The fiscal irresponsibility of our dear auto industry continues.
My elected officials voted ‘no’ for the auto bail out, as they should have. Yet the executive branch votes ‘yes’ in such a way that is legal, yet still seems strangely circumventive of the democratic process.
[Note to self: irresponsibility allows me to profit from someone else's hard work.]
So what does Chrysler do with their hard earned money the taxpayers money?
Answer: spends $357,400 on a full color spread in USA Today.
Oh wait, did I only mention USA Today? I also meant to mention the Wall Street Journal, where the full page color ads run at $264,000.
For all you math majors out there, that means that Chrysler spent $621,400 on two ads in two newspapers. That’s not to mention smaller circulation newspapers where the ad appeared, such at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which charges $129,319 for a full page ad. That brings the fiscally responsible total for three ads to $750,719…OF YOUR MONEY. No doubt the total reaches well over $1 million, considering the ad appeared in every paper in major metro areas (Chicago, Philly, NYC, LA, Houston, etc.).
This is the perfect example of why our wonderfully competent executive branch should have never given them the money in the first place. You don’t learn lessons by being bailed out. As we can clearly see, their irresponsibility continues…and is shoved in our face as we are reading the morning paper! You learn lessons the hard way, by having to face your failures and deal with them.
No doubt Chrysler will be making lay-offs during the first quarter of 2009. I wonder how many jobs could have been saved if they hadn’t run their idiotic $1 million+ ad campaign?
These are the kinds of questions that responsible people are asking while they’re spending our money.
It’s like Leonard Sweet recently said, “It’s communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.”
I much prefer my version of the ad.
5 January 2009 at 11.50 pm
Well, advertising is a place automakers do typically invest in order to generate more revenue. So, I guess I don’t see the problem, assuming there’s reason to think the ads have a decent chance of enhancing their sales.
Of course, this blog entry is attempting to generate ill-will towards Chrysler, which (assuming enough people were to read it and were influenced by it) might be detrimental to their sales. So perhaps you’re wasting my tax dollars too. Ah well.
It’s also worth pointing out that newspapers have fallen on hard times, so Chrysler’s ads may be helping that sector of the economy, not to mention folks employed by their ad agency.
Golly, I enjoy being contrarian.
5 January 2009 at 11.53 pm
I enjoy reading your contrarian comments! Honestly, they keep me in check and I appreciate them.
6 January 2009 at 12.36 am
I don’t enjoy either of you.
6 January 2009 at 2.51 am
That second poster is missing a crescent somewhere…
6 January 2009 at 2.04 pm
Garver,
“It’s also worth pointing out that newspapers have fallen on hard times, so Chrysler’s ads may be helping that sector of the economy, not to mention folks employed by their ad agency.”
That only proves that it was a waste of money. If nobody is reading newspapers why would you throw money away on an ad?
The best advertising the US auto companies have received has been free any way. You can’t go 20 minutes on a cable news channel without seeing someone talking about how you can get such good deals on cars.
7 January 2009 at 1.07 pm
Art the bail out doesn’t only keep Chrysler in business it keeps every company dependent on them in business. For instance my wife worked for a Fortune 500 company that does brakes called TRW as their HRG. If the auto industry flops so do they. Its not just plant workers at Chrysler centers but all sorts of industry plants that take a huge hit. Where we live in Georgia that could be a big blow to the blue collar community that are unable to make shifts to new career fields like people with education and other resources.
Food for thought man. But I do agree the expense of the adds is high. It would have been a show of good faith on USA Today’s part to run it for partial cost but that’s another matter. Also I think Garver was right about the positive potential behind posting adds there. It lets people know they should still buy Chrysler and they should still invest there which I imagine is a much greater and ongoing need for them than a momentary financial helping hand from the government…
7 January 2009 at 1.11 pm
Here’s a follow up thought as well. Part of my churches drop in giving was due to our blue collar crowd loosing their jobs, there were a few attached to the auto industry, which in turn meant that I was let go from my pastoral position. So the buy keeps a lot of people in vocations. Not to mention the four new housing communities that are flopping around us because people are loosing their jobs or are afraid of loosing their jobs. Its systemic and organic man and I’m partial proof of that…
7 January 2009 at 3.12 pm
how long do think the auto bailout will last. don’t you think it is only delaying the inevitable at worst or delaying positive market forces at best? the point is that we’ve got two groups that are notoriously horrible at making business decisions deciding how to spend taxpayers money. adding insult to injury is that they have decided to mortgage our future to delay failure, thereby increasing the chance of future financial disaster.
7 January 2009 at 8.54 pm
Wow, that picture really says it. Communism is comforting, but still the wrong solution.
8 January 2009 at 11.43 am
On Keith Olberman a couple weeks ago, Michael Moore had a good idea. This was prior to the bailout, and he was opposed to it, but said that if they were gonna give it to them, they needed to also be told dollar by dollar how that money was supposed to be spent. Obviously that didn’t happen.
To be honest, I don’t appreciate my tax dollars being used to bail out corporate execs for the very same irresponsibility that I fell into a few years ago and am now paying for. If the government’s gonna bail them out, than it should bail me out. Especially since I actually learned my lesson.
9 January 2009 at 9.47 am
Jeremy – I didn’t know you could use the phrase “good idea” and the name “Michael Moore” in the same sentence? I appreciate your sentiment about not wanting your tax money wasted, but what makes you think that politicians are good at deciding how to spend money or run businesses? Maybe instead of having to bail you out, or bail anybody out, maybe the government shouldn’t have taken your money in the first place. I think that you know the best way to spend your money. I think that if you had more of it, you would be more generous. I think if you made a mistake with money (which it seems like you did) that you are capable of recovering, learning, and not making that mistake again. The government is not capable of any of that. They take and take and always spend selfishly and unwisely. They constantly throw good money after bad and if they don’t have enough, they print more.