Home and Auto Chrysler releases $9m Super Bowl ad while requesting more taxpayer dollars - Page 5

Deberg_1990 · 02-08-2011, 01:30 PM

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?

**kysirsoze** · 02-08-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But by the way, was it a waste for Chrysler to do it? They're going to have a negative ROI and lose money on the ads, but I think it was a good decision. I don't think there was any reason, however, to make it 2 minutes. I don't know why they couldn't have produced it in 60-seconds.

I know little to nothing about the real cost-benefit, but I can say everyone I watched it with was pretty impressed. It's hard to do a really impactful dramatic 30 second spot. The funny ones don't need a lot of time, but this one had to build. I thought it was at least a top 3 ad this SB.

**BigRedChief** · 02-08-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

ROI isn't what they are going for, especially for that car. The buzz they got from that ad is worth a hell lot more for Chrysler has a whole than just the 200. They don't get nearly the PR if they run a 1 minute but the 2 minute ad is what everyone is talking about it. Really a brillant move by Chrysler ad agency.

no chit. People are talking about the ad. Imported from Detroit...Magnificent copy.

America used to make great cars, They are on the road to making great cars again. I think thats why the ad has legs at the water cooler.

|Zach| · 02-08-2011, 07:01 PM

It is just building a brand. I mean...you are guys are not looking at the big picture.

Coke advertising isn't there so you will turn off your TV and run outside and buy a coke after you see it. Its intent is to make a connection so when you feel like you are thirsty it is coke that will be top of mind.

Being able to connect a brand or product to very specific feelings or actions is worth a lot. Creating a feeling that you are associating something bigger than the product is huge. Think about being a Chiefs fan. It isn't just a shirt its being part of a community and franchise I love (I know that sounds way corny but you know what I mean) Some of you are taking the narrow view.

Brock · 02-08-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

It is just building a brand. I mean...you are guys are not looking at the big picture.

Coke advertising isn't there so you will turn off your TV and run outside and buy a coke after you see it. Its intent is to make a connection so when you feel like you are thirsty it is coke that will be top of mind.

Being able to connect a brand or product to very specific feelings or actions is worth a lot. Creating a feeling that you are associating something bigger than the product is huge. Think about being a Chiefs fan. It isn't just a shirt its being part of a community and franchise I love (I know that sounds way corny but you know what I mean) Some of you are taking the narrow view.

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

tk13 · 02-08-2011, 07:04 PM

Just look at the fact that we have a 60+ post thread about that commercial alone. I think it was a great move to put their 2 minutes of time into one ad instead of breaking it up into 3-4 smaller ads.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

ROI isn't what they are going for, especially for that car. The buzz they got from that ad is worth a hell lot more for Chrysler has a whole than just the 200.

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

I know little to nothing about the real cost-benefit, but I can say everyone I watched it with was pretty impressed. It's hard to do a really impactful dramatic 30 second spot. The funny ones don't need a lot of time, but this one had to build. I thought it was at least a top 3 ad this SB.

With all the noise and ruckus going on in most Super Bowl parties, they're not going to listen to a lot of content where they have to concentrate. Especially when you're a few beers in. When I recall the ad the morning after, I remember a few small buzz clips about industrial Detroit and then a really cool end sequence with Eminem. You would have had about the same effect with a 1-minute spot and saved yourself a shitload of money.

|Zach| · 02-08-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I get it with car advertising, but I really do not think anybody ever drank a coke or a pepsi based on advertising.

A lot more than you realize. Soft drinks make sense for these kinds of mass buzz advertising plays. Cars are a lot tougher--you have to absolutely nail it.

|Zach| · 02-08-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

I don't disagree with your take about the importance and value of more focused niche advertising but I just don't believe the obsolete declaration when it comes to the SB ads in the least. It isn't for every company though for sure.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.

You are 100% correct.
http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-gl...ands-2010.aspx

That's basically a measure of what the brand is worth. Not the company. Not the operations. The brand itself. Coke's is worth $70B.

Their job in the Super Bowl is to be noticed, make people remember you, and maintain your brand. A lot different from a brand like Chrysler that's trying to get you to notice you, get you to think about buying, get you to think about buying your car specifically, and then convince you to buy after you've weighed 3 or 4 car choices.

Chrysler may have gotten people to Step 1. But a Super Bowl ad isn't going to be nearly enough to get them through Steps 2-4.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

I don't disagree with your take about the importance and value of more focused niche advertising but I just don't believe the obsolete declaration when it comes to the SB ads in the least. It isn't for every company though for sure.

The Super Bowl isn't obsolete for mega brands just maintaining their image.
It's also a great chance for E*Trade and Go Daddy, who were nothings, to get on the map. Sometimes it works, and sometimes you make offensive ads about asian pandas that sink your business. Huge risk, but the payoff can be enormous.

Mid-level brands are a different story. Unless you hit the ball completely out of the park, they'll generally lose quite a bit of money on their Super Bowl ad.

ChiefsCountry · 02-08-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The problem with Network TV and the reason so many brands are choosing not to advertise on it is that you're spending a gazillion dollars to reach a whole bunch of people who will never have any interest whatsoever in your car. It doesn't matter if a 30 year old stockbroker thought your ad was cool. He's not buying your car. Even worse for the Super Bowl. Nobody 35 and up is going to buy this car. Nobody with over $75-100K income is going to buy this car.

The Super Bowl has become obsolete because the new media world allows you to buy targeted cable buys for a shitload cheaper. With a $9M spot, imagine how many times you could run this ad on MTV, BET, during TV shows about cars, etc.... I would much rather my target audience see the ad 10 times than for them to see it once during the Super Bowl.

That's why few brands take risks during the Super Bowl anymore. I get why Chrysler did it and I don't think it was a particularly bad decision. But I think 2 minutes was over the top and I think when all's said and done, the overall results are not going to come close to justifying the cost.

You are over thinking this. Its not about the car. Its about Chrysler. Car is the random part of this ad. Chrysler is what they are going for and the Chrysler brand has gotten a great PR hit on. We wouldn't be on here talking about it if they had ran a normal advertising campaign. But the Super Bowl in general isn't niche marketing, its about making a splash and Chrysler nailed it.

Pitt Gorilla · 02-08-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Top of mind Top of mind.

I think we as consumers make more decisions sub consciously than we think from the advertising that is thrusted into our lives every hour. Just a hunch I don't have anything to back that up...it is above my pay grade.

As a country Coke and Pepsi own the market. That is due in large part to advertising (over time).

Rukdafaidas · 02-08-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

What's so silly about it. They are basically paying $100 per person to see that ad.

In a marketing class in college, we found that a Superbowl commercial was one of the least expensive ways to advertise. If you figure it as cost per person viewing the ad. It was much cheaper than any other way at the time.
Take this ad for example. They said that 111 million people saw the Superbowl in the US alone. If everyone caught this commercial, that's $9m/111m = $.08 per person......Not bad at all. That's cheaper than direct mail.
Hell, 4 million people have viewed the same ad on youtube.com and it didn't cost them anything for that.

02-08-2011, 01:30 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	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?
Posts: 66,914

02-08-2011, 07:01 PM	#63
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5326768	It is just building a brand. I mean...you are guys are not looking at the big picture. Coke advertising isn't there so you will turn off your TV and run outside and buy a coke after you see it. Its intent is to make a connection so when you feel like you are thirsty it is coke that will be top of mind. Being able to connect a brand or product to very specific feelings or actions is worth a lot. Creating a feeling that you are associating something bigger than the product is huge. Think about being a Chiefs fan. It isn't just a shirt its being part of a community and franchise I love (I know that sounds way corny but you know what I mean) Some of you are taking the narrow view.
Posts: 53,435

02-08-2011, 07:04 PM	#65
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1992500	Just look at the fact that we have a 60+ post thread about that commercial alone. I think it was a great move to put their 2 minutes of time into one ad instead of breaking it up into 3-4 smaller ads.
Posts: 54,944