By on September 16, 2011

Wow. I don’t know if Ford is broadcasting this particular commercial [Ed: They are, although possibly not in the Detroit area], but it’s part of a series of ads that Fred Goss directed for Company Productions. The ads were set up by recruiting recent Ford buyers to come in and answer some market research questions. Those Ford owners did not know that they would be walking into a press conference with, apparently, real journalists [Ed: Huh?] asking them about their purchase. Company Productions released a video on the making of the ads. In this particular case Ford got lucky when a F-150 owner named Chris sat behind the microphone. Answering a reporter’s question, “Was buying American important to you?” Chris came up with something that advertising copy writers dream of writing.

He took that softball question (Chris’ F-150 was parked next to the dias at the press conference. About 94% of full size pickup buyers buy American brands.) and hit it out of the park:

I wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy it from a manufacturer that stands on their own, win lose or draw. That’s what America’s about, it’s taking the chance to succeed and understanding that when you fail you’ve got to pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me.

It seems to me that this is about as blunt as Ford has been on the topic of their domestic competitors’ bailouts and that it is the first time Ford has explicitly used GM and Chrysler’s bailouts as a marketing tactic. The ad hits so many notes and because it’s a real person, not an actor, it resonates well. I also think it’s interesting that Ford and their ad agency included Chris’ reference to Ford’s “fail” in the past. This is the first time that I can recall that any American car company has at least implicitly acknowledged in some kind of advertisement that their previous products were not great.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

70 Comments on “Ford Takes the Gloves Off About the Bailouts...”


  • avatar
    jj99

    Don’t know how Ford can make such a claim.

    In financial circles, subsidized loans are a bailout, and Ford took many billions from the energy department at below market interest rates subsidized by the government.

    Then, they were one of the largest takers of Commercial Paper funding from the Fed, also at below market interest rates compliments of the government.

    Truth is Ford, GM, and Chrysler all gook government money. Ford just utilized different government programs.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      +1
      Also Ford (along with all other manufacturers) were happy to take the tax credit for hydrids, in their case the Fusion and Escape. That helped sales and was taxpayer money.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        There is a considerable difference between taking advantage of tax incentives available to all auto makers, and taking taxpayer money to avoid going out of business. Ford (and Toyota, along with other automakers) did the former; GM and Chrysler did the latter.

        Ford wasn’t “bailed out” (meaning, it was able to stay in business despite being bankrupt) by the energy loans.

        It was “bailed out” by the decision earlier in the decade to mortgage everything – including the actual blue oval – to remake its business plan and product line to reflect a dramatically changed auto market. I might add that GM was offered the same opportunity by financial institutions at that time, but management said that it didn’t need to do so, as its business plan would reverse those pesky market share declines and ensure profitability. Oops…

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      Even Toyota took some money. They utilized the same Commercial Paper program that Ford did.

    • 0 avatar
      Britspeak

      Indeed… I’m fairly sure Ford is betting that most people have no idea what ‘subsidization’ actually means, and simply expect people to think ‘that Ford didn’t get a bailout!’

      In fact, it would be impossible to actually list the thousands of ways our government subsidizes and coddles all of our domestic auto manufacturers.

      There are the obvious, of course, like the ‘bailouts’. But what about the more subtle, like the 2005 GWB tax incentives for businesses that purchased vehicles – but ONLY if the vehicles were SUVs.

      Okay, but why only for SUVs? Because they are the most profitable type of vehicle for the big three, and the one type the domestics cleary ‘own’. This was a device to favour Ford, GM, and Chrysler over imports.

      And then there are the sneaky, like the manner in which Ford recieved a $7 billion ‘loan’ from the Fed in 2008-09, which was not reported until until 2010. Wow. How is that even legal?

      I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure Ford won’t be interviewing working class Joe’s who actually read the news and understand such things, and then have them featured in TV spots.

      • 0 avatar
        Mullholland

        The comment above is not accurate.

        The tax incentives mentioned originally applied to farmers. The tax code was written to encourage the leasing and purchase of farm equipment. The eligibility for this particular tax break is based vehicle weight, not whether the vehicle was a high-profit, domestically-built SUV. Automotive marketers, accountants and tax attorneys all encouraged small business owners to take advantage of this slice of the tax code. I know because it was a very profitable marketing strategy for my client, Land Rover, back when it was owned by FoMoCo.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        Indeed… I’m fairly sure

        …and you have the right to hold that opinion without someone claiming you are a bigot, a moron or a utter ignoramus unlike some people claiming to be sure that “most people” are.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        VanillaDude: bitter much?

        There’s a place for thinking that everyone is intelligent, and there’s the real world. Not everyone is bright, that’s a fact. Advertising assuming the country is full of intellectuals gets you about as far as Kerry in a presidential election. Advertising is fundamentally biased, and so does not resonate with level-headed, critical thinkers. Those who ARE intelligent don’t need advertising to tell them what is best or what product to buy–advertising to them is generally less effective. Advertising to those who are not developed critical thinkers is far more effective.

      • 0 avatar

        @Mullholland: My strong recollection is that this SUV tax credit was available not just to farmers but to anyone.

    • 0 avatar
      twotone

      I wonder how many of these “interviews” Ford conducted before they selected this one.

      • 0 avatar

        My guess is that there was some preselection of the owners. I’m sure they only picked folks happy with their Fords. But then this is advertising.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        Thousands.
        When I picked up my new Focus I got jumped in a similar manner, but during the interview I vomited and farted all over Bill Ford.

        Then I started grabbing and doing something some folks consider obscene with the microphone. Gee. It works for rappers.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Jeez-

      I didn’t know that Ford had shredded its debt (as Chrysler and GM did).

      And I didn’t know that Ford got billions of taxpayer dollars as equity either.

      I guess I should read more, huh.

    • 0 avatar
      Dynamic88

      +2

  • avatar
    WildBill

    I was only half paying attention to the TV when I heard this guy talking… thought it was a political ad. Turns out it was, in the guise of a car commercial. Good for Ford!

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      There’s a lot of that going around on the auto boards as well. The UAW and the US auto manufacturers are getting people to plug their products on these boards. All’s fair in love and war and selling cars people love is a full-time war. You have to win their hearts and minds first, any which way you can.

      But if someone says something positive about his foreign-brand car, even if it is made in the US, then he is labeled as being on a foreign payroll.

      The best course of action is to judge the cars you want to buy for yourself, and decide which one to buy based on your own research and not the plugs of some paid plant, foreign or domestic, doing a staged commercial.

  • avatar
    ttiguy

    I have to reluctantly agree with jj99 on this one. As a fan of Ford and their products I’d say this is sorta a crock. As things got tough they absolutely went to the gubmint for assistance. Just like GM and Chrysler. ALSO just as Toyota and Honda continually go to the Japanese gubmint for assistance. This simplistic view on bailouts, loans, etc is just dead wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      jj99

      The problem with Toyota using the Fed’s Commercial Paper facility is Toyota has the best balance sheet of any auto manufacturer, so I wonder if they decided to take advantage of the government low rates offered by the Fed. The Fed should not have allowed this.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        It remains to be seen if any of the bail out money, loans or hand outs, grants or whatever people choose to call them, will ever be repaid to the Treasury.

        If I were a betting man I would assess the odds at zero, nil, nada, no chance whatsoever.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        The Fed should not have allowed this.

        The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. It is not their job and they are not good at it. Solyndra for example.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Don’t know how Ford can make such a claim.

    Yes, they can make this claim. They took advantage of low interest rate loans like many manufacturers did, as well as energy program inducements. Ford chose to roll the dice and mortgage any and everything to save their bacon, and in turn crank much improved products. Win.

    What they didn’t do was hit the reset button, wipe out billions of financial obligations, and hang the legal responsibilities of their past products on their old company.

    GM and Chrysler need to continue to gear their advertising to the 20 and perhaps 30 year old demographic, especially as they age. Because they lost the majority of the responsible taxpayers.

  • avatar
    Pahaska

    This series of ads turn me off like just about the worst ever. Totally staged. What a crock of s***!

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    Endorsements by consumers has been a part of marketing since the dawn of the market. There has been thousands of these kinds of endorsements within the past few years. There is no law against letting a consumer speak their opinions.

    Do you believe, “Tastes great, less filling?” or “Good to the last drop?”, or “I’ll walk a mile for a Camel?” Sometimes we see a movie actor celebrity and sometimes we see an average Joe. This ad is no different.

    People are entitled to their opinions. This is just another one. You want to split hairs over it? No one is preferencing his statements beforehand as some kind of authority or having some kind of credibility to make the statement. No one should be debating his opinion either. You think what he says is wrong? Tough. It is his opinion. It doesn’t have to be right.

    It is his opinion.

    Suppose he said he bought this truck because his wife like the color blue. Are you going to then start to argue that it really isn’t blue? Suppose he said he bought this truck because he thought Ford built the best truck. Are you going to then start to argue that it really isn’t?

    So your arguments are a waste of time. How you define the bailout is a waste of time. What matters is what this customer thought. It is his honest opinion.

    And Ford knows that this is the opinion of millions of potential buyers. They don’t have to listen to you tell them they are not entirely correct. These people just need to buy millions of Fords.

    So stifle yourselves you whiners.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      “So stifle yourselves you whiners.”

      I finally figured it out, VanillaDude is Archie Bunker with a computer!

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        I can’t picture Archie Bunker with a computer!

        But seriously, isn’t it about time we begin to tell folks who want to criticize other’s opinions and interpretations to just forget arguing over it? Opinions are not based on facts. Autobiographies are not reports. You don’t fact check this kind of information.

        This advertisement is about a guy’s opinion. Ford thinks it can tap into the wallets and purses of those with similar opinions. That isn’t a new idea. The guy doesn’t have to be right. He doesn’t have to be an economist or a government expert regarding the bailouts. It is his opinion. There you go.

        With the economy still tanking and getting worse, there is another million cars that will go unsold within the year. Ford has to be sure those million isn’t theirs.

      • 0 avatar
        Advance_92

        Conviction aside, if the message isn’t really true is it safe to make into an advertisement? The guy could have said with equal conviction he bought a Ford because the Pope isn’t Catholic or that the truck removes fluoride from drinking water. Passion is one thing, but the truth can’t be ignored. Unless Ford thinks hyping misinformation is a successful strategy and is banking on the ignorance of their customers. In that case I’d be a hell of a lot less likely to have a good opinion of their cars.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        So now you want to group him with anti-Papists and paranoids?

        He wanted to buy a truck! This is what he wanted to say when he was surprised. Ford liked what he said. It is now an ad.

        There is a huge difference between what he said regarding his reaction to the GM and Chrysler bailouts, and his views about science, religion and whatever you want to smear him with.

        You want to paint him as some kind of idiot? You can’t. He is obviously a very intelligent man capable of rational thought. You just didn’t like his opinion. That doesn’t make him some kind of cretin.

        Cretins would do something like attack him for things he didn’t say – but then, you’d know what cretins would do.

      • 0 avatar
        Advance_92

        It doesn’t matter what he thinks. As I said the problem is Ford perpetuating the misconception.

  • avatar
    Sinistermisterman

    Reality and perception are two different things.
    The reality is that Ford took lots of money from the Feds in the form of subsidies and loans, whilst GM and Chrysler took lots of money from the Feds when they were ‘bailed’ out. One way or another, taxpayers dollars were pumped into the all of the Detroit 3 to keep them afloat.
    The perception is that only one of Detroit 3 didn’t get helped out by the Federal government. This notion is perpetuated by ignorance of the facts, and the general public can be very ignorant. Regardless of whether this notion is fair to Chrysler and GM, it is now firmly rooted in the public consciousness – and if it helps sell more cars for Ford, then Ford will keep milking the ‘not bailed out’ cow until it’s completely dry.

    • 0 avatar
      VanillaDude

      the general public can be very ignorant…

      He did not say, “What’s a bailout?” He knows what happened, and merely holds a different opinion from yours. Listen to him. He is not an idiot. He speaks clearly. He speaks well. He said this without a teleprompter. He is obviously no dummy.

      Your opinion differs from yours. He probably holds other opinions different from yours. That doesn’t make him ignorant. Have you seen the price of a new truck? Ignorant people don’t make that kind of money, or have that kind of credit.

      You believe you know more about this than he does. You can’t prove that.

      • 0 avatar
        Sinistermisterman

        VanillaDude, I never once said that specifically the guy in the video was ignorant. Go out into the street and ask 100 people which car company received government money. I’ll wager that probably non of them will be aware of Ford’s loans from the Feds. I wasn’t using ‘Ignorant’ as a rude or abusive term. Ignorant means that someone is unaware of all of the information:
        ig·no·rant Adjective: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: “ignorant of astronomy”

    • 0 avatar
      Dynamic88

      +1, Sinistermisterman

      Some of us who car about truth may be less inclined to look at Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        Sinistermisterman

        Personally I don’t really care who received money. As several other people have mentioned, I challenge you to find a car manufacturer out there that hasn’t received money from some government somewhere along the line, be they the Detroit 3, the Japanese manufacturers or even any of the Europeans.

  • avatar
    Loser

    I look at it this way, unlike GM and Chrysler the government never “Owned” shares of Ford. This would be a legit claim. Regardless gub’ment money is gub’ment money no matter how you spin it.

    Right after the bail outs, a local Ford dealer here in SC ran newspaper and radio ads stating Ford didn’t receive any bail out money.

    With the economy still tanking Ford better hope this kind of stuff doesn’t come back to bite them.
    IMHO this isn’t as misleading as the GM ad saying all the money was paid back.

    • 0 avatar
      CamaroKid

      Post of the thread. Funny how things change on a forum. Little more than 24 months ago we had the GM death watch, and everyone was making up constitutional law stating that the GM and Chrysler bailouts were everything from unconstitutional, to precedent setting to pure evil.

      This guy in the commercial actually says what everyone here was posting not more than a couple of years ago and suddenly he is ignorant, hypocritical, intellectual dishonest, speaking half truths.

      The reality here is that the bailout and the Chapter 11 deal that GM took was COMPLETELY different then any energy or technology grants that Ford (and GM) took.

      Wow… to say that a low interest energy grant is the same as a shotgun Ch11 with 60% government ownership of common shares are apples and oranges comparisons of monumental proportions.

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    Totally disappointed with Ford’s intellectual dishonesty here.

    I recall Mr. Mulally flying down to D.C. in the first wave, “in support” of GM and CC. At that time, he was afraid that if either of them failed, they would drag-down the supply base, shut-down Ford, and blow-up his ability to service his recently borrowed 23G USD loan.

    I recall him then driving down, in a Escape Hybrid, in the 2nd wave, after corporate jets were out, to “show more support” and to request that D.C. reserve some cash for Ford “just in case” (somebody can look up the figure, but I think it was 7G USD).

    Without D.C. acting as the lender of last resort to GM and CC (and these loans being securitized with stock and warrents in the reconstituted companies), and without the ability for these companies to go thru sequential (not simultaneous) orderly bankruptcies and not shutting down the supply base, Ford would have been needing that “just in case” money due to the collaterial damage being caused by the collapses of GM and/or CC..

    I still recall the nervousness in our own company due to the uncertain situation of GM, CC, and the supply-base shared with FMC.

    Further, I seem to recall FMCC making liberal use of the Credit Lending Facility and the eco retooling loans used by other OEMs.

    To be the beneficiary of all these events and then to act as if this was not the case is a lie.

    I find Ford’s approch here both disingenuous and deplorable.

    • 0 avatar
      mitchw

      If I might add a question to your good points, when Ford mortgaged everything including the Blue Oval, didn’t they get loans from the Banks? The very same banks that blew up in 2008, and were/are held up only due to the taxpayers and Federal Reserve. Do you know which Banks originated Ford’s loans? Because if it was Citi….

      • 0 avatar
        Robert.Walter

        FMC’s “home improvement loan”, which IIRC is how Mr. Mulally once refered to it, pre-dated all the bad bank mojo being secured in IIRC 2007. So in this way it had nothing to do with the tranche of TARP cash diverted to Detroit.

        And let’s not delude ourselves about the eco-retooling loans. These were a back-door loan to the Detroit-3, the fact that some non-Detroit companies were able to qualify was the cost of keeping-up the appearance of fairness (as well as a legitimate policy goal to accelerate tech which would reduce dependence on carbon fuels).

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      There is no dishonesty here.

      Ford did secure a line of credit, and didn’t end up needing to tap it. It was probably the wisest decision that could have been made – have the money available if things turn tits-up in such a way that it’s needed to keep from going BK, but have the ability to leave it alone to take advantage of the anti-bailout public sentiment if possible.

      The DOE loans were available to any automaker who qualified. Nissan also took some of the DOE loans. Those loans came with the stipulation that they be used to develop vehicles to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It’s basically legislation by carrot instead of stick, and Ford decided that since the market was obviously moving towards fuel efficiency as a major draw that it made sense to take those loans.

      The commercial paper transactions are standard for pretty much any major corporation – they’re used to meet short term liquidity needs and paid back very quickly. It’s almost like the government’s version of a balance due in full each cycle charge card for companies so that those companies can reinvest more of their own revenue while not having to worry about being able to pay the month to month costs of business, which can vary greatly due to commodity cost fluctuations, natural disasters, volatility in the markets, etc. Ford didn’t do anything here that any healthy company doesn’t do on a regular basis.

      Ford took some loans, but it never took part in the bailout. The bailout was money handed out to GM and Chrysler when they came to Washington saying that without a direct infusion which they may or may not ever pay back they would become insolvent, and then went bankrupt anyway. Ford took loans as any company does during the normal course of business, has paid back the debt ahead of schedule, and never used bankruptcy as a means of skirting billions of dollars in handouts.

      • 0 avatar
        mitchw

        Do you know which banks Ford got its normal course of business loans from? Because if it was a big bank, that bank got saved by either the treasury or Fed; if that bank went under where would Ford’s cash have come from? And commercial paper collapsed in the fall of 08, with the Fed again functioning as the lender of last resort. No, Ford didn’t declare bankruptcy, but neither did it survive the crisis by its own grit.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The majority of the loans Ford took out were before the big crash. Even if Ford borrowed money from a bank that received TARP funds after the bank bailout, where else were they supposed to go, and how is that relevant? The Government poured billions into the banks, yes, but if everyone suddenly stopped doing business with them they would have quickly failed again. Banks have to lend money to make money.

        The government didn’t hand BofA a check and tell them ‘make sure this money gets to Ford’, they gave the banks money, and the banks lent that money according to their (hopefully more prurient) business models.

        I’m sure there are millions of hard working tax paying citizens who have never been on welfare who have, or have since taken out, mortgages, car loans, or other lines of credit from banks that received TARP funds. Does the suddenly make all of those people welfare recipients?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I recall Mr. Mulally flying down to D.C. in the first wave, “in support” of GM and CC. At that time, he was afraid that if either of them failed, they would drag-down the supply base, shut-down Ford, and blow-up his ability to service his recently borrowed 23G USD loan.

      I recall watching the testimony when it occurred to me that Mulally’s main objective was to quietly position Ford as the Detroit company that didn’t need a bailout. He prsented himself quite cleverly, offering sympathy to his brethren while also effectively saying: “Hey, I’m just here to help these other guys. We’re doing better than they are, so I’m here just being a friend, OK?”

      So these ads don’t surprise me — this was the message from the start. On one level, they’re disingenuous, but on another, they’re not. Ford got help, but it needed less help because it was better managed going into the downturn, and because Mulally recognized that Ford quality needed to be improved even before the recession began. As an outsider, Mulally wasn’t fooled into believing that Ford led the market in product quality.

      The Old GM shtick was to claim that GM makes superior vehicles and that anyone who can’t see that is a snobbish elitist Asiaphile who fails to appreciate the romance of large panel gaps, mismatched plastics and engine problems. I do hope that the New GM has dumped those values, because the old culture of arrogant self-delusion put them out of business.

    • 0 avatar
      56BelAire

      Robert,

      To combine your first and last sentence, you find, “Ford’s intellectual dishonesty both disingenuous and deplorable”.

      Not that I disagree with anything you said but……….

      after the 15 years I spent in the business(4 corp + 11 dlr) and the 40+ years my Dad spent(all corporate), I never entertained the thought that the car business held honesty(intellectual or actual) as a hallmark of their day to day operation.

  • avatar
    MRL325i

    This guy is gonna be “Joe-the-Plumber’ed” any second now (if he hasn’t already been). The Chicago way, you know.

  • avatar
    genuineleather

    Looks like Chris plays golf at Kapalua on Maui.

    Quite posh for an F-150 owner.

    • 0 avatar
      CamaroKid

      Wow amazing catch!

      I wonder if he knew that the Ritz Kapalua went in to Ch11 and was messed up in all of the Lehman and Goldman Sachs sell offs and Government bailouts too. I won’t buy a bailed-out truck. But if Barry-O wants to help pay for my green fees that’s fine by me… lol!

      Maybe he should stay at the Wailea fairmont next time.

  • avatar
    mitchw

    Anyone notice that the owner is named Chris and the gal is named Christin? Could Ford be appealing to a certain religious demographic, here? (I won’t go reminding the Fords about Pappy)

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    Maybe Ford should be more concerned about advertising in Chinese since they now have the middle class jobs.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    Are you saying that the 20 to 30 year old demographic does not contain any responsible taxpayers?

    No, that demographic contains a ton of them. I perhaps should have worded with more of a mid-gen, mid-class demographic.

    Sorry for the crassness…no offense intended.

    Now get off my lawn.

  • avatar
    AJ

    I love the commercial. Way to go Ford actually running with it.

    Too bad Ford doesn’t have the Jeep brand…

  • avatar
    daviel

    Way ta go Ford!

  • avatar
    acuraandy

    The difference is, Ford was not NATIONALIZED like GM and Chrysler was. Every corporation takes tax write-offs and subsidies.

    In light of this, if I were to ever buy domestic again, it would probably be a Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      +1. Exactly my sentiments.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      I didn’t care, when I was car shopping, if the manufacturer had been bailed out or not. I didn’t care if it was half owned by the UAW. I was happy they weren’t out of business and I could buy the car I wanted to buy new (Challenger), and not forced to the used market or to another manufacturer that I normally wouldn’t buy from (Ford/Mustang). This ad doesn’t repel or attract me in any real way. I do have to admit, I like Ford’s current styling better than almost anything they have made in about 40 years, so buying a Ford wouldn’t have been the nightmare it would have been even a few years ago.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    I heard Fox news ran a story on this commercial today. Shows how Ford used government backed “green” loans to retool plants to build gas hogs. The Fox news story does a lot of damage to Ford’s credibility and that turns buyers away. Ford should deep six this commercial today.

  • avatar
    sfbiker

    Something to clear up here:

    The fed opened the paper facility because the private commercial paper market had frozen solid. Every corporation on the planet has utilized the private commercial paper market at one point or another to manage short term cash flow problems that all companies face. And typically, when the private commercial paper market is functioning properly, the rates are miniscule — 1% or 2%. But when the markets froze, and the LIBOR spiked, the effect on the paper market was to shut it down. Legally, when a CFO realizes they cannot meet their company’s financial responsibilities, they must immediately declare bankruptcy and go out of business. And without an avenue to balance books and make payroll, hundreds more major corporations would have gone out of business. The Fed opening that facility and keeping it open until the markets started to flow again was absolutely critical to keeping the economy from spiraling completely down the shitter. You think 9 and 10 percent unemployment is bad? Try 30 percent.

    There is a difference between borrowing some millions of dollars for a few months until cash flow resumes at roughly the same rates you were paying last year, and entering a government-organized bankruptcy that includes selling preferred stock to taxpayers, and a restructuring that includes a huge chunk of cash for the unions to take over the health care benefits of the retirees. The use of short-term debt to manage corporate accounts is not even controversial, but if you think that the government should have remained laissez-faire in the economy and allowed everything to crash completely, I can’t imagine what company would be left right now.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Didn’t Ford “foresee” the coming storm, so they started closing plants, laying off workers by the thousands and began divesting the Premium Vehicle Group (?), all while applying for government cash? Then stepping up production in Mexico?

    Now THAT’S an All-American Company.

    I’m sure that all the money that they saved on cheap galvanizing of the gas tank straps helped them remain solvent as well.

    To me, it’s the pot calling the kettle black; and we DO need the jobs (what few are left), but Ford shouldn’t play the “holier than thou” card either.

  • avatar
    essen

    It’d dais not dias. Unless you are in Mexico.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    This is just brilliant. Ford uses an outsider to spread the word that they want people to hear, and even if it may be close to not being completely true, they have their backs covered by being able to say that ‘Chris’ is just an ‘average Joe’ expressing what he (and many others) thinks happened. It’s the perfect plan.
    And, Ford should get some credit for actually seeing this coming when so many other clearly didn’t. Even if they also needed help, at least the had the decency to go and get it before they had to cry on their knees for emergency funding…

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Ford is learning. Many of the Toyota TV ad campaigns here have been largely based upon snippets of (alleged) customer testimonials, while the ads for the domestics have usually been far more glitzy, with an emphasis on select product features and highway MPG figures.

      The Toyota ads were supremely boring, but closer to what the average car shopper wants most — avoiding buyer’s remorse.

  • avatar
    mazder3

    So when did off-road silvy get banned?

  • avatar

    “This is the first time that I can recall that any American car company has at least implicitly acknowledged in some kind of advertisement that their previous products were not great.”

    how ’bout the “have you driven a ford lately” tag line in the early 80′s? it certainly implies a previous fail.

    also, the accuracy of the current campaign aside, it’s in bad taste. not that bad taste ever hurt sales in the history of american hucksterism.


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