Cost per Car of Ads...
in [Automobiles]
|
From: Canuck57 on 5 Apr 2010 18:43 On 05/04/2010 11:02 AM, dr_jeff wrote: > Canuck57 wrote: >> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:lWmun.72341$NH1.22025(a)newsfe14.iad... >>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>>> the >>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>>> even >>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>>> it >>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>>> >>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >>> >>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >>> >>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >>> >>> Ed >> >> But Toyota is value added. >> >> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC. > > The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans. GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt. -- Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.
From: dr_jeff on 5 Apr 2010 21:11 Canuck57 wrote: > On 05/04/2010 11:02 AM, dr_jeff wrote: >> Canuck57 wrote: >>> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:lWmun.72341$NH1.22025(a)newsfe14.iad... >>>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>>>> the >>>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>>>> even >>>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>>>> it >>>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>>>> >>>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >>>> >>>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >>>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >>>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >>>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >>>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >>>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >>>> >>>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >>>> >>>> Ed >>> >>> But Toyota is value added. >>> >>> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC. >> >> The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans. > > GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt. I disagree. Without the ads, GM would hardly sell any cars. Jeff
From: jim beam on 5 Apr 2010 22:20 On 04/05/2010 07:00 PM, C. E. White wrote: > jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:K_mdnfcDsOuaHifWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> On 04/05/2010 12:38 PM, C. E. White wrote: >>> "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >>> news:zpWdncQkh9xNqSfWnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >>> >>>> 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for >>>> use here in the u.s. >>> >>> I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous. >> >> you don't shill for g.m. ed? don't they pay you for all that hard work >> you do in office hours? > > You have no idea what my office hour are. i know that you're pretty damned reliable posting here 9-5 m-f. complete with your diligently interned stats and "research". > And who's dime are you posting > your triades on? my own ed. > You post more often and more regularly than I do. not in office hours ed. > And > you seem to have a no track message anti-GM, protect Toyota agenda. weasel words ed - i'm actually not "pro" toyota. but i sure am anti g.m. exporting american jobs at taxpayer expense. > My > guess is that you are some low level grunt stuck in the back room of a > failing company and you are striking out at GM becasue they dumped your > company as a supplier. aybe Toyota is still buying form you for > now...but when Toyota figures out you are dependent on their buisness, > look out... no ed, you're the one that needs to look out - you'll get burned alive in your own trojan horse. > >>> How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China? >> >> how many are doing it at the taxpayer expense ed? > > Probably all of them, since the US isn't getting tax revenue from the > producers and workers making the Chinese, Japanese, Phillipine, Thai, > Brazilian, etc. componets. ah yes, the list of american companies living on ±$30bn american taxpayer bailouts and exporting their jobs to japan, the philippines, thailand and brazil is long and illustrious. oh, wait, it's not. and none of those countries are despotic regimes that sell missiles to our enemies or steal our intellectual property. unlike g.m. exporting jobs to china at taxpayer expense. > >> >> >>> Do you attack any company doing buisness in China? >> >> actually, i buy american wherever i reasonably can. and i let vendors >> know why. >> >> >>> I'll bet >>> significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to >>> usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the >>> Chinese by smashing your computer now... >> >> ed, on this you have a point. but i'll ask you - where is the >> strategic sense in allowing all our "domestic" manufacturers to use >> cheap exploited labor in china? not only does it prop up a despotic >> regime that threatens our allies, it's also not exactly smart to have >> every p.c. the department of trade and defense departments using >> hardware that comes rootkitted from factory. motorola proved that. >> boeing are doing their best to follow. > > Actually I agree with you. Fix it. When it comes to sending jobs to > China, GM doesn't hold a candle to electroincs and computer companies, > textile producers, etc. if we want to throw money about, we should use it to fund automation investment, keep all production stateside, and keep all our technology/industrial muscle at home. if you have a shred of integrity left, go see your beltway buddies and make it happen ed. the end. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: T.J. Higgins on 6 Apr 2010 10:01 In article <Zouun.149503$K81.36753(a)newsfe18.iad>, Canuck57 wrote: >On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote: > >>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less >>> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA >>> auto maker. >> >> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally >> sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? > >Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better >reputation making for better pricing. And as mentioned earlier, MUCH lower pension and health care costs for retired workers. -- TJH tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
From: jim beam on 6 Apr 2010 10:16
On 04/06/2010 07:01 AM, T.J. Higgins wrote: > In article<Zouun.149503$K81.36753(a)newsfe18.iad>, Canuck57 wrote: >> On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote: >> >>>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less >>>> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA >>>> auto maker. >>> >>> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally >>> sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? >> >> Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better >> reputation making for better pricing. > > And as mentioned earlier, MUCH lower pension and health care > costs for retired workers. > that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ higher than here. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |