Comcast Puts Ad-Hoc Safety Group Ad in Review Process Hell

by Robert Farago

Published: June 26th, 2009

comcast puts ad hoc safety group ad in review process hell

I don’t mind tripping the light fantastic with PR people. No journalist should expect to get the straight dope or the inside line from a person paid to protect his employer from the slightest ding to their rep. It’s the dark side. Deal. And here’s the deal with this story, wherein an ad hoc committee of lawyers created an ad taking New Chrysler and Old Soon-to-be-New GM to task for trying to walk away from post-C11 product liability.

After agreeing to air the ad 197 times in the D.C. area in exchange for $56,000, Comcast pulled the ad after 74 airings. This in response to emails and phone calls from General Motors. A major Comcast advertiser.

Comcast spokesman Chris Ellis: “We’ve pulled the ad temporarily so we can we can conduct a review of the claims in the ad.” How long might that take? “There’s not a specific time frame attached to the review process.” What is the process? “I’m not familiar with every step in the review process.” Can you describe it generally? “We don’t get into our business process.” Chris, can you lead for a while? No? OK, then. One and two and . . .

Did GM pressure you to pull the ad? “We don’t discuss our client relationships.” Did GM contact you requesting that you pull the ad? “I think GM’s made their position clear in their public statements.” So what was the problem with the ad, anyway? “We will not run ads that make claims that are unsubstantiated, false or misleading. We require substantiation for issue advertisements.” So why wasn’t the ad hoc ad vetted before it aired? “We’ve pulled the ad temporarily so we can we can conduct a review of the claims in the ad.” Hang on; isn’t this where I came in? Yup.

There’s no whiskey tango foxtrot here. GM bullied Comcast into removing the ad. Like Old GM with its $21 million LA Times advertising boycott, New GM is ready to silence its critics using its ad budget as leverage. The fact that this company is supported by my tax dollars is starting to turn my stomach. Again.

[ Click here to see the original ad. Click here to see GM’s email to Comcast.]

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 4 comments

Bertel Schmitt on Jun 26, 2009

When I was still in the advertising biz, we absolutely ADORED these takedown orders. Saved the client media money and created a huge buzz. And that was long before Youtube. I believe the brouhaha will generate much more impressions than what $56K could buy. Now I can admit it: We sometimes created intentionally outrageous ads so that they got pulled and we could talk them up.

Like Reply
Redbarchetta on Jun 26, 2009
“We will not run ads that make claims that are unsubstantiated, false or misleading. We require substantiation for issue advertisements.” That's funny they didn't have any problems airing both sides of the mudslinging for just about every political candidate back before the election.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”