February 4, 2008

Katie Crabb picks the best Super Bowl Ads

By Katie Crabb
Guest Blogger

Editor's note: You might remember Katie Crabb as a guest blogger here on FYI from last year after she won the Chevy Super Bowl Ad Challenge. She's back today with a review of this year's Super Bowl commercials. -- Will Stewart, Blog Editor

Katie Crabb here, winner of the 2007 Chevy Super Bowl College Ad Challenge. A year after my own adventures in the ruthless fight for Super Bowl advertising guru-ship and following a great summer internship with Campbell-Ewald, I find myself on the other side of the television, witnessing a whole new set of commercials aspiring for remembrance among some of the best marketing on television. My findings? Super Bowl XLII proved that the most predicted to succeed can fall short, and the unexpected should only be anticipated. And the come-from-behind win of the New York Giants further proved this notion.

The following are my choices for the five MVPs of Super Bowl 2008:

#1 - Using some beloved animated characters to bring a battle for a bottle of soda pop to life, Coca-Cola’s “Balloon Fight” spot in the fourth quarter was endearing and memorable. Great placement. Great ad. Altogether great.

#2 - Everybody loves a company with a sense of humor. The Fed-Ex “Pigeons” ad was clever, unique and entertaining. Let’s face it … with the American consumer, you just can’t go wrong with giant birds attacking a city.

#3 - This Super Bowl had its fair share of celebrity endorsements. From Charles Barkley, to Shaq, to Carmen Electra, these big-named big-shots were able to put their companies on the map. The favorites of these included the singing Roethlisberger, the NFL’s super Salaam and Pitts’ story, Justin Timberlake’s must-have-had-a-stunt-man Pepsi Ad and Will Farrell’s improvisational commentary on Bud Light.

#4 - I may have a few critics on this one, but the element-of-surprise was highly effective for this year’s set of CareerBuilder commercials (“Follow Your Heart” and “Wishing”), creating fun and buzz-worthy spots.

#5 - Planter’s Cashews gave the all-stars a run for their money (and we’re talking a huge chunk of change). The only downfall to the twisted simplicity of “Unibrow” is the unfortunate case of those who will walk into work on Monday morning with a firm hope in the fantastical power of cashew smell.

Though those are my personal picks for top 2008 Super Bowl ads, I do have to commend a few other forerunners in the competition. Honorable mentions include Tide Pen's “Talking Stain”, Toyota's “Badgers”, Pepsi Max's “What is Love?”, The Audi "Godfather" ad, Bridgestone's“Richard Simmons," and, of course, Bud Light's “Flight,” “Thunder”, and “Fire” spots.

Then there are the unfortunate few that have been placed on my “Benchwarmers” list. This includes both salesgenie.com spots, Garmin, Taco Bell, and Hyundai. Leading this category of ads was GoDaddy.com, confirming that unless you’re Victoria ’s Secret, hot women and sex appeal on their basic level don’t work after all.

As for GMC’s Yukon commercial, I have to praise its distinctive voice and character. GM was able to rise above the typical “car commercial” and present a motivating, quality, yet car-focused ad that deserves a solid acknowledgment.

Posted by Editor at 12:15 PM
Comments (2) | TrackBack | Permalink

November 12, 2007

Detroit Urban Legends

By Christopher Barger
Director, GM Global Communications Technology

One of the more interesting things to observe in popular culture is how some urban legends and conspiracy theories refuse to die — and how stubbornly some people choose to cling to those legends even after they’ve been disproved.

There’s the one about the “ghost” visible in a scene in Three Men and a Baby. There’s the one about the Great Wall of China being the only man-made object visible to the naked eye from space. There are still a few people who believe that Neil Armstrong’s giant leap took place on a soundstage, not the moon. And unfortunately, there’s the one about how the technology for cleaner and more environmentally friendly automotive engines exists and is simple, but “Detroit” keeps suppressing it.

Conspiracy theories are good fodder for selling books, magazines and TV shows, and to draw readers to your blog. Maybe that’s why some bloggers are choosing to interpret this month’s cover story in Fast Company in such a way as to indulge the urban myth about “Detroit” keeping new technology down.

The article in Fast Company’s an interesting one, and Jonathan Goodwin’s work and theories do deserve more attention. No one — at least not here at GM — is saying that all options and all efforts to develop more efficient and cleaner engines don’t warrant closer looks.

But unfortunately, some people — both bloggers and traditional pundits — have taken this article about an entrepreneur who’s working on something, and extrapolated the incorrect conclusions that a) this single entrepreneur’s work discounts and disproves everything “Detroit” has said regarding fuel efficiency; and b) makes that single entrepreneur smarter than the collective leadership of an entire industry. That’s not just an ill-informed and wrong premise, it’s irresponsible. And it might reveal something about the biases of and willful blinders on those who are making those claims.

First of all, let’s be blunt. The idea that “Detroit,” acting as a lumbering monolith in conjunction with one another, is suppressing technology that would be to both the marketplace’s benefit AND manufacturers’ benefit, is misguided at best and willfully ignorant at worst. If the technology were so easy and so simple… do you really think that “Detroit” would suppress it and choose not to compete more strongly with companies like Toyota? Riiiiight… Because we want to keep losing market share, don’t we?

And — giving credit where it’s due: Toyota has made a number of smart moves in the past 20 years, and has earned its place in the marketplace right now. Does anyone really believe that if this technology was so simple and so easily available, that Toyota would not have adopted it and made it available in mass production? They’ve done a lot of other things right over the last couple of decades — don’t you think that they’d take every opportunity to once and for all drive a stake through the heart of their competition with such technology?

The fact that no automaker — not Japanese, not European, not American — has come out with mass production of the technologies that the conspiracy theorists insist is available and simple… well, that should tell you something. But I guess it’s easier for some to take the lazy way out, continuing to believe in and spread tired old conspiracy theories and urban legends than to do their homework and take anything beyond a sound bite approach to this issue.

Wherever this myth and bias comes from, it’s just not true. I won’t presume to speak for Ford or Chrysler, but at GM, we have been making great strides in developing multiple environmentally friendlier technologies — from increased gasoline efficiency in internal combustion engines, to various types of hybrids, through our work on vehicles like the Volt and with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles such as those in Project Driveway. It’s not just us saying so either: Time Magazine just did an article about the progress we’re making in green technology. We’re not going to rest on recent laurels, either; we’re spending billions of dollars to continue to make our products have less of an impact on the environment, and we’ll continue to invest in research to make these vehicles reality.

And despite what some folks out there seem to want to believe about us, we’re not stupid. We recognize market drivers and market reality. We also live on this planet just like everyone else does, and we want to do the right things by the planet too. The image of Detroit as Nero fiddling while the world warms may be an easy one to invoke, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Rather than looking at the holistic picture, and considering Jonathan Goodwin’s work in context as well as seeing some of the strides made by automakers lately to respond to the need for greener solutions, as well as continuing their focus on what we could do better, some choose the easy and lazy way out. But then I guess it’s easier to throw stones than to pick up phones, or do actual research before issuing their knee-jerk, reflexive condemnations of “Detroit.”

To be fair, maybe some of these folks want to tell a more accurate story (and by accurate, we don’t necessarily mean pro-GM; we just mean making sure people’s facts are right if or when they criticize); maybe we just haven’t done as good a job as we could have in talking directly to them (as opposed to talking at them or dismissing critics altogether). We’re going to work to rectify that in 2008.

In the meantime, we’re all interested in finding ways to make more efficient gas engines and practical engines that use little to no gasoline. Jonathan Goodwin’s work, along with work being done every day by GM’s engineers, shows promise. And despite the biases and apparent fond hopes of some, we’re going to keep pursuing these solutions, keep taking leadership, and we’re going to thrive in the coming decade. It’s the right thing to do, it’s a business imperative, and we intend to do it.

I am going to be at the L.A. Auto Show this week and am going to be quite a bit busier than normal, so I may not get to any comments right away. But I promise, I will be reading them and will respond as time permits.

Posted by Editor at 2:33 PM
Comments (3) | TrackBack | Permalink

October 22, 2007

Checking Back

By Mary Beth Stanek
Director, Environment Energy and Safety Policy

Thanks to all of you for your comments regarding my ethanol myth piece that was posted awhile back.

I especially want to thank Gary for all of his analysis shared with readers. He is right about keeping the dialogue going and we will do our best at this end to post in a more timely manner.

For this round, let’s get to some of the comments, then talk a bit more on what we are doing at GM to promote biofuels.

There were a number of comments about net energy balance, researchers and their study parameters. As you know from our posts, we do support the Department of Energy work at Argonne National Labs because they evaluated a number of studies and identified what many believe to be a reasonable set of input and output data. We viewed the Argonne parameters as being more in line with true input and output variables. I do agree that researchers on this subject are using varied inputs and outputs. By and large, the majority researchers on this subject view corn ethanol production as having a positive net energy balance. I would encourage everyone to look at a couple of reports including Dr. Michael Wang’s net energy balance report. I would also encourage a quick review of Science from Jan. 27, 2006, to look at their findings as well.

Several bloggers wrote about the rising costs of food and feed. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a great deal of information on this subject and I encourage everyone to reach out to USDA to inquire about these issues. We did, and found that prices are increasing at about the rate of inflation. The price of a bushel of corn spiked in February 2006, and it was mostly a fear of a lower carryover in the annual corn production, which typically is about 1 billion bushels. You know from following the Chicago Board of Trade that prices have fallen significantly since that time. In fact, the corn harvest in 2007 was the largest in 75 years and 26 percent larger than 2006, according to the USDA. We can meet our food, feed, fuel, export requirements and carryover figures very easily and that supports normalized bushel pricing.

It is also worth mentioning that worldwide demand for dairy and beef products are contributing more to increased food and feed prices than ethanol production. It should also be noted that cattle co-located near ethanol facilities benefit from affordable high-protein distillers grain for feed, which is a byproduct of ethanol production. Collocation keeps prices down for both food and fuel production. There are several articles on global demand as the world economy continues to grow and the use of ethanol byproducts for animal feed and can be found through regular search engines.

I was pleased to see a comment about the need to grow the E85 infrastructure. I believe it can be done by bringing business and government together to make it happen. GM has worked with several ethanol producers and fuel retailers to help find grant funds and to co-market E85 stations. To date, we have programs in 14 states and have some role in introducing 270 new E85 pumps that are helping to target for reduced CO2 and less use of fossil fuel. One writer indicated that lived 50 miles away from the nearest E85 station. You can be confident that more E85 fuel will be available in the remaining months of 2007 and throughout 2008 now that United Laboratories (UL) has approved dispensing equipment. Even during this time, businesses and governments have been working to nearly double the number of stations offering E85 since just last year.

Another writer wondered whether we were basing our comments on biased sources. At GM, we focus on obtaining information from credible sources including federal agencies, national laboratories and research institutions. GM itself has been working on biofuels for more than 25 years and has research labs and partnerships worldwide, especially in the area of biomass. Our scientists have a vast network of information linked with known leaders in this field.

Ethanol does reduce fossil fuel use when blended at high levels such as E85. Ethanol is renewable in that it does come from bio materials. Increasingly we will see ethanol from cellulose, which is also bio-based.

There was a very good comment posted about how much ethanol can offset fossil fuel use in the United States. The U.S. consumes about 140 billion gallons of transportation energy annually. That is forecasted to grow to 180 billion gallons of energy a year in 2030. We need to reduce our use through a variety of methods including vehicle efficiency, driving behavior (loads, acceleration, etc.), advanced technologies such as two-mode hybrids, fuel cell vehicles and biofuels. We worked cooperatively with the University of Toronto, and we believe that as much as 30 percent of the energy needed for transportation in the 2020 timeframe can be provided by biomass-based biofuels. This can only happen if we continue support research that is focused on sustainable biofuels.

A quick comment on tractors. We don’t build them, but we do know that other engines manufacturers are very active in this space assessing and increasing biofuel use.

Lastly, our team has been out in cities near you promoting E85. We just wrapped up the very successful E85 Days of Summer Tour, which generated more than 24 million media impressions in the seven cities we visited in seven weeks. We are now out on the road with the E85 Fall Kickoff. We began in Pittsburgh and will be in three Wisconsin cities this week. Our other stops include Atlanta, Denver, Tucson, and Phoenix. We have been meeting with consumers, legislators, media and educators. The response has been great. Where possible, we are activating new stations and supporting existing E85 infrastructure.

Thanks for writing.

Make sure to check back with Donna McLallen, too.

Posted by Editor at 12:58 PM
Comments (14) | TrackBack | Permalink

Back With More Thoughts on E85

By Donna McLallen
GM Assistant Regional Manager, PR/Communications

I should have known better a few weeks ago when I posted my “final words” on ethanol.

Turns out, my last post will not be my final words on the subject, as I’m back from a brief E85 hiatus for another round of fun and frolic in the fascinating world of alternative fuels.

Recently, the E85 Fall Kickoff took place in Pittsburgh, where GM once again took to the streets to promote E85 as an alternative fuel source. The Fall Kickoff came on the heels of the E85 Days of Summer Tour and continues E85 awareness efforts in additional U.S. cities.

Why? Because there are more than 6.5 million vehicles currently on U.S. roads (2.5 million built by GM) capable of running on E85 (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), yet the fuel is not widely available for consumers and many in the U.S. are unaware of its existence.

For more information on the benefits of E85 and GM’s commitment to the fuel, please refer to previous these previous posts: E85 Days of Summer Tour Kicks Off, The Ethanol Debate, Ethanol: My Final Words, and E85 Mythbusting.

Additional posts from the E85 team are sure to be forthcoming, chronicling our visits to each city on the E85 Fall Kickoff tour, but first, I’m compelled to address some of the responses to past entries on the subject, and hopefully, set the tone for future discussions.

It’s clear that the handful of bloggers critical of GM’s support of E85 is a tenacious bunch. Whatever evidence we present to make our case that E85 is, in fact, a helpful fuel source Americans can use now to help improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil, is sure to be met with counterarguments with which we do not believe.

Some of our critics apparently have made ethanol opposition their life’s mission, trolling the Internet for years, promptly disputing any pro-ethanol message that can be found on the World Wide Web with incessant, repetitive and inconclusive “evidence.” I do wonder what motivates those seemingly independent of the fuel industry to fervently oppose ethanol, a friendly fuel that will never be a threat to the Earth nor man, unless, of course, man drinks too much of it, at which time he will become inebriated, dehydrated, hung over, and with long-term usage, could develop cirrhosis of the liver.

I don’t wish to rehash GM’s arguments and evidence in support of E85, but I am compelled to respond to the following assertions left by responders to previous posts:

E10 use actually increases fossil fuel consumption.

GM is promoting E85, not E10. So, an argument that E10 use increases fossil fuel consumption is not valid. Nice diversion tactic, though.

E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. We all agree that E85, as currently formulated, is about 20 percent less efficient as a fuel than gasoline, but even so, simple math concludes that exclusive use of E85 does conserve fossil fuel use. And E85 won’t necessarily remain less fuel efficient than gasoline as research and development of the fuel progresses.

If we use corn for ethanol, there won’t be enough corn to feed livestock and food prices will rise.

Actually, corn feed is a byproduct of ethanol production. Seems to me, if we make more ethanol from corn, we’ll have more feed for domestic livestock and livestock in other countries, if somebody wants to sell the excess feed to other nations.

And I don’t understand how ethanol can be blamed for higher prices of everything. Take corn flakes, for example. There used to be only 2 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. Assuming that corn prices have doubled, there would now be 4 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. Yet, the price of a box of corn flakes has raised nearly a dollar a box. What’s that got to do with the price of corn in the U.S.?

I don’t know specifically why costs of certain food items are so high, but I doubt it has everything to do with ethanol, which has become a very convenient and frequent scapegoat. It is curious to me that no one seems able to explain how corn prices, low compared to oil, can cause the substantial price jumps for which they are credited.

If we converted the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol, it would equal only 12% of our annual fuel consumption.

This one actually makes me chuckle. Who would ever advocate converting the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol? Personally, I like my cornbread and tortillas. It’s silly to even hypothesize such a scenario. But since it’s on the table, we defer to studies by the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture saying that if we produce 60-90 billion gallons of ethanol, we can potentially offset fossil fuel use by 30 percent by 2030.

Also, please be reminded that cellulosic ethanol is not just a hope. It is a reality. And as ethanol becomes more accepted as an alternative fuel, more cellulosic ethanol plants will come on line and the “energy return on energy invested” ratio will improve.

Fuel production from non-food sources is a good thing for everyone, and it is ridiculous to fear the widespread acceptance and availability of alternative fuels. It is also ridiculous to argue that ethanol is not a renewable fuel. Ethanol is made from plants, and plant crops can be grown year after year. Any argument to the contrary is a real stretch.

Yes, there is much debate out there about how much fossil fuel may actually be displaced by ethanol use, but some displacement is better than no displacement. Even ethanol’s critics admit that as demand for fossil fuels grows throughout the world, the techniques to distract it from the earth will become more and more environmentally invasive. GM realizes that it’s important to explore every avenue to take the automobile out of the environmental debate, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on oil.

As I wrote in a previous entry, E85 is something drivers can take advantage of now to help improve the environment while we perfect plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells, along with all the other work we’re doing to improve the fuel economy of our vehicles.

Obviously, GM is not a well-oiled, ethanol propaganda machine, as some of our critics would believe. Otherwise, we would have responded much more quickly to our critics on FYI. Or we might have concocted fake responses in support of our entries, like that major newspaper (the one whose anti-ethanol editorial was quoted in response to one of my previous E85 entries) got caught doing a few months back. Or maybe GM would assign a dedicated E85 specialist to write all the E85 blogs and troll the Internet in support of ethanol, instead of allowing me — someone who is certainly not a full-time ethanol champion but believes in the potential for the fuel — to step up on the soapbox time and time again.

Metaphorically speaking, GM’s E85 train has left the station and is gaining momentum. We’re really excited about this fall’s whistle-stop tour, and maybe I’ll have the opportunity to tell you more about the E85 Fall Kickoff in coming weeks.

To see photos from the first tour stop, make sure to check out Flickr.

Posted by Editor at 12:38 PM
Comments (18) | TrackBack | Permalink

October 4, 2007

Beware the Ideas of Friedman

By Tom Wilkinson
GM News Relations

Tom Friedman’s shotgun blast at Toyota in the October 3 New York Times (Et Tu, Toyota?) also peppered a crowd of bystanders with verbal shot. Among the wounded were the state of Michigan, the Michigan congressional delegation, U.S.-based carmakers, the farm states, the oil states… well, you get the picture. Only the Natural Resources Defense Council, which helped load the gun for Mr. Friedman, seems to have escaped perforation.

We trust that Toyota, the Michigan delegation and others will defend themselves. We do, however, take issue with some of the poorly aimed shots that Mr. Friedman keeps taking at the auto industry.

For starters, there is nothing sinister about Toyota –- or anyone else -- building trucks. To the unending frustration of Mr. Friedman and a handful of environmentalists, Americans buy trucks. Even with gas at $3 per gallon, Americans are buying enough midsize and full-size trucks to account for 40% of the market.

GM’s response is simple –- continue to improve the fuel efficiency of all of our vehicles, including our larger trucks. It’s why our full-size pickups are the fuel economy leaders. It’s why our new Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrids match the city fuel economy of a Toyota Camry. And it’s why our new crossovers –- Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook –- are a smash hit with customers who want space for a family in a stylish, efficient package.

However, just because GM is investing billions of dollars on more efficient vehicles and future breakthroughs like the electrically driven Chevy Volt doesn’t mean we should support bad environmental policy.

And that is exactly what the CAFE provisions of the Senate energy bill are –- bad policy. By putting cars and truck under a single average, the bill would damage full-line carmakers and eliminate some of today’s most popular vehicles. That’s why GM, Toyota and other industry leaders are backing an alternative that would substantially raise fuel economy standards, but do so in a balanced and reasonable way.

Finally, we had to chuckle at Mr. Friedman’s praise for vehicle fleets in Europe and Japan. Anyone as well-traveled as Mr. Friedman knows why European and Japanese vehicles are smaller and more fuel efficient. Fuel taxes are higher. Much higher. Given Americans’ loathing for higher taxes, it is no surprise that Mr. Friedman omits this inconvenient truth.

Although GM is based in Detroit, we live and work in London, Shanghai, São Paulo and thousands of other communities around the globe. As a growing global carmaker, we understand the importance of continuing to improve efficiency, and of developing real-world alternatives to petroleum. We urge Mr. Friedman to step off his soapbox and use his gifts as a reporter to develop a deeper understanding of this complex, fast-moving and vitally important industry.

Thanks for listening, and please let us know what you think.

P.S. Todd Lassa at Motor Trend also had an interesting post on "Friedmanomics" yesterday.

Posted by Editor at 9:54 AM
Comments (47) | TrackBack | Permalink

June 1, 2007

Questioning Our Brand Strategy?

By Christopher Barger
Director, GM Global Communications Technology

We couldn't help but notice a letter to the editor in yesterday's USA Today questioning our brand strategy and suggesting that GM might be better off with fewer brands.

We respect the author's opinion, and we certainly don't mean to single him out... but we would like to address his concern. We'd actually argue that in today’s highly competitive, highly fragmented car market, a strong portfolio of brands is critical. A typical brand today sells only about 250,000 units a year, and some of the hottest new brands like Mini, HUMMER and Scion sell way less than that. A fast-changing brandscape like this offers lots of challenges — and opportunities.

We think that as GM continues to improve its products and sharpen its brands, our portfolio of eight brands can be a competitive advantage — if we can keep each brand sharply focused and stocked with strong products. GM’s global operations help here. For example, sharing products with Opel will give Saturn new vehicles perfectly suited for import fans, while our new global rear drive program, headquartered in Australia, will soon provide Chevy and Pontiac with exciting new performance cars.

It's also important that we work with our dealers to build strong retail channels. As Buick, Pontiac and GMC come together in the same showroom, we are eliminating overlapping products and sharpening all three brands. The customer gets a showroom full of great products, and the dealer gets enough traffic to maintain a successful, profitable business. This also allows both GM and its dealers to streamline areas like the service department that the customer doesn’t see.

There are lots of signs that improved products and stronger brands are paying off for GM. Our retail sales are up, and new vehicles like the Chevy Silverado, GMC Acadia and Saturn Aura and Outlook are racking up sales and accolades. Yes, GM still faces many challenges here in North America. But we are confident that we are moving in the right direction. And we'd humbly suggest that if the author were to give one of our new Buick, Pontiac or Saturn vehicles a test drive, he might well share some of our confidence.

Posted by Editor at 11:34 AM
Comments (38) | TrackBack | Permalink

January 25, 2007

Working Together to Keep Electric Technology Alive

By Dave Barthmuss
Manager, Public Policy, Environment & Energy

With all the excitement generated by the recent unveiling of the Chevy Volt, it seemed like a good time to check back in with everyone at FYI about GM and the electric car.

A lot has happened since my last post on FYI, where I discussed at length my thoughts concerning the film, “Who Killed the Electric Car?,” in which I appeared.

After watching the movie and talking to what seems to be thousands of people about its unique point of view, I have to say two things. First, as you might suspect, I believe the points I made about the film in my original post still ring true. Second, I am even more convinced of the depth of commitment people still have for electric cars, especially given the issues we face today both as a nation and as a global community.

Two other important things have happened recently, too. First, GM announced its commitment to build a plug-in version of the Saturn Vue at the last Los Angeles Auto Show, and it unveiled the GM E-Flex system and Chevy Volt at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. More importantly, though, GM and advocates of electric vehicle technology in all forms — many of whom have been critical of GM’s efforts — are actually finding common ground. And I very much hope that this kind of improved relationship will allow all of us to move toward solutions together.

One of the reasons for this change, I believe, is that we learned from our experiences with the EV1 and used them in creating the Chevy Volt.

Chris Paine, the director of, and driving force behind, “Who Killed the Electric Car?,” recognizes GM’s efforts, telling Autoblog Green this about the Volt:

“From what I can see, GM is doing the right thing and I'm supporting them as long as they keep making good decisions and moving plug-in cars into production reality.”

And Paine told the Detroit Free Press of the Volt’s debut in Detroit that GM is “coming back to the table in a huge and impressive way,” and that, “it’s a very impressive engineering and design team at work on the project.”

What’s important here is not so much what Chris said, but the fact that GM has been able to have honest and open dialogue with people who are keenly interested in electric vehicles, even if they have criticized and disagreed with GM’s efforts on that front.

Clearly, we won’t always agree with our critics, but that should not stop us from talking, and recognizing the value different thoughts and opinions can bring to our work. When we find a way to put our differences aside and engage in open and honest dialogue, we can usually find collaborative solutions to the issues and challenges we all agree must ultimately be solved — even if at times we don’t agree on the best way to “build the watch.” I can only speak for GM here, but I sincerely hope we can continue the dialogue as we move forward with the E-Flex system and Chevy Volt.

And that includes the dialogue with you. So please stay tuned and keep the feedback coming.

Posted by Editor at 12:31 PM
Comments (15) | TrackBack | Permalink

September 18, 2006

GM’s Doing as Much as Any Automaker to Reduce Oil Dependence

(Editor’s note: Journalist Derrick Jackson of The Boston Globe recently attacked Detroit’s automakers in his syndicated column. Below is our response. We submitted this to the Globe, but the newspaper declined to run it, citing its policy of not accepting op/eds that respond to Globe columns. The Globe did run a much shorter version of this response in their letters to the editor column Saturday (Sept. 16). We asked that they include this blog’s address at the end of the letter, so their readers could see the full text. They declined. The Miami Herald also ran the Jackson column, and also declined to run our response. Fortunately, our blogs give us a chance to give you the full story, from our point of view, and expand the debate beyond the Globe’s op/ed page. Let us know what you think.)

By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications

If Derrick Jackson truly believes that you can learn “everything you need to know about American automakers” by reading four newspaper clippings, perhaps he should consider another line of work. That kind of half-baked research leads to half-baked columns, like the one The Boston Globe published Sept. 2.

General Motors is working hard to build a stronger America that’s less dependent on oil, and we’re making significant progress. What we don’t appreciate is the kind of cynical propaganda that Mr. Jackson has engaged in recently, which seeks to portray Detroit automakers as buffoons and our Japanese competitors as flawless. It’s almost as if he wants the U.S. auto industry to fail. Why?

We agree with him that this nation needs to reduce its dependence on oil. GM is doing as much or more than any automaker to address this issue, from making our gasoline engines more fuel-efficient with new technologies, to producing cars and trucks that can run on ethanol-based fuel, to investing heavily in hybrid and fuel-cell powertrains.

GM also is well-positioned for the shift to more fuel-efficient cars and crossover vehicles. In fact, GM offers more vehicles that are EPA-rated at 30 mpg or better on the highway than any other automaker. More than Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

So far this year, Americans have bought more than 865,000 of our 30-mpg-or-better cars. Our new full-size SUVs that Mr. Jackson disparages also are selling well, in part because they have better EPA highway-mileage estimates than any of the competing SUVs offered by Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus and Ford.

Here are some other pertinent facts that Mr. Jackson chose to ignore:

Last year’s top-selling subcompact was the fuel-stingy Chevy Aveo, and an all-new ’07 Aveo sedan has just debuted. Honda and Nissan just recently entered this growing segment, and Toyota just re-entered it after pulling its previous entry out of the U.S. market due to poor sales.
The recently introduced Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid offers the best highway fuel economy of any SUV (EPA rated at 32 mpg) at a price significantly less than its hybrid competitors. The Vue is one of a dozen hybrid vehicles that GM will launch in the next few years.
GM has put 478 GM-powered hybrid public transit buses on the streets of 39 cities in the United States and Canada over the past few years. They’re saving thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
GM recently announced a new V-8 turbo-diesel engine that will improve engine fuel efficiency by 25 percent for our future light duty trucks sold in North America.
GM is investing heavily in the one technology that promises to end our dependence on oil forever: fuel cells. We’ve made incredible progress in driving down the cost of this technology to make it practical. We just announced plans to build and deploy a demonstration fleet of more than 100 Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicles starting in fall 2007.
GM has put more than 2 million vehicles on the road that are capable of running on E85, and is working with distributors and government to increase the number of service stations that offer this ethanol-based alternative fuel.
Toyota’s growth in the United States over the past decade has come primarily from expanding its vehicle lineup into the pickup and SUV segments that Mr. Jackson finds so offensive. In many of those segments, Toyota’s offerings get worse mileage than GM’s. Toyota also is building a new plant in Texas to build more full-size pickups, not more hybrids.
The new Chevy Camaro will join the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger in the well-established performance car segment. As much as Mr. Jackson may find no appeal in a stylish, high-performance coupe, millions of Americans do and have passionately urged GM to bring back the Camaro. We would be foolish not to meet that demand. By the way, Honda and Toyota apparently agree: Both Japanese automakers reportedly are working on their own high-performance sports cars for the U.S. market.
Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Lexus, Nissan and Land Rover also offer full-size or large luxury SUVs. They do so because there’s significant demand and these are some of the most profitable vehicles in the U.S. market. For those with large families and a boat or trailer to tow, the Chevy Suburban is practical option. You can’t tow a boat or haul a family of six with its camping gear in a Toyota Prius.

Ultimately, consumers decide what they will buy based on their own calculation of their needs, desires and budgets.

For those who want fuel-efficient small cars, GM offers them. For those who have a need for a full-size SUV and want the one that has the best fuel economy and can run on E85, we offer those. For those looking for a hybrid, we’ve got those, too.

If all Mr. Jackson is seeing from Detroit are “metallic mastodons,” perhaps he ought to get out of his office and visit a GM dealership. Or at least read more than four articles. He might find it enlightening.

Posted by Editor at 12:00 PM
Comments (14) | TrackBack | Permalink

June 23, 2006

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

By Dave Barthmuss
GM Communications

The film EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric Car? showcased the intense passion for GM’s out-of-production EV1 electric vehicle. I understand why. It was great technology for its day, a great concept and a great car. GM was and is proud to have brought the electric vehicle concept as far as it did and further than any other electric vehicle project attempted by any other automaker around the globe. Sadly, despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers — including the filmmaker — the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success.

But the story for GM does not end with the final credits on the movie. I’ve been the person who has spent the last few years answering the questions of why GM discontinued the program. Although I have not seen the movie or received an advanced DVD as others have from the film’s producers, I can tell you that based on what I have heard there may be some information that the movie did not tell its viewers. The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line. For example:

GM’s two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.
GM’s fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today’s HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.

Add to all this GM’s leadership in flex-fuel vehicles that run on clean-burning bio fuels such as corn-based ethanol and our new “active fuel management” system that shuts down half the engine’s pistons at highway speeds to improve fuel economy, and we feel we are doing more than any other automaker to address the issues of oil dependence, fuel economy, and emissions from vehicles. And we are committed to do more.

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.
Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.

Could GM have handled its decision to say “no” to offers to buy EV1s upon natural lease expirations better than it did? Sure. In some ways, I personally regret that we could not find a way for the EV1 lessees to keep their cars. We did what we felt was right in discontinuing a vehicle that we could no longer guarantee could be operated safely over the long term or that we would be able to repair.

In turn, GM engineers used EV1s for cold-weather testing to continue the technology transfer to hybrids and fuel cells. We also donated them to universities and museums. In fact, we donated an EV1 to the Smithsonian and are now being wrongly accused of a conspiracy with the museum because they removed the car for renovation of the National Museum of American History. I can assure you that this is nothing more than unfortunate timing.

So as right and as good as our intentions were, we understand that the moviemakers see them as wrong. We’ll accept that criticism, but don’t punish GM for doing a good deed. Rather, work with us and give us credit for taking a necessary first step in developing technologies that hold the potential to change the face of automobile transportation. That’s what GM engineers are doing everyday.

Posted by Editor at 10:41 AM
Comments (122) | TrackBack | Permalink

June 8, 2006

The Ban on `Rubbish’ in The New York Times

By Brian Akre
GM Corporate Communications

I’ve spent much of the past week trying to get a letter to the editor published in The New York Times in response to the recent Tom Friedman rant (subscription required) against GM (see “Hyperbole and Defamation at The New York Times,” June 1).

I failed. This is my story.

For those of you who haven’t read it already, Mr. Friedman spent 800 words on the Times op/ed page to accuse GM of supporting terrorists, buying votes in Congress and being a corporate “crack dealer” that posed a serious threat to America’s future. He suggested the nation would be better off if Japan’s Toyota took over GM.

Mr. Friedman later acknowledged in television interviews that the column was a bit “over the top,” but that he wanted to get our attention.

He got it.

Part of our response was to send a letter from my boss, Steve Harris, to the editor of the Times. Now, you’d think it would be relatively easy to get a letter from a GM vice president published in the Times after GM’s reputation was so unfairly questioned. Just a matter of simple journalistic fairness, right?

You’d also think that the newspaper’s editing of letters would be minimal -- to fix grammar, remove any profane language, that sort of thing. Not so. Even for me, who worked for nearly 20 years as a reporter and editor, this was an enlightening experience.

First, there’s the word limit. Our first letter came in at 490 words, a length we felt was appropriate to address the major pieces of misinformation in Mr. Friedman’s attack. This was also after the Times ran four letters in support of Friedman’s column on Friday, June 2, totaling 480 words.

The Times told us it would “consider” our response only if it were limited to 175 words max. (This apparently is an unofficial and variable limit; the Times’ op/ed page only says selected letters “may be shortened to fit allotted space.” And I note that today’s (June 8) Times has a 304-word letter from two Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer).

We countered by offering to cut our letter to 300 words. They offered to go up to 200 words. OK, we reluctantly concluded, 200 is better than nothing.

Then came the editing.

They removed our invitation to Mr. Friedman to come to Detroit to learn the facts about what GM’s doing to reduce our nation’s oil consumption. They removed a sentence in which Steve said falsely accusing GM of “buying votes” in Congress was irresponsible. We didn’t like those edits, but the rest of the letter was left largely intact, with one exception.
Our letter opened with a paragraph that accurately summarized the most bizarre elements of Mr. Friedman’s attack, then reacted with this one-word sentence: “Rubbish.”

That word accurately portrays how we felt about the column. Personally, I felt a stronger word referring to male bovine excrement would have been more appropriate, but my boss tends to express himself more politely than I in these situations.

The Times suggested “rubbish” be changed first to, “We beg to differ.” We objected. The Times then suggested it be changed to, “Not so.” We stood our ground. In the end, the Times refused to let us call the column “rubbish.”

Why? “It’s not the tone we use in Letters,” wrote Mary Drohan, a letters editor.

What rubbish.

How arrogant.

Here are the letters we submitted, both the original 490-word version and our 200-word version. We thought you might like to read them for yourself, since you won’t read either in The New York Times.

We also thought you might find my email discussion with the letters editors at the Times to be both enlightening and a bit amusing.

Curious to hear what you all think.

Posted by Editor at 2:41 PM
Comments (161) | TrackBack | Permalink

June 1, 2006

Hyperbole and Defamation in The New York Times

By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications

Imagine our shock when we read yesterday that GM is “more dangerous to America’s future” than any other company, is “like a crack dealer” addicting helpless Americans to SUVs, and is in a cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress.

These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger. These were the thoughts of Thomas L. Friedman, author and influential columnist, on the op/ed page of The New York Times.

Mr. Friedman is not normally known for such shrill hyperbole. In fact, he’s generally well-respected and known for presenting rational, fact-supported opinions.

That wasn’t the case with yesterday’s column. That a journalist of his caliber and reputation could write such a defamatory, uninformed opinion was shocking to those of us dedicated to this company and proud of what GM builds and contributes to the nation’s economy.

The GM he describes is not the GM we know. Either Mr. Friedman is being a propagandist, or he’s woefully misinformed. We prefer to believe the latter. In fact, we’d like to invite Mr. Friedman out to Detroit to learn about the work GM is doing on alternative fuels, on hydrogen fuel cells and on technology to make all of our vehicles more fuel efficient.

GM understands the issue of our nation’s dependency on foreign oil as well as anyone, and we're doing as much or more than anyone to address the issue, from making our gasoline engines more fuel-efficient to investing heavily in hybrid and fuel cell powertrains.

We also understand the impact of higher fuel prices on consumers. We offer Americans a full line of fuel-efficient options, including last year’s top-selling subcompact, the Chevy Aveo, and the well-regarded Chevy Cobalt compact. In fact, GM offers more vehicles that get 30 mpg or better EPA highway mileage than any other automaker. More than Toyota. More than Honda. More than Nissan.

We've suggested immediate ways that the United States can reduce its oil dependency, including getting more E85 ethanol fuel made from U.S. corn into our nation's gas stations. Many of the GM cars and trucks that Mr. Friedman mentioned in his column can run on E85 fuel, which is one way we can significantly reduce the amount of oil we use – right now. We already have more than 1.9 million of these so-called “Flex Fuel” cars and trucks on the road.

Mr. Friedman takes exception to a limited incentive that offers a partial credit toward fuel purchases on certain midsize cars and full-size SUVs in two markets where we are working hard to increase our market share. This is nothing more than a creative way to get consumers' consideration for our products in two very competitive segments.

Mr. Friedman sees it as something sinister, an effort to turn hapless Americans into fuel “addicts.” But let's be intellectually honest here: A gas card is not going to get someone considering a $15,000 economy car to buy a $35,000 Chevy Tahoe.

The people who buy full-size SUVs, by and large, do so because they have a need for them – be it a large family to haul around or a boat to tow. And exactly how is offering a gas card that may be worth $1,000 any different or more sinister than the $2,000 cash rebate that Toyota's offering right now nationwide on its full-size SUV, the Sequoia? The Sequoia, by the way, gets worse mileage than any of GM’s industry-leading full-size SUVs.

In fact, Mr. Friedman’s suggestion that Toyota’s approach toward fuel economy is vastly different than GM’s belies the facts. Give Toyota credit for the Prius hybrid. But if you look at the growth in Toyota’s business in the United States over the last decade, it has come primarily from expanding into the truck segments – including full size pickups and SUVs. GM entries in those segments, by the way, have better EPA mileage ratings than Toyota’s.

And which automaker is building a large new assembly plant in Texas to build its biggest full-size pickup yet? Toyota.

Don’t get me wrong. Toyota's a fine company. But like GM, Toyota offers a full range of cars and trucks to satisfy all their customers across this nation, not just what New York and Washington journalists who ride in yellow cabs think the rest of America should drive.

Mr. Friedman also misstates our position on fuel economy standards. The fact is, GM is not opposed to reasonable standards. But there is no proof that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations have done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, oil consumption has increased dramatically over the years, even as vehicle fuel efficiency ratings have improved significantly.

That's because consumers make their own decisions on what to buy and how to drive. The sales-weighted “average fuel economy” numbers have not gone up more over the years because consumers have wanted larger, more powerful vehicles – even as our cars and trucks have become remarkably more fuel-efficient. Our new full-size SUVs that Mr. Friedman so despises, for example, now get more than 20 mpg on the highway.

GM has faced its share of criticism over the years, some of which was well-deserved. No company does everything right all the time. We appreciate constructive criticism that’s based on facts, and we try to listen and learn from it.

Today we’re in the midst of perhaps the largest turnaround in corporate history. We’re building the best, highest-quality cars and trucks in our history. We’re working closely and respectfully with our unions to lower our costs and fix the structural parts of our business that make us less competitive. And we continue to invest heavily in our future, a future that includes cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

We’re working hard to build a stronger GM and a stronger America that’s less dependent on foreign oil. Hyperbole and shrill editorializing on the pages of The New York Times shouldn’t mislead anyone.

P.S. Along with the comments and trackback below, please see commentator Joseph Pratt's analysis of the situation.

Posted by Editor at 2:53 PM
Comments (50) | TrackBack | Permalink

April 24, 2006

Chevy's 'No-Va' and Other Durable Urban Legends

By Brian Akre
Director, Executive Communications & Global Corporate News Department

Ever come across a story that just seemed too good, funny or ironic to be true?

Take the tale of the Chevy Nova’s alleged poor sales in Spanish-speaking countries in the 1970s: GM allegedly failed to do its homework and learn what any student of Spanish 101 knows: That “no va” translates into “no go.” Or so the story goes.

That cautionary tale has appeared in numerous marketing textbooks and still keeps popping up in news stories and at seminars as an anecdote to illustrate how companies sometimes don’t do adequate research before introducing a new product overseas (imagine, GM being accused of not doing enough research!).

Only problem with the story: It’s bogus. False. Never happened.

But don’t take our word for it. There’s a handy web site that tests the claims of this and other “urban legends” of the corporate, Internet and generic varieties. It’s www.snopes.com, and it should be bookmarked on the computer of every journalist, analyst and academic. It includes an automotive section at www.snopes.com/autos.

According to the site’s “Urban Legends Reference Pages,” the Nova actually sold well in the Spanish-speaking counties where it was sold between ‘72 and ’78. It notes that GM was well aware of the translation and opted to retain the Nova name because the issue was deemed insignificant.

“The phrase “no va” and the word “nova” are distinct entities with different pronunciations in Spanish,” snopes.com reports. “Assuming that Spanish speakers would naturally see the word “nova” as equivalent to the phrase “no va” and think, `Hey, this car doesn’t go,’ is akin to assuming that English speakers would spurn a dinette set sold under the name “Notable” because nobody wants a dinette set that doesn’t include a table.”

To read the full story of the Nova/No Va legend, go to: www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Posted by Editor at 10:38 AM
Comments (13) | TrackBack | Permalink