American icon, Ford Motor Company, not only escapes the government review of their books by being the lone of the “big three” to say “pass” on the bailout money… but may also come out the big winner.
I’d like to think their advertising in the past years have had something to do with their better-than-fragile status. Their commercial last year conveyed the national pride that that I’d like to believe may just hike them up by their bootstraps to their previous stature in history. If you didn’t see it then, it is worthy of a repeat.
The company had the option to say “no thank you” to the bailout after leveraging it’s assets back in 2006 to raise $24.6 billion.
At the same time, the Dearborn, Mich., car company is likely to benefit from many of the concessions that General Motors and Chrysler exact from the suppliers, unions, dealers and debt holders shared by all three companies.
“The clear winner in this game is Ford,” Kimberly Rodriguez, a principal at Grant Thornton consulting firm and an adviser to Ford senior management, told the Wall Street Journal in an interview Friday.
The Bush administration said it would provide a total of $17.4 billion in loans for GM and Chrysler. As part of the bailout, GM and Chrysler will have to open their books to the government and meet restructuring targets such as reducing their debt and hammering out deals with the United Auto Workers to cut labor costs.
Ford still is seeking a $9 billion line of credit from the government, though it adds it may not need to tap it. In addition, Ford wants $5 billion from the Energy Department program.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I’d never seen that before, and, I agree, it’s the best commercial ever. Thanks.
The Ford CEO is a very impressive guy. He’s supporting the bail out, but says that Ford doesn’t need the money. But Ford is dependent upon suppliers, which are in danger of going out of business if GM and Chrysler fail.
– LW/HB
I have never seen this commercial before either. It is a great commercial, but I think the Budweiser 9/11 tribute has a slight edge. It only ran once. It only had to. Link to the ad is below:
It’s a smart move. If they can get by without it, they stand to be one the only American auto companies making cars people want to buy.
Folks, think of all the stupid things that Congress has brought about over the years. Those same people now want to basically take over 2 HUGE car companies. Do YOU trust them to make competant decisions? I sure don’t. Not to mention they will force them to make “alternative” vehicles that most people don’t want and they will likely be more expensive than normal cars unless further taxpayer dollars are thrown at them in the form of subsidies/rebates.
To me it seems they are willing to sell their souls to the devil……for bus fare! They get little in return and give up a whole lot.
Although the commercial tugs at the heart strings, I hate phony commercialism that uses iconic images like those of Marines to promote their own ends.
This is good news to me. I was let go from Ford Engine CAD Department in June due to their last round of cost cuts. They had been cutting contract workers from the Department for the previous 3-4 years and there were only 10 of us left from a peak of over 100 5 years or so ago. We also had a peak of about 500+ workers in the Department when I first started in 1999, to a low when I left of just under 100, I believe. While I was very sad to have to leave my first job and the only one I had ever known, and leave behind all my friends I had made over that time period, I understood that this was business and they had to do what was needed to stay in business. Up until Thursday when I was unexpectedly laid off with a few others in the office and many, many others in our Peoria, IL office (our #1 customer, Caterpillar, decided not to stay with the POs (purchase orders) our Company had been counting on and gave us no notice, after having assured us that these contracts were probably safe), I still had a job with my contract company, as we do in-house engineering/CAD work as well. When I was let go from Ford, I always believed that it was only going to be a matter of time before Ford was going to have to start hiring again for their Engine Design Department, because they could not continue with such a skeleton crew. Hopefully their (relative to the other 2 in the Big 3) success means they will look to hire again this coming year. We’ll see. I have to get back in touch with my former bosses over there to see what the hiring climate is like.
All that aside, since I was at Ford from 1999-2008, I developed a bit of loyalty to the company, even though I was not a direct employee, but only contract. So I always hoped that the company would do well and turn things around. Keeping up with the situation and seeing that they are in good shape to turn things around, I am very happy to see that, even if I am not able to go back there to work.
Good luck with that Mike. Hope you get your job back and that Ford recovers. I hate to see GM basically commit slow motion suicide.
Awwww. He coulda had an RX-8!
It’s not built by union reliefers and it’s even more fuel inefficient than the Ford.
http://www.dealersmazda.co.uk/mazda%20rx8.jpg
Go Mazda!
I have seen both of these commercials (Ford & Budweiser). However, not on television. I rarely watch other than VHS or DVDs on TV anymore as I became just way too disgusted with the networks over the years. Their, bias and socialist-liberal slant not only on the news, but concealed within the scripts of sit-coms and programs intended for children turned me off to them.
I saw these commercial from them having being emailed to me via conservative friends and military peer acquaintances who are supportive of and have unconditional respect for our military, who send such messages often accompanied by words such as, “I couldn’t phrase it better myself.”, “Thanks for your service.”, “God bless our troops.”, etceteras.
So I don’t see them as cynically as Blast does in post 4, as blatant commercialism or just another marketing ploy of evil entities in corporate America looking to make a fast buck. Such soap-box rhetoric, brings to mind the remarks of would-be socialists and anarchists on our college campuses, but it is hardly how the vast majority of Americans view it. You see it as product or symbolic placement, yet if that’s all it was about, why didn’t the name of the manufacturer or the models shown come up in the body of the commercials. I didn’t immediately recognize the first vehicle shown as a Ford. How many kids today would have recognized the 1960’s era Mustang as a Ford product? That vehicle was obviously used to specifically point out that marine’s father was a Vietnam vet, which makes his difficulty with military “homecomings” all the more understandable. It is only by the end “sincerely, signature” the viewer is informed unquestionably of the source of the message.
I have found it very interesting that over the years; Though I might receive a joke email once in a while or something which is derogatory to conservatives or Republicans, I never seem to receive similar inspirational and supportive messages such as these from the numerous hard-core liberal friends in my contact lists. Even though we go back many years not only encompassing birthdays, but holidays and other parties, daily interactions, and being supportive of each other through difficult times.
Blast? You’re so “keen” on corporate motivations, perhaps you could explain the underlying psychology behind that? Is it because they are embarrassed to have good friends whom were also in the military? Do they fear that any endorsement for our military might represent some form of acceptance of their hated political rivals, the conservatives? Our military is non-partisan and hardly a conservatives-only social club, we come from all areas of society. So why is it to merely be supportive leaves liberals with a sour taste in their mouths?
One can’t support the troops and not support their efforts.
That commercial was awesome. I was grouchy this am, and now teary eyed. Fanfrigginawesome.
Thank you to all those who have served and are serving now. My family and I appreciate and support you and all you do!
The underlying psychology behind the commercial is the use of the iconic symbol of a Marine (and the character’s father as a Marine) – by taking those images and the story line and creating a good feeling towards their products. This was not a public service announcement but a commercial to sell Ford products. It also in my opinion is totally unrealistic as I don’t know a single Marine buddy that came home and had their dad buy them a new car. It might create warm and fuzzies, but it is a false representation and use of the Marine image for profit and gain. These are sacred images and values and not to be used by hucksters to sell their wares.
And as to your comment about embarrassed to have friends in the military, you are just plain wrong. I served and of course have many friends, pretty much all of my close friends, are either currently serving or did serve in the Marines. I did not state that before as I did not want to use my service as some form of chip to make my point, but since you had to personalize the attack against me for giving an opinion about the commercial – then so be it.
One good move I noticed Ford do was sell loss-making Jaguar and RangeRover to India’s Tata? about a year ago. Altho Ford took a loss on it, at least it isn’t a millstone around their neck now. And now Tata is asking the Brits for a $1B helpout for Jag and RangeRover.
Wonder who in Ford to give credit to for that timely move.
@sigmundringeck:
That was around the time Alan Mullaly came on at Ford, so it may have been his suggestion. (Actually, he may have come to Ford earlier than last year. Can’t remember exactly. The last few years seem to all blend together for me lately).
Mr. Mullaly successfully turned around Boeing, and seems to be doing the same with Ford. Granted, it has come with lots of headcount cuts, which he also did at Boeing. But better some lose their jobs and the company survive rather than the company go under and everyone lose their jobs.