't see how this is in any way the business of the government. I don't see where they get this 'power' from. It certainly isn't in the Constitution unless somebody just found something in there that's been missing for over 200 years.

Really, the government is way out of their league:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Gonzalez then asked the witness: "Idle plants; why market?" referring to Chrysler's shutdown of its factories for nine weeks.

Why market when your plants are idle?

Are you freakin kidding me?

Marketing is what will get the plants back in business again.

Marketing is critical now (among other things).

The judge has it backwards (and Jeebus are lawyers notorious for being bad businesspeople). If your plants are running at full capacity and you can't keep up with demand, asking why more markering is needed is a good question. But not when your plants are idle.

Fern
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

Yeah dont want to advertise or anything. Nothing sells better than not letting people know about your products. The advertising and marketing industry has it all wrong and has since its inception. Coke became a household name by word of mouth alone!

Uh, well, to be fair, us knowing about Chrysler products didn't exactly make us buy them either.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
$134 million over 9 weeks, that sure does sound like a good use of money for a company in bankruptcy.

And didn't we give them a bailout? Your damn well right we can tell them what to do.

Yeah dont want to advertise or anything. Nothing sells better than not letting people know about your products. The advertising and marketing industry has it all wrong and has since its inception. Coke became a household name by word of mouth alone!

Depends on the market campaign.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

What are you complaining about? A lot of us wanted nature to take its course months ago but people said they were too big to fail. So the govt inserts itself into the situation and it is immune from criticism? None of this would be happening if the govt didnt get involved and squander billions in the first place.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,335
45,738
136
Originally posted by: Fern
The issue is not whether $134 million is the correct amount for marketing/advertising, the issue is government control of decision-making in an area where they have no experience or competence.

I don't see how this is in any way the business of the government. I don't see where they get this 'power' from. It certainly isn't in the Constitution unless somebody just found something in there that's been missing for over 200 years.

Really, the government is way out of their league:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Gonzalez then asked the witness: "Idle plants; why market?" referring to Chrysler's shutdown of its factories for nine weeks.

Why market when your plants are idle?

Are you freakin kidding me?

Marketing is what will get the plants back in business again.

Marketing is critical now (among other things).

The judge has it backwards (and Jeebus are lawyers notorious for being bad businesspeople). If your plants are running at full capacity and you can't keep up with demand, asking why more markering is needed is a good question. But not when your plants are idle.

Fern

Yea, he would have done better to ask how many days worth of inventory they're already sitting on at present sales levels (I'm guessing quite a few).

It is within the government's right to do thigh though since they're providing the financing.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I don't think Obama has a freaking clue on this economy. He's flailing around like a fish out of water. Would be nice to have a President who actually had experience as an executive because maybe he would actually understand the impact of his decisions.
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I don't think Obama has a freaking clue on this economy. He's flailing around like a fish out of water. Would be nice to have a President who actually had experience as an executive because maybe he would actually understand the impact of his decisions.

Yeah, like Bush! And all of the companies he bankrupted as CEO!

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I don't think Obama has a freaking clue on this economy. He's flailing around like a fish out of water. Would be nice to have a President who actually had experience as an executive because maybe he would actually understand the impact of his decisions.

Yeah, like Bush! And all of the companies he bankrupted as CEO!

So what you are saying is our last two presidents were failed business men or lacking executive experience?

No wonder we are up shit creek without a paddle about to tip over the shit waterfall.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,881
55,117
136
Fern it's pretty simple, the US is one of the primary shareholders. That's where they get the power from. The government owning shares in a company is most certainly constitutional, why would you say that it wasnt?

Not only that but when faced with tough times marketing is usually one of the FIRST areas any company cuts. That's pretty common knowledge. So who is really out of their league here?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

If by fools you mean politicians, I agree. It amazes me that anyone would have confidence in Congress to run a business. 98% of these morons have never worked outside of politics, how can anyone have any confidence in them to run an automobile company?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

What are you complaining about? A lot of us wanted nature to take its course months ago but people said they were too big to fail. So the govt inserts itself into the situation and it is immune from criticism? None of this would be happening if the govt didnt get involved and squander billions in the first place.

The company wasn't ready at that point. The govt was nothing more than a bridge lender. Pretty common position.
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

If by fools you mean politicians, I agree. It amazes me that anyone would have confidence in Congress to run a business. 98% of these morons have never worked outside of politics, how can anyone have any confidence in them to run an automobile company?

I like making up statistics to support my nonsensical ideas too.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Fern it's pretty simple, the US is one of the primary shareholders. That's where they get the power from. The government owning shares in a company is most certainly constitutional, why would you say that it wasnt?

Not only that but when faced with tough times marketing is usually one of the FIRST areas any company cuts. That's pretty common knowledge. So who is really out of their league here?

name me one company where a shareholder comes in and dictates budgets? There isn't one. The company's management does that. If management isn't doing their job then the board, through the authority of the shareholders, removes management. But, the shareholder doesn't come in and start dictating spending.

What else is this single shareholder going to do? Start logging supplies? Cut out the coffee vendor? Do year-end reviews of the employees?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

If by fools you mean politicians, I agree. It amazes me that anyone would have confidence in Congress to run a business. the majority of these morons have never worked outside of politics, how can anyone have any confidence in them to run an automobile company?

I like making up statistics to support my nonsensical ideas too.

fixed for the literal readers.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh for fucks sake. The US Taxpayer is the *only* reason why Chrysler is in operation, it is the *only* reason why it is still worth anything more than bargain basement liquidation value. It is in bankruptcy, and, as the primary creditor, it has the ability to direct actions.

Gotta love fools who have no idea about how businesses run.

What are you complaining about? A lot of us wanted nature to take its course months ago but people said they were too big to fail. So the govt inserts itself into the situation and it is immune from criticism? None of this would be happening if the govt didnt get involved and squander billions in the first place.

The company wasn't ready at that point. The govt was nothing more than a bridge lender. Pretty common position.

Ready for what? Bankruptcy? Since when does the market wait around for a company to be ready?

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,335
45,738
136
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Fern it's pretty simple, the US is one of the primary shareholders. That's where they get the power from. The government owning shares in a company is most certainly constitutional, why would you say that it wasnt?

Not only that but when faced with tough times marketing is usually one of the FIRST areas any company cuts. That's pretty common knowledge. So who is really out of their league here?

name me one company where a shareholder comes in and dictates budgets? There isn't one. The company's management does that. If management isn't doing their job then the board, through the authority of the shareholders, removes management. But, the shareholder doesn't come in and start dictating spending.

What else is this single shareholder going to do? Start logging supplies? Cut out the coffee vendor? Do year-end reviews of the employees?

I don't see why major expenditures couldn't be subject to lender approval during the bankruptcy process.