It seems to me that you're mistaking a symptom for the disease. I know you ad guys think the world revolves around you, but come on. The problem with the Big Three is arrogant and incompetent management; marketing is just one of many areas of their activity that suffered.

You begin by saying that Detroit lost its "roadmap to the American unconscious." Well, sure. Also, they stopped trying to make top-quality cars around 1955, and didn't start again until the mid-80s.

You point out the boneheaded decision to take private jets to beg Congress for money. Yes, that had negative repercussions for their popularity, but it is evidence of bad and arrogant management.

You mention things like the Big 3 crusades against seatbelts, CAFE, and alternative fuels; you point out their lame and ineffectual CEOs. Yes, all these things resulted in negative publicity, but what they are symptomatic of is bad management.

You talk about the dealership network and suggest that what they need is jazzier buildings; how about a sales philosophy not based on ripping people off as much as possible? The problem with the dealerships isn't that they look bad; it's that they are staffed by lying con men! (This is the most amusing part of your column. You actually use the phrase "leverage the power of architecture and hire Frank Gehry to create a new paradigm". Try to squeeze in a few more buzzwords next time instead of actually writing!)

You spend a couple paragraphs complaining about how hard it is to work with Detroit if you're an ad man. Again, this seems to me like a symptom of a much greater illness.

But my favorite moment in your column is when you recite the "fact" that Detroit's cars improved even as their "image" declined. Even if that is true, why should anyone be proud of that? Detroit wasn't an "A" student that worked extra hard and earned an A ; Detroit was a lazy "D" student that got caught goofing off, struggled to catch up, and is now a "B" student. They fell behind out of laziness and only struggled to catch up after they got in trouble. That's nothing to be proud of; falling behind in the first place is something to be ashamed of. It's also evidence of bad management.

Did Detroit's bad management make a lot of bad decisions? Yes. Did these include bad marketing decisions, and decisions that had negative marketing implications? Sure. But marketing itself was coincidental to what really caused the Big Three's decline.

spot on. brilliant. trenchent. even a bit piquant! having toiled similarly in the fields of the persuasion -- even for one of the Big Three that shall not be named -- i can echo some of this from the inside. the cars did get better. but what about corporate philosophies that had marketing and engineering at each other's throats like hamas and fatah? what about systems, and in fact, huge suburbs of detroit, built around the fact that certain divisions offered more models for sale than the entire japanese and korean auto industries combined? having said that, there is no excuse for lame marketing. i particularly liked mr. hanft's point about some campaigns for the u.a.w. (one thinks back to some of the work that was done in the 60's, which i have only seen in awards books by the way) for the international ladies garment workers. great piece.

ken krimstein

Good story Adam. But your cheap shot at the private jets is a conflict from your desire for flashy adverting and modernization. Had the exec's drove cars to the hearing, I could see the Congress asking such questions as "You paid Spike Jonez HOW much for ONE ad?"

It was a no win situation. Did Citibank even have to show up to a hearing?

First, Starbucks sells 20 cents worth of coffee for 4 bucks. Such a racket we should all be in! Second, EliasG is correct: drop "leverage." I happen to do work for Ford and think that while Mr Mulally has done a pretty good job (and Ford is in much better shape than the rest of Detroit), he too likes to "leverage our assets." I assume this means to use stuff we already have, but who knows in corporate-speak. Third, all my buddies at JWalter, Leo Burnett, Y&R would probably disagree with you and might even have hurt feelings. But it is true that dealerships have steadfastly refused to open on Saturdays when more people have free time to look at cars. In Detroit at least, this has been been because salesmen put up a huge stink about working weekends. But I would say the same thing about dentists; why do I have to take time off work to get a cleaning? Because dentists don't want to work weekends. Finally, if someone has mistaken the Toyota Corolla or Camry for an exciting car or that either is promoted with cool advertising, I would say that person isn't paying much attention to cars or ads.

Great story. It's another case of a behemoth showing no respect for the American people. They think the only way to succeed is to dumb everything down, from their cars to their marketing, and people have just tuned them out.

I agree. I have a DVR and I can't remember the last time I willingly watched a commercial for an American car. I have to admit the VW spots are extremely entertaining.

I find the point about marketing collapsing while the Big 3 improved in car quality to be strikingly spot on. I haven't seen a memorable ad campaign for an American car in my entire life that I could recall. I also know that the vast majority of my peers would prefer Honda, Toyota, Mazda or VW over anything American (with the exception of the occasional muscle car) despite the fact that domestic car quality is up there with the foreign big boys.

The Marketing of Detroit vehicles would be a lot easier if GM, Ford and Chrysler were building the right vehicles. enough said.

tonyag354-the VW ads are by CrispinPorter. They are an awesome agency

The only thing to stick in the American psyche for the past 30 years of car advertising is LIKE A ROCK. And even then, I am not entirely clear on which car company is like a rock, nor do I care for anyone reading this to point it out to me. I prefer to remain ignorant and car-less.

Perhaps Hanft/Rayboy wants a shot a brand marketing assignment. It's always the raiders at the gate who talk revolution and end up making different flavors of sausage ads . . . the domestic auto industry is driven by dealers. And the over-saturation of both product and dealers makes all the marketing (of late) utterly tactical. It's all about a deal; Dealers believe that SHOUTING incentives DRIVES traffic to the DEALERSHIP. It's their money. I'm inside the beast (not the Daily one) and know people outside the 'old agency client relationship' who are trying to sell a 'better way' to do this thing called marketing on their behalf (smarter, cheaper, more distinctive) . . and you'd be surprised how many dealer groups -- of their own accord -- want to keep doing the same bad stuff. The kicker? They'll pay for it. It's stunning. I was part of the Cadillac renaissance from 2000 - 2004 and take exception with the fact that long term ad relationships are flawed; what did Cadillac get by going to Modernista!? A client who wouldn't have been happy otherwise because of an existing relationship; ah, yes, advertising is still a relationship business as much as it is a results business. I worked on Cadillac during it's 'product renaissance' from 2000-2004.We did some good work. Cadillac 'Barrels' was a superbowl ad that touted the V Series with 3 cars being 'shot' out of tunnels. The STS launch was accompanied by a spot called Party Crasher where an STS 'crashes' a waltz amongst staid BMWs and Mercedes. That's all history. You can only do what they'll let you do, and what suffers most in the 'ancestral' relationships between car makers and ad shops is the loss of identity. The burden of communication falls victim the necessity of compliance with a set of circumstances that impedes the craft of coming up with and making the ad. The best ads make clients nervous, and the fear of late is not coming from the marketing departments' offerings; it's coming from the market.

I agree with some of the posters, maybe Adam is mistaking the cause and effect.

But what really amazed me was that an ad guy, who "brands" and "decodes", runs a company whose name is, well, his & his partner's last names combined.

(I, for one, would think twice before hiring his firm to brand mine...)

I agree with the automakers doing an especially poor job marketing the high points. Employee satisfaction, better quality. But I disagree with the assertion that no memorable commercials have been made in decades. The launch spots for the Dodge Caliber stand out in my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcj7QT0Abk8
Also this spot doesn't say much but the graphic treatment was eye-catching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R73Yk6VHCrQ.
I think Detroit's biggest advertising issue is that they make the spots about their product rather than their customer. Scion does a great job of selling an attitude... the Big 3 could learn a lot.

As a member of the group that was turned off by the behavior described by the writer, this rings very true for me. In addition to the Big Three's apparent lack of concern for the environment and safety, there's the constant battles with their workers.

Agreed that the management failure involved more than marketing. However, thinking about the degree to which Harley Davidson has dominated the US motorcycle market with antiquated technology in the face of hugely superior competitors makes me think the central point is valid.