GM, Is That All You’ve Got?
Last week, I wrote a BusinessWeek.com column entitled, “Why Your Advertising Isn’t Working.” Last weekend, GM launched its “Satisfaction Guaranteed” marketing campaign. With uncanny timing, GM’s new effort embodies many of the reasons I identified as to why advertising underperforms. (Judge for yourself here.) And for a number of reasons, GM’s campaign just doesn’t sit right with me.
First, in its news release introducing the effort, the company said, “if consumers give us a fair chance and look at the facts…our vehicles are the best choices.” The premise on which this statement seems to be based is odd to me, as if GM (recipient of billions of bailout dollars) has somehow been wronged by the public. Last I checked, people buy those vehicles which in their estimation meet their unique needs the best. “Fairness” (whatever that means) never even enters into the equation.
Second, GM went on to say it understands that to encourage prospective customers to give its brands a second look it will need to “work very hard to get people’s attention.” Fair enough, but the company didn’t work very hard to get people’s attention with this advertising. It’s flat, it’s boring, and (despite GMs protestations to the contrary) it’s been done before (see Chrysler/Lee Iacocca, circa 1981).
Third, I’m not sure a 60-day money back guarantee is the right strategy to reach people who have historically turned their noses up at GM brands. The question is less about how the company’s vehicles hold up in the first 60 days, but how they perform after 60,000 miles. I suspect this new offer will appeal strongly to GM fans, but won’t do much to move the needle among the buyers GM really needs to convert (who are currently loyal to dependable foreign makes).
If GM wants the public to give its vehicles a good second look, it must begin with a foundation not only of well-designed, well-built cars, but well-designed, well-built marketing. The fact that it didn’t shows a lack of understanding not only about how branding works, but how auto buyers think. Neither of which is a good sign.



agreed, steve — i also question whether such a rational approach to gm's advertising is right — people need to fall in love with the brands
Comment by Denise Lee Yohn — Tuesday, September 15, 2009 @ 10:44 AM
Wow. You nailed it. I'm totally with you on this. I was wondering myself today reading the newspaper with 3 full page, full colour GM ads that just scream "who cares if we sell a car!". I can't wait to get rid of my GM lease and the one that has won me over is Ford. The message is clear "we are innovative, cutting edge, and here to build a better car for you now and for the future".
I think the marketing department at GM needs more brainstorming on the right message and how they are communicating it.
Comment by Adam Oldfield — Tuesday, September 15, 2009 @ 6:06 PM
I don't think a 60,000 mile test is adequate … if you want to get me away from Honda, you'd have to prove out at 120,000 and, even, 180,000. I let go of my last Honda at 217,000 … and, yes, I bought a new Honda to replace it.
Comment by Richard Posey — Wednesday, September 16, 2009 @ 12:32 AM