GM pulls all ads from LA Times, now they're back
04-07-2005, 09:27 PM
#1
Kabachitare!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM pulls all ads from LA Times, now they're back
GM pulls ads from Los Angeles Times
By Chelsea Bellows, MarketWatch
Last Update: 9:37 PM ET April 7, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- General Motors Corp. has pulled its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, according to a media report Thursday.
At the heart of the issue is "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," GM spokeswoman Ryndee Carney was quoted as saying in a story in the online version of The Wall Street Journal. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private."
The Journal said Carney declined to specify the cost of the ads, citing competitive reasons. A Tribune spokesman also declined to specify a figure, telling The Journal, "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us."
One person familiar with the situation told the Journal that the amount is perceived by people in the ad industry as "highly significant" and that the action against one of the nation's largest metropolitan newspaper is seen as punitive.
Calls to GM (GM: news, chart, profile) and Tribune (TRB: news, chart, profile) headquarters in Chicago were not immediately returned.
The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
Lutz, along with former Group Vice President Gary Cowger, on Monday were transferred to GM's global development and manufacturing division.
"I hadn't heard anything about GM pulling the advertising until I got a call from a reporter," Neil told MarketWatch.
Neil said there was a discussion between the editors and GM, but said he was not privy to the details.
Times Spokesman David Garcia declined to confirm the advertising withdrawal but issued a statement saying, "We have heard some concerns from General Motors and are examining them. We will look into any complaints GM has about inaccuracy or misrepresentation and will make any appropriate corrections."
Shares of GM rose 67 cents, or 2.2%, to close the regular session at $30.53. The auto giant dropped slightly in after-hours trade.
Tribune climbed 15 cents to close at $39.52.
Chelsea Bellows is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco
Also from the WSJ:
In response to a series of articles about the auto maker, General Motors Corp. has pulled all of its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times for the foreseeable future, a GM spokeswoman said.
At the heart of the issue are "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," said the spokeswoman, Ryndee Carney. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private," she said.
"As a general policy, we don't do this," she added. "It's very, very rare that we would do this."
Ms. Carney declined to specify the amount of money at issue, citing competitive reasons. A spokesman for Tribune also declined to disclose a figure. "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us," the spokesman said.
One person familiar with the advertising industry said the amount is perceived by people in the industry as "highly significant" and that the action is seen as punitive.
One media buyer, speaking generally, said the amount would likely be in excess of $10 million.
The auto maker spent about $2.8 billion on media time and space for advertising in 2004, according to TNS Media Intelligence. That figure includes ads for television, cable, newspapers and other media platforms.
As GM has struggled to stop losing market share in the U.S., executives there have stepped up the volume of their complaints about negative press. Leading that offensive is Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, who chastised reporters at the New York Auto Show last month, and has taken media critics to task in his Web log.
In a Wednesday column, Los Angeles Times auto writer Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions. "GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad," wrote Mr. Neil, who also called for the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner.
There is some precedent for such harsh action among auto advertisers. Ford Motor Co. yanked ads from the New Yorker magazine when the magazine failed to alert it about a June 1995 article containing a four-letter word. In response, the New Yorker set up a formal system to warn about 50 companies on a "sensitive advertiser list" about articles that might offend.
In 1954, GM threatened to cancel its advertising in The Wall Street Journal, and not speak to its reporters, if the Journal published a story revealing the next year's cars. During the 1950s and '60s, the Journal put enough money into liquid assets that it would be able to keep publishing even if five big advertisers withdrew.
The GM decision comes at a bad time for Tribune. The Los Angeles Times's financial performance has been weak ever since Tribune acquired it five years ago as part of its merger with Times Mirror Co. Last month, the publisher of the Times, John Puerner, announced he would step down in May to take a "self-imposed career break."
The economy's swoon has hammered the Times, the fourth-largest daily paper in the U.S., which accounts for about 27% of Tribune's publishing revenue. Circulation fell as Mr. Puerner slashed unprofitable circulation in remote desert towns and bumped the daily newsstand price back up to 50 cents from the quarter his price-cutting predecessor charged. Today, circulation stands at just over 902,000 copies -- about where it was in 1968.
Advertising, too, has fallen, with one measure down 14% since the year before the merger. The Times has blamed a shortage of Hollywood movie ads, the war in Iraq, Sept. 11, and a grocery-store strike. Tribune is taking steps to stoke the paper's revenue, increasing the Times's color-printing capacity by 33% to attract advertisers.
Last year was not the recovery year Tribune had expected, in part because of weak performance at the Times. Tribune Co.'s fourth-quarter profit fell 36%, hurt by higher costs and sluggish revenue growth. The company, which also publishes the Chicago Tribune, Newsday on New York's Long Island and other newspapers, reported net income of $216.8 million, or 67 cents a share, down from $338.4 million, or $1 a share, a year earlier.
In an interview with the Journal last month, Chairman and Chief Executive Dennis J. FitzSimons said, "We think the Los Angeles Times is a great property. Have we had the kind of revenue growth that we would have liked? No. But we're working on that."
Scott Smith, head of Tribune's publishing unit, emphasized in that interview the clout the company has with auto makers. He said the company was making headway in a number of categories, including auto advertising. "Because of our scale today, when General Motors or Ford or whoever needs to advertise, we get a bigger share of their dollars today than we did" before the merger with Times Mirror.
.....
The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
By Chelsea Bellows, MarketWatch
Last Update: 9:37 PM ET April 7, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- General Motors Corp. has pulled its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, according to a media report Thursday.
At the heart of the issue is "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," GM spokeswoman Ryndee Carney was quoted as saying in a story in the online version of The Wall Street Journal. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private."
The Journal said Carney declined to specify the cost of the ads, citing competitive reasons. A Tribune spokesman also declined to specify a figure, telling The Journal, "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us."
One person familiar with the situation told the Journal that the amount is perceived by people in the ad industry as "highly significant" and that the action against one of the nation's largest metropolitan newspaper is seen as punitive.
Calls to GM (GM: news, chart, profile) and Tribune (TRB: news, chart, profile) headquarters in Chicago were not immediately returned.
The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
Lutz, along with former Group Vice President Gary Cowger, on Monday were transferred to GM's global development and manufacturing division.
"I hadn't heard anything about GM pulling the advertising until I got a call from a reporter," Neil told MarketWatch.
Neil said there was a discussion between the editors and GM, but said he was not privy to the details.
Times Spokesman David Garcia declined to confirm the advertising withdrawal but issued a statement saying, "We have heard some concerns from General Motors and are examining them. We will look into any complaints GM has about inaccuracy or misrepresentation and will make any appropriate corrections."
Shares of GM rose 67 cents, or 2.2%, to close the regular session at $30.53. The auto giant dropped slightly in after-hours trade.
Tribune climbed 15 cents to close at $39.52.
Chelsea Bellows is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco
Also from the WSJ:
In response to a series of articles about the auto maker, General Motors Corp. has pulled all of its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times for the foreseeable future, a GM spokeswoman said.
At the heart of the issue are "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," said the spokeswoman, Ryndee Carney. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private," she said.
"As a general policy, we don't do this," she added. "It's very, very rare that we would do this."
Ms. Carney declined to specify the amount of money at issue, citing competitive reasons. A spokesman for Tribune also declined to disclose a figure. "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us," the spokesman said.
One person familiar with the advertising industry said the amount is perceived by people in the industry as "highly significant" and that the action is seen as punitive.
One media buyer, speaking generally, said the amount would likely be in excess of $10 million.
The auto maker spent about $2.8 billion on media time and space for advertising in 2004, according to TNS Media Intelligence. That figure includes ads for television, cable, newspapers and other media platforms.
As GM has struggled to stop losing market share in the U.S., executives there have stepped up the volume of their complaints about negative press. Leading that offensive is Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, who chastised reporters at the New York Auto Show last month, and has taken media critics to task in his Web log.
In a Wednesday column, Los Angeles Times auto writer Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions. "GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad," wrote Mr. Neil, who also called for the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner.
There is some precedent for such harsh action among auto advertisers. Ford Motor Co. yanked ads from the New Yorker magazine when the magazine failed to alert it about a June 1995 article containing a four-letter word. In response, the New Yorker set up a formal system to warn about 50 companies on a "sensitive advertiser list" about articles that might offend.
In 1954, GM threatened to cancel its advertising in The Wall Street Journal, and not speak to its reporters, if the Journal published a story revealing the next year's cars. During the 1950s and '60s, the Journal put enough money into liquid assets that it would be able to keep publishing even if five big advertisers withdrew.
The GM decision comes at a bad time for Tribune. The Los Angeles Times's financial performance has been weak ever since Tribune acquired it five years ago as part of its merger with Times Mirror Co. Last month, the publisher of the Times, John Puerner, announced he would step down in May to take a "self-imposed career break."
The economy's swoon has hammered the Times, the fourth-largest daily paper in the U.S., which accounts for about 27% of Tribune's publishing revenue. Circulation fell as Mr. Puerner slashed unprofitable circulation in remote desert towns and bumped the daily newsstand price back up to 50 cents from the quarter his price-cutting predecessor charged. Today, circulation stands at just over 902,000 copies -- about where it was in 1968.
Advertising, too, has fallen, with one measure down 14% since the year before the merger. The Times has blamed a shortage of Hollywood movie ads, the war in Iraq, Sept. 11, and a grocery-store strike. Tribune is taking steps to stoke the paper's revenue, increasing the Times's color-printing capacity by 33% to attract advertisers.
Last year was not the recovery year Tribune had expected, in part because of weak performance at the Times. Tribune Co.'s fourth-quarter profit fell 36%, hurt by higher costs and sluggish revenue growth. The company, which also publishes the Chicago Tribune, Newsday on New York's Long Island and other newspapers, reported net income of $216.8 million, or 67 cents a share, down from $338.4 million, or $1 a share, a year earlier.
In an interview with the Journal last month, Chairman and Chief Executive Dennis J. FitzSimons said, "We think the Los Angeles Times is a great property. Have we had the kind of revenue growth that we would have liked? No. But we're working on that."
Scott Smith, head of Tribune's publishing unit, emphasized in that interview the clout the company has with auto makers. He said the company was making headway in a number of categories, including auto advertising. "Because of our scale today, when General Motors or Ford or whoever needs to advertise, we get a bigger share of their dollars today than we did" before the merger with Times Mirror.
.....
The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
04-07-2005, 09:48 PM
#2
I don't blame GM. It was already pointed out in that other thread about the G6 flop that you can't compare the G6 sales to the Grand AM sales because the Grand AM sales included 4-cylinder models. Take away V6 sales from the Accord or the Camry and you could make the same representation of sales failure.
I'm not saying their money should dictate what the free press is allowed to write about them. But even I can rationalize as to why the G6 sales are not comparable to those of the outgoing Grand AM, so somebody who's going to write an article about that should at least do the same before letting the ink dry. So for a big newspaper to write an article about that without doing a whole lot of thinking, that is indeed misrepresentation.
I'm not saying their money should dictate what the free press is allowed to write about them. But even I can rationalize as to why the G6 sales are not comparable to those of the outgoing Grand AM, so somebody who's going to write an article about that should at least do the same before letting the ink dry. So for a big newspaper to write an article about that without doing a whole lot of thinking, that is indeed misrepresentation.
04-08-2005, 10:44 AM
#3
I have to disagree with you on this, phile. GM has marketed the G6 against competitors 4-cylinder models as well as 6-cylinder models, meaning that since they are targeting that market, they are opening themselves to comparisons on sales volume.
The fact remains that the G6 is a mediocre product, at best, and with GMs less than stellar reliability ratings and reputation, it comes as no surprise that the buying public is not buying the G6 in droves. Plus, the general trend for Pontiac lately has been slipping sales and the mediocrity of the G6 doesn't help one bit.
I personally think GM, instead of making this rash move, should take this as an opportunity to assess its own situation. There need to be sweeping changes at GM soon or else the company is going to find itself in a very deep hole with no way out.
The fact remains that the G6 is a mediocre product, at best, and with GMs less than stellar reliability ratings and reputation, it comes as no surprise that the buying public is not buying the G6 in droves. Plus, the general trend for Pontiac lately has been slipping sales and the mediocrity of the G6 doesn't help one bit.
I personally think GM, instead of making this rash move, should take this as an opportunity to assess its own situation. There need to be sweeping changes at GM soon or else the company is going to find itself in a very deep hole with no way out.
04-08-2005, 11:51 AM
#4
A mediocre product is a mediocre product, no doubt about it. But the sales comparison still is not valid, regardless of how Pontiac targets the G6.
For example, sales of the new RL vs the new Audi A6. By far, these two are the closest of competitors...standard AWD, FWD bias, midsize luxury sedans. There are those who are adamant that the RL is not selling. The easiest way for them to prove this is to compare these two similar products with respect to their sales numbers. But the Audi comes with a V8 model, and typically an additional 10-15% gain in sales is achieved by offering a V8 model. So if you were to compare sales of the two, would that be an objectively fair comparison? That, at least, is open to debate. But would be more fair, more objective, to compare sales of the V6 vs. V6 models? I would think so.
For example, sales of the new RL vs the new Audi A6. By far, these two are the closest of competitors...standard AWD, FWD bias, midsize luxury sedans. There are those who are adamant that the RL is not selling. The easiest way for them to prove this is to compare these two similar products with respect to their sales numbers. But the Audi comes with a V8 model, and typically an additional 10-15% gain in sales is achieved by offering a V8 model. So if you were to compare sales of the two, would that be an objectively fair comparison? That, at least, is open to debate. But would be more fair, more objective, to compare sales of the V6 vs. V6 models? I would think so.
08-02-2005, 06:40 PM
#5
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
GM brings ads back to Los Angeles Times - - Reuters / August 02, 2005 - - Source: Automotive News
NEW YORK -- General Motors on Tuesday said it would resume advertising in Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times newspaper after a four-month absence over a coverage dispute.
The world's largest automaker yanked its ads in early April over what it called factual errors and misrepresentations in the Los Angeles Times' editorial coverage of the company.
Industry analysts had expected the boycott would be short-lived as GM faces stiff competition in the large Los Angeles market, and elsewhere, but had warned a protracted dispute could hurt Tribune earnings.
"GM and the Los Angeles Times have had productive discussions regarding our complaints about the newspaper's coverage of GM," said GM spokesman Brian Akre.
Akre said the two sides had "respectfully agreed to disagree" on some issues but would not elaborate on the issues under discussion or how they were resolved.
GM pulled its ads from the paper a day after newspaper auto critic Dan Neil urged the automaker to "dump" Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and called its Pontiac G6 "a sales flop." The company said at the time its decision was not connected to a specific story.
The boycott covered GM corporate and brand advertising, but not to ad space purchased by individual GM car dealers.
Officials at the Los Angeles Times and Tribune were not immediately available for comment.
The world's largest automaker yanked its ads in early April over what it called factual errors and misrepresentations in the Los Angeles Times' editorial coverage of the company.
Industry analysts had expected the boycott would be short-lived as GM faces stiff competition in the large Los Angeles market, and elsewhere, but had warned a protracted dispute could hurt Tribune earnings.
"GM and the Los Angeles Times have had productive discussions regarding our complaints about the newspaper's coverage of GM," said GM spokesman Brian Akre.
Akre said the two sides had "respectfully agreed to disagree" on some issues but would not elaborate on the issues under discussion or how they were resolved.
GM pulled its ads from the paper a day after newspaper auto critic Dan Neil urged the automaker to "dump" Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and called its Pontiac G6 "a sales flop." The company said at the time its decision was not connected to a specific story.
The boycott covered GM corporate and brand advertising, but not to ad space purchased by individual GM car dealers.
Officials at the Los Angeles Times and Tribune were not immediately available for comment.
08-02-2005, 06:43 PM
#6
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
If I remember correctly the Tribune has fired the chief editor of the LA times and I am sure the removal of the editor was partially related to the GM pull, plus it was related to the return of GM. I dont know why the article refrains from mentioning that.
08-03-2005, 01:11 AM
#7
Kabachitare!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From this weeks autoextremist:
Well, that was special. GM has started to run corporate ads in the Los Angeles Times again more than three months after pulling its ads from the paper in protest over a column by the Pulitzer Prize-winning auto critic, Dan Neil, in which he slammed the Pontiac G6 and suggested that a change in management was necessary at the top of GM - starting with CEO Rick Wagoner. GM dealers continued to run ads during GM's protest, but GM's corporate marketing and PR strategists were intent on making the newspaper "pay" for their perceived transgressions. L.A. Times spokeswoman Martha Goldstein said Monday that the paper has "had productive conversations with GM, and while we didn't see the need to run a correction, we listened to their concerns." She didn't comment on the financial cost to the paper of the lost GM advertising. GM PR spokesman Brian Akre said the automaker and Times executives "have respectfully agreed to disagree on some of the issues" that caused the rift. "We appreciate [The Times'] ongoing willingness to listen." Akre said the decision to resume advertising was made by GM's Western region manager, Michael Jackson, "in line with our current newspaper strategy for the region." To relaunch advertising in the paper, GM ran a full-page ad for the new 2006 Pontiac Solstice on Monday.
What was accomplished by all of this, exactly - except for some "we'll show you guys" instant gratification and some exuberant high-fiving by the southern California dealers? How about nothing? Yes, GM didn't buy advertising in the L.A. Times since April and that ad revenue was lost to the paper. But did it fundamentally change anything? No. Is Dan Neil going to change his perspectives and opinions about GM products based on any lingering aftertaste from this incident? Of course not. Did GM, in its petulance, basically remove itself from having a daily advertising presence in southern California's dominant newspaper - in a region that they so desperately need to make inroads in if they're ever going to stabilize, let alone increase their market share? Yes. That to us was the bottom line in all of this. GM cut off its nose to spite its face. They took their eyes off of the Big Picture in order to get in a couple of swings in a fight they were never going to win and one they shouldn't have gotten themselves involved in to begin with. Now, can we all move on?
Well, that was special. GM has started to run corporate ads in the Los Angeles Times again more than three months after pulling its ads from the paper in protest over a column by the Pulitzer Prize-winning auto critic, Dan Neil, in which he slammed the Pontiac G6 and suggested that a change in management was necessary at the top of GM - starting with CEO Rick Wagoner. GM dealers continued to run ads during GM's protest, but GM's corporate marketing and PR strategists were intent on making the newspaper "pay" for their perceived transgressions. L.A. Times spokeswoman Martha Goldstein said Monday that the paper has "had productive conversations with GM, and while we didn't see the need to run a correction, we listened to their concerns." She didn't comment on the financial cost to the paper of the lost GM advertising. GM PR spokesman Brian Akre said the automaker and Times executives "have respectfully agreed to disagree on some of the issues" that caused the rift. "We appreciate [The Times'] ongoing willingness to listen." Akre said the decision to resume advertising was made by GM's Western region manager, Michael Jackson, "in line with our current newspaper strategy for the region." To relaunch advertising in the paper, GM ran a full-page ad for the new 2006 Pontiac Solstice on Monday.
What was accomplished by all of this, exactly - except for some "we'll show you guys" instant gratification and some exuberant high-fiving by the southern California dealers? How about nothing? Yes, GM didn't buy advertising in the L.A. Times since April and that ad revenue was lost to the paper. But did it fundamentally change anything? No. Is Dan Neil going to change his perspectives and opinions about GM products based on any lingering aftertaste from this incident? Of course not. Did GM, in its petulance, basically remove itself from having a daily advertising presence in southern California's dominant newspaper - in a region that they so desperately need to make inroads in if they're ever going to stabilize, let alone increase their market share? Yes. That to us was the bottom line in all of this. GM cut off its nose to spite its face. They took their eyes off of the Big Picture in order to get in a couple of swings in a fight they were never going to win and one they shouldn't have gotten themselves involved in to begin with. Now, can we all move on?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TLDude876
Car Talk
134
12-28-2016 03:18 PM
Oakes
Wash & Wax
10
10-12-2015 11:17 AM
Marmbo
4G TL Problems & Fixes
6
09-21-2015 09:39 AM
