By on October 6, 2014


None of you could ever accuse me of having a particularly thick skin, but there is one accusation that does get to me. Cries of “clickbait” are often doled out in these pages. They seem to occur when somebody disagrees with the conclusions reached in the article, or when too much negative light is shed on the reader’s pet brand. Cognitive lapses aside, these accusations get under my skin for a couple of reasons

  1. TTAC has never been under a mandate to increase our click count, and as long as I am at the helm, it will not be. Unlike other competitors, who tie everything from their editorial schedule to the compensation of their writers to “clicks”, we are allowed to sacrifice quantity in favor of quality and editorial independence. This means that in exchange for our freedom, we don’t get certain things, like unfettered press car access, or the budget to hire a copy editor. But our owners at VerticalScope have consistently understood and respected our need to liberate this site from the shackles of tyranny: in this case, click-based reporting, compensation structures etc. It comes at a significant cost, in terms of budget and salaries, but the end result is a website that can bring you The Truth About Cars, rather than baseless rumors, photos of celebrity genitalia and other unseemly editorial topics designed to juice our stats.
  2. In terms of ROI, a 1000 word essay on the topic of automobiles is hardly the stuff that clickbait is made of. Slide shows, listicles and the like are far better instruments to cheaply generate clicks, and they’ve never appeared on this site. Not agreeing with a point of view does not equal clickbait.

That’s not to say that all clickbait appears in the form of a Buzzfeed-esque “YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT THESE 25 ADORABLE BABY DIESEL WAGONS DID NEXT” piece of “content”. Sometimes, you get it in the blind repetition of totally baseless rumors that are, at best, wish-fulfillment for poorly trained, poorly paid bloggers and at worst, inaccurate information posted out of a reckless disregard for the realities of what it takes to bring a new vehicle to market.

On October 1st, Road & Track published a piece titled “All signs point to new Ford GT and 2016 return to Le Mans”. The piece was authored by respected motorsports figure Marshall Pruett, though it was largely filled with speculation and conjecture, though R&T, felt that Pruett’s sources and Pruett’s own track record were sufficient to run with the story. That alone lends a measure of credibility to the story, though as we’ll see, it was contradicted by our own sources.

In the piece, Pruett asserts that the Ford GT supercar will be revived in 2016, to coincide with Ford’s 50 year anniversary of its racing efforts at Le Mans. How does Pruett know this?

Recent meetings between GTE constructors on 2016 rules, as witnessed at Circuit of The Americas, have included a representative affiliated with Ford, and based on additional feedback, a launch of the Ford GT 24 Hours of Le Mans project would coincide with the introduction of the successor to the Ford GT, which ceased production in 2007. 

Based on additional feedback? What exactly does that mean? Pruett then asks Jamie Allison, the head of Ford Racing, whether plans are afoot for a revived GT. Allison’s response is about as close to an outright denial as one can get

“Our focus right now is, obviously, finishing the season on a high note at Petit Le Mans,” he said.  “Our focus is also working with our partners.  I do look forward into a future of some of the classes in the sport, including the P2 we just talked about.  We really have our near-term lenses on our participating in the sport and that’s really the scope that we are focused on.

“Anything beyond that would be strictly endeavoring into… just propagating something that is not within the scope of what we focus on. In our realm and in the world of sports-car racing, [we’re] really focused on our EcoBoost-powered DP and focusing on the season here as it comes to an exciting end at Petit Le Mans.”

It all adds up to pretty flimsy evidence that a new GT is in the works. Pruett makes a giant leap of his own, stating “Here’s the thing, Allison could have just said, “No.”  But he didn’t,” and then speculating on which high-end race shop could prepare the car, and suggesting a 2015 Detroit Auto Show debut.

Rather than follow the lead of a million other outlets and blindly regurgitate the story, we chose to wait to see if anyone could confirm the story. Here at TTAC, we have the luxury of being able to take time and talk to people who are in a position to give us a straight answer. And according to our numerous sources inside the Blue Oval and its suppliers, this story is worth less than Zimbabwean currency.

Despite its mythical status and strong secondary market values, the original Ford GT was considered a failure. It sold poorly, cost a ton of money to bring to market and was quickly axed.

Anyone with a basic understanding of how new vehicle programs work would know that even if there were budget, personnel, R&D resources and production capacity available, a 2015 introduction and a 2016 launch for a brand new sports car that shares virtually no common components with an existing vehicle is a laughably short timeline, bordering on fantasy. Our Ford sources, mired with the task of reviving Lincoln, supporting a struggling European unit and launching the most important vehicle in their portfolio, to be a flight of fancy from the enthusiast community. Another publication suggested that perhaps a super secret skunkworks team is hard at work on the car, but even this is little more than the stuff of car guy fantasy. Such teams do exist in certain capacities, but every new vehicle program, from the lowliest crossover to the most game-changing halo supercar has its own new vehicle program that is visible to the relevant employees who are responsible for tracking and reporting on the progress of these programs to top executives. Our sources are the people involved in these functions, and they were able to confirm that this program does not exist anywhere within Ford (stay tuned this week when we leak all of those juicy product details).

Here’s where things get out of control. R&T and Pruett did the original reporting, the vetting of sources and exercised judgment on running the story. Even if the info doesn’t pan out, that’s still the proper process for maintaining journalistic integrity.

What’s truly insidious is the fact that countless outlets outlets blindly regurgitated the item without making even the slightest attempt to verify its accuracy – or even worse, slyly admit that it was basically nonsense, but still run with it anyways. This is the most subtle and most insidious form of clickbait – publishing articles that are known to be false, out of negligence or a desire to deceive all in the name of boosting traffic stats. And it’s the kind that you’ll never, ever see on these pages. R&T has the kind of processes that are missing from the more unscrupulous players. They think there is something to the rumors and feel confident in reporting them, to the point that they will stand behind what they report. The other guys are happy to publish something they wouldn’t stand behind, and they are doing it with a wink and a nod. If the rumors don’t pan out, they’ll never be held accountable for reporting on it, and they know it.

All we get for it is less revenue, a need to go outside official channels for vehicle reviews, none of the traditional perks that the auto media is accustomed to and a select group of commenters eager to accuse this site of the very tactics that is deliberately eschews. We must be insane.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

69 Comments on “Housekeeping: On Clickbait, Wish Fulfillment And The Ford GT...”

  • avatar

    Housekeeping: On Clickbait, Wish Fulfillment And The Ford GT…

    Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Truth About Cars.

  • avatar

    Is “metted” a Canadian colloquialism or did you mean “meted”?

  • avatar

    No celebrity genitalia? Rats. Now I’ll never be able to use that “Lee Iacocka” joke.

    • 0 avatar

      p.s. Thank you for not requiring each post to be approved before it appears, unless you’re one of the cliquish favorite posters, otherwise my post about a non-existent Lee Iacocka joke would never appeared. :)

      • 0 avatar

        No Lee Iacocka joke? Sadface.

      • 0 avatar

        Derek (and Jack) deserve way more credit for saving this site (which has more activity, comments and higher quality articles – even ones whose conclusions that I disagree with – than at any point since peak-Farago).

        Where else can one find this type of diversity, an editorialship that allows such gnashing of teeth & b!tching (as long as no ad hominem attacks are undertaken) and such open criticism of everything, while thus far staying true to a mission statement of not allowing manufacturers to bend or warp the content presented?

        Derek mistakenly stated his skin is thin. It’s not. And he’s got big balls & a rational brain as evidenced by the balanced manner by which he approached and concluded the FCA Jeep Cherokee reviews he conducted (both of them), as just one example.

  • avatar

    “Despite its mythical status and strong secondary market values, the original Ford GT was a failure. It sold poorly, cost a ton of money to bring to market and was quickly axed.”

    Derek, the above excerpt is flat wrong, and frankly, that pretty much kills any credibility you were trying to generate with this article.

    • 0 avatar

      Why is it wrong? They didn’t even build the full 4,500 unit run.

      • 0 avatar

        It was a failure whether they built the whole run or not. The Ford GT was a pumped up pastiche of the original, larded with a heavy and unnecessary supercharger, and then finished off with a naff interior. It does however go pretty well — but then so do lots of cars.

        I spent a track day instructing in a Ford GT a few years ago and wouldn’t own one if you gave it to me. I would however graciously accept the gift and sell it to buy something more worthwhile!

        • 0 avatar
          S2k Chris

          Like what? I’ve heard from a number of people who’ve owned them that they rate very highly amongst super cars.

        • 0 avatar

          Neil, your use of the word “naff” leads me to believe that you come from across the pond.

          It’s no Exige, that’s for sure, but over here, the car is seen as a very desirable GT car with retro styling that harks back to Ford’s glory days at LeMans. The car was never intended to be a track rat, though it does comport itself pretty well even by today’s standards when fitted with modern rubber. Of course, there was no stability control, so it’s important to be on your game on a road course.

          The tremendous aerodynamic stability combined with the fact that you can upgrade the car from 550 hp to 1000+ by just ditching the blower and installing twin turbos has made it a hit in the standing mile crowd. The motor needs no modifications at all to achieve 900 rwhp on 93 octane with turbos.

          Its track performance has been superceded only by its performance on the resale market. Few of us ever expected them to appreciate as quickly as they have….more of evidence of their intrinsic desirability.

          • 0 avatar

            Actually it wasn’t a bad track day car, at least within the limited workout that such a pricey item was going to get in the owner’s hands at a short track in Michigan. I appreciate Ford’s retro goals with the GT, but found the exterior bloated and the interior tasteless and plasticky. It’s been a while, but I remember the nasty switchgear especially. As for the body, somehow what was svelte in the original was spoiled when upsized. However Ford did some quite impressive engineering with the GT’s construction.

            By the way, I’ve seen a number of original GT40’s over the years, including a couple of the rare roadgoing versions — in their natural habitat, parked on the street! That was quite a few decades ago now, but not something one forgets. I dare say they’d look a bit crude by today’s standards though.

        • 0 avatar

          Naw, the 5.4 needed that supercharger, without the benefit of variable valve rimming and fairly low compression the 5.4 might have at best made 400 or so horsepower in an emissions friendly package. The 4v mod motors can make some serious steam but naturally aspirated but it wouldn’t have been very street friendly. Especially in the Ford GT which wasn’t a very svelte vehicle given its mostly aluminum structure with a few splashes of composite material and whatever gearing it had.

          The supercharger gave the car some great flexibility with a very wide powerband. Slap an aggressive tune on there with an OD pulley and half the gears in the transaxle become redundant.

      • 0 avatar

        That 4,500 number was not reached for several reasons, but poor sales were not one of them. The biggest reason the car was not built beyond 2006 was changing in FMVSS standards for 2007. The car was always slated for a 2 year run, and they built 4038 in those 2 years, most of which initially sold for sticker or much higher. The car was not “quickly axed” by any standards.

      • 0 avatar

        Derek, the facts are well known on this subject. I’m not sure who you spoke to, but most of the former FGT team are people I see yearly at the annual Ford GT owners rally.

        From none other than Farago himself, in 2006:

        “On Friday, Ford announced it’s idling its Wixom assembly plant in the second quarter of next year. As a result, production of the Ford GT will end this September. Speaking to the Detroit News, Ford spinmeister Jim Cain handed the mid-engined supercar its gold watch with only a slight hint of sentimentality: ‘It was our plan all along to wind up production on the 40th anniversary of the 1-2-3 victory at Le Mans… It’s not being canceled. It’s just run its race.”

        • 0 avatar

          So that’s Ford’s own PR guy putting a spin on the program. Ford guys at an owners rally are only going to say positive things. Think about it.

          I love the car. A friend of mine owns a Navy example with white stripes. It makes me smile every time I ride in it. But that isn’t the same thing as being an underwhelming commercial proposition. Don’t take it as an attack on a car that you (and I) love dearly. My favorite car is the Acura NSX. Many people would call it a failure, but I don’t get bent out of shape about it.

          • 0 avatar

            Derek, bottom line is that the car had a PLANNED two year run that ran its course. It was never intended to be a money maker. The fact remains that your quip that it sold poorly and was (therefore) quickly axed is absolutely false. This is not me listening to propaganda at a Blue oval rally; this comes from multiple people at Ford that have spoken candidly with me and many others over the years.

            When the FMVSS regulations went into effect, Ford was not allowed to build any more cars. That’s why the last cars off the line were for solely for Canadian export.

          • 0 avatar

            Here’s a note from someone who worked on the program regarding your posts specifically:

            “From when we quit tracking PIN Data, 10% of the production figure of 3482 were still not captured in our sales database — 18 months after the end of production. Production ended early and many lingered on showroom floors for longer than 18 months.”

            PIN is a proprietary sales tracking system. Sounds like slow sales did it in, and the other stuff you’re being fed is the line that Ford spinmeisters came up with to explain away the car’s lack of commercial success.

          • 0 avatar

            If I’m understanding Derek correctly, he’s saying that internally within Ford the program was considered a failure. Not that there’s anything per se wrong with the car.

          • 0 avatar


            Perhaps you didn’t see my post about Ford dealers hoarding these things away or putting ridiculous markups on them. As prices on the secondary market continue to skyrocket, you are slowly seeing cars that are still on MSO showing up for sale. Believe what you want, but the combination of teething issues on the line and a fixed deadline due to FMVSS changes are what capped production. 4500 units was a ballpark production estimate, and the Saleen line/Wixom couldn’t hit that target in time. Just deal with it, this isn’t my opinion on the subject, it’s a fact.

          • 0 avatar

            Why the F would FMVSS cause production to halt in May/June? Why would the GT then get sold as a 2007MY with excess volume built as 2006MY?

            Damn my brain hurts.

          • 0 avatar

            Are you referring to the airbag exemption that Saleen got? or the crash standards that went into effect for 2007MY production?
            Either way, you are arguing apples and oranges. The line got shut the f down just like the plant. When resources were allocated to wind it all down, it didn’t matter what was being made. The car was a halo car that required plant and engineering resources that were yanked. You calling the program a success is idiotic. It didn’t make a sound business case. If it had, you would have seen engineering changes (that weren’t possible anyway) and it would have drug on like the Ranger or Panther.

            It was literally the first thing to go during Way Forward. FMVSS doesn’t just sneak up on a plant. If you even take the time to look at the Wikipedia article, you’ll see there was work in progress at the body shop that built the BIW. Just like there were conveyors full of Ford Freestars in Oakville for years. When you get shut down, it’s like someone comes in and flips the power off your assembly line.

          • 0 avatar


            I don’t know where to start with you. Of course the fmvss standards were known about well in advance. That’s why the end of production was planned well in advance. They didn’t suddenly shutter the place with BIWs just laying around. You are looking at Wikipedia pictures; I know people who were actually there. It was in Sept IIRC, not May or June. The was some fanfare involved, with many guests viewing the last few cars coming off the line. It wasn’t shuttered, period.

            Also there were no 2007 models. The leftover 06s were sold as such.

          • 0 avatar

            I don’t have any inside info, but this poor-sales/strong-secondary-market juxtaposition seems rather disjointed.

            I remember seeing many of these cars in the Autoweek classifieds, from maybe September of 2005 until around 18 months later – I don’t know what they sold for, but I don’t remember seeing any listed for under MSRP, and this is for cars anywhere from 6 to 18 months old, with anywhere from 0 miles to perhaps 6,000 miles, new/untitled to pre-owned and road-driven.

            So this “secondary market” you refer to was for cars that were damn close to new…so they sold poorly new, but then when a year old with extremely low miles, they sold well, for good bucks – ? Most cars that sell poorly new are not in any position to command MSRP+ 12 months later, some with miles on the odometer and the first fart long since planted in the driver’s seat.

            Also, a year-old Camry with whatever miles is a year-old car, but an exotic with 0 miles but of the previous model year, is usually considered basically new. The secondary market you are talking about and that I remember was largely for cars that could be considered new, so in my mind you are making two conflicting statements about two only-slightly-differing categories of Ford GTs.

            My numbers are not in any way statistically correct nor are they comprehensive, but…I can say that I remember in the same classifieds seeing F430s listed for $40k below MSRP and Carrera GTs listed for $100k below MSRP, with of similar vintage and with similar miles.

          • 0 avatar

            I was in Wixom yanking tooling out while the Panther line was running. The GT line had long since shut down at that point. If the GT was so damned profitable, why was the push cart line dark?

            There is always planned wind downs. OAC never resumed from a planned shutdown. Wixom was planned.

            That period of time was miserable if you worked at Ford. Quit romanticizing the GT. No one gave a sh1t about it in the company (except for the doomed workforce at Wixom) at that point and it was a waste of resources and everyone was looking over their shoulder for their unplanned departure.

          • 0 avatar


            I called a couple buddies last night that worked on the Wixom line back then. They basically told me the same thing; even though everyone at Wixom loved the GT, they would have rather been building the Esacpe or Edge. That way they could all still work at Wixom instead of Rouge, Livonia Transmission, or some parts depot in Colorado that got shut down anyway.

            Only one is still with Ford. The other two took the Educational Opportunity Program. They are both nurses now.

          • 0 avatar

            Tres, you and your buddies might not have cared about the car, but there were plenty that did. Wixom is a huge plant, and the GT line was only occupying a tiny footprint in that huge place. Are you insinuating that they turned off the lights to cut overhead on the “failing” GT line? That’s a laugher. The cars were shipped partially assembled already from Saleen’s plant in Irvine, and they hardly took up what, 2% of the space at Wixom for assembly?

            You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said the GT line was “so damned profitable,” as you keep blathering, but rather that it broke even, or made a small profit, as it was designed to. Even if they were grossing $100k per unit, it still would have shut down at the planned time in Sept 2006, which was the target date picked far in advance. Everyone in the know at Ford knew that the car was not slated to be re-engineered to meet the new FMVSS standards; that was never in the budget.

    • 0 avatar

      Though it sold well when it was first introduced, eventually they lagged. The original plans were to make and sell 4,500 cars. They ended up selling slightly over 4,000. According to Wikipedia some cars remained unsold at dealers into 2007, though production ended in 2006.

      I disagree with Derek about the car being a failure because I think it was a big PR win for Ford, if not a sales success. At the time it was introduced, Ford used the tagline “A pace car for the entire company”. It gave the company credibility with enthusiasts that redounds to the benefit of the ST models today. The interest in the R&T article about a possible replacement for the GT and a return to LeMans is proof of that.

      I’ve said this about the higher performance Mustangs and Corvettes. Car companies have to do some projects if only to rally the troops, make employees feel positive about working there.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        How many went unsold do to silly dealer markups?

        • 0 avatar

          @S2k Chris, I don’t know how many were allotted per dealer or how they were chosen but my local Ford dealer kept the one he was given and it is now in his private collection.

      • 0 avatar

        Ronnie, Wikipedia doesn’t account for the fact the many dealers marked them up $100k or more with no intention of selling. I know of at least 4 dealership owners that have kept one or more in their private collections.

        Production stopped at 4038 instead of 4500 for a variety of production line related issues early on, not due to lack of sales.

    • 0 avatar

      You must think that a Halo program must take precedence over a company when plant after plant is being shuttered, 30,000 white collar employees are laid of and your net profits are perennially in the red.

      If the GT was such a success, we would see a 2 door Lincoln, a RWD Continental and a F100. 2 of these programs were existential. The 3rd I just pulled out of my ass, just like you did with this comment.

      • 0 avatar


        What comment are you referring to? The fact that I said Ford had no trouble selling a planned, limited run of GT’s, and that the program ran its course as planned?

        Even if the GT made Ford millions (which it didn’t), how would the success of a supercar justify a Lincoln luxo-product?

        (I wish it did….I’d probably buy one of each of your ideas if done right)

        • 0 avatar

          It’s the idea that the line was shut down due to FMVSS. There was WIP in the pipeline. It got canned as there was a day in which resources at the plant stopped. There wasn’t a magical curtain that contained FMVSS deadlines – the plant got shut down. Had the GT been a revenue generator, you would have seen extensions to fill up the supply pipeline.

          • 0 avatar
            Nick 2012

            I agree with Tres and a splash of DoctorV8’s comments – I was in Ford’s Powertrain Finance group with responsibility for 4v V8 engines made at Romeo Engine Plant on the spur line in 2006.

            With Way Forward dropping like a ton of bricks, the company losing billions, and staff departing in droves, a niche product like the GT was an unaffordable luxury. It wasn’t intended to make money – it served its purpose as we’re still taking about it today. When the cash ran out, it got its ticket punched.

            Few remember how awful and sudden Katrina and the ensuing spike in gas prices slammed Ford. Every day was worse and worse for them. I couldn’t even get pencils approved in the supply order. Ford’s Beta compared to other automakers at that time was much higher than it is now, and as GM and DCX limped along, F was rapidly spiraling towards demise. That it recovered faster and better than the others doesn’t mean it was any better off.

            I also talked to the guy who led the GTX1 and almost got a ride. Not figuring out how to do that is one of my great regrets.

  • avatar

    The concept of clickbait is very meta to me

    Isn’t ALL public content on the internet clickbait? Are there any public websites that aren’t designed to be seen by an intended audience?

    To go deeper into TTAC clickbait though, I have heard some compelling arguments on the existence of TTAC clickbait designed around TTAC’s audience. The string of Cadillac articles a few weeks back, for example. The moving of their HQ to NYC got like 3 articles. They really served more as clean/front page comment boards for folks to air out their grievances with Caddy’s direction and leadership.

    So IMO it does exist, to a degree, but at the same time, I’m not quite sure it’s bad. Part of TTAC’s appeal is its commenter base and the interactin between the base and the staff. Part of the agreement is that the viewers see the ads. And again, the content is generated to be viewed and “clicked” on. IMO, as long as there’s no trickery or deceit on the part of the staff, they aren’t to blame. Everything is clickbait… the problem comes when, as Derek says, you report non-stories or aggregate lizard brain content to generate those clicks. From what I’ve seen TTAC trolls slightly, but well within the bounds of what is reasonable and rational given the site’s audience.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, I can see your point; however, TTAC isn’t anywhere near as bad as most other auto sites out there (especially a certain one owned by Gawker Media). The Cadillac thing was more of a case of give the people what they want — if your readership loves a topic it would be stupid not to push it. In the 4-5 years I’ve been reading this site I’ve never seen a sensationalist or misrepresented headline or read an article and been left with that “bait and switch” feeling. Even the little shorties (like the notification of the upcoming Helcat review, etc…, are represented as exactly what they are and not to lead people in. It’s not perfect, but I’d say it’s better than most.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        Yes, all click air is not equal. Topical discussions beaten into the ground is not nearly as egregious as mindlessly controversial or shallow (“50 greatest cars, click through all the slideshow to see if yours is here!”) a little sensationalism is okay, especially if it leads to discourse (as all the Caddy articles did).

    • 0 avatar

      I agree with everything said above. Again, big part of TTAC is the comment boards, and the staff gets the audience to engage with straight up content. If that’s clickbait then clickbait is not a bad thing.

    • 0 avatar

      Right, but why three articles on the same topic over a short time frame?

      I’m sure Derek doesn’t like it when people find this kind of thing to be “clickbait” (or “overkill”, or “repeating the same thing time after time”, if you want to be more PC), but that shouldn’t be happening. I understand the intent, but one article should be enough.

    • 0 avatar

      “Isn’t ALL public content on the internet clickbait?”

      No. Clickbait involves the use of a sensationalized headline or other gimmick.

  • avatar

    Ha! You don’t need to hire copyeditors–you’ve got us! And we’re the Best and Brightest(TM)!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I don’t see TTAC as a ‘Clickbait’ operator as I do think most of the articles are based on what the reader wants or the TTAC team deems the readers want.

    I also see TTAC exploring areas that other sites will not go.

    It’s all about paradigms and how someone has an emotional attachment to a specific product or even nation.

    Emotional logic can lead to some comments that appear uneducated.

    Clickbait to one might not be clickbait to another.

    TTAC doesn’t use sensationalism. This is enough proof that TTAC isn’t a clickbait operator.

    As for the Ford GT. Not possible. The Chinese are the quickest at producing a vehicle from scratch. The Chinese have special design centres that aren’t affiliated to the manufacturers, but run by the Chinese government.

    It takes the Chinese 15-18 months to design a vehicle from the ground up and have it in production. What we are talking here is a Chinese FWD car, not a Ford GT.

    If anyone has ever worked in an engineering environment they will realise the effort and time it takes to just get an engineering disposition for a change, let alone the design of a complete high performance motor vehicle.

    The testing of the vehicle alone would take a significant amount of time.

    Keep up the good work at TTAC.

  • avatar

    Derek, I commend you on your stance. If this site devolved into crap, I’d stop reading it.

  • avatar

    The very beginning description for this article gets the clickbait message across well, both in wording AND that it doesn’t force you to click the article to get to the “meat” of it.

    If anyone wants real click-bait its all over Jalopnik.

  • avatar

    When a news article or link has a provocative title in order to get you to click on it.
    Even though it’s actually total sensationalism bullshit.
    ‘President Obama loves KKK!?’

    “Hey what the fuck, Deshaun you see this shit?”
    “Ahah man, that shit’s just click-bait!”
    “Obama loves the Krispey Kreme’s new special item, ‘Krispey Glazed Bear Claws.\'”

    If I ever,see something like this here, I will think that you guys outsourced a little too much.

  • avatar

    Re: all we get….
    And you get your self respect as well as ours. That’s not nothing.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Derek – Just stay the course; you’re doing great.

  • avatar

    With the Internet we get people who think everything is a conspiracy. This is a symptom of constant sensationalism fed by the media and by real-life gossip.

    We ALL knew schoolmates who loved to spread rumours. As we grow up, we learn that most people simply don’t have the time or interest to pursue these evil plans to take over the world. There are mouths to be fed and cars to be driven, and we adjust our BS-meters accordingly.

    EICs have been doing great, even going the extra mile to write “housekeeping” posts to try to dispel the latest untrue rumour.

  • avatar

    While TTAC might not have an official “Get more clicks!” mandate, every EIC we’ve ever had loved to occasionally rattle cages with stuff like “Ford Must Die”, and “Want To Save Gas? Don’t Buy American – Announcing The True Heroes And True Villains At The Pump”, and the entire Zombie McQuestionbot dumpster fire.

  • avatar

    “we don’t get certain things, like unfettered press car access, or the budget to hire a copy editor.” I wanted to write a snarky comment, but how can I top that?

    Also, I am highly amused by the fact that the two articles following your “We don’t post click-bait!” post are a review of a 10 year old Volvo wagon and your third take on a 3-cylinder Ford econbox. Your Honor, the defense rests!

  • avatar

    Wait….you don’t do listacles?

    Dammit….Guess I’ll be scrapping my “5 ways car dealers rape their customers that you don’t know about” article.

  • avatar


Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dukeisduke: Probably because I’ve been using Microsoft’s Chromium Edge, instead of Google Chrome.
  • golden2husky: ILO – you have worn out the woke bit…try something new.
  • Zackman: Hello, guys. It’s nice to be back. My truck only has two doors, regular or standard cab, remember...
  • golden2husky: Why should any employee have to submit to a drug test to sell cars? Pilots, sure. An employer does not...
  • dukeisduke: I’ve yet to see a Maverick on the road, but I have seen two Santa Cruzes.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber