Chrysler releases $9m Super Bowl ad while requesting more taxpayer dollars
 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...xpayer-dollars




You may have noticed that Chrysler released the longest ad in Super Bowl history on Sunday night, featuring the new Chrysler 200 driven by Detroit native rap star Eminem, an ad that CEO Sergio Marchionne says cost less than $9 million. But given that the company's CEO also announced this past week that is seeking a "better deal" on government loans, it is likely that this ad had more to do with getting political support than selling cars. Besides, is spending millions on a Super Bowl ad appropriate for a company that received a taxpayer bailout to recover from a bankruptcy?

Maybe the ad wasn't an appeal to car buyers, but rather politicians. According to the Detroit News, Chrysler is seeking a better deal on its bailout:

"I am paying shyster rates," Marchionne said, noting that Chrysler had no choice in 2009 but to pay the high interest rates the government set as part of its $15 billion Chrysler bailout. "We had no choice… I am going to pay the shyster loans."

He called the loans "a thorn in my side."

Chrysler's also in talks with banks to refinance its debt and plans to have an "agreement in principle" by end of March, he said.

Marchionne spoke at an auto industry conference sponsored by JD Power at a hotel here ahead of the National Automobile Dealers Association three-day convention. He said he is hopeful that the company can win an agreement in principle for $3 billion in low-cost Energy Department retooling loan — a move that is necessary for Chrysler to win private financing, Marchionne said.

That's right: Chrysler took $15 billion from taxpayers, to which it wasn't entitled, and at an industry convention its CEO calls taxpayers a word that is defined as "someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics and used car sales." Message received: "Taxpayers' money saved a car company from bankruptcy and all they got was this lousy Super Bowl commercial."

And what a commercial. Chrysler turns to America to say that because Detroit has been "through hell and back" it has endured the "hottest fires which makes the hardest steel," and that the reason people don't know that is because newspaper reporters "don't know what [people in Detroit] are capable of."

A few things about that.

One: Chrysler didn't go through the hottest fires. Unless, of course, "hottest fires" means "skipping bankruptcy" and asking for a handout to protect union pensions, which it got. And when Fiat was able to take control of Chrysler, it was because of a heavily politicized deal facilitated by the president's auto task force. It even got $6.6 billion in exit financing by Uncle Sam. Most failing businesses have trouble finding buyers. Not Chrysler.

Two: Detroit may have been through a self-imposed over-taxed, over-regulated hell, but it certainly hasn't come back. Budget numbers still show Detroit's books in the red, despite Mayor Dave Bing's best efforts to rein in spending. And Pew reveals that Detroit residents spend more for their municipal legislature than any other major city in the U.S. Heck, even its library is facing a dire fiscal crisis.

Three: We know what Detroit is capable of because we saw it in the 1960s. We still see potential, too -- Michigan economist David Littman told The Examiner last year that there was plenty of reason to be optimistic:

"We're not even on the map," Littman notes. But the opportunity is there. "We have bargain basement prices on everything -- from water properties, which are a hallmark of growth, to infrastructure. And this is tied together with a large and progressive highway system. We also have the largest underground gas reserves in the nation."

Chrysler must have found the investment worthwhile, using the opportunity of the new Chrysler model to plug Detroit's tough "know-how." Fox was charging approximately $2.8 to $3 million per 30-second slot.

This ad doesn't reveal how tough and competent Detroit is. It shows how the federal government picks winners and losers. Guess which part the taxpayers play?

Yeah, they shouldn't advertise.....smart business plan


i remember that the Banks all stopped advertising when we handed them a trillion dollars....wait....

So you figure Chrysler will be better off by suspending all advertising?

If you have stats showing that the sales resulting from these ads will yield less than $9 million in profit, then maybe this complaint makes sense.

Otherwise it's a reeruned bitch about nothing.

edit: damn my slow typing! :cuss:

So they should keep the money and not give their company any publicity? Yeahhh that will make them money real quick.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah, I think whoever wrote this article is kind of a political Mecca...

I didn't see many of the commercials...were there any for Ford?

Glad to see reasonable responses instead of my expected:

http://www.wingstaiwan.com/avatars/oh_noes.gif

I think its the 9mil figure thats got some up in arms.

If it was only 1 or2 mil, it might not look as bad.

Chrysler spends over a billion on advertising every year. $9 mil ain't nothin.

So .006% of the money they received is just flat out too much to be spending on advertising, eh?

It was a good commercial.

There was a Kia commercial for some car that cost $19k. The cost of the commercial + The spot for the ad must have cost around $4 million.

I really doubt they are going to sell enough of those $19k cars to break even on that ad.

That's not how it works, dumbass.

You're obviously really business savvy. You think the sales of the Forte alone has to pay for that ad?

im not saying the shouldn't advertise but how many other commercial spots do you think they can get for the price of one super bowl ad? 9 mil for a 30 sec ad is a gross mis-use of taxpayer bail out dollars