Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28
Well, they sure are having a tough time convincing people. I did post a big editorial on GMI about how the press portrays GM. When they released June's sales numbers, they were talking about how GM was gunna be overtaken by Toyota because GM = trucks and suv's, while Toyota= cars that run on love and **** out fuzzy rabbits. Preditions of GM's drop were from 24-35% down year over year, with Toyota UP a few percent.
Numbers came out, GM was down 18%...but Toyota? And I quote 'Toyota, makers of the fuel friendly Yaris and Prius, had a 24% decline in sales...thats surprising considering that GM, who makes trucks and suv's, had a much smaller decline."
Perception is a bitch. Problem is, GM cannot advertise to save thier life. And anyone that preaches the quality of GM is called a GM fan boy or any other selective words.
GM has been pulling in awards left and right for thier new cars. Malibu just was ranked #1 in initial quality by JD Power, over the new Accord.
GM has the best cars on the market, they just dont know how to advertise.
|
The advertising thing is something that I've been bitching about for a while. The fbody advertising during the last few years of their production was downright pitiful. And whenever GM has a cool, entertaining new ad somebody gets a bug up their ass and GM bows down and pulls it (like either of the C6 vette ads and the robot suicide ad). We get stuck with ****** "American Revolution" ads that do jack squat to get the blood pumping.
I work for a market research company. We test public perceptions of ads and concepts every day. We have a pretty good idea of how to gauge what works and what doesn't, and a lot of GM's stuff is crap. I've been pushing to do a perception test of the Rolling Stones/Guy Richie ad vs. one of the "American Revolution" ads just for fun, to see how people view the two of them. If it ever happens I'll post results.