GM, IN PROTEST, PULLS ADS FROM L.A. TIMES
April 8, 2005
In what may go down as one of the most conspicuous moves by a car manufacturer against a major media outlet, General Motors Corporation has pulled all of its advertising from Tribune Company's Los Angeles Times for the foreseeable future, according to a report in today's Wall Street Journal. Brian Steinberg and Joseph Hallinan of the Journal say it is in response to a series of articles about General Motors that have appeared in the Times' Wednesday section, "Highway 1."
At the heart of the issue are "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," GM spokeswoman Ryndee Carney told the Journal. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private," she said.
"As a general policy, we don't do this," she added. "It's very, very rare that we would do this."
Carney declined to specify the amount of money at issue, citing competitive reasons. The Journal contact the Tribune, who also declined to disclose a figure. "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us," the spokesman said.
That didn't stop the Journal from speculating, however. "One person familiar with the advertising industry said the amount is perceived by people in the industry as 'highly significant' and that the action is seen as punitive." A media buyer, speaking generally to the Journal, said the amount would likely be in excess of $10 million.
The Journal reports that the auto maker spent about $2.8 billion on media time and space for advertising in 2004, according to TNS Media Intelligence. That figure includes ads for television, cable, newspapers and other media platforms.
"As GM has struggled to stop losing market share in the U.S., executives there have stepped up the volume of their complaints about negative press. Leading that offensive is Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, who chastised reporters at the New York Auto Show last month, and has taken media critics to task in his Web log," report Steinberg and Hallinan.
In his Wednesday column, "Rumble Seat," Los Angeles Times automotive writer Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions. "GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad," wrote Mr. Neil, who also called for the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner.
Dan Neil won a Pulitzer Prize for critical writing last year in "Rumble Seat." He is the only automotive journalist to have won the coveted award.
This is not the first time an auto maker has pulled advertisements in protest to critical writing by a publication. It may be, however, the largest of its kind. Toyota pulled one year's worth of ads from Motor Trend magazine, in protest to an article it perceived to be overly critical of the Toyota Supra. After Car and Driver magazine described the 1969 Shelby Mustang GT500 as "a Thunderbird for Hells Angels," Shelby pulled its ads from the publication. (In response, the publisher of Car and Driver magazine cited the action in its publicity as an example of its 'no nonsense' journalism.)
If General Motors is hoping that its action against the Los Angeles Times will have a chilling effect on negative journalism against the auto maker, it may do just that. On the other hand, it's doubtful that discussions about this incident will remain quiet.
