have you seen the controversial gm commercial with ed whitacre?
people don't like that gm chose the ceo as the face of the ad when people are distrustful of people in suits now more than ever. to me, the controversial part is where whitacre says we're putting our money where our mouth is. politics aside, there are more problems with the ad.
vp & social media lead at razorfish shiv singh offers some insight into gm his blog that you might not get anywhere else. basically, that gm is missing an opportunity to start dialogue.
the problem is, how does gm regain america's trust after going bankrupt? the question of whether or not gm has any hope of turning over a profit is certainly subject for hot conversation. how do we divert the conversation back to cars? more specifically, how do we divert the conversation away from politics and onto something that will encourage consumers to buy cars?
pj orourke (take him or leave him) says in the wallstreet journal:
The American automobile is —that is, was— never a product of Japanese-style industrialism. America’s steel, coal, beer, beaver pelts and PCs may have come from our business plutocracy, but American cars have been manufactured mostly by romantic fools.
many have suggested, america's love affair with the car is over. i think this metaphor might be a bit unfair. i think america's relationship to the car is listed as 'its complicated' on facebook but it certainly is not over.
the problem with witacre's ad is that he fails to acknowledge the rift in the relationship. i don't expect him to get down on his hands and knees and beg, such as the entirety of the reinvention campaign, because that would look desperate.