I'm not quite sure how Brandweek decided the winners and losers in their ROI (Return on Investment) analysis of automotive advertising. The Malibu campaign is considered a winner even though Chevy's spent a reported $150m (upped here to $300m) to sell 7,210 cars through November. I know: it's WAY too early to make that calculation. And how is the Tundra a winner when they forked-out $1,404 per Tundra sold– unless Brandweek's looking at total profit margin, which they're not. Sigh. I think scribe Steve Miller just took the money and ran, picking his favorite car ads and justifying them, then selecting a few sales dogs and doing the math. Speaking of which, Ford spent $108 per Taurus sold, which wasn't very many (26,720 through November). Miller's accompanying text hits the nail's head: "The relaunched Taurus tried to rally around safety, which is a one-trick game. Volvo wins with that gambit, not Taurus." And once again, Chrysler tops the bottom of a worst list. Chrysler spent $84 per Avenger (pithy quote above from George Peterson, president of Auto Pacific) and $110 per Sebring. Apparently "consumers have misgivings about Sebring’s overall quality." I wonder why…
4 Comments on ““The Avenger has been under-marketed, plus it isn’t all that great.”...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Well…duh
Corporate America forgot how to ask the right questions a while back. Who advertises in Brandweek? Do the advertisers want their clients really measuring success accurately, or would they prefer a softer grading scheme?
“isn’t all that great” is an extremely charitable summation of the Avenger.
Avenger is an oxymoron for sure.
Buying a Cry-sler is like marrying a death row inmate.