Slippery slope is very wet

It must be pretty quiet at the White House these days. I would have thought that they’d be really busy with 3 (soon to be 4) active military conflicts, an ongoing global economic crisis, regulations to write and revise and the general activity of running a $3.4 trillion enterprise. Not to mention gearing up for a $1 billion campaign to keep the office. With all of that going on they still have time to monitor advertising of a private company and question it.

Ford Motor Company is a storied American company. The company embodies what Americans see in themselves: innovation, financial success and, like their long time ad campaign, quality. During the 2008 financial realignment, industry leader General Motors and also-ran competitor Chrysler went to Washington and asked for relief. Ford executives supported the concept of the bailout but did not require assistance themselves.





The company made and released an ad a few weeks ago  where a customer explains why he chose to buy Ford. From the ad: “I wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."


It’s an interesting strategy to sell cars. Usually automobile companies sell cars with loads of video of the vehicle in motion against some fabulous scenic backdrop. In the 1970’s Japanese cars took significant market share from Detroit based on the reliability of the car in spite of exhortations to “buy American.” Having an average American justify his brand selection based on whether the company received a Government subsidy seems ineffective.

The ad, however, won’t be widely seen to determine whether it was an effective strategy or not. The company pulled it. According to The Detroit News the White House questioned the company on the ad given that Ford’s CEO had supported (but didn’t take) the bailouts. The Obama administration’s support of bailing out GM and Chrysler might be a factor.

According to CNN, the Chrysler bailout cost U.S. taxpayers $1.3 billion so far and the company is now owned and run by Italian car maker Fiat. Approx. $7 billion is still due by 2014.

Reuters reports GM received $60 billion in bailout dollars that taxpayers hold as stock in the company. They didn’t use all of the funds so in April used some of the bailout dollars to repay the $4.7 billion loan.  The $60 billion is currently worth less than $30 billion today. The Treasury Department has replaced two CEO’s at the company in the past 2 years.

Since the U.S. Government is now in the automotive business it makes more sense that they’d be attuned to the competition’s ad campaigns. Ford, of course, had the option of continuing to run its ads. The fact that the biggest shareholder of its largest competitor also regulates Ford’s business probably had something to do with the decision. Virtually every part of the manufacture of a car is regulated. Some are safety oriented so that headlights, tires, etc. meet minimum and consistent standards. Others are environmental determining minimum gasoline usage per gallon. Without debating the value of one regulation or another, the fact that a regulator can significantly impact the manufacturing process is a major incentive for companies to be compliant. In Ford’s case, its regulator is also its competitor.

There are many reasons that the Government should not be in the automotive business. The merits of bailouts, subsidies and loans are fodder for another blog. Human nature is probably most at play in this situation. Ford saw an opportunity to distinguish itself from the competition. The White House scratched its head and called up the company and asked some questions about why they were slamming a policy that they supported in testimony on Capitol Hill. The White House didn’t suggest that Ford stop running the ad. Getting call from Big Brother let alone being challenged by the White House Ford figured the path of least resistance would probably serve them best with their regulator was to pull the ad. It’s all understandable. It’s just terrible.

What’s next? Government telling cereal companies that cartoon characters can’t be on their boxes or in their ads? The House Energy & Commerce Committee actually had a hearing this week to evaluate guidelines for advertising for certain foods.  The opted not to (for now). Some food companies will now second guess their marketing strategies because of the possibility of governmental intrusion. And that’s the tragedy here. The slippery slope of the State interfering with private industry is quite wet.



















Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Give me a break!

The idiom “give me a break” generally is used when you don’t believe something that has happened or been said. We’ve all muttered the expression a lot lately, especially around the 2016 Presidential race. I am going to use it here more literally. I started this blog in late July 2010. This is the 329 th iteration. At an average of 750 words that’s nearly 250,000 words. To compare that’s about three average mystery novels (at 80,000 words each), much less than the Bible (800,000 words) and nowhere near the IRS Code (4 million words). Originally Craig’s Corner was a way to keep me focused during a long stint where I was without work or income. With gainful employment it has become a welcome respite from the day-to-day tasks. I tend to focus on issues that are interesting to me but not necessarily a critical part of what I do day in and day out. My perspective isn’t unique, but I do look at the word with a different lens. I’ve tried hard not to be part of the echo chamber and been...
Read more

Hoping for Grace

I wrote this blog regularly for many years, 330 unique posts. Every Thursday I’d post my thinking for the week. I always strove to offer a perspective that wasn’t in the main discourse on a particular issue. It wasn’t left or right or even center – just looking at something from a different angle. There were some really great dialogues that happened with people who appreciated nuance and having a substantive conversation. I never sought for agreement from readers, just a healthy and respectful debate. The election of Donald J. Trump changed the engagement from polite discourse to flame throwing character assination if somebody disagreed. That wasn’t interesting or productive to me, so the blog no longer served its intended purpose. I return to the format because today because it seems to be a good way to explore an issue that I’ve been long committed to, but handled in a thoughtless way. Recently I made a thoughtless comment on a Facebook post that was undeniably racist, and demean...
Read more

Giving the gift

Image
The holidays are right around the corner. It’s a time of reflection, excitement and no matter one’s religious predilections a there’s a tradition of gift giving. Talking about the holidays before Halloween is usually met with revulsion and resistance. This time it’s different. While we can’t grant everybody’s #1 wish – that the 2016 U.S. Presidential election cycle be over – maybe we can do something close.   Let’s give Donald J. Trump what he’s been talking about. I’m wary of adding to the proliferation of commentary on the Grand Old Party’s nominee. But then maybe there’s something to the Trump complaints. Instead of dismissing everything that comes out of his mouth as made up, perhaps we should be doing is more of what he worries about, not less. The more recent complaints from the real-estate tycoon have to do with media bias. All “the media” does is lie, distort and never gives him fair coverage. This same media generated over a billion dollars of free brand and...
Read more