Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations
In an effort to sway consumer's minds when it comes to the types of vehicles they purchase and the regulations concerning fuel mileage of those vehicles, a consortium of automakers is running radio and print advertising in some states. The group, Auto Alliance, consists of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Porsche, and is known officially as The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Their mission: "The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represents the common interests of its members and provides a forum to enable them to advance public policies that meet consumer and societal needs for clean, safe, efficient, and affordable personal transportation. "
Although claiming that "we need a balanced approach that avoids harm to Americans dependent on larger cars and light trucks," according to Gloria Bergquist, the group is not really taking a balanced approach in the states the ads will be heard and shown in. According to this article, "the alliance said it would spend "way north" of $1 million on the ads to be run in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- all states with high percentages of truck and SUV owners."
The ads are said to be targeted towards truck owners and mothers who drive larger vehicles and are concerned with safety. The idea is that fuel mileage regulations would make it more difficult for consumers to purchase heavy duty, work capable pickups and for mothers to find safe vehicles.
Click here for ad one (.mp3). Click here for ad two (.mp3).
Grassroots efforts are also said to be in effect to contact retirees from the large automakers with similar information. At this time, automakers are under regulations that were created in 1975 to regulate fuel economy. So, all of you consumers out there, what do you think?
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mikeinBuilding7 3:08PM (5/27/2007)
Maybe being a CEO requires a touch of insanity.
1) The UK gets 3 engine options, including Diesel, while the US only gets SUV's and TRUCK's with HUGE engines.
Whatever happened to those Automated Assembly Lines where we could select the OPTIONS we wanted in our vehicles?
GM is a perfect example, you can buy a SUV from us ONLY if we can SHOVE Down Your Throat the HUGE V8 we REQUIRE YOU TO BUY.
---
I Know what 200 horsepower is in an SUV. You have to be DAINTY with the accelerator pedal or the thing will jump into traffic. So, No I don't buy the Necessity of a 300 and 400hp SUV on the market. Again, with NO Roll CAGE.
Reply
small-wee-wee 9:06PM (5/26/2007)
This really upsets me. Why don't they stop spending money on this kinda crap and put it towards some innovations. Our planet is in serious trouble and this type of attitude is exactly what we do not need.
Reply
Joseph 12:28AM (5/27/2007)
According to this propaganda, alt. fuels, not increase in efficiency, is the answer.
Well, that's completely true, alt. fuels are the answer: clean ones.
If they're so open to clean fuels, why not just mandate clean fuels. e.g. electricity, bio-diesel, and others...
Let's see how much propaganda they'd spin about now.
Reply
Ron Fischer 6:01PM (5/27/2007)
This is the same strategy used by Automakers when congress last attempted to toughen mileage regulations right after 9/11. They bought enormous amounts of advertising in truck-heavy states which encouraged viewers to call their Representatives and say they would vote 'em out of office. The ads featured farmers trying to stuff haybales into subcompact cars... Of course, who can tell if the calls are really coming from voters anyway? The strategy has always worked. CAFE has not been increased (significantly) in decades.
Reply
Grant 1:45AM (5/27/2007)
So their theory is poor efficiency + large vehicles = safety. Safe who exactly? Definitely not for any smaller vehicle on the road or for anyone lucky enough to breath in the fumes. Improved safety comes in increased airbags and better designs, not by increasing the size of a vehicle. There is a serious incompatibility between different sized vehicles on the road when it comes to safety. Just because you choose to drive an oversized vehicle and are willing to pay for it at the pump, there are a lot of other negative externalities that you should be forced to pay. If improving fuel efficiencies is one of those then so be it.
Reply
Der Alte 2:28AM (5/27/2007)
Its a piss off when you look over in Europe and see that these same automakers off many of the same vehicles in much more fuel efficient packages. A four cylinder turbo diesel will give more than adequate power to most SUVs and minivans. Heck, even a turbo four cylinder gas engine would be more than enough power. That's putting the bigger is better argument aside, which I don't really buy anyways.
Most Europeans drive much smaller cars than most North Americans. Guess what....those small cars share the roads with big rigs and other large vehicles....often at speeds that make North American freeways look absolutely pedestrian. Do we hear of mass carnage on European roads?
The different lies largely with two items. First is a tax regime that rewards more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles in a significant way...not only when you buy the vehicle, but when you register it year after year. Second, in many European countries, the requirements for getting a driver's license is much more stringent. Many European countries demand a much higher level of driver training and testing to obtain a license in the first place. You just don't see people lumbering down the fast lane of an autobahn at 90 kph with their left blinker flashing for miles on end.
What is most interesting is that often the tax structure does not outright outlaw any one vehicle type. You can buy whatever you want....but if you want the big thirsty SUV you are going to pay for it. There is a market for fuel efficient cars because the tax structure provides a strong incentive to buy them....and guess what, the automakers provide fuel efficient options up the wazooo over there. The real kicker is that many of these vehicles still get decent performance to boot.
In fact, if you look the world over, most everywhere else gets to buy great fuel efficient vehicles that you can't in North America. Why can I buy a BMW diesel almsot anywhere in the world...except North America? Same with diesel Hondas and Toyotas? Peugeot sells cars all over the place...and soon will have diesel hybrids...maybe even with a plug in option in the not too distant future. Want to bet those cars can be obtained anywhere else but North America?
Its time North American governments change their vehicle tax regimes to reward fuel efficiency. The benefits to society are obvious (the main one being a weaning off of very expensive foreign oil). The free market will take care of the rest.
Reply
Nils 5:57AM (5/27/2007)
In Europe, chances are greater I'm going to get hit by a Smart than by an SUV. And that's exactly how it should be. Compatibility is key to safety. That's why Volvo put so much research into their XC90, being the 'safest' car-maker they were really concerned about compatibility issues with other cars as well as pedestrians.
But of course, the states are full of SUV's and everybody needs them, so who's going to take the first step? Chicken-and-egg problem again I'm afraid.
Reply
Scatter 6:08AM (5/27/2007)
Oh dear. When the world is going to hell in 50 years time please tell me the people who commissioned those ads will be thrown in jail.
ABG readers should use the "contact your senator" message form helpfully provided on that website to support tough standards.
Reply
Chris M 5:20PM (5/29/2007)
This alliance claims it is for "advance public policies that meet consumer and societal needs for clean, safe, efficient, and affordable personal transportation". Well, not really, they are only concerned about maintaining sales of highly profitable big gas guzzling cars, SUVs and trucks. That's the only market segment where the Detroit auto makers have any real competetive edge.
So, they keep promoting the "big SUV truck = safety" myth, that is the only thing that can keep SUV truck sales going in the face of rising fuel prices and the growing threat of import petrodollar funded terrorism. But hevier vehicles are more prone to skidding and braking problems that lead to accidents, and more prone to rollover accidents that have the highest injury and fatality rates.
The alliance is also promoting the myth that the only way to improve fuel economy is to downsize vehicles. Not true, fuel economy can be improved by reducing weight, reducing drag, hybrid and plug-in technologies, and even, if necessary, reducing performance.
Reply