A "customer" tells "reporters" he wouldn't buy a car from a company that took a bailout in this controversial Ford commercial.
Ford Motor Co. has pulled a controversial ad in which a “buyer” tells a staged news conference he wouldn’t buy a car from Ford’s unnamed Detroit competitors because they took federal bailouts.
The campaign was clearly aimed at helping Ford market itself as the only domestic carmaker that didn’t go broke in 2009 and reply on a government handout to stay in business. Company officials acknowledge that was a factor that helped drive sales Ford’s way after the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, though it hasn’t been as much of a factor in recent months.
“I wasn’t going to buy another car from a company that was bailed out by our government,” declared shopper “Chris” speaking to what was made to look like a news conference in the Ford ad.
The spot reportedly drew the ire and concern of the White House, which invested roughly $60 billion to bailout GM and Chrysler – and which continues to have billions invested in GM even after that maker sold off a major stake of the U.S. Treasury’s holdings in a November 2010 IPO.
A White House spokesman denied it pressured Ford, and a company official contended that, “These spots are scheduled for certain periods and this one ran its normal course.”
Perhaps, but the commercial is no longer airing – though after briefly being taken down, the news conference with “Chris” is back up on YouTube.
Even if the Obama Administration didn’t put pressure on Ford it likely was pleased to see the spot slip out of rotation. The bailouts – which actually began during the previous Bush Administration – have been highly controversial, many conservatives dubbing the two makers “Government Motors.” Radio host Rush Limbaugh was one of many who followed by urging his listeners to boycott both GM and Chrysler.
Initial sales data suggested that the controversy helped Ford, as well as some foreign brands, though it has had little impact on buyer choice in recent months, according to analysts – which was likely why Ford decided to stir the pot again.
Not that this matters all that much in regard to the veiled message Ford was sending to the masses, but if one watches a lot of commercials on TV, and who doesn’t, one would notice immediately faces among the “reporters” who are veteran, and to me nameless, actors on TV commercials. At first, I didn’t notice this, and then one actor’s face looked familiar, and then I begin to home in on the scam. In the larger context, I don’t see it as being all that big of a deal. Just wait until next year when the political campaigns begin, and there won’t be any apologies or retractions in those TV commercials, and no accountability as to who is paying for them either.
“”Company officials acknowledge that was a factor that helped drive sales Ford’s way after the bankruptcies of General Motors and Ford, though it hasn’t been as much of a factor in recent months.””
So much for that sentence. they need to get some serious proofreading of fact check.
Is you offering?
well the way they put it as if it was GM and Ford who went to bankcuptry yet it was GM an chrysler. To check what proofreading means go to wiki.
Hi, Unsk,
Believe me, 30+ years, I know what proofing is. I also know I am running on 90 minutes of sleep a night this week trying to write, file, post and cover while attending a European event…with no backup this week to proof. Shouldn’t allow a mistake like that. I simply have been blind tired. Actually, considering the mistakes I see in an NYT, etc., I think we’re doing a reasonably good job…BUT need to do better. We always appreciate a catch from a reader. This will be corrected.
Paul E.