Posts Tagged ‘Chrysler’
September 27th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Obama Administration Cracks Down on Speaking Out Against the Regime
Posted by Print

Those of us who objected to the federal bailout of the automotive industry were delighted when Ford recently launched this ad, playing up the fact that it didn’t take taxpayer money:

Apologies for the handheld quality, but there’s a reason for it: Ford has now pulled the ad — including taking down the YouTube version. And at least one of the sources of their newfound timidity seems to be in the White House. Daniel Howes, a columnist in the Detroit News, writes:

Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early ’09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can’t have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.

Sources at the White House have been quick to insist that there was no actual pressure on the automaker. But there didn’t have to be. The fact that there was even communication on the issue was a major ethical breach. The idea that the executive branch would gripe at a private company over a perfectly legitimate ad campaign is antithetical to the American tradition of free speech. This is what we would expect from Vladimir Putin on a slow day, not the team surrounding the President of the United States.

Don’t think that the adminstration was simply peeved that a major corporation would have the temerity to criticize the visionary mandarins of the Obama White House. More than anything, they were terrified that it would work.

June 13th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
GM’s Misguided ‘Culture of Excellence’

If last week’s column about the cluelessness of General Motors’ management got you in the mood for some “how did we get here” info, former GM and Chrysler executive Bob Lutz has an app…er, book for that.

The book is titled Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business.” Lutz’s experiences have been the subject of superb interviews in The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal.  In both, Lutz describes how an overreliance on metrics – in particular, counting the wrong things like volume instead of profit – over time destroyed the creativity and dominance of the American auto industry.

All of the hyperlinks are worth reading, but here is the funniest – and saddest – story I’ve read so far:

The Outside Speaker Effective Analysis Group

A revealing window into GM’s misfiring “culture of excellence” in the second half of the 20th century came by way of my late friend David E. Davis Jr., dean of automotive writers, lecturer, author, pioneering writer at Car and Driver, and founder of Automobile magazine. A sought-after speaker highly knowledgeable about our industry, David told this anecdote in the mid-1980s when speaking about GM.

Sometime in the early ’80s, he’d accepted a gig as speaker to a large group of GM executives. The speech appeared to go well, and the applause felt genuine. David went home pleased and thought no more about it until he received the following letter:

Dear David:
You asked for feedback on your remarks at our recent conference. The data is just now available.

The rating scale was zero to ten with ten being “best.” The five non-GM speakers had scores ranging from zero to ten. Yours ranged from three to ten. The five “outside speakers'” average scores ranged from 5.25 to 8.25.

Your average was 7.35.

Two speakers had higher scores than yours. Your standard deviation from the mean was 1.719 and ranked second among the variances, showing that most people had a similar opinion about your remarks.

I personally enjoyed your remarks very much. Your refreshing candor, coupled with your broad understanding of people, product, and the market, gave us exactly what we asked you for—”widened competitive awareness.”

Thank you for your participation.

Outside Speaker Effective Analysis Group

An “outside speaker effective analysis group”? This was the result of too much money and too many overly educated, almost academically oriented people focusing their ray guns of unbridled excellence on targets of complete irrelevance.

That last paragraph almost sounds like a gaggle of bureaucrats, doesn’t it?  Of course, nobody in D.C. could be accused of wasting time and money on inappropriate expenditures, right?

January 28th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Shock Claim: Ford Motors Makes Profit Without Bailout Money!

Well, this is interesting.  Apparently, Ford Motor Company shocked Wall Street by announcing it made a profit last quarter, and expects to carry that good news over the entire 2010 year.  But how can this be?  Ford was the only U.S. automaker that didn’t accept a government bailout.  In fact, the measures Ford took to regain its profitability look like a blueprint for government owned General Motors and Chrysler: cost cutting, a nearly $700 million profit in its credit line of business, and sales of popular models like the Ford Fusion and Escape.

Here’s a thought: since the president doesn’t want to run car companies, why not hire some of the talent (or at least adopt some of the strategies) that got Ford back on the road to sustainability?  That way, he could un-nationalize General Motors and Chrysler, putting more money back into the economy, spurring job creation and more tax receipts to fund all his pet projects?  You know; the stuff he really does want to do like health care “reform,” cap and tax, and more stimulus packages.

Of course, that kind of policy would only make sense if Progressives like the president actually cared about creating a sustainable create-tax-and-spend model to support their statist policies.  Anybody want to start a pool wagering how long it will be before the White House starts attacking the “fat cats” at Ford for their non-government-funded prosperity?

October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Ford Gains Market Share While Bailed-Out Counterparts Decline
Posted by Print

When Ford abstained from accepting federal bailout dollars, observers rightfully worried that it would suffer a competitive disadvantage compared to its new Obama-favored counterparts General Motors (GM) and Chrysler.

But so far, a funny thing has happened thanks to American consumers.  Ford has actually gained in its share of American market sales, whereas GM and Chrysler have declined.  According to CNW Marketing Research, Ford jumped from approximately 12% of domestic auto sales in the third quarter of 2008 to approximately 17% in the third quarter of 2009.  In contrast, GM fell from approximately 27% to 22%, and Chrysler fell from approximately 8% to 6% during that span.  The only other major automaker to gain in market share over the past year was Toyota, but its increase isn’t nearly as dramatic as Ford’s.

Several factors may have contributed to Ford’s improvement, but Americans have sent a clear signal in rewarding it for righting its course the old-fashioned way, while rebuking GM and Chrysler for jumping onto the Obama bailout bandwagon.