GM will resume advertising on Facebook, nearly a year after it ceased running ads on the social network.

The return to Facebook will also bring with it some new marketing strategies, as Automotive News reports. Chris Perry, Chevrolet’s head of U.S. marketing is quoted as saying

“Today, Chevrolet is launching an industry-first, ‘mobile-only’ pilot campaign for the Chevrolet Sonic that utilizes newly available targeting and measurement capabilities on Facebook.”

The issue of targeting and metrics is significant. As previously reported on TTAC, GM had expressed concerns regarding the efficacy of Facebook advertising. Simple tools like third party tracking apps for Facebook ads were not allowed on the social network, something that rightly aroused concerns from many marketers. While Facebook briefly allowed them as a beta project, the program was quickly shuttered – sources say that this was because it proved that Facebook ads weren’t really effective.

Word is that former CMO Joel Ewanick had the right idea about Facebook. Rather than emulate Ford and blindly chase meaningless online metrics like “impressions”, Ewanick took a critical view of many online marketing programs and questioned what kind of ROI they brought GM. But we also hear that the current crop of marketing guys are desperate to scrub any remnants of Ewanick’s legacy at GM, and the astute stand on Facebook marketing is a casualty of that. Perhaps things have changed at Facebook and their clients are more empowered with regards to transparency. Or maybe GM has decided to go down the typical road and use Facebook just because everyone else, and they don’t want to be left in the cold.

A few years ago, a wave of internet-fueled utopian ideas were supposed to headline yet another “paradigm shift” (or whatever throwaway bullshit term you wish to substitute) as the Web 2.0 revolution made us all more “open” or “social” or “connected”. Then, most of us woke up and realized that this was all a scheme by a bunch of social maladroits to get rich using our personal data, and we all went back to living our lives.

Nissan hasn’t gotten the memo yet.  They’re hoping to take advantage of the “social space” by asking their “fans” on Facebook, Pinterest etc for help in product planning. The first question that comes to mind is “Why?” Have they not seen the infamous episode of The Simpsons, where Homer designs his own car, leading to the demise of Powell Motors? Do they not know that most of the people who spend their time talking about and looking at pictures of cars online have the most obscure tastes that are not reflective of the general public? Anyone who cares enough is going to agitate for the importation of the Elgrand minivan, or a revival of the Pao microcar, (because “…that’s what Americans should be driving“) or a return to body-on-frame construction for the Pathfinder (even though the new car-based platform will let it be a perfect competitor for the Honda Pilot).

It could be that Nissan, like Mazda, is just going to humor their fans by listening to their input and then do nothing about it. Mazda’s campaign to solicit suggestions for the upcoming MX-5 on Jalopnik was a great way to drum up publicity for the car, but at this point, the MX-5 is too far along in the development cycle for any meaningful changes to happen.

The bigger question for me is, doesn’t Nissan trust their own people to do these kinds of things without input from the unwashed masses? Carlos Ghosn took the company from a bloated, money-hemmoraging industrial heifer into the lean, profitable automaker that exists today. The Nissan folks that I’ve met are reflective of the current state of the company, and come from automotive backgrounds that keyboard jockeys like myself can only dream of.

Letting the customer dictate what they want leads to the current generation Volkswagen Jetta and Passat – although bland, it was needed to help revive VW’s underwhelming success in America. Nissan doesn’t need this. They manage to do big volumes with cars that are genuinely good.

The current generation Altima is both a sales success and responsible for dropping a match in the mid-size horsepower powder keg. Something like the Juke, which is so totally out of left field, and manages to sell fairly consistently (though it’s not exactly a volume car in America), could not have been designed by committee. Meanwhile, the sum total of the general public’s buying desires seem to be Versas or other beige sedans with an iPod jack. And the Sentra is still the worst new car I’ve driven.

Video NSFW for language

Automotive News features one of the better breakdowns of automaker Facebook campaigns, minus the breathless masturbatory social media buzzwords that so frequently surround any discussion of “engagement” or “conversations” . The consensus seems to be shifting in one direction; it’s worthless, even if Mark Rechtin and David Barkholz are too polite to say so.

Rechtin and Barkholz cite a few examples of using Facebook to promote automaker brands, but they appear to be outliers, with the most hardcore enthusiasts engaging automakers over extreme niche products. Witness Audi getting 12,000 fans to say they would buy a TT-RS at $50,000 a pop. Aside from the fact that Audi will never sell 12,000 of them in America (or the world), enthusiasts demanding obscure performance cars and then never buying them is one of the oldest in-jokes in the automotive community.

A high number of likes or Facebook fans doesn’t necessarily translate into big exposure for a brand either, as the AN article found

Owen Peacock, Scion’s manager of marketing communications, said that just because a company has 1 million fans, that doesn’t mean all 1 million will receive a company’s update on their News Feeds. Facebook’s algorithms and formulas don’t allow it — unless the automaker pays Facebook a premium

These, of course, are the “sponsored stories” that appear on our profiles, and oft go ignored as we view pictures of our friends’ pets, children, press cars and home-brewed beer. How effective are these ads? I spoke to a digital marketing professional, who put it to me this way; It’s hard enough to sell a car via a billboard or an ad in a car magazine. Selling one via a 90 character, 110 x 90 pixel ad is ridiculous.

Or perhaps “impressions” and “likes” are all that’s available. Facebook doesn’t allow third party tracking of ads, which can show not only who is viewing the ad, but if the ad is responsible for a sale. Marketing professionals seem to think that the only reason it’s not offered is because it would prove that Facebook really doesn’t help deliver tangible results. Facebook did allow it briefly as a beta test, but that program was quickly shuttered.

Ford is launching yet another social media campaign for the 2013 Fusion, and they appear to be sticking with social media despite the dubious results that past campaigns like the Fiesta Movement and Focus Rally have generated. Talking about millions of “impressions” sounds great at a social media conference, but ultimately means nothing. Just remember that Ford, a global brand and marketing machine, got 6.5 million Youtube views spread over 700 videos for the Fiesta movement, even as it touted the 3.4 million “impressions” it got for the car.

GM’s exit from Facebook may have caused a stir among those who believe that social media will bring freedom to the world (or at least make them cooler than the were in high school) but The General’s exit, in light of the new information being gleaned, may have been their smartest move of the year.

Rechtin and Barkolz sum up their article by stating  ”…the fans are there and engaged. But turning that engagement into sales? That’s the hard part.”

How about “if it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense”?

My iPhone has no less than 7 social apps on it (Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Tumblr, Tradyo and Instagram), not to mention Google Maps, which like the aforementioned programs, can utilize my phone’s built in GPS beacon to share my location with others (including Apple). My recently departed 1997 Miata was the anti-iPhone. No GPS, no traction control, a barely there ABS system, no electronic throttle. Everything mechanical. My next car will be similar. Simple, robust, resilient. What if we no longer have that option anymore?

Starting in 2015, new cars sold in the United States will, under proposed legislation, have “Black Box” electronic data recorders to help glean all kinds of data. Frankly, that’s the least of my worries, as much as I don’t like the idea of every event behind the wheel being logged.

In my own slightly paranoid opinion, the EDR program is a mere red herring, setting the stage for something else entirely. The end of driving as an autonomous activity. Market forces, like gas prices and car insurance premiums have slowly been putting a squeeze on the notion that getting behind the wheel and just going somewhere is the ultimate act of individual freedom. Now, we have Google’s autonomous (no irony intended) car program, which, as far as I can tell, is a great way for them to serve up more ads. If you’re not focusing on driving, you can watch Youtube content on your Google Android phone, check your Gmail, manage your social life with Google Calender and be totally engrossed in the Googleplex of targeted advertising using GPS beacons in your car and your self-driving Prius.

We all hear the canard that modern cars have never been safer, faster or more fuel-efficient, and it’s not only true, but a boon to the average consumer (perhaps at a cost to the enthusiast – but that’s another discussion for another day). More fuel-efficient cars means less fuel consumption – but it also means reduced revenue from the gas tax, which helps fund infrastructure projects like highways. Raising the gas tax in an era of economic depression would be like peeing on a political third rail, and even in good times, it’s challenging enough to do so. An alternative would have to be drawn up, and according to some well-placed D.C. sources, the inevitable alternative is cost-per-mile fees for driving.

Yes, that’s right. The government could track your every movement in your car (and it will be placed in every car) and bill you for it. I know that despite the best arguments from Grover Norquist & Co., we really do have to pay taxes to grease the wheels of society. Something is going to have to give. If it ever comes down to cost-per-mile taxation, there is going to be an absolute hellstorm of anger and vitriol, no matter who proposes it. I can remember as far back as childhood when Max Mosley and the FIA were showing off speed-limited vehicles based on GPS technology for European roads, and the British rags, already itching for a fight after the implementation of Gatso speed cameras, gave Max the kind of whipping that he’d have to pay £750 an hour for in a Knightsbridge dungeon.

Even if individual freedom is a distinctly American concept, the automobile is the main conduit for that all over the world; not the bicycle, not the motorcycle, not the bus or the train. Developing socities, like India and Vietnam, move on from the scooter and motorcycle as soon as their citizens can afford a car.

More than just a form of mobility, the automobile as individual transportation is a middle finger to the push towards communal living via the internet; “checking in”, “sharing”, “geotagging” and every other noxious form of soft exhibitionism that the tech nerd crowd craves (and, of course, uses to line their pockets – the more you share, the more data they have to help refine their “targeted advertising” systems). The rise of social networks is a constant theme in the media, yet young people are growing ever weary of social networks. Oversharing is frowned upon, and I’m far from the only one to have “nuked” my old Facebook profile (dating back from high school) taking with it all my valuable data, photos and status updates, while creating a new, more restricted account with a much smaller list of friends. The pendulum swing towards living one’s life publicly will not continue in perpetuity.

I spent the past 4 days in New York City, with a mandate to shut off all electronic communication, and enjoy what the greatest city in America has to offer; the grandest architecture, the most walkable streets and a culture that could not exist anywhere else in the world. I never once missed email, Facebook or Twitter, but I did miss driving. The streets of New York, crowded and brutal they may be, were filled with interesting vehicles. Town Cars and yellow cabs everywhere, vintage Land Rovers in Greenwich Village, sport bikes on Broadway, a British Racing Green Lotus Evora on Madison Avenue, a G55 AMG on Wall Street. All of them represent not just freedom of movement, but freedom of possibility. At 4 A.M., the Evora could hit well into the triple digits on one of those multi-lane boulevards. The G55 could drive all the way across the beach at Montauk without getting stuck.

These are, not coincidentally, the kinds of activities that are not meant to be “shared”. You can take someone along if you want to tresspass on protected land, or hit triple digits tearing through Midtown, but you’re not going to want to post photos or videos on Facebook. These things are the kind of experiences that stay forever in the imperfect recesses of the mind, to be discussed sotto voce for years to come among close friends. To “share” them would be profane, corrupting their very essence. Breaking the law isn’t always necessary, but we will always need a hedge against the utopian designs of those who want us all to ride bicycles and live our lives in the cloud. As I reach back into the caves of my mind, where the “Timeline” can’t yet reach, I recall the black NSX of my father, V6 at full song,and  that same car becomes ever more appealing. Maybe Honda will be kind enough to give it a factory re-furbishing, so that I can enjoy the comforts of an essentially brand new car, albeit one free of electronic throttles and data-loggers.

We’ve already seen how old cars are capturing the hearts and minds of our youth more than any of the shiny new stuff on dealer lots. Might there be a new avenue for bringing old cars back to new? How would a car with the retro cachet of something old, combined with a modern refresh from the factory do in today’s world? Yes, it will certainly disrupt the current model of pumping and dumping inventory and making it sell, but a two-fold pushback, against conformist, boring new cars and their monitoring devices, revive the radical, reactionary idea of the automobile as one’s ticket to freedom.

Even as GM abandons Facebook advertising because of a poor ROI, Ford is going full steam ahead with Facebook spending and including more “sponsored stories” – i.e. cheesy advertorial content – as part of their “accelerated” spending. The problem is that it doesn’t work.

Ford’s social media head Scott Monty told Automotive News

“We’ve found that Facebook ads are very effective, and they’re most effective when we strategically combine them with great content and innovative forms of storytelling rather than a straight media buy,”

As we’ve seen with Ford before, lots of clicks, likes and other vague metrics under the vague “impressions” umbrella end up doing dick all to actually sell your product. The only Fiesta Movement occurring is a downward trend in sales, while the Focus lags behind Corolla, Cruze and Civic in its own segment.

In 2009, Jalopnik nailed it when it asked if all of Ford’s resources spent on social media and their SM guru Scott Monty really helped sell any cars.

I’d wager that based on the piss-poor numbers for Facebook ad click rates, the ability for internet-savvy users to block out advertising and the overall cynicism of consumers for even the most elaborate, narrative-driven advertising, that Ford is mis-allocating their ad dollars on Facebook, and with canned-advertorial reality shows like what were they thinking Escape Routes, a new reality show designed to promote the 2013 Escape.  Who in their right mind is going to spend half an hour watching this show? Take that money and find a way to go to every supermarket in areas where a small crossover is in demand (hint, they have Obama-Biden stickers on their CR-Vs) and let them know what you can open the tailgate by sweeping your foot under the bumper. More likely, it seems that these initiatives, undertaken by a number of OEMs beyond Ford, are what Ray Wert described as

“…another example of the dark side of “social media” — the masturbatory echo chamber re-twitting the same tweets …of the same piece of garbage over and over again to the same social media “gurus.”

Let’s go back to the Fiesta. Sales are in the toilet. Yet Ford seems enthralled with their apparently cutting edge marketing scheme that got 3.4 million Twitter “impressions” and 6.5 million collective Youtube views between the 700 videos produced by their team of 100 agents. To put that in perspective, a friend of mine directed a video for a B-List rapper who was a one-hit viral video wonder and it currently has 34 million views with basically zero promotional budget. By comparison, the number of views for the Fiesta Movement videos is laughable.

Any success that comes from Ford’s latest products will be in spite of whatever social media campaigns they end up running. Nothing short of shrewd product placement or simply having your vehicle out on the street will be truly effective in promoting the new Escape, or Fusion or any car really. A 110 x 100 pixel ad featuring a thumbnail image of a car and 90 characters of text isn’t going to snare anyone in, no matter how gripping the “story” about the car may be. Leaving a 2013 Fusion parked in a prime spot somewhere downtown and letting pedestrians do a double take to stop and look at “that four-door Aston…no, wait, it’s a Ford” costs $15 in parking fees and is sure to get them talking. Even if they don’t like cars, they know someone who does, and they will ask about “that new car I saw on the street”. I can tell you anecdotally that it happens all the time. It’s not worth much, but it’s worth more than a few million “impressions”.

Ford is launching a reality TV show dubbed *groan* Escape Routes, which will run for 6 weeks on NBC’s 8 P.M. Saturday night slot and on mun2 (a Hispanic network) at 11 P.M, starting on March 31st. Participants will ostensibly drive around in the 2013 Escape as overly dramatic music and poorly scripted lines spew forth. As if the concept weren’t nauseating enough, participants on the show will apparently interact with fans of the show online to “tap into the fabric of the local culture”.

Ford’s previous campaigns, like the Fiesta Movement and the Focus Rally, were touted by a number of maladroit geeks social media experts, but for all the millions of” impressions” generated by the Fiesta Movement, for example, the Fiesta’s tenure in America hasn’t been the most stable. Sales were up in 2011, but Ford’s supply of the car was said to be 126 days at the end of the year. As for March 1st, Ford had an 82 day supply of Fiestas, but as of February 1st, it was still at 127.

The issue with campaigns like Escape Routes is that they have the potential to seem contrived, cheesy and worst of all today – inauthentic. One has to wonder what kind of ROI Ford expects with these sorts of campaigns. The Fiesta was an all-new product competing in a relatively immature segment in our market. But the Escape is a strong seller even after retaining the same design and packaging over the last geological era. There is significant brand equity with the nameplate even if the car is completely different. This TV show can’t be cheap to produce, and one has to wonder if A) people are really going to tune into this program B) if the show will be discovered as a giant marketing exercise by Ford C) if there will be a backlash against such an invasive marketing effort.

As optimistic as I am about the new Escape, I can’t help but roll my eyes at the whole notion of a derivative rally program designed to promote a new car that in all likelihood can stand on its own merits as an American-made, fuel-efficient SUV/CUV that has some very advanced technology. Is such a well, goofy, marketing strategy really necessary, or is Ford simply lost in another bout of navel-gazing, egged on by charlatans social media  and other nebulous “creative class” types?

Say what you want about Saab fans, the guys have some dedication. At a time when most have finally accepted the fact that Saab is at the end of the line, Saab’s hard-core “dead-enders” are taking up their social media arms to rescue their beloved brand. After all they have a perfect opportunity: after months of wading through a quagmire, uncertain whether to support Victor Muller, Vladimir Antonov, or one of Saab’s Chinese suitors, all Saab fans can now rally against their old enemy, GM. Long blamed for Saab’s decline despite the fact that the brand’s peak sales came under its ownership, GM has long been the bête noire for Saabistas. And with GM now taking the wheel of Saab’s fate, Saab’s rabid fans have taken over GM’s Facebook wall, posting images of their favorite Saabs and demanding The General “let Saab go.” Will it be enough to convince GM to go against its carefully-crafted Chinese relationships and interests by giving Saab carte blanche to ship its technology wherever its new Chinese masters want? Don’t count on it. But for the moment GM has to sit through the online equivalent of an “Occupy” protest.

Like most corporate trends, the rush to social media is often little more than an opportunity for new consultants to sell common sense packaged in the buzzwords du jour. And though it’s easy to just laugh off the process as just another fad, it’s important to remember that common sense is in relatively short supply these days… if the only way to get it across is to punctuate it with words like “engagement” and “voice share,” so be it. And because social media is forcing companies to come to grips with every possible kind of feedback, the trend is actually helping validate the hard-hitting editorial approach that TTAC has long embraced. At Motor Trader’s social media conference, Richard Anson, CEO of the consumer review site Reevoo, explains the simple truth:

Social content will help drive sales so trust and transparency are vital; we all trust our peers more than any vendor or brand. Negative reviews are good for business. Retailing is all about transparency so perfection is not credible. Customers expect and want negative reviews and they give dealers a great opportunity to engage.

Hear, hear!

This is a lesson that the auto industry often struggles with, especially with in-house social media efforts like The Ford Story (now social.ford.com). But even within the larger automotive media scene, there’s a lack of appreciation for the constructive powers of negative reviews. Due to a long and pointless tradition in the automotive media of trying to objectively evaluate all vehicles on a single rating or “star system,” there’s a sense that negativity in a review implies that a car is not worth considering. In reality, if someone is going to own and live with a car, aren’t they going to be as interested in its flaws as its charms? Consumers aren’t stupid, and if they feel like they’re getting a whitewash from any one review outlet, they’ll look elsewhere. And thanks to the internet and “social media,” they’ve got lots of options.

The social media blog Mashable has an interesting theory: Toyota’s recall woes might actually be good (gasp) good for the brand. To back up this astonishing claim, they offer two premises, based on online social media data:

The first is that the increased number of conversations about Toyota are building greater awareness for the brand even though many of the mentions may be negative. While this may seem unusual, the fact that people are talking about the brand a lot more and sometimes in a neutral light (not just negatively) is increasing its exposure. More people are talking about Toyota than any other brand these days. And they’re talking about the recalls, but also the fixes being provided by the dealerships too. And some of the consumers are probably coming to the defense of the brand too. Maybe there is some truth to the adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity after all.

The second answer comes via Jeremy Anwyl, the CEO of Edmunds.com in an interview with CNN on February 5th. He explained that people have sensed an opportunity to pick up a bargain and are moving towards some of the Toyota models. Edmunds research showed that before the recall, 7.4% of the consumers in the market for compact cars were considering a Toyota Prius, and after the news broke, the number moved up to 8.7%. Edmunds’ research measures online purchase behavior against conversations on the social web.

What does this tell us? Firstly, that the SIM Score fluctuations and the related Edmunds user intent analysis have unearthed a counterintuitive trend with regard to Toyota; increased buyer interest even though there’s a lot of bad news about the brand. It also shows that there hasn’t been significant short-term damage to the Toyota brand on the social web, at least relative to its direct competitors. This of course is likely to change, as more news about Toyota’s troubles have broken since January, and more people are talking about it online today. I fully expect the Toyota SIM Score to start dropping again when the February numbers are computed. It is worth pointing out the SIM Score is a measure of a brand’s health on the social web and not always a leading indicator of sales, though it can be for certain product categories.

My take is that losing a halo of invincibility on the issues of quality and reliability is never good, although in Toyota’s case it was probably unavoidable. One point on which I have little doubt: Toyota’s fall from grace will probably help consumers make more informed car-buying decisions. Unfortunately for Toyota, that shouldn’t help them keep their sales numbers up. Ultimately, the available social media data doesn’t seem reliable enough to discard the conventional wisdom that most consumers buy on reputation… and with congressional hearings and federal investigations looming, there’s still reputational damage to be done. What say you?

Ford illustrates the ugly side of social media-based advertising: exploiting and promoting baseless prejudices by reprinting ignorant opinions. Like this misguided and misleading “thank you” posted at Thefordstory.com.

I am here today because 5 years ago, I was driving my 1993 Ford Ranger XL. Thats a midsize truck, but not midsize in saving my life. I have not ever written about this before, but I thought Ford (and all its engineers) would benefit in knowing that they have been instrumental in saving my life. The reason I can say this with certainty, is because of the nature of my car crash. I ask you, if you were broadsided at 60+ ( I was on a highway in Ca) and all that saved you was your vehicles chasis..if you were driving say, a Honda..would you be here reading this?? Maybe, but not likely. All that happened to me was, I had a heck of a bent truck frame (rear suspension) and a minor seat belt bruise! I almost tipped the truck over on its side, I was hit that hard..but luckily, she righted herself in time! (I know its silly, but you got to name your trucks) This was my first Ford, and god willing not my last. I may have lost traction, due to the road being wet..but I tell you I would not be soo lucky driving anything other than a Ford. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication. I just thought it would be nice to tell someone. Thanks..I could never be more grateful for your company, God bless you.

Your friend,

Rose

[Note: the Ranger pictured above is not the one from the wreck]