And here's CaMIRO's:

In support of GM’s bold move to defend Pontiac G6

GM announced on Friday that it would pull its advertising from the LA Times, citing perpetual misrepresentation of its products – most recently, the Pontiac G6 midsize sedan.

It was, to those of us familiar with some of the LA Times’ writing, a long-awaited move, if less than a foregone conclusion. Despite the potential for disingenuous relationships between a publisher and the advertisers that keep it alive, advertising in print – and the corollary practice of fitting articles around advertisements on a printed page – has become so prevalent as to be considered normal.

In such a landscape, this may be an unconventional move. That said, it is one thing to expect favoritism; it is quite another when your products; your company, and its executives are judged undeserving of both fairness, and of well-formed opinion.

Without pointing fingers at any one individual, there has indeed been some disingenuous automotive reporting within the LA Times. We have often wondered why it behooved GM to fund such unsupported commentary, but apparently it may have taken a blatant error – one which should have been fact-checked before the issue went to print – to force GM’s hand.

The old Grand Am was a Pontiac best-seller for nearly two decades. It seemed logical that a sales comparison between the Grand Am and the new G6 would be made and, indeed, one was put forth by the LA Times on Wednesday.

It was a fundamentally inaccurate comparison, and the blindingly incorrect conclusion may well have been the last straw for GM.

Simply put, the new, and evolving, G6 range currently includes only a V6 sedan, with one engine in two trim levels. Grand Am, to which the G6 was compared in sales, incorporated an entire family, including four-cylinder; six-cylinder, sedan, and coupé models.

One can see why these things are important. A recent Detroit Free Press article included a quote from Bank of America Securities brokerage firm auto analyst Ronald Tadross, who “specifically cited the sluggish performance of the G6 as a key reason he warned investors in a report last month to sell their stock in GM, sparking a sell-off on Wall Street that damaged the automaker and local investors” (‘Oprah Buzz works no magic for Pontiac G6,’ Detroit Free Press, March 22nd, 2005).

Let’s look at the facts. If one were to compare March, 2005 G6 V6 retail sales to March, 2004 Grand Am V6 retail sales, the numbers would play at 7,859 to 5,017, 57% in favor of the G6. Even if we took G6 V6 sales versus sales of all Grand Am models for March 2005 versus March 2004, the G6 would still figure at 80% of the total - a solid achievement for a more expensive, less varied line-up.

Certainly, March 2004 represented the latter part of the Grand Am’s product life-cycle, but it is also true that the car continued to sell well through to the end, largely because of incentives. With the G6, Pontiac has attempted to pull away from incentivized promotions – and it appears to be working. While the LA Times (among others) confused Pontiac incentives as a whole with those specifically on the G6, Edmunds TMV prices suggest that a base G6 is sold at $20,045 – just $1,255 under its sticker price in a highly-competitive market full of incentives (G6’s is up to $1,500 atop the TMV price). A base G6 GT moved at $22,500, $1,425 under its MSRP. Both represent a leap from the Grand Am, and neither seems to warrant the comments made in the LA Times.

Taking the G6 on its own merits, sales have grown with each month, with the exception of January (a month in which both the G6’s segment and the industry were down).

The G6 will be followed this summer by the introduction of a 3.9-liter, 240hp, 245lb-ft GTP model with Displacement-on-Demand, along with four-cylinder (likely the 170hp, 170lb-ft 2.4-liter Ecotec) that will expand the car’s fleet sales, and coupé variants of all three. A convertible – which may well be the only folding hardtop in the segment - will follow in the first quarter of 2006.

These are solid products with a promising outlook, and yet the media has jumped to write the play’s review having seen little more than the opening scene.

In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their car, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.

One does begin to get the impression that there is more here than simply incorrect facts. As noted earlier, the mistake came upon months of somewhat disingenuous reporting. We tend to lend credence to the idea of a perception gap, and have spent a good deal of time explaining both its legitimate background, and its less-than-sincere evolution.

The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda’s Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.

Again, let’s look at the facts. In September 2004, Pontiac launched the G6 midsize sedan in two variants: G6, and G6 GT, both promising 20 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the highway from a 200hp @ 5,400rpm, 220lb-ft @ 3,800 rpm, 3.5-liter engine. Accord’s estimated mileage figures are 21/30 mpg, and Camry’s, 20/29 mpg, by comparison (and both require 91 octane to the G6’s 87). We’ll save the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam argument for another time, although it is certainly true that the LA Times’ characterization of pushrods as outdated is historically inaccurate.

With its chrome-tipped exhausts; 16” standard and 17” aluminum wheels (G6 GT); drive-by-wire throttle, and of course that rather stunning, optional panoramic roof, this was a break from the Grand Am. Could the wheels be larger still? The LA Times certainly thought so but, again, even a cursory understanding of vehicle dynamics would have suggested that larger wheels hurt the ride of a car, leaving less of the springs for the body to bounce upon. Certainly, Honda will not match even the G6 GT’s 225/50 R17, offering 205/60 R16 tires. This is, after all, the mainstreamer class!

We are among those who take issue with GM’s electric steering (more direct than Camcord, particularly in the G6 GT, but communication is one-way and falls short of Accord in this regard), so we’re glad that the upcoming GTP will revert to a hydraulic system. We’re also not convinced of the merits of a front MacPherson strut set-up. The G6 mitigates concerns somewhat by mounting the struts on a hydroformed subframe to reduce harshness, but one must consider that a MacPherson roll center tends to migrate, with the possibility of violent handling at the limit. We’ll see how Pontiac addresses this in a minute, but we’d add that it is still more prone to migration in a 3,000+ lb car (the G6 weighs 3,380 lbs.)

That said, there is no truth to the idea that the G6 is heavy. The Accord LX V6 runs 3,349 lbs. Toyota’s Camry weighs 3,340 lbs.

We’re utterly unconvinced of the Camry’s all-around MacPherson set-up. MacPhersons are cheap, but saddling a 3,000+ lb. car with them at both ends and shooting for a soft ride forces some ill-advised compromises. Try a 24mm front stabilizer, versus a 17mm rear stabilizer; both figures are high given the softly-sprung emphasis on ride, and it bears remembering that stabilizers create roll, rather than resisting it, on straight yet uneven pavement.

Honda’s double-wishbone all-around suspension is hard to beat for its ride/handling compromise, and Accord runs 25mm/13mm stabilizers on its V6 line. We would wager that the Accord’s rear springs are stiffer than the ride might suggest for this class, generating cornering forces at the rear without needing to be bolstered by resistance and allowing for a modicum of neutrality before inevitable understeer. Double-wishbone configurations allow for more precise control of camber, too, so Honda has less need to protect its rear tires from excessive deflection.

A four-link independent suspension sits at the G6’s rear, a system which commendably manages a 19mm (20mm on the GT) rear stabilizer without being too harsh. Up front sits a 21mm (22mm on the GT) stabilizer. This is the smallest difference between stabilizers among these three cars, and represents an elegant solution to the MacPherson enigma: set the front stabilizer stiff enough to prevent the roll center from migrating, yet keep the rear stabilizer close behind; one does not want to push the front tires to counter such lateral force that the car has trouble gaining traction out of corners. GM has obvious confidence in the stiffness of the Epsilon platform, and the set-up works well.

A class-leading, 112.3-inch wheelbase (shared with the Malibu MAXX) permits GM to stiffen the springs yet still retain a reasonably compliant ride. Agility is still the key here, however, as evidenced by a 0.6mm front-to-rear track difference in favor of a wider rear track (Accord’s is a mere 0.1mm; Camry actually has a 0.4mm wider front track!)

Predictably, given all of the above, G6 turn-in is best of these three cars, at the expense of the Accord’s ride; understeer, when it comes, is predictable, and the car is easily throttle-steerable. A cursory read of the better reviews will find the G6 regularly beating Camcord slalom speeds.

The lines are certainly distinctive; wedge-like, where Camcords have grown more bulbous; and clean, having lost the plastic cladding of the past. They also constrain headroom (the LA Times having correctly noted this point). Although we welcome the fresh design, we do think that Pontiac may have missed an opportunity here: looking at the car, with its swept-back windshield and high rear deck, we see an opening for the advertising of drag force figures.

As we’ve bemoaned several times, no one publishes CdA (coefficient-of-drag multiplied by frontal area) figures anymore. Accord’s coefficient-of-drag is 0.30; Camry’s, 0.28. For a company which once made Wide-Track a hit due to the obvious connection between the inherent virtue of the product and the advertising which played on it, why wouldn’t Pontiac again use the design’s distinctiveness as an inherent advantage? Lower drag forces mean better performance; better NVH figures at speed, and better efficiency – all valuable aspects of a Pontiac renaissance. Besides, one would imagine that a company which has been decidedly misrepresented in some regards might privately thrill in forcing the media to understand the inadequacy of comparing coefficient-of-drag figures across vehicles with different frontal areas.

A cursory glance suggests that the G6’s aerodynamics might well be worth touting, but a run in GM’s wind tunnel costs $25,000 – so, Pontiac, the ball is in your court!

What is the potential impact of GM’s advertising pull-out?

Some of the short-term fall-out could conceivably affect the GTO, for which California is the second–largest market after Detroit, nationwide. That said, a rather peripheral media has been quick to label the GTO as something less than a success, even as March, 2005 sales are up 84.2% over March, 2004 (largely thanks to a boost in horsepower, and a little glamour courtesy the hood scoops).

As we have suggested earlier, the GTO was a Bob Lutz-mandated exercise – a quick car to bring over from Australia; to show GM what rear-wheel-drive was capable of doing, and to get the company thinking in global terms.

That the LA Times piece on the G6 called for Vice Chairman Lutz’s resignation, while an exercise in freedom of expression and less blatantly problematic than the inaccurate sales comparison, demonstrates a severe lack of perspective.

Whether you ask industry insiders or the vast majority of automotive journalists, Robert A. Lutz is an extraordinarily talented product planner. To call this quality mere instinct (as was implied in the piece) is to sell it short; rather, Lutz has continually demonstrated an inherent understanding of the balance between consumer expectations and consumer desires. A cursory study of Lutz’s track record shows that few rival his ability to determine how far today’s consumer preferences should be allowed to dictate tomorrow’s vehicle.

Anyone who purports to understand the automotive industry well enough to review it could note that product development processes regularly take between three and four years. Lutz arrived at GM precisely three years before the G6’s debut – enough time to change the name, and to force a delay while the vehicle’s styling was tweaked, but not enough to inspire a complete redesign of a vehicle whose parameters were largely set.

This notwithstanding, G6 is a good car: an agile corner-carver with quick steering that could use more feedback; a distinctively-styled mainstreamer with short overhangs and an aggressive stance in a sea of bland bulbousness, and the beginning of a product line that will field some very interesting sister models.

There is nothing here to support the LA Times’ comments.

In light of all this, we commend GM for taking a stand on inaccurate reporting; and, more philosophically, reporting whose nature seeks not to further the industry, but the careers of reporters at the expense of the people who design, engineer, and market these products.

Quite frankly, Ford should do the same. The LA Times’ Mercury Montego review last year was little short of a travesty, the headline itself being so unbelievably crass that we consider it unprintable. Amusing it might have been, but it was peripheral at best, and hardly the timeless work of a knowledgeable writer of the caliber of LJK Setright; Ian Fraser, or the late George Bishop.

We’ve seen figures that suggest the Chicago-owned LA Times may lose $10 million annually as a result of this move. Certainly, money appears to have got their attention. LA Times spokesman David Garcia said on Friday that the Tribune-owned paper would “look into any complaints GM has about inaccuracy or misrepresentation and will make any appropriate corrections.”

GM, meanwhile, is better off placing ads in newspapers whose editors fact-check before printing, and – better yet - on ride-and-drives in California. Consultants Al and Laura Ries’ excellent book, The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, illustrates why. Advertising is gradually being considered both too peripheral – and too cynical, given the fragmentation of the market – to provide genuine information.

Automotive journalism, however, is perceived as being more credible and deals with products too expensive for its comments to be peripheral in nature. GM made the right move.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: thewizard16
"I wonder how long Dan Neil will have a job with the LA Times? "

---

He won a Pulitzer for commentary from them, he's not going anywhere. There's no way the LA Times readers will get the full analysis that car forum members did, GM will only look bad from this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: thewizard16
"
Probably so. I'm sure they'll advertise in the LA Times again eventually."

---

I'm sure they'll quietly slip a few back in. Maybe they'll just pay for dealers to advertise more, so they can keep their boycott alive officially.

This was from another article:

"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."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: thewizard16
"That's a considerable chunk of revenue. If I ran the paper, I think I'd be figuring out a way to get that advertising back."

---

They couldn't do that, it would look like they were being controlled by their advertisers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ifcar
" They couldn't do that, it would look like they were being controlled by their advertisers."

---

Well, it'd be a helluva lot harder to run it without the advertisers, so in a sense they kind of do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ifcar
" They have other advertisers Kevin, and I'm sure there will be others willing to fill up the holes created by GM."

---

I know, but I wasn't talking about GM, I was talking about every one of their advertisers, as you implied when you said "it would look like they were being controlled by their advertisers."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ifcar
"

If they gave in to GM, it would look like they were being controlled by one of their advertisers. Their other advertisers are entirely irrelevent to this issue."

---

True. They can't go jumping through hoops for advertisers, but they can't afford a paper with no advertising income, either. They'll figure something out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ifcar
"

They can afford a paper with less advertising money though, which it looks like they'll have to do. "

---

True, but the owners may not be pleased with smaller bonus checks.