When General Motors announced that it would discontinue its annual $10 million-worth of Facebook advertising, cross-town frenemy Ford felt compelled to put in its two cents by tweeting:
“It’s all about the execution. Our Facebook ads are effective when strategically combined with engaging content & innovation.”
Apparently, The Blue Oval has found that reaching users through Facebook paid ads has helped the automaker improve its social media marketing — such as reaching million of people using Facebook in launching the all-new Ford Explorer last year.
Rolling with the punches, GM switched social networks (oh no they didn’t!) and posted a retort on its Facebook wall:
“Just wanted to let our millions of Facebook fans know, we’re still here, and we ‘like’ you back! We may not be advertising on Facebook at the moment but we’ll still be talking with you all daily. If anything, we will be providing more content across our many GM Facebook pages – including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac – to keep the dialogue going.”
The GM Authority Take
The General’s decision to drop Facebook ads, which took place the week of the social network’s IPO “parade” — much like the one GM held before its own IPO, came after learning that more than half of Facebook users never click on sponsored ads, and of those who do, only 12 percent would make a purchase through Facebook.
GM’s move has widely been scrutinized in the media as the first visible crack in Facebook’s business strategy, but it’s important to note that GM has spent millions of dollars with Facebook over the last several years already. In addition, marketing strategies change over time, which is likely why GM’s message to its fans stated that it may not be advertising on Facebook “at the moment”; in other words, change is in the air — and no drama is necessary.
Comments
Corporations talkin’ smack on/about social networks… C’mon guys!
Great cars cause all sorts of talk. Today’s world gives individuals all sorts of scenarios to discuss things that matter to them. When a company smears it’s products all over Facebook, I don’t even notice. When people are talking about purchases they’ve made or capabilities I may not know of…That’s different.
Funny how Dearborn and Detroit are still doin’ such a dance – while Hyundai and Toyota literally sprint ahead in market share.
GM: Just concentrate on your future 4 – Mode hybrid projects and Voltec 2nd gens. Ford is playing a cagey hand now and truly the success of their future strategies ( EcoBoost + hybrids based upon existing platforms ) vs. whatever you’re cookin’ up ( 4 Mode – plug in models of existing platforms, Voltec variants other than ELR ) will be the sensation that gets people talkin’. I’ve always respected people that let their performance speak for them rather than idle chatter like Ford seems to be dishin’ out.
I see Toyota has reached #1 again – and they’re not talkin’ smack on Facebook. $10 million more to those hard-working engineers and designers in the system might help them innovate a bit more for that edge. Ford calls their Explorer “all new”, but I see nothing much new about it. Motor Trend gave it a last place ( or second-to-last ) in it’s SUV shootout due to squeaks, rattles, parts that fell off and basically poor fit and finish.
Agree, Advertising anywhere can only do so much, I would keep advertising for only new launches and niche products, but not for established products and even then keep it to a bare minimum, invest everything in product development, Americans for the most part have become immune to advertising on almost all medium, what Americans do consider when buying a car, is if someone they know madly loves their car because its so great, they are more likely to buy that car than if they say some ads about it.
On the explorer, I read the same motor trend article, and I recall that they placed it at the bottom because(as best as I can quote from memory) “it has to many quality issues with MyFordTouch to be a real contender”, and those issues have since been fixed, I dont recall anything about it having the issues you mentioned, but if it did, it must have been a pre production, because theres no way any car built a few months ago, from Hyundai to BMW, has parts falling off.
The Explorer is the best in class when it comes to full-size crossovers in fuel economy, technology, etc.; the model Motor Trend got was most likely a preproduction unit.
I keep thinking that Facebook is another Bernie Madoff style pyramid. Where is the real value?
The same could be said for Google, no real products, vast majority of revenue from advertising.
Last I checked, their stock was about $600.
I don’t even know why Ford is laughing at GM for?? I mean Ford was being gutless when GM says have a race on the ZL1 and the GT500 on a track. And then both made fun of each other on ads i.e. government owned and fix or repair daily after the world ends. I hope they understands that the key goal is to dominate Toyota, Honda, Hyundai. You don’t see Chrysler going around says oh Ford/GM you suck or anything (except for the Durango vs. Explorer commercial).
There’s an old saying I don’t know who said it was “half the money I spent on advertising is a waste I just don’t know which half” Maybe GM knows which half is the waste.
@ Barbershare:
Hi Barbershare, perhaps we didn’t read the same article – Motor Trend, March 2011: Three Row Crossover SUV Comparison
Ford Explorer 6th Place ( out of 6 ).
Here’s the piece, word-for-word re: The Explorer –
“We didn’t like driving the Explorer very much. “Holy torque steer, Batman!” shrieked executive editor Edward Loh. “Why is this AWD beast pulling under wide-open throttle?” Because more so than any other vehicle here, the Explorer is primarily FWD, with power routed to the rear tires only when the fronts lose traction. Hence, massive, freaky, comical torque steer. The big Ford also rode worse than much of the competition. Says Williams, “The chassis needs some refinement to give it the level of sophistication and playfulness most of the others deliver.” From my own notes: “Car feels wobbly at speed-not confidence inspiring.”
“We also had issues with the seating position. Considering its great width, one would think the Explorer would be spacious. But like the Taurus it’s based on, it just isn’t.
Then there was this: “An odd squeak has developed. Seems to be coming from right rear.” A moment later, I’m on the walkie to associate online editor Scott Evans. “Sounds like something in the driver-side A-pillar is sizzling.” He tells me it could be the airbag malfunctioning. Great. Mr. Loh piles on, “The squeaking from the rear and the zippery farting noise coming from the windshield only enhance the rattletrap nature of the Explorer.” After poking around, we learn the head-splitting rear squeak is because of a poorly fitted rear-tire aerodynamic deflector spat. Both rear tire spats eventually failed, and the trim piece flew off on the freeway.
Additionally, a front piece of bumper trim broke loose, and the MyFord Touch system shut down for about 60 seconds, taking away all climate, stereo, phone, and navigation controls before rebooting. Can all this be chalked up to the Explorer being an early pre-production vehicle? Ford assures us that’s the case and all five flaws has been addressed or redesigned. Perhaps, but you know the old saying/shampoo commercial about not getting a second chance to make a first impression?”
—- Recall that Ford sold umpteen thousand models with the clunky, awkward MyFordTouch units until the horrible feedback and ratings forced a change. The first year Explorers had those units and yes, MT also complained bitterly about it also. I remember another MT snippet on the new Explorer, perhaps it was the SUV of the Year trials – you may force me to look it up also… There they lamented that their fully equipped Explorer topped $52,000! They said this is easy to do with Sync,MyFordTouch, and options galore. Now think about that — read the above and ask yourself why any American would pay that for such a beast that returns shameful mpg.?
Now what kind of company gives a product reviewer the caliber of Motor Trend a pre-production version of ANY vehicle which is THAT bad?!! As you see, some of their critiques have nothing to do with rough ( very ) edges, but the entire design of the car. It’s heavy and it’s not roomy. This equates to a big pig SUV that certainly is “nothing new”, wouldn’t you agree?
Not a Traverse fan – but in this comparison it finished 4th.
Well, ok I stand(or type) corrected, maybe it was different article or shortened/less detailed version of the same article, however you acknowledge it was pre production, and while even a preproduction shouldnt have these issues, its Ford fault for submitting a pre production to a place like MotorTrend.
That said, in my experience, you cant base you impression of a car by what one reviewer says, no matter how credible it is.
However, Im not a Explorer lover either. I like the Durango much better, even though it still gets lame mpg.
@ Babersher:
I’ll get your name right eventually….Sheesh!
This comes from a company(ford) where the ugliest & most unreliable automobiles roll of their assembly line everyday where innovation & creativity is absent from every single vehicle they make i really HATE ford whats exciting about any ford product they make? i will never
buy a ford ever in life i never owned one and never will its GM for Life,plus every ford car & truck has horrible suspension problems u dont even have to look to see whats coming up the streets u know its an ugly raggly ford because it sounds like an old bed sqeaking plus ford tops the recall list every year,more than honda & toyota one thing ford is winning & thats the recall race,but they are fighting toyota,honda & subaru for the most ugliest cars title have you seen the new ford flex or new toyota camry? Those thing are butt ugly when i was a kid i remember back in the 80s ford always had problems witj ignition fires ford was garbage back then & they are garbage now honda ,ford & toyota garbage in trash clothing
If you based today’s Fords on your 80s experience, then you have serious issues.
Hmmm I would have a tendency to believe that statement has some merit to it.