Cost per Car of Ads...

I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about the increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but even if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still it seems like a lot of money per car in ads.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

That's about right. That includes both automakers and dealers. I don't know if it includes what the automakers and sometimes dealers use to attend auto shows like the NY Auto & Detroit auto showsand, but I suspect it does.

formatting link
-> This is through 2008, but you get the picture. Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

back in the office ed? you know all about marketing costs, don't you.

Reply to
jim beam

And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM & Chrysler.

Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But I suspect they advertise slow movers more.

Reply to
Canuck57

Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials.

It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

like the taxpayer is paying for your client to ship their jobs overseas?

Reply to
jim beam

That's a good way to look at it.

They also pay a large part of the cost of my favorite sport, NASCAR.

Let's see: Not having to think about body odor, free basketball and other sports plus NASCAR?

Or, another way to think about it: You paid for the basketball, deodorant-free games and NASCAR when you bought your last car.

According the first law of thermodynamics, there is no free lunch. And, the second one says you can't even break even.

Ford sells around 1.5 million vehicles a year and spends about $1.5 billion on advertising. That's about $1000 per vehicle. Now, that's a deal.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

Actually, it is added to the cost of the cars. From the graph to which I linked before, it is clear that paying $1000 per car for advertising has been going on for years.

The advertising includes all types of ads, including dealers' ads in the newspapers, TV and radio advertising, ads on TV and ads on the internet. Ads on the internet are, of course, growing, while TV, radio and newspaper ads are shrinking B-). I have a smiley there because I pretty much skip all ads when I read a newspaper or magazine. IMHO, it is a waste of paper. Actually, newspapers and magazines are wastes of paper, too, now that I can get them on the internet for free (and soon, I hope, on my iPad - and, no - the iPad isn't an internet feminine hygiene product).

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

Really? By that argument, there are no good cars. Each car maker advertises. They all go to the big auto shows (LA, Detroit, NY, Geneva, etc.). They all spend money on TV. Many put big money into NASCAR and Indy racing (why, I don't know - Indy sucks). Some, like Hyundai, did so to get into the market. Others that are already in the market have to advertise to keep market share, including letting comsumers know about new models and their efforts to repair defects (like the sticky accelerator and mentally deficient drivers who either fake it getting stuck or press the gas when they want to stop.)

Likewise, there are many who believe that Apple, HP and Dell make good products. However, Apple still spends $0.5 billion just to advertise. The iPad has great reviews and lots of buzz on the internet, particularly the geek sites. Yet, Apple still chooses to advertise it.

All the car makers (and makers of most types of good products) advertise because people won't buy something if it isn't in their mind (and that means in front of them on the computer, TV, iPhone or iPad screen) or in front of them on the racetrack or newspaper, magazine or other print medium.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

Have you actually gotten an iPad? Till now I have avioded Apple products for my own use. But the SO has an iPod Touch which she really likes. My son has a regular iPod Classic which he likes. I keep hearing the hype about the iPad and think I might get one, but I am not sure if I'd really use it. If you have one, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I had been planning on replacing my iPhone with the latest version when it comes out over the summer. Now, I am thinking about getting the iPad (just WiFi) and keeping the old version of the iPhone for another year (I have a year-old 3G 16 GB version).

I won't be able to get 3G data on the iPad, but I am in places where I can get WiFi enough (like my home and work), that that shouldn't be an issue.

I wish I knew what the 4G iPhone will do when it comes out. I suspect that only important thing I will be giving up is a better camera. I shall live without it, I think.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

But Toyota is value added.

You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC.

Reply to
Canuck57

The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans.

Reply to
dr_jeff

It is inevitable autos are imported like PCs, TVs, iPods, furnature, toys, kitchen anything...etc...

Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA auto maker.

Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse.

I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying workers with the bailout gouge.

Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are good cars and more afordable than many a big names.

Reply to
Canuck57

so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't?

how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.?

wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political dissidents, and steals our intellectual property?

Reply to
jim beam

I believe that if you include only "direct" costs, GM does manufacture vehicles at a profit. They just don't make enough per vehicle to cover all the overhead costs (pensions, benefits, interest, etc.).

Not all Toyota are produced in the US and even the ones that are don't use 100% US sourced componets. The highest domestic content Toyota is the Sienna, which is about 85% doemstic content. The non-hybrid Camrys are about 75% domestic content. Depsite all youer hyperbolic claims with regards to out sourcing, GM still has the highest average domestic content for US sold vehicles of any of the major auto manufacturers. It is irrational for you to praise Toyota for the domestic content of its US vehicle and then turn around a trash GM for building vehicles with a higher average level of domestic content. It is clear you have an axe to grind with GM. It is also clear that you don't care about the truth.

In the US, Toyota has lower labor costs and is not saddled with the pension costs for retired UAW workers. Toyota was not as dependent on the revenues from SUVs and Trucks as was the case for GM. Neither is Toyota as dependent on US revenue as is GM. When the SUV/Truck market in particular, and the auto market in general, crashed, Toyota was not as badly hit as GM, although like GM, they went to their home (Japan) government for financial assistance. And like GM, Toyota benefited immensely from various US and Local Government auto subsidies (cash for clunkers, hybrid rebates, tax breaks for plants, etc).

Loaning money to GM was not a great idea. But even worse was the way the US Government eventually nationalized GM and gave it to the UAW. Maybe it will work out, but I can't see how it was legal. The Government should have let GM go into bankruptcy. But they didn't.

GM has been losing money in Eurpoe for at least the last 2 years . Unfortunately it is hard to find the GM annual reports for 2009 and

2008 on line. They seem to be lost between the new "GM" and the old "GM" (now Motors Liquidation Corp).

How is GM any different than Toyota? Toyota and it subsiduaries have set up numerous plants in China. Why is it OK for Toyota to operate in China and not for GM to do the same? Have you checked the labels on many things you buy lately? Do you trash any manufactuer who uses Chinese made parts in the items they sell? If so, the list of comapnies you are attacking must be very long indeed.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous.

How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China? Do you attack any company doing buisness in China? I'll bet significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the Chinese by smashing your computer now...

Robbing is bit strong. Are you for or against free trade? Should the US Government erect trade barrier to prevent the importation of foreign auto components?

On the one hand you attack GM for bad management and taking US Government loans. On the other hand you don't want them to source components form the low cost suppleirs. Do you think GM buys parts in China becasue they like the Chinese?

I'd prefer to buy US made items and do so when possible. Unfortunately it is very difficult to do in many cases (clothes, electronics).

I still don't see how you can attack GM and then praise Toyota, when Toyota is repsonible for moving far more jobs offshore than GM is.

I am not in favor of this. However, as I keep pointing out Toyota has also benefited from US government subsidies.

And you know this how? I see you finally found your caps shift key. Printing something in all caps doesn't make it true. But even if true, it is a difference without a distinction. Both companies are operating in China. Both companies are supporting all the horrors you associate with China. Whether some of the parts Toyota is making in China are shipped to the US or not is irrelevant (but I think it is very unlikely that Toyota is not importing parts from China). Toyota's operations in China are supporting the same country you trash GM for supporting. Your position on this (ie. Toyota's actions compared to GM's) is both hypocritical and irrational. .

And GM has? I am pretty sure that for most of the last 20 yers GM has paid significant US income taxes. GM dealers have paid more. Income and SS Taxes on GM workers have been significant. Sales taxes on GM vehciles are significant, etc., etc., etc. I suspect if you add up all the government revenue associated with GM produced vehicles it exceeds the recent loans to GM. I can't prove it, but I know you cannot prove the opposite.

And Toyota has been getting significant tax breaks for at least the last 14 years if you include all the incentives from various states to Toyota to induce Toyota to locate plants in their jurisdictions. The recentl hybrid tax credits were essentially a subsidy to Toyota. The cash for clunkers program was a nother subsidy that benefited Toyota greatly.

I should know better than to respond to you comments, but I just can't stand to sit by and watch you spew your vennon without commenting.. I know you'll never admit your comments are inspired by some sort of insane and itrrational hatered of GM, but at least others might understand you are spiteful, irrational (at least with regards to GM) and narrow minded.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt.

Reply to
Canuck57

Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better reputation making for better pricing.

Lack of NA management and no UAW/CAW. More automation. Better local business practices with suppliers. Stricter (although still inadaquate) pension and benefits maangement.

Don't ask me. I only have a theory and it goes like this. Lots of the heads of these are Harvard boys.

Barack Obama - US President, head of the biggest debtor of them all. Michael Ignatieff - LPC Leader, wants more debt and taxes, pro bailout. Rick Wagoner - Former GM CEO, bankrupt. Robert Nardelli - Chrysler CEO, bankrupt. Stephen Feinberg - Cerberus/Chrysler and GMAC, bankrupt.

I call them the Harvard Bailout Boyz. All were very much all for bailouts. But to know why I believe there is a link is Carlyle's client list. Remember Carlyle also got Lehmann assets at firesale prices which had a GM component to it. What is with Carlyle?

Bush Sr. and Dan Quayle come to mind for starters. But there are others but the names escape me. But one important one is Osama Bin Laden's brother in Saudi Arabia. Ever wonder why Osama, sorry, Obama bowed so perfectly when in Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps why Bush never could get Osama Bin Laden? Maybe why Obama doesn't go after Osama?

Unions, they were just pawns, used like pawns too. They get a lot of heat, but willing they were to sellout fellow taxpayers for the perception of jobs. Sure helped the Canadian third string NDP (socialist/union) party try to bribe the Bloc party for their votes in parliament for a NDP/Lib/Bloc coupe d'etat. Fortuantely that failed as Harpo Conservative caved in and added to GM's & Chrysler's bailout. Also wrote off $500M of Chryslers tax debt, pretty heavly load of corruption for the Canadian tax base.

I do believe there are influences going on revolving around money. Ask yourself why some banks got bailouts and others didn't? Who were their clients? Heck, if I have a billion on deposit with a bankrupt bank you can bet your boots I would be calling senators, congress people and the president. I am sure if my last name was Buffet, Gates, Rockerfeller, Walton and a list of others I would get the presidents ear for 5 minutes. And what is $2 million to "contribute" around to assure your uninsured bank account does not discipate in DC red ink.

Bush Jr started this (remember his dad's ties with Carlyle and needing a job post election), Obama was swiftly brought in as Mr Fast Track to the top and carried the bailout torch well... can't let honest Palin see the book, OMG... What would happen if internal DC bad doings went public?

Then there is the masonic thing, but will leave it up to you.

Just a theory, would make a good fiction suspense movie though.

Reply to
Canuck57

you don't shill for g.m. ed? don't they pay you for all that hard work you do in office hours?

how many are doing it at the taxpayer expense ed?

actually, i buy american wherever i reasonably can. and i let vendors know why.

ed, on this you have a point. but i'll ask you - where is the strategic sense in allowing all our "domestic" manufacturers to use cheap exploited labor in china? not only does it prop up a despotic regime that threatens our allies, it's also not exactly smart to have every p.c. the department of trade and defense departments using hardware that comes rootkitted from factory. motorola proved that. boeing are doing their best to follow.

no it's not. if i'm paying someone to take my job away, "rob" is not only apt, it's probably somewhat of an understatement.

i'm absolutely against having foreign auto components imported from a despotic regime at taxpayer expense and at the cost of american jobs. abso-freakin'lutely.

yes i do. and because they, like you ed, have zero moral integrity. if toyota can make cars in the u.s. from u.s. components, and do so profitably, then so can g.m. just like they do in high-cost locations like europe. end of story.

that they lack the will or political incentive is a matter for our elected representatives to be made aware of in no uncertain terms.

then you need to shop around ed. i do.

eh? so when toyota set up factories in kentucky [etc], that's moving american jobs "offshore"??? that's pretzel logic, ed. pretzel logic.

to the tune of $30+ billion??? and still export their component sourcing to china? i don't think so ed.

utter bullshit. for the n-th time, china won't let you sell in their market unless you manufacture there. it's so they can steal our designs and processes. and that doesn't mean you have to manufacture for your u.s. markets there like g.m. does.

btw, the japanese, partly because of their history with china, and partly because they seem to be a good deal smarter than the u.s., don't manufacture anything "competitive" there, only the cheap crap they don't mind having stolen.

bullshit.

  1. see above.

  1. toyota is not exporting american jobs to china at american taxpayer expense. g.m. is.

then you're conveniently ignorant of the facts ed!

eh? don't you ever read your client's public accounts? g.m. have done nothing but whine for subsidy, concession and favor for decades. it's disgusting.

and g.m. doesn't??? that's bullshit.

cash for clunkers was engineered by your client - g.m. the fact that g.m. had nothing but crap to sell and flopped miserably is not toyota's fault.

astroturfing is "commenting"??? in a strictly first amendment sense of the word, i suppose it is, but on a moral level, to shill for the company that is driving the chinese trojan horse deep into the heart of american society at taxpayer expense is utterly disgusting. you should be ashamed.

yeah, i'm "irrational" and narrow minded - i want my tax dollars to work for americans, not chinese despots that are selling missiles to our enemies, stealing our jobs, stealing our technology and intellectual property, hacking our government networks and those of american businesses like microsoft and google, and are threatening our allies. i'm old-fashioned like that.

goddamned shill.

Reply to
jim beam

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.