How the Press Let Detroit Down

[FordMan]

Really, Really, Really good article, read it.


How the Press Let Down Detroit



Richard Jensen
18 April 2005

PART III

The press, these days, is full of wannabe CEOs offering free advice to Ford and GM. This is nothing new. For the past two decades the worst advice to Detroit has routinely come from the media. However, inaccuracy, hypocrisy, and specious reasoning in automotive reporting has reached a level today where it galls me to read it, and I am nearly too choked with disgust to speak of it, to discuss it, or even to condemn it.

Do I say that the worst advice to Detroit comes from the press? Yes. Why? Because the press has advised Detroit to put style ahead of substance time and time again. Even today, even as Detroit marketshare continues to slide, we find the same tired old advice. Advice that was as inaccurate twenty years ago as it is today. Over and over again enthusiast writers, marketing gurus, business reporters, columnists, analysts, indeed everyone and their uncle can be found saying things like, "There has to be excitement." That quote was from the Friday, April 15, 2005, New York Times. The author of that quote? The former head of American Motors. I am left scratching my head as to why a reporter would grant even a half an ounce of credence to the advice offered by the head of an automotive company that was headed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before being purchased by Chrysler.

Style and excitement are no substitutes for quality and consistency. It seems shocking that the press can set Toyota as the gold standard, and miss that fundamental point. Toyota built its passenger car business on quality and consistency. One does not wonder about a Toyota Camry when one buys it. There is NO substitute for that feeling.

To illustrate the dangers of listening to the press, let's talk about Hyundai and Kia, and where they were a decade ago. One company was barely in the U.S. at all, the other was considered only slightly above the Yugo in desirability and quality. Today both have strong presences in the U.S., and they continue to gain marketshare. Why? What enabled Hyundai and Kia to make such progress? I'm guessing that instead of listening to the advice of journalists, they took successful cars, SUVs, and minivans like the Camry, Corolla, Civic, Accord, Caravan, and Explorer, and set about copying them as slavishly as possible. They figured out what worked, and they emulated it. The result is dramatically increased quality rankings, products more in line with consumer tastes and along with that, consumer respect.

What has happened in Detroit during the same stretch of time? Declining marketshare, and declining respect for the domestics. Why? Too much attention paid to the press. First, analysts spent much of the 90s criticizing the Big Three for making less money per unit than Toyota, carelessly ignoring the much higher labor costs in unionized factories. Granted, the Big Three bear the blame for heeding such feculent advice, but they certainly were pressured by the press to cut corners on platform investment to boost profits. This had the inevitable effect of lowering vehicle quality and competitiveness. Second, the press then, as today, argued that "excitement" is a suitable replacement for "quality." The "excitement" factor mentioned above was sought at the expense of enhanced quality. Again, ultimately the Big Three bear responsibility for those mistakes, but again, who was always there praising 'radical' design, while poking fun of Japanese cars for being 'boring'? Third, through inordinate reporting of exotic and specialty cars, the press has fostered a belief in the "halo" car, a car that improves the appearance of the brand through the magic of its mere existence. Thus we saw the Dodge Viper, the Plymouth Prowler, various performance tunes of the Corvette, and the Ford Thunderbird all built at the expense of meaningful improvement to volume selling vehicles. Even today, the press will happily expend barrels of ink and whole forests of paper in praise of "halo" vehicles that will not make the mainstream vehicles in the lineup any more competitive.

The Big Three have paid dearly for taking such ridiculous advice, and they have paid for advocating such ridiculous priorities. They have paid through declining marketshare and declining consumer trust. But no one has called the press to account for their role in this. Blithely, the same questionable advice appears time and time again, as though the fault were still with the Big Three for failing to follow the advice properly, as opposed to the seemingly inconceivable notion that the advice itself is flawed.

Maybe you don't believe me when I say that bad advice still abounds? Well, the New York Times article cited above has this other gem of wisdom embedded in it, "Many analysts see a recipe for success in Chrysler ... the company's recent recovery has been driven by hot sales of a few key products."

The level of contempt I have for someone who would propose such a scattershot approach to product development as a means of improving the lot of companies that are half again and twice the size of Chrysler simply cannot be put into words. It defies description that someone could in good conscience cash a paycheck after having written such irresponsible advice. Such pointless, unsound, irredeemably bad advice has no place in journalism. Has 'hot sales of a few key products' been the 'recipe for success' at Honda? At Toyota? At Hyundai? At Kia? Should Ford gamble the future of 340,000 employees on "hot sales of a few key products"?

And, unfortunately for my temper and my patience, the author of this piece is by no means the exception to the rule.

Then there's inaccuracy in reporting. How often have Toyota and Honda been held up as paragons of environmental research and responsibility? Why in this very same article, we have this demonstrably untrue statement about Honda and Toyota, "they ... are far ahead in developing fuel efficient hybrid-electric cars."

continues.....

[FordMan]

First of all, Honda does not offer the most efficient form of hybrid drive, the so-called dual-mode hybrid drive that allows a vehicle to move on pure electric power. Only Ford and Toyota offer such systems. Then there is the Escape HEV, it achieves about a 50% increase in EPA rated fuel economy over the conventional Escape. By contrast, the hybrid Lexus RX400h achieves only about a 30% increase in fuel economy over the conventionally powered model. In comparable applications, the Ford hybrid delivers a greater improvement in fuel economy.

The hybrid system Ford designed from the ground up has not been compared head to head with the system designed by Toyota, and so meaningful statements about relative advancement are not possible. No study has placed the Toyota hybrid system ahead of Ford's, no valid data can be submitted to justify such a statement. Therefore, the placement of such a statement in the New York Times is gross journalistic negligence. This statement is not a self-evident truth. If something like this is going to be printed for public consumption we expect the good people behind the editor's desks at the New York Times to at least substantiate the claims being made, and that's all they are. Claims. Were this an advertisement for a Toyota or Honda product, they would have to cite a study in order to make such a claim. But, since this is only a news article, no such standards apply.

Once again, at the expense of my blood pressure, and my desire to avoid swearing and foul language, this wildly inaccurate statement is, by now, the unquestionable received truth about Toyota and Honda hybrids. The media's unwillingness to give credit to Bill Ford's environmental commitment without raising questions about his motivation is in sharp contrast to the face-value acceptance of reasons offered by Honda and Toyota for their environmental concern. Apparently only American executives can be duplicitous and self-serving.

The insistence on style and "excitement", and the willingness to dismiss any efforts by Ford to emulate "Asian" platform strategies bespeaks a dysfunctional codependency between the automotive press and the status quo in Detroit. For years the press has been both enabler and beneficiary of Detroit's worst habits. This shows no sign of abating. Consider the repeated statement that "Ford does not have a reputation for quality like Toyota" used as a supporting argument for attacks on the allegedly bland styling of the Five Hundred. The sentiment lurking below that statement, the sentiment that is odious, that is all but spoken is, "Ford does not have a reputation for quality and it is, therefore, pointless to try for one."

The press sneers at Ford's attempt to build a car which is designed to sell based on perceived quality and value. The Korean car companies achieved major strides in the market by building cars that looked like quality automobiles, that were not exciting, that were not highly styled, that simply looked and felt like good solid cars, but according to many in the media, that formula can't work for Ford.

Watching the press pounce on Ford as it tries get its act together is like watching the codependent wife of an alcoholic ridicule his attempts to clean up because he is not immediately the equal of his sober, responsible neighbors.

That is not to say the press should just roll over and take everything that Ford says about ongoing platform investment, emphasis on actual and perceived quality, and environmental issues at face value. However, the press as a whole has heaped contempt on Ford's hybrid program&emdash;at the expense of honest and objective reporting. They have lambasted Ford for creating a vehicle, the Five Hundred, that makes no pretensions to style or performance, only quality and value. Then they've laughed off Ford's statement that ongoing investment in the Five Hundred is not in response to "lukewarm" reception by the press. Such uncompromising cynicism has no place in journalism.

I have a feeling many in the press like things the way they are now. They assign themselves a God's eye view of the situation, and answer to no one. I'm sure many also assume they know more about the industry than the people that are actually in it. Furthermore, the press has an audience at the Big Three that has been only too happy to give them what they want. They wanted more profit per vehicle? Well Ford, GM, and Chrysler delivered, and their quality collapsed even as their products fell behind the times. The press wants "style" and "excitement"? Well, GM has delivered, in the form of halo vehicles that do next to nothing for the bottom line, and which do not make their mainstream offerings any better.

Looking for quality writing in the automotive press is like digging for food in a dumpster. There are good writers out there, and I do have my favorites, but they are oases in a desert, islands in a sea of sewage, people that have earned my respect, and who earn their pay. But by and large, coverage of the automotive industry remains biased, capricious, subject to preconceptions, inaccurate, and there simply is no accountability to be found anywhere.

But the automotive press will not escape the ultimate consequences of their irresponsibility. Disdain from the very opinion makers they seek to influence, and irrelevance to the industry will be the reward for their ongoing advocacy of the worst in business practices.

I can hardly wait.

[Irrational]

Oops. Guess you beat me to it, Ford Man.

[Swahili]

Merged and moved.

[FordMan]

I had it in the Ford section because part 1 and 2 are there and they talk more about Ford .

[Irrational]

Originally Posted by FordMan

I had it in the Ford section because part 1 and 2 are there and they talk more about Ford .

True. It's such a good article, though. I figured everyone here could gain something from it.

[FordMan]

Originally Posted by Irrational

True. It's such a good article, though. I figured everyone here could gain something from it.

Even more true. Yeah, everyone here should read this. You are the same Irrational thats at Autoweek, right? You should post this over there.

[Swahili]

Originally Posted by Irrational

True. It's such a good article, though. I figured everyone here could gain something from it.

Agreed. Now in The Competition. That should work for everyone.

After reading the article I'm pleased to read that at least Mr. Jensen is aware of part of the problem on the aspect of media responsibility. Obviously the dollar stops with the automakers, but the media is influential and many times the solution is in the middle.

Message to the Big 3: Build vehicles how they should be builtl; reliable, consistent and high in all forms of quality. Designing stylish and attractive automobiles shouldn't sacrifice quality if priorities are set right.
Media: Responsible journalism!!! Report the facts.

[tgagneguam]

I agree very near to 100% with the sentiment of this author with respect to "style and excitement are no substitutes for quality and consistency." That's why I favor thoughtful mainstream makeovers to niche showpieces, as nice as they may be.

[Irrational]

Originally Posted by FordMan

Even more true. Yeah, everyone here should read this. You are the same Irrational thats at Autoweek, right? You should post this over there.

Yup. Already did. Doubt anyone'll bother to read it over in Camcord land, though.

[Irrational]

Originally Posted by Swahili

Agreed. Now in The Competition. That should work for everyone.

After reading the article I'm pleased to read that at least Mr. Jensen is aware of part of the problem on the aspect of media responsibility. Obviously the dollar stops with the automakers, but the media is influential and many times the solution is in the middle.

Message to the Big 3: Build vehicles how they should be builtl; reliable, consistent and high in all forms of quality. Designing stylish and attractive automobiles shouldn't sacrifice quality if priorities are set right.
Media: Responsible journalism!!! Report the facts.

I second that. It's funny. When GM first pulled their ad money, I was certain the press would rain hellfire down on them. Much to the opposite's happened really. Many have taken a step back and re-evaluated where they stand when it comes to journalistic integrity. Good job, GM. Now. Get cracking on those new cars!

[GMfan2381]

Very good read. Many good points and informed. While there is a slant for Fords (no suprise, as it came off of BON) it does hold true for GM as well. Substance. Thats what will move cars, I just hope the Impala/MC and Malibu have more substance in them. Espically the Impala.

[460ford]

Excellent read

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

I would doubt that the CEO's really listen to the press. Most coaches college/pro do not listen to the press, if they did, they'd be out to a job.

Toyota and Honda are living off of reputation. Buick has been near the top in quality rankings for several years now. Consumers that want a quick 'grocery getter' purchase Hyundias and Kia for that reason. Many of the Asian producers have built a reputation. Detroits reputation has been lagging for several years now. I believe recent offerings from Detroit may woo some consumers. We can't blame the press. Quite honestly, Detroit has not been up to par with the Asian producers, but that is quickly changing.

It's kind of like me, a conservative, blaming the press for why we can't get things done. Reagan was brilliant with the press. As a conservative, we must realize the press will beat us up, and then have a counter.

I don't blame the press, although they could have done a better job to help Detroit. Great products and a great balance sheet will erase any press criticism.

[mbukukanyau]

Impala will be a hit
Here is why,
Compare and Contrast





Stylingwise for the Camcord Crowd.. GM is right on the money, I bet you a person driving home with a Camry today from Toyota most likely never consindered the 300 C...



But the V8 crowd 300 C does not see the sense in going after Toyota and Honda. Remember that GM is almost catching up with imports in Quality...

If GM can then style its cars accordingly , and emphisize on the fuel economy issue... like the Bu V6 getting better mileage than Camry 4 Banger (todate GM has not explotied this in its commercials) then GM can catch up and overtake imports...

Obviously OHV pushrods are simpler higher quality engines and are more economical to oparate and run... Just look at Vettes fuel #'s vs. HP output.. Tell me how much gas/mile a porsche guzzles for such HP.. or Ferarri Enzo...