“GM’s old critics were sharpening their knives. In January [1992] David E. Davis, editor and publication director of Automobile magazine, gave a biting speech to the Washington Auto Press Association in which he blasted past and current management. ‘GM has been micro managed, planned, reorganized, analyzed and outside-consulted into second-rank status in the automobile world,’ Davis said. ‘Nobody set out to ruin GM, but ruination has been the bottom line.’
In typical ‘kill the messenger style,’ Davis was punished for his harsh words by a temporary advertising boycott of his magazine, some say with a nod from [GM President Lloyd] Reuss. GM had often used this tactic with Fortune and Automotive News, among others, when they were displeased with articles.
In any event, it would be a futile gesture. The numbers on 1991 were in and they were devastating. The company had lost $7 billion for the year — a company record. Its share of the car market had shrunk to an all-time low of 34 percent. The erosion seemed unstoppable.”
— Maryann Keller (1993, p. 40)
RE:SOURCES
- Keller, Maryann; 1993. Collision: GM, Toyota, Volkswagen and the Race to Own the 21st Century. Currency Doubleday.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Caprice (1991)
Also see ‘Auto industry analyst Maryann Keller was a key critic of Detroit Mind’
Motor Trend’s Car of the Year was always suspect. It was a program to ensure ad sales from the winner. In 1973 the real winner was the Pontiac Grand Am while the declared winner was the Monte Carlo. Chevy made a larger ad commitment than Pontiac was willing to.
The first year of the Import Car of the Year went to the Citroen SM. Bob Petersen blew a fuse over that as Citroen was never going to advertise anyway. The rules were changed for the following year.
There is a disdain for the 1991 B body Chevy but it was a change of direction for GM Design as it was under new leadership that was intent to stop the dreaded all GM cars looked alike.
Auto Week busted Motor Trend for selling it’s COTY Award to the manufacturer that promised to buy the most ad pages and provide the most perks to it’s writers.
Quite a piece of investigative reporting. Late ’80s, I believe.
After having been a long time reader and subscriber, I lost all respect for MT after that.
There was never a danger that David E. Davis would be punished for long. Very much an insider.
Right. Perhaps the boycott was partly a knee-jerk reaction, but I wonder whether the larger goal was to make Davis an example that could lead other automotive media outlets to watch their step. It’s like when GM later boycotted the Los Angeles Times — the paper’s advertising reach was simply too big to ignore, but a temporary boycott could get their point across loud and clear.
Chrysler made Petersen fire Eric Dahlquist from Motor Trend because he allowed a review of a car that the Mopar folks took as too critical.
Eric did just fine becoming the West Coast GM PR person dealing with all the magazines and the Hollywood films. MoTrend – “land of the living dead” and they all hoped thay too could get the gig that Eric got.