Noted Auto Expert Barack Obama Cuts Chrysler Ad Budget in Half
Posted by Bill Dupray
on May 12 2009 Filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
I guess The One figures he can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, maybe he’ll just be the pitch man for Chrysler. As we know, the federal government has a lot of experience marketing cars, so when they decide to cut Chrysler’s advertising budget in half, surely they know what they are doing.
From Autoblog.
Chrysler is nearly two weeks into its bankruptcy, and the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker is already getting an idea of just how engaged the Obama administration plans to be in the process. Chrysler planned to spend $134 million dollars on advertising during its supposed nine weeks of bankruptcy, but the Auto Task Force has reportedly cut the figure in half. Judge Arthur Gonzalez wasn’t even sure 50% spending was necessary, saying “idle plants, why market?” But the Task Force apparently says it recognizes that marketing is necessary during the bankruptcy to prevent the further erosion of the already battered Chrysler brand image.
The figure-head Chrysler management seems to think it knows how to run the company. The silly fools actually want to advertise the product.
Chrysler Marketing and Sales Vice President Steven Landry defended the decision to spend on advertising during the bankruptcy saying that the move “gives us the opportunity to reinforce that it’s business as usual and demonstrate a bright future ahead for Chrysler.”
Of course, Mr. Landry is wrong. There is no bright future ahead for Chrysler. Who wants to buy a car made by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank? What bond investor wants to invest in a company that has seen previous bondholders get strong-armed by the President of the United States into giving up the value of their investment “for the good of the State” or the UAW? The president may not like the free market, but the free market decides which cars get bought by the public. Looks like future Chryslers will be sporting a lot of U.S. Government license plates.
Related Posts
- Obama Auto Task Force Calls Chrysler Lawyer a Terrorist
- Emergency Filing: Chrysler Creditors Take Obama to Supreme Court
- Chrysler won’t repay bailout money
- Obama’s Unconstitutional, Totalitarian Thuggery on Chrysler
- Chrysler To Close All 30 Manufacturing Plants for a Month
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=4076
They’re expecting a crowd of 75,000 at ASU’s Sun Devil stadium for Barack Obama’s commencement speech tomorrow night. I wonder if that’s the largest crowd ever for an automobile executive.
Then again, he’s the first person I know of to be an executive for more than one U.S. auto maker at the same time.
If you own two car companies does that make you an Auto Magnate? These fools have to know they are destroying these companies. If it were not for the unions, I would say they don’t care. They must truly believe that if the unions are essentially government employees and the government props up the companies, that is the best outcome.
I think you’re right about the union angle. You are dead right that they wouldn’t give a damn about the auto companies otherwise.
I notice you didn’t even bother to ask if I was planning on attending his speech at my Alma Mater.
Good call.
Why waste the time at the speech when you could be doing something more productive, like chewing tin foil or rubbing dog crap in your hair.
You don’t cut advertisng. He wants to hurt the company. Obama’s budget is failure by design. Why?
Chrysler is nearly two weeks into its bankruptcy, and the automaker is already getting an idea of just how engaged the Obama administration plans to be in the process. Chrysler planned to spend $134 million dollars on advertising during its supposed nine weeks of bankruptcy, but the Auto Task Force has reportedly cut the figure in half. Judge Arthur Gonzalez wasn’t even sure 50% spending was necessary, saying “idle plants, why market?” But the Task Force apparently says it recognizes that marketing is necessary during the bankruptcy to prevent the further erosion of the already battered Chrysler brand image. Here are the TV ads that were cut by the advertiser-in-chief. http://pfx.me/BX
McDonald’s is spending $100 million to promote McCafe and Obama says Chrysler can only spend $67 million advertising Chrysler products! I wonder when BO plans to bail out McDonald’s after they squandered $100 million advertising the introduction of overpriced coffee products.
I accept your numbers, Vince – no basis to disagree. But McD’s is different. They need to be taxed out of existence. Fast food will be next on the list: Cigarettes, alcohol, soda, chips, fast food.
Obama’s only gotten to 3 and 4 as proposals. But he’s working so very hard! He’ll get there.
Then those bad fast-food chains will understand. The store managers will be flipping burgers and making minimum wage. Huge signs will be required – “576 calories per Big Mac (without cheese). 539 calories in large fries.” Soda will cost more than Whoppers.
And all the poor people will be saying, “WTF he gonna tax next?”
And all the pubs will be saying, “Next time engage your brain before voting.”
And all the libs will be saying, “We’re only here to help you live a more healthy lifestyle.”
And the pubs will rejoin, “The people can decide what lifestyle they want to live. The government should stay out of it.”
And the poor people will add, “Yeah, stay the F outta my life!”
Why spend any money on advertising? It’s probably just a matter of time before we’re all required by law to buy a GM or Chrysler car.
We’ll all be issued our car based upon income, family size, and years in Democrat Party.
Am I wasting my time in pointing out that this is the same guy that’s NEVER had a real job in his life? Same guy who wrote two sets of memoirs before ever having a real job in his life?
I’m going to go chew on tinfoil now. If I were going to rub dog crap in anyone’s hair, it would be Janeane Garofalo’s hair — not that it would look any different than it does now.
The right for you to live a fat and unhealthy existence ends when I have to pay a larger health insurance premium or pay taxes for to fund an overburdened medicare due to your poor choices. Whether its taxes or insurance premiums, individuals need to pay for their poor choices, not me. How can you dispute this?
To an extent, I agree. This is part of the reason why we fight every government welfare program tooth and nail, because ultimately the goal of all of them is government control of every aspect of an individual’s existence.