Home and Auto Chrysler releases $9m Super Bowl ad while requesting more taxpayer dollars - Page 4

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?

-King- · 02-08-2011, 04:57 PM

Can you really watch this and say it isn't a great ad?

**kysirsoze** · 02-08-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck

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.

You don't think they'll sell 211 cars?

**kysirsoze** · 02-08-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Can you really watch this and say it isn't a great ad?

Worth every penny.

Deberg_1990 · 02-08-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Can you really watch this and say it isn't a great ad?

I dont remember that being part of the debate?

-King- · 02-08-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I dont remember that being part of the debate?

How isn't it? A quality ad will influence more people to buy thus making the 9mm spent very worth it.
Posted via Mobile Device

WV · 02-08-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

Halliburton steals more than that from the government in an hour...there are unaccounted billions after billions in railroaded government contracts

and people complain about 9mill spent by a company trying to actually compete for american jobs?

Yes they are competing for American jobs to an extent, but unfortunately Chrysler like the other members from the big three are far from "American" cars anymore.

I don't fault them though for wanting to advertise during the biggest advertising opportunity on TV it's a prudent thing to do....at least they didn't come out with a "Paid in full" piece of crap commercial.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-08-2011, 06:08 PM

They should have just shown the opening credits to Action Jackson.

boogblaster · 02-08-2011, 06:09 PM

In case you haven't noticed .. most car commercials are for the high earners anyway .. who cares ......

Okie_Apparition · 02-08-2011, 06:19 PM

Doritos are going to have to sell a shit-ton of corn chips to pay for their ads. Good thing the guberment keeps their nose out of agricultre. Dipshits

**007** · 02-08-2011, 06:27 PM

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

I work in Marketing. I don't think they're a waste of money per se, but it's not what I would spend my money on. I think Chrysler shot a terrific ad. But when they crunch the numbers, the effectiveness won't justify the cost.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer. But if you're buying a 30-second spot for the Super Bowl for a lesser-liked brand like Chrysler, you have to hit it out of the park. If you buy a 2-minute spot, you better hit a grand slam while doing cartwheels.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-08-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I work in Marketing. I don't think they're a waste of money per se, but it's not what I would spend my money on. I think Chrysler shot a terrific ad. But when they crunch the numbers, the effectiveness won't justify the cost.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer. But if you're buying a 30-second spot for the Super Bowl for a lesser-liked brand like Chrysler, you have to hit it out of the park. If you buy a 2-minute spot, you better hit a grand slam while doing cartwheels.

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.

ChiefsCountry · 02-08-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is.

Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot.

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

**BigRedChief** · 02-08-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

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

THIS!

This is just partisan crap.

ChiefsCountry · 02-08-2011, 06:54 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.

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.

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, 04:57 PM	#46
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $2505743	Can you really watch this and say it isn't a great ad? __________________ 🏁
Posts: 63,876

02-08-2011, 06:08 PM	#52
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $8009572	They should have just shown the opening credits to Action Jackson. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,825

02-08-2011, 06:09 PM	#53
boogblaster MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Verdigris Valley Campsite Casino cash: $10004900	In case you haven't noticed .. most car commercials are for the high earners anyway .. who cares ...... __________________ WR or S please
Posts: 10,305

02-08-2011, 06:19 PM	#54
Okie_Apparition Banned Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: floatin cobwebs n the sky Casino cash: $10004900	Doritos are going to have to sell a shit-ton of corn chips to pay for their ads. Good thing the guberment keeps their nose out of agricultre. Dipshits
Posts: 7,012

02-08-2011, 06:27 PM	#55
007 Shaken. Not stirred. Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Casino cash: $14060126 VARSITY	I think all superbowl ads are a waste of money. It's ridiculous to throw that kind of money at 30 second spots. I don't care how watched the superbowl is. Yes, I know all the corporate brains will be here to tell me I'm and idiot. __________________ My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Posts: 65,554