How the Press Let down Detroit Options

[McCall]

Wow, this article was just so good IMHO that I just have to post the transcript to it here:

How the Press Let Down Detroit
http://www.blueovalnews.com/2005/products/...s.3.18apr05.htm

"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."


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.

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."

[nape]

Bravo!

[firehawkclone]

MAN i only got 1/3 of the way through it (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif) but that 1/3 was very good (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif)

[prockbp]

aww.. i'm indiferent

i sure hope the press doesn't have that much influence over people... but i only know how little the press influences me

[Crazy Canuck]

unfortunately, these idiots have more influence than the hard work put behind on restructuring and bringing the company back on its feet.
These bastards demolish lot of hard work that Ford should be proud for.
I believe that Ford has come a long way over the last few years.
Heck... look @ Chrysler on how it was able to recover from the dark ages and to think that Aries/Reliant K is what impeded the company from going under chapter 11.
They had to focus on what people wanted and were able to do so with innovation.
They came out with:
Caravan
Neon
Intrepid
Stratus
pretty much nailed lots of market without much excitement... but was enough to revive the company... I'm glad other companies are opening their eyes... like Ford, and hopefully GM will do so soon, and not fall in the mistake of getting Aztek's or weird vehicles.

great reading... read every single word of it.... couldn't have said it better. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif)

[Formula WS6]

great article. thanks mccall.

you know its funny i saw a tacoma today. it had four doors was riding on 20 inch or bigger rims. had a bull bar with lights and a hood scoop. bug catcher style. im betting the kid bought it off the showroom floor like that. it didnt look that bad, but my comment to myself was "man its getting pretty obvious people want more style than they do substance." i see this trend in other places in society. its a bad trend i think. heres a good example, the new GTO. sure it may lack some style, but it has loads of substance. an editor in i think pontiac enthusiast made the comment that no one that he knows that has driven the car doesnt like it. this included people who think it somehow is not worth of the name GTO. i have to agree completely. GM needs to forget trying to make the next vehicle that everyone wants and just make good quality vehicles that have a good reputation

[rpoz-29]

I never thought about that angle before. But it's true. I like the new Colorado, but did they really need to reinvent the S-10? I mean the 4.3 in the S-10 was a good match wasn't it? How many small truck buyers will notice the differences,(or even care?), between the 2? And the Cobalt SS may end up being a success, but couldn't that SC engine have fit in a Cavalier? I looked at a Scion XB recently, it's ugly as crap, but with as much rear seat leg room as my Mom's Roadmaster. GM needs something, I just don't know what it is.