EverybodyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s buzzing about GM’s handing over control of its ads to consumers Ã¢â‚¬â€œ- and about the outpouring of negative consumer-created GM ads. And EVERYBODYÃ¢â‚¬â„¢S missing the point.
Mainstream media and marketing think that GM screwed up by ceding control of its brand.
The blogosphere and Web 2.0 fanclub think GM did the right thing by embracing consumer control and drinking lots of web 2.0 koolaid.
The REAL story here is that GM’s products are fossilizing dinosaurs and no amout of marketing 1.0 or 2.0 is going to save them from extinction.
All GM did was accelerate the process of their outdated products going down in flames through the “hyper-efficiency” of 2.0 — as Umair puts it:
This is life at the edge. This is why the edge is hyperefficient. Companies with largely obsolete products and strategies suddenly face huge selection pressure when they shift to the edge; they have to begin learning how to adapt, or they die.
But to give GM credit for any intelligence here is completely wrong — Mike from Techdirt:
It’s happened so often that they must have expected it. In fact, by then being open about it, GM is getting even more mileage from this campaign, and making it appear that they are more open to listening to those who disagree with them.
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing, it’s about facing the reality of consumer distaste for your products. GM empowered the public to discuss how bad its products are, and that’s what the public did — did GM expect this or should they have shut it down? — IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER because you can’t sell what people don’t want to buy.
If you put consumers in charge of a broken, old brand all they will do is tell you that it’s broken and old.