By on September 17, 2011

Say what you want about (or against) the latest Ford  “Press Conference” ads. But they achieve the holy grail in the ad business: They get talked about. From TTAC to Fox News, the ads are making waves – especially the anti-bailout ad.

Fox likes it especially well. „It’s almost like a tea party ideology,“ praised anchor woman Megyn Kelly the ad that had originally be made for internal consumption at Ford and only recently hit the airwaves.

Kelly and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, talking head on Megyn’s segment,  strongly endorsed the purchase of Ford cars. “My next car, I promise you, will be a Ford,” said Moore. Kelly added that the Probe she drove when she was in law school was “hot.” And of course, the ad was shown, in full length.

When your ad becomes news, you don’t have to pay for running it.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “Ford Running For The Tea Party?...”


  • avatar
    jjklongisland

    I think its a great add… As a non-Ford fan, its makes me want to buy one also. Better than getting the Volt forced down our throats… Props to Ford for running that add. God Bless America!

    • 0 avatar
      alluster

      The AD reeks of desperation, especially 2 years after the bailout. Its pretty sneaky to claim that it was just a customer opinion.

    • 0 avatar
      alluster

      Well, if you look at the Year to Date sales change, you will understand why Ford is pulling out all the stops

      picturepush.com/photo/a/6546508/img/6546508.bmp
      picturepush.com/photo/a/6546512/img/6546512.bmp
      picturepush.com/photo/a/6546513/img/6546513.bmp
      picturepush.com/photo/a/6546514/img/6546514.bmp

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      As a fan of the Volt (but not an owner), I’d like to point out that you probably couldn’t find a Volt to buy — even if you could afford one. I wouldn’t exactly call that shoving the Volt down anyone’s throat.

      Yes, GM is hoping for a halo-effect from the thing. But, since I avoid advertising, this is minimally obnoxious.

      I’d consider financing a Volt if there were a good chance that my slightly above average middle-class income looked like it was going to increase any time soon. But, with the US embroiled in three foreign wars, there doesn’t seem to be anything left over toward building and maintaining the infrastructure required to have a middle class in my country… In other words, no Volt for me. Maybe I’ll trade for a used Jeep Wrangler, so that I can drive over what’s left of our roads in a decade.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        I like the way you think.

        Owning a Jeep, the taxman can’t bend you over by scaring you about the end of roads. Own enough guns, ditto for police unions. Enough food and water, and temporary shortages become mere inconveniences. Brush up on what you were supposed to have learned in K-12, and you are in a position to rationally weigh cost/benefits of giving in to teachers unions. Live in a well built house in a reasonable location, and scary Muslim cavemen halfway around the world are longer reason to give up every last freedom and penny.

        There are few things sadder than seeing how descendants only a few generations removed from those who tamed a continent in search for freedom, are now reduced to shaking and shivering as if the end is near while giving it all back, on account of little more than endless series of imaginary Menckenian hobgoblins.

        Since this thread was about Ford, and as it’s simply a better (the best?) overall offroader, may I suggest the Raptor over a Jeep, though?

    • 0 avatar
      haridoa

      you’ve got to be kidding! what r u? a ford salesperson? Obama saved the american auto industry, saved jobs and the government has been pd back. that WSJ hack doesn’t know what he’s talking about. he’s a Fox lackey. U can’t believe anything on that network. everyone knows that. i wish ford all the best. but given what i just rd about the gm negotiations with its union, granting workers full healthcare coverage, a larger share of the profits, and retirement benefits, the next car i buy will be gm.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Yes…if your story gets carried across the nation by any means that doesn’t cost you, it is all good.

    I hope this doesn’t turn into an anti tea party rant.

    I was listening to A Bloomberg radio show and it was Mulally proclaiming his pro government bailout position for the auto industry.
    In fact, he was one of the witnesses before congress demanding it be done. It was helpful for both the economy and the industry as a whole.
    He tells us it was a great bonus for Ford. Ford gained a sort of urban folk status for not taking the hand out.

    Now these ads?

  • avatar
    Hank

    I was surprised they went there, but considering how many people I know who have bought Fords for this very reason (and none of these are tea party folk, in fact some are New Dealers), it’s as much a nod of thanks as it is an ad. Many of the dollars that pulled Ford through came from F250s going to die-hard USAmericans on both sides of the aisle that didn’t think anything but hard work and tough decisions should have bailed out the auto industry.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Yeah, my brothers in the new-car retail business have told me the same thing about the Ford part of their dealerships. People willingly are stepping up to buy an F150 instead of going with one of the bankrupt domestic automakers. Getting them to buy a Fusion over a Camry is a little bit harder of a sell, when Sonata sells itself.

      Just because GM is now government owned does not sit well with a lot of current and former GM owners. And what used to be called Chrysler is now part of Fiat, by all accounts a foreign (Italian) company.

      Many Ford products are made in Mexico, Canada, Turkey and while that does not create assembly jobs for Americans in America, it does allow those buyers to share an affinity for a domestic auto manufacturer that was not taken over by the government.

      But this was not a spontaneous foto-op for Ford. It appeared well rehearsed, and concise in nature, with an advertising hook. Then again, ANY publicity is good publicity if it gets people to talk about your product.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Generally agree – just one correction. GM is not Government owned now, the Government has around a third of the shares. To be consistent I assume you are doing no business with Citigroup or AIG.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        You are assuming correctly. No business with Citigroup or AIG. Floorplan and consumer financing are provided through other financial avenues.

        Don’t want to get into too much detail here because they are in the process of selling the dealerships to one of the largest autogroups in the nation, so they can retire after 30+ years in the business.

        They also sell Buick/GMC, not just Toyota, Ford, Hyundai and Mazda and more. Hank’s comment about buyers stepping away from GM is not limited to just his area or his observation. While GM will always have their fans, there weren’t enough of them in the past to keep GM solvent.

        I am not a fan of bailing out ANY failed company, corporation or business, anywhere, in any segment of the economy. No one would come to my rescue if I ever were to need a bail out. It doesn’t make sense to me to keep 6% of the people employed at the expense of the other 94%.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        72% of Ford vehicles are assembled in the US (by total vehicle sales from August’s numbers).

        Mexico production is: Fusion/Fiesta/MKZ/F-650/F-750

        Canada production is: Crown Vic/Town Car/Edge/MKX/Flex/MKT

        Turky production is: Transit Connect

        Everything else in the Ford lineup is built in the USA.

  • avatar
    65corvair

    I watched the Hawaii ad from this site. TTAC got paid to post that ad. I watched the Ford ad, TTAC did not get paid for that. There is nothing better than a free ad in the form of a news story. Good job Ford PR. Don’t you feel used?

    Good ad. I have a Ford, Dodge and Chevy in my garage. Dodge and Chevy pre bailout.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    But I thought TTAC ran a story with this headline in December of 2010:

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/blue-ops-the-clandestine-bailout-of-ford/

    Blue Ops: The Clandestine Bailout of Ford

    Americans (and possibly GM and Chrysler) are the victims of a big lie, says Wall Street insider Eric Fry. And he has the numbers to back it up.

    “During the crisis of 2008-9, for example, Ford Motor Company borrowed as much as $7 billion from a lending facility of the Federal Reserve. But the details of these borrowings did not come to light until just three weeks ago. And even now, very few investors – or car-buyers – seem to realize that GM and Chrysler were not the only “Big 3” car companies to receive a helping hand from the government. Ford also cashed a few government checks.”

    Fry is not talking about the DOE retooling loan, and Ford’s well publicized use of government loan guarantees. Fry found a $7 billion government check to Ford that was hidden from the public’s eye. Well, not really, it was mentioned on page 18 of a document submitted by Ford to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2, 2008, but who reads that stuff?

    While Americans learned that a TARP was not just used to cover some dirt in the yard, but also gaping holes in the balance sheets of banks, brokers and automakers, the public remained oblivious to other governmental ATMs, such as the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). Says Fry:

    Just one month before Mulally declared, “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford Motor Credit had borrowed nearly $4 billion from the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). And just two weeks after this remark, Ford Motor Credit borrowed an additional $3 billion from the CPFF. In all, Ford borrowed $7 billion between October 27, 2008 and June 17, 2009.

    From March 2009 through August 2009, Ford was the biggest borrower from that heretofore undercover lending facility for carmakers in need.

    Knowing that he will be torn to shreds unless he has impeccable evidence…

    Complaints on the above can be submitted to Bertel – I just linked to the TTAC story.

  • avatar
    SV

    Personally, I’d never let political beliefs influence the purchase of a car unless there’s something very very distasteful going on behind the scenes (the closest thing I can think of is South Korea’s pardoning of Hyundai’s CEO a few years back after being charged with embezzling a ton of money, and even that might not stop me from getting a Hyundai if I liked one enough).

    Ford’s one of my favorite car companies right now because I think they have the most attractive lineup out there, not because they didn’t take bailout money. On the other hand, I would probably have any Cadillac over any Lincoln and I think I prefer the Jeep Grand Cherokee to the Explorer and certainly the Edge, so there you go.

    If Ford’s the darling of the Tea Party, well, the fact that I hate the Tea Party isn’t going to stop me from getting a Focus or Mustang.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I can’t say as I could knock Ford for the ad. Ford is just playing thier hand. As others have mentioned there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

    GM and Chrysler would be well advised to remain silent. Any retalition will start a p—sing contest.

    For the record I’m a UAW/CAW GM retiree. I own an Impala, and a Mustang. Both great cars.

  • avatar

    Bertel, I considered that by writing about the ad I was giving Ford some free advertising, but it’s clear from the number of web sites and news outlets that are commenting on the ad that it was indeed newsworthy. I’m just glad that TTAC was the first car site to comment on it. Actually, the post here on TTAC might have influenced those other media venues. A number of writers in the dextroblogosphere, like Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, read TTAC regularly.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      It’s newsworthy because it cuts to the core of the beliefs of many tax paying Americans who are not standing in Obama’s welfare line waiting to collect another hand out; people who work for a living trying to make it from pay day to pay day.

      That said, let’s not overlook that Ford also took many a tax payer dollar under the guise of loans, retooling grants, green-R&D funding, and a host of creative tax incentives and tax accommodations.

      The difference is, of course, that Ford was never nationalized or government owned.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I doubt that the fleet buyers who purchase about 30% of Ford’s cars care much about the bailouts.

    There are a few car buyers who do, of course. I suspect that would require about the same number of hands to count them as it would to count the number of Americans who are buying manual transmission diesel station wagons.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    It will be interesting to see how this is reconciled with Ford’s traditionally-strong LGBT support.

    And yes, I know that many conservatives don’t care who someone sleeps with, but there’s heck of a lot, including two presidential candidates, who do.

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      What in the hell does LGBT have to do with this commercial?

      Honestly, liberals aren’t even interested in having a debate they only want to yell “racist” or”homophobe” at the top of their lungs when things don’t go their way.

      Repeat after me, “Ford making a commercial about how their company didn’t take bailout funds does not mean they’re homophobic.”

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Repeat after me, “Ford making a commercial about how their company didn’t take bailout funds does not mean they’re homophobic.”

        That isn’t what he said. Take a deep breath, read it again, and try to understand it next time.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        I was afraid this would happen, which is why I lamely tried to soften the blow.

        The point was that a) Ford wins award for being LGBT friendly, b) several smaller para-religious organizations have made issue with this in the past, to the point of pushing boycotts, and c) there are a lot of crossovers between people who have trouble who have trouble with a), are members of b) and subscribe to this Government Motors stuff.

        And yes, there are people like Ms. Bachmann, and to a lesser degree, Mr. Perry, who at least pay lip service to this attitude. And while its true that small-”c” conservatives don’t explicitly support this kind of thing, they’ve tacitly endorsed it in the same way that a lot of anarchic liberals are holding their noses (or proverbially putting a bag over their heads and thinking of England) when it comes to Mr. Obama.

        I suppose the point is that Ford playing to his audience is risky when they have some ideological skeletons in their closet.

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      Please explain it to me.

      To me, the comment says that the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender community will be upset with Ford because they made this commercial.

      how so?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Please explain it to me.

        If you spent less time ranting and more time trying to comprehend what you read, you wouldn’t need my help.

        But since you asked: Psar is wondering whether the tea party faithful who might be drawn to Ford because of advertising like this may drop their support when they realize that Ford has also been fairly progressive when it comes to gay issues.

        In answer to his question, I personally doubt that it will matter. But regardless, he wasn’t saying anything close to what you believed he was saying.

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        I don’t see how the two issues have anything to do with one another. The tea party is almost entirely interested in fiscal issues like taxes, spending, bailouts, etc.

        Most of the tea party faithfuls I’ve met could care less if a private company wants to appeal to the gay community to sell them cars.

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      It’s a ridiculous way to insult the “Tea Party” to say that there’s some homophobic resistance to Ford because they promote their products and company to the LGBT community. Why link bailouts and gay rights issues? I know plenty of people that are strongly against the former, but strongly support the latter (like me)

      Ford making a commercial about not being bailed out about the US taxpayer is an issue that extends far beyond the Tea Party. you’re talking close to 70% of Americans that were upset with those bailouts, and many of those people are also liberal.

      Ford is simply trying to appeal their products to as many people as possible. That’s about as pro-capitalism as it gets.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Yes, DC is burning trillions of our dollars and the collective house down to the ground and these clowns feel it their duty to vilify the people who reported the fire.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      From what I remember seeing at Tea Party rallies in the SF Bay area (perhaps not representative), Subarus must have run a close second to F150s as faves of those attending. Whatever that signifies.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    This is causing cognitive dissonance among some people I know. Social conservatives who work for GM don’t quite know what to make of it. GM is what butters their bread, but Govt. Motors is “Un-American”. Ford is the vehicle to buy if you are a laissez-faire type, but that won’t put food on their table. They also have to live with the knowledge that the “GD-Gubmint” saved their jobs. Heads are exploding.

    This probably won’t backfire too bad because even though we “enthusiasts” know that Ford took federal money (I leave to to each individual to define “bailout”) that fact won’t worm it’s way into popular understanding. It will be reported, but not absorbed.

    The commercial does not make me want to buy a
    Ford, and the dishonesty makes me want to give Ford a pass. But then, I’d probably pass anyway, given that I have a Ford now.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      They also have to live with the knowledge that the “GD-Gubmint” saved their jobs.

      I dunno. I’m under the impression that the members of the Detroit crowd who tilt right are in complete denial of the fact that the guv’mint saved their backsides from permanent unemployment.

      They earnestly believe that they didn’t need any government help, and that everything would have been just fine with Rick Wagoner at the helm, selling the same old same old that they used to sell. They didn’t get it before, and nothing has changed since.

      • 0 avatar

        Do you live in the Detroit area and are you speaking from actual conversations with actual “members of the Detroit crowd” or are you, as is often the case, speaking from your alimentary canal?

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Ronnie,
        Just from the title of the article I knew I shouldn’t have read the comments section. Thanks for the reminder that people who otherwise are agreeable and intelligent can turn into such ___holes when politics comes up.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Do you live in the Detroit area and are you speaking from actual conversations with actual “members of the Detroit crowd”

        I thought that it was obvious that “Detroit” was a reference to the car companies, not to the city government.

        And coming from you, that’s pretty rich. Back at the time, you were advocating for a strings-free government bailout, without any change in leadership or any of the benefits of bankruptcy. Had you had it your way, the bailout would have cost us, the American taxpayer, several times more than it did, and Rick Wagoner would still be there, driving the company at high speed into a second abyss.

        And if you’re looking for another TTAC anecdote that exemplifies the problem, aside from yourself, there’s a certain poster here who claims to have been a GM engineer, who expresses the type of denial that I describe to a “T.”

        Folks like him are so busy blaming the EPA and the UAW for Detroit’s woes that they haven’t figured that it was the lousy cars that people like him helped to design that were the crux of the problem. Bad product is the result of bad management, and when companies require turning around, the bad management has to go.

        The evil government did more to improve things in a few months than GM’s management could accomplish in a few decades. I know that you don’t want to believe that, either; you just believe that they were entitled to taxpayer money for the sake of it, simply because they’re your neighbors.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        A well managed bankruptcy, which would inevitably have meant serious cramdown of union benefits, would have made cars cheaper to produce in Detroit, not more expensive. Meaning more of them would be produced there than otherwise. Meaning more people would be employed producing them there than otherwise.

        By bailing GM out, Gubmint helped prop up salaries of many of those working there, and may even have saved the job of a few specific employees by destroying those of several times as many others, but the net result of making people more expensive to hire is always that fewer of them will be hired. Even a century’s worth of progressive indoctrination can’t change that.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        A well managed bankruptcy, which would inevitably have meant serious cramdown of union benefits…

        That only wasn’t inevitable, but would have been unrealistic and unnecessary.

        The VEBA was a creditor to both Chrysler and GM. Their failure to vote for the bankruptcy plan could have put the deal in Chapter 7, which would have meant that the pension obligations would have gone to the PBGC. Had that happened, the PBGC would have been insolvent, which would have made for an even larger and broader financial crisis.

        Meanwhile, the union took equity in lieu of cash, which made the bailouts cheaper by reducing the DIP funding requirements. The jobs bank was eliminated and over 50,000 hourly workers were cut at GM, which were far more important moves for achieving sustainable cost savings than would worrying about co-pays.

        GM’s workforce is now 2/3rd’s the size of Toyota. Labor costs are not the problem. GM’s challenge is going to be what it always was — making cars that people want to buy.

      • 0 avatar

        Do you live in the Detroit area and are you speaking from actual conversations with actual “members of the Detroit crowd”

        I thought that it was obvious that “Detroit” was a reference to the car companies, not to the city government.

        Who said anything about the city government? You’re just deflecting because I caught you talking out of your excretory orifice. You fantasize about what the “Detroit crowd” thinks, and then you attack the straw man you just erected.

        And coming from you, that’s pretty rich. Back at the time, you were advocating for a strings-free government bailout, without any change in leadership or any of the benefits of bankruptcy.

        Here’s where I draw the line. You’ve accused me repeatedly of deliberately misconstruing facts in my writing. Now you’re falsely attributing to me a position that I’ve never held. Please, for the sake of the level of commenting here, go do something physically impossible.

        I was initially in favor of some kind of bailout package though I changed my position to endorsing a standard debtor in possession bankruptcy as outlined in a series of posts her on TTAC by a bankruptcy expert. Unlike people like you who think that your political ideology makes you perfect and incapable of error, I actually change my mind about things sometimes. Because of the credit markets being frozen at the time, it was likely that the US and Canadian governments would be the lenders of last resort. When that bankruptcy didn’t happen, I was hoping that Sen. Corker would be able to work out a deal, which specifically included all sorts of strings.

        I never once said just give the Big 3 a pile of cash and make no changes.

        Had you had it your way, the bailout would have cost us, the American taxpayer, several times more than it did, and Rick Wagoner would still be there, driving the company at high speed into a second abyss.

        Actually, I long ago advocated a new board of directors and hiring Roger Penske to run GM, but go ahead and make up more stuff to assuage your fevered brain.

        The evil government did more to improve things in a few months than GM’s management could accomplish in a few decades.

        Keep licking that boot. Wait, you’re the guy who thinks that he’ll get to wear the boot.

        you just believe that they were entitled to taxpayer money for the sake of it, simply because they’re your neighbors.

        I won’t apologize for having some compassion for my neighbors, a number of whom are some of the most talented automotive designers and engineers in the world. My fundamental concern at the time was that the United States could not afford the collapse of the domestic auto industry and its supply chain. Take away the supply chain for GM, Ford & Chrysler and you’ve eliminated a good deal of what remains of US manufacturing capacity. I didn’t want to see the GM Tech Center liquidated. It’s a national treasure.

        Unlike you I’ve actually asked GM employees how they feel about government ownership. I’d characterize their reaction as ambivalent.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You’re just deflecting

        Again, yet another example of your flawed reading comprehension. I’m referring to the businesses, while you keep pretending that I’m referring to a specific location in the United States. Instead of accurately interpreting what I’m saying, you’re getting yourself worked up about something that I didn’t say. If you want to see a strawman, look in the mirror.

        Now you’re falsely attributing to me a position that I’ve never held

        Apparently, you suffer from reading comprehension problems for even your own stuff.

        Here’s what you said in April 2009:

        Unless Congress authorizes the federal gov’t to buy the car companies, I’m not sure that the President has the authority to do so. Lend them money through the Fed and TARP, yes, but to leverage those loans for an equity position is highly problematic. Like I said, Obama would lose in court…Kudos to the GM and Chrysler bondholders for hanging tough and trying to keep the companies out of gov’t hands

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/04/gm-bondholders-counteroffer-give-us-the-company-then/

        So you wanted the government to loan them more money, without any viable plan for ensuring an ability to get repaid. And you wanted the bondholders to be paid more, which would have required even more government money. Congratulations — you said what you just denied saying.

        This was your response to Rick Wagoner’s resignation: “When the gov’t is making personnel and management decisions a bright line has been crossed.”

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/03/general-motors-death-watch-239-rick-wagoners-resignation/

        Interesting. You wanted more government cash for Detroit, more government cash for the bondholders, but no ability for the government to make sure that the cash was well managed. So much for that denial habit of yours — you don’t even understand your own work, let alone anyone else’s.

        I would suggest that you make an effort to be less defensive. You could begin by acting in ways that defensiveness isn’t necessary. Accurately recalling your own positions might be a good place to start.

    • 0 avatar
      Dynamic88

      I’m talking about line workers – people who necessarily have to keep at least a small hold on reality. I agree that the management types at GM were completely out of touch.

      These line workers have to come home and pop a beer and sit down in front of their only trusted news source and hear the company they work for demonized. They are told Ford is the patriotic choice. They are conservative Republicans who work for the bad guys. Brains are melting.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    It’s about as big a home run as you can get with respect to advertising, and will only cement Ford in people’s mind with a great deal of respect. I’m amazed Ford didn’t go this direction sooner.

    You’d be amazed how much this sentiment resonates, especially with the bread and butter of Big 3 buyers, which is pickup trucks and SUVs.

    I also see almost no blowback, I don’t think anyone was exactly enthusiastic about these bailouts.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The UAW was.

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        Touche

        But I’m sure the “new” UAW workers resent they didn’t get such a sweetheart deal from the taxpayers

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        The UAW was one of the main reasons there was a bailout to begin with. If GM and Chrysler employed all non-union workers I don’t think this administration would have been so anxious to bail them out.

        “Never let a good crisis go to waste”

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        The bail out dinner bell started ringing while Bush was still President. Hank Paulson sounded the alarm that, if GM and Chrysler were to fail before year’s end, as was anticipated, the US economy would be dealt an even more severe set-back in a third sector of the US economy, with global repercussions.

        The sectors directly affected were 1) Financial markets, 2) Housing and 3) the US auto industry, if GM and Chrysler were not bailed out. Indirectly affected would be everything in support of those three sectors, including retail sales.

        Bush, to his credit, did take the advice and agreed to a 90-day bail out that would take GM and Chrysler through March 31, 2009, giving Obama and his incoming administration ample time to choose a corrective course of action.

        The rest is history and we, as a nation, are now worse off than in 2008 and deeper in debt, with higher unemployment and an even bleaker economic outlook for the next 18-24 months.

        Regardless, I and the majority of Americans, (some say as many as 70%), were against bail outs and hand outs, but most of all, against the nationalization of GM and Chrysler. In essence, GM and Chrysler employees became civil servants, serving at the pleasure of their president.

        Great for them. Not so good for the rest of us. Only Ford plowed on under its own steam, albeit with a massive infusion of taxpayer-funded ‘loans’ with due dates so far in the future that it is unlikely they will ever be repaid because no one alive today will be around at that time.

        But it is better than no due dates and the massive tax payer losses we endured with GM and Chrysler, whose bail out bucks will never be repaid. Some analysts have even advocated mergers and acquisitions (like VW is doing, or Fiatsler, even Renault/Nissan) to minimize future failures.

        Ford is just plowing on, doing its own thing. Until the UAW drives it into bankruptcy this time around. It is unlikely that Ford, under Alan Mulally, would align itself with the Tea Party or any other political wing since the mood of the voters is fickle, at best, and advances on the political front can easily and quickly be reversed, as the Democrats found out in 2010.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        All this back and forth…do you really think the bulk of the country really cares anymore? At one point the bailouts were a bit of a flashpoint, but now? I did not support the idea, but will it influence my decision for my next new car, of change any car buying advice? Not one bit. Should Ford (or any other company for that matter) elect to be very vocal on supporting a specific political position, that could have deleterious effects on sales as that could really polarize people. The official car of the “Tea Party?”…ugh

  • avatar
    JSF22

    I just enjoy hearing Megyn Kelly say “hot” and “probe” in the same sentence. What was the question again?

  • avatar
    Advance_92

    Taking advantage of a misconception and hoping your customer doesn’t realize you’re perpetuating a lie? Why would Ford want to be like the Tea Party?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I almost wrote that word for word – but thought about it some more.

      I don’t see this ad changing any minds. It isn’t like it is some big secret or unspoken truth that GM/Chrysler went bankrupt and Ford didn’t. Buyers know that already – and I don’t see this ad having a ton of buyers going, “Ya, YA, YA,” and rushing to their Ford dealer in response.

      As a marketing professional by trade, I would not have gone there as the “strength” in that card is already played out. Advertising on it doesn’t get me a whole lot.

      The great thing is TTAC analyzes the numbers of vehicle sales each month. If I’m wrong, the proof will be in the sales data. Think that is too simplistic? Hampsters sell an awful lot of Kia Souls to people who would never have set foot in a Kia dealership in the first place, don’t they. Eminem sure did a lot to drive Chrysler 200 sales volumes. It isn’t a big leap to connect the dots.

      I say this ad doesn’t move the needle at all.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Gubmint Motors workers get $5K signing bonuses…

  • avatar
    solracer

    Let me point out a couple of things here that the anti-bailout folks are missing. #1 Ford, Chrysler and GM (not to mention Honda, Toyota and most other companies with large plants in the US) depend on the same set of suppliers. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail and shut down many of those same suppliers would have gone under as well which would likely have taken Ford down as well. #2 While it could validly be argued at the time that the bailouts were risky they *worked*. GM and Chrysler are both going concerns now employing hundreds of thousands of people and while the government has lost some money on the deal the losses are far, far less than what the government would have lost should those hundreds of thousands of people hit the unemployment line. Go ahead and argue against the next government bailout if you want but stop saying that this one was a failure because it wasn’t.

    FYI I also have a new 2011 Ford which I love so don’t put me down as one of those “GM lovers” or something because that’s not where I’m coming from.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States