The drama in Germany between General Motors and Europe just keeps dragging on. Now, its top European executive, Carl-Peter Forster, is leaving the company and GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz will take over on an interim basis as Chairman of the company's Supervisory Board. But it's a non-executive post. Lutz won't manage day-to-day workings.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Forster supported selling Opel to Magna and Russia’s OAO Sberbank, which GM management and the board opposed all along. Given his stance on the sale, it’s surprising that he has lasted this long. Sending Lutz to oversee Europe makes sense, since he spent a lot of time over there early in his tenure as GM’s new-car czar. His job was to get vehicle engineering in Germany mated to GM’s global product development works. He knows Opel’s inner workings.

But it’s obviously not a long-term solution. First of all, Lutz is supposed to be in the U.S. marketing GM’s new cars. Sparking sales in the U.S. remains GM’s biggest challenge. While critics have wondered aloud how a 77-year-old car guy can be a marketing maven, the 60-day money-back guarantee and “May the Best Car Win” campaign have increased brand consideration for GM. Market share has ticked up during the past couple of months. But the job is far from done. Lutz can't manage Opel's operations. He is too busy in the U.S.

More to the point, GM needs a German with good labor relations to run Opel. Right now, the German government and IG Metall, the labor union representing Opel’s workers, want nothing to do with GM management in Detroit. They don’t respect GM’s American executives. Lutz is Swiss German, but I scarcely believe they will view him much differently than they view the rest of American management.

GM could go hire a German. They did with Forster. But GM is having a tough time finding talent. Salaries are limited, there is no stock to give just yet, though the company can certainly promise to give share as it nears an IPO. But what’s it worth? And bonuses? Good luck with that. It amounts to a turnaround job with limited financial reward. On top of it, whoever takes that Opel job will have to win over an angry government and hostile union. GM has had trouble landing a new CFO to replace Ray Young in North America. Imagine the challenge of finding the right German executive to lead Opel.

And get this. Chrysler made $200 million in profit since emerging from bankruptcy in June. Well, let’s qualify that. The company made $200 million in EBITDA, which is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. That is to say, they made money before counting a lot of things that cost the company money. So Chrysler still lost money since June.

But Marchionne did say that Chrysler broke even in September. One month’s profit is practically meaningless in the car business. Put off some major spending on a future vehicle program for a month and you can make any month look good. Marchionne said Chrysler did it by being very parsimonious. His point is that Chrysler’s financial position is not as hopeless as many outsiders think.

Given the debt reduction and cost cuts made during bankruptcy, Chrysler’s financial position is probably not as dire as everyone thinks. But its sales are. Chrysler sales are off 39% this year. The company said it has a slew of new models coming from its joint engineering projects with controlling partner Fiat, but stopping that drop off in sales will be very difficult. If it gets worse, Marchionne will have to slash deeper for Chrysler to make it.

While long rumored, Toyota's decision to quit wasn't a certainty. For one thing, since becoming CEO in June, Toyoda, a keen racer, has talked of giving Toyota a sportier image. At last month's Tokyo Motor Show, Toyota showed the $375,000 Lexus LFA supercar, which its CEO had a hand in developing, and the rear-wheel drive FT-86 sports concept.

Despite never winning a race, this season wasn't all bad and included several podium finishes. And, after an injury to first-choice driver Timo Glock, Kamui Kobayashi, a Japanese driver who graduated from Toyota's driver training scheme, impressed in the final two races. Toyoda said the decision has nothing to do with Toyota's poor record in F1. Indeed, with Toyota expected to post a second consecutive annual loss this fiscal year, it is in some ways surprising it took this long to quit. Running a F1 team can cost upwards of $500 million a year.

A bit like Honda last year, the decision may also make good business sense. Spending such large sums on a sport that isn't a huge draw in the U.S. isn't the best use of limited resources. On top of that, gas guzzling F1 cars don't sit comfortably with Toyota's carefully honed "green" image, while it's hard to see their relevance to any of the company's production cars, save the Lexus LFA. And, if all that isn't reason enough, F1's teams and management haven't covered themselves in glory in recent times. In 2007, the McLaren team was fined $100 million for its part in a spying scandal. Last year, Toyota was one of several teams that put its name to a statement attacking Max Mosley, the chairman of the sport's governing body, after he became embroiled in an embarrassing sex scandal. And this year Flavio Briatore, the chief of the Renault team, was banned for life after instructing one of the team's drivers to crash on purpose.

Where to begin with this one? From a public perception standpoint, this is the worst thing the union can do. Across America, workers are losing jobs even as the economy shows signs of life. Few Americans will have sympathy for UAW laborers who have kept their jobs even amid the worst downturn in auto sales in decades. You can’t blame UAW leaders for this one, since they agreed to the concessions. It’s the members who aren’t seeing the writing on the wall.

The new concessions aren’t exactly gut wrenching, either. Ford wants to freeze entry-level workers. That doesn’t affect the voting members and won’t likely hurt anyone new since Ford isn’t hiring. They also want to consolidate some skilled trades classifications, which could weaken job security for the electricians, welders, pipe fitters the like. But the big sticking point looks to be the no-strike clause that would be in place for the 2011 labor contract negotiations. Under the tentative agreement, the union can’t strike over wage and benefits proposals made by the union. But they could if management tries to cut their pay and benefits or over other issues like health and safety concerns. If the UAW and Ford can’t strike a deal, it would go to an arbitrator. Other major unions already do this, so it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Wait, it gets even more silly. To sweeten the deal, Ford has been willing to give workers a $1,000 bonus upon ratifying the new concessions. The company would also commit to build new products in some UAW plants. So the union could strike over proposed pay cuts in 2011 and they'd get some more cash and job security today.

For both sides, that argument seems to be much ado about nothing. Ford hasn’t had a strike this decade. Neither side is interested in doing that since the union would worry about damaging their healthiest Big Three employer, which is already carrying a big debt load. And Ford wouldn’t want to blow cash on a standoff with labor. In other words, they are fighting over how to manage a very unlikely outcome. That said, asking a union not to strike declaws its negotiators.

My guess: Ford will give in on that one to get the other concessions, which deal with actual compensation and work rules, done and sealed. But given the nature of the concessions and what the workers stand to gain--and not lose--I can't explain their obstinacy on this one.

Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne will soon deliver his fix-it strategy for Chrysler. One big piece appears to be the return of Fiat’s upscale Alfa Romeo brand to the U.S. with a dedicated dealer network. It would be sold as an upscale performance line that offers a bit of snooty European cachet but at lower prices than BMW and Audi. And it could work.

It will be a grand experiment by the Italians. The U.S. luxury market is already hotly contested with Lexus, Mercedes, Audi and BMW holding sway. Infiniti and Cadillac have new models coming. Alfa Romeo retreated from the U.S. market in 1995 and wasn’t exactly known for its quality. So its entrée won’t be an easy one.

But I’ll go out on a limb and say that Alfa has a real chance. I don’t expect the brand to sell cars in big numbers, especially at the start. Alfa will have to establish its name, brand image and prove that its car have real quality. The marketing push will cost a couple hundred million a year. But the styling is sophisticated and sexy, especially the MiTo compact. The MiTo would take the Mini Cooper head on. The 159 sedan is a looker. Check out the GT coupe, as well. The 8C is an absolute stunner. No word on which cars would arrive here from the boot. But they have some product that would turn heads. They are also pretty zippy cars that are fun to drive. Simply put, the brand offers something different than most premium makes sold in the States. And if fuel prices jump again, small and efficient upscale cars could catch on.

Of course, the figures aren't a patch on what Honda was earning before the financial crisis hobbled auto sales a year ago. Honda's net profit for the six months, while welcome, is down 56% on year earlier as its auto sales slipped 15% to 1.6 million cars. But at least the pain is easing. Between June and September, auto sales were down but at slower rate of 10.8%.

Honda's solid performance bodes well for Toyota and Nissan, both of which files their results next week. Like Honda, both have benefited from governments' stimulus spending and have reduced stockpiles of unsold cars. Nissan executives, meanwhile, told reporters at the Tokyo Motor Show that they had stopped losing money. And two large Toyota group suppliers reversed loss forecasts yesterday.

That said, Toyota and Nissan still likely to trail Honda's financial performance for the time being. Unlike Honda, Toyota expects a large annual loss of around $5 billion and Nissan has said that it expects to lose almost $2 billion this year. Meanwhile, their factories are relatively underutilized compared to their Japanese rival. UBS estimates that Honda's North American plants are running at about 75% of full capacity, compared to 70% for Toyota. Nissan says its Smyrna and Canton plants combined capacity utilization is just 44%.

Readers will recall that I have been pretty skeptical about electric cars and high-mileage plug-in hybrids. It’s not that the technology isn’t great. It is. But the economics still don’t work so well. Fisker wants to use the plant, which until recently assembled the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice roadsters, to build a mid-sized plug-in hybrid. With a $528 million credit line coming from the Department of Energy, Fisker should have the cash to get the project off the ground.

My question is about sales. Even after getting a $7,500 tax credit, a Nina buyer (that won’t actually be the car’s name, it’s a code name right now) will cost $40,000. That’s at least a $12,000 premium over a mid-sized family car. A 26-mpg Chevrolet Malibu costs $1,500 a year to gas up at today’s fuel prices. If Fisker’s car gets over 100 mpg, it would save about $1,200 a year at the pump. That means the owner needs to drive it for a decade to get the savings back. That’s one hurdle for CEO Henrik Fisker’s and his mission to sell 100,000 copies of Project Nina a year. He does want to sell half the volume overseas, where the business case is better. But it’s still going to be tough for these expensive fuel savers to hit big sales numbers.

Mr. Fisker does make another case for his cause. Nina and his company’s first car, the $88,000 Karma sports car, will both be upscale. The Karma will actually be a luxury sports car. So there’s more to it than just selling fuel economy, he says. And he makes a good point. Fisker thinks his selling point will be a green alternative for luxury buyers. Prius owners have high incomes and can afford much more than their $25,000 hybrid. So there may be some willing buyers.

There will also be a lot of competition selling expensive greenery. Tesla Motors makes the same pitch as Fisker. GM will have the Chevy Volt, Toyota will be selling plug-in Priuses priced around $50,000 and Nissan also has an electric car coming. Ford will have some high-tech alternatives coming.

Fisker will fine some buyers, no doubt. But will the company find enough to make its bold plan work? I’m still skeptical.

Former Treasury Department auto task force chief Steve Rattner took off the gloves in his assessment of fired General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner. In a speech at the National Press Club on Oct. 21 and in his own written account of the auto bailout, he said simply that Wagoner had to go. While that seems obvious given the company’s state when it first approached the feds about a loan about a year ago—not to mention its eventual descent into bankruptcy—in the Motor City Wagoner’s firing is still a subject of much debate.

Wagoner’s defenders will say that the government shouldn’t be firing executives and that, if not for the deep recession and credit crunch, Wagoner’s plan would have worked. GM’s cars were getting better and the 2007 labor agreement would have cut costs over time. His detractors say that he should have prepared GM for a recession sooner. The big loss in market share, some $80 billion in red ink and other missteps should have cleared the way for GM’s past board to fire him years ago.

But in reality, the government had no choice but to fire him. First off, many of the architects of the nation’s financial crisis remained in their chairs even after the banks received bailout cash. The public outcry was loud and justified. Given how little respect GM has among much of the American public, there’s no way the Obama Administration could have kept Wagoner at GM. It would look like the taxpayers are funding Detroit’s business as usual.

But that doesn’t answer the question of whether Wagoner deserved to go. He surely did. Rattner said in his own narrative of the auto bailout that he and his team found at GM “perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company.” That should be the last thing they discovered at GM given that Wagoner and many of his very top reports came from GM’s New York treasury office or were, at the least, finance guys by training.

While Wagoner was CEO, the company’s market share fell from 28% to about 20%. He was never able to get the dealers and the union to see a new reality. That would have been incredibly tough for anyone in that job. But after nearly a decade, it was time to give someone else a shot.

There was something else that Rattner pointed out in his screed about Wagoner. He wrote: “Certainly Rick and his team seemed to believe that virtually all of their problems could be laid at the feet of some combination of the financial crisis, oil prices, the yen-dollar exchange rate, and the UAW.” Wagoner made that case repeatedly and many in the organization took it to heart. GM had excuses for not succeeding and they came right down from the top.

Rattner also wrote that he found a tone of “friendly arrogance” from Wagoner. That was what did Wagoner in. He opposed the idea of bankruptcy, which the task force and its advisors thought was an option that needed to be seriously considered. And if Wagoner thought GM's problems were inherited, and the union, oil prices and the yen were to blame, then he surely wasn’t the CEO to bring in real change.

All of those problems were his to manage. Some, like the fact that GM was ill prepared for a spike in fuel prices, were partly of his own making. Now its up to his successor, CEO Fritz Henderson, a man Wagoner groomed, to do what Wagoner could not accomplish.

Toyota chief Akio Toyoda did his best to liven up proceedings, but even the unveiling of a production version of the $375,000 Lexus LFA supercar couldn't help this year's Tokyo Motor Show capture the excitement of recent years. Toyoda helped develop the Lexus LFA and when he unveiled it at the show's opening day on October 21, he said he hoped visitors to the biennial event "can leave feeling that automobiles are exciting and will want to come again."

On Day One, though, there were visibly fewer attendees than in 2007 when the Nissan GT-R, another very fast car, was the star. Indeed, while Toyota also unveiled the exciting FT-86, an affordable sports car due for release in 2011, and other automakers showed off a host intriguing hybrids and electric vehicles, the absence all major international carmakers-and even two Japanese truck makers, Hino and Isuzu-confirmed long-held fears that Tokyo's motor show is no longer the most important in Asia. After all, automakers from over twenty countries braved the recession to attend the Shanghai auto show in April. In Tokyo, only three foreign automakers-Group Lotus and Caterham Cars from Britain and Alpina Burkard Bovensiepen from Germany-could be bothered to show up.

But what of the LFA, which will go on sale in 2010? A long time in the making, it certainly has some dazzling performance stats, including a top speed of 202mph and 0-60mph in 3.7 seconds. Clearly, this is no ordinary Lexus. For all that, I'm slightly baffled by the price (I repeat: $375,000) and the decision to limit sales to 500. In his speech on the floor of the show, Toyoda talked about the need for automobile to serve as dreams and aspirations. Well, the high price and limited availabilty certainly sees to that. Of course, the LFA, alongside the great looking FT-86 sports car concept, will give Lexus and Toyota's brands a much-need sporty boost. The difference of course is that the FT-86, which goes on sale in 2011 is likely to cost closer to $20,000 and should sell in thousands. Indeed, given that Toyota will lose money again this year, it would also be interest to know more about the economics of the LFA. The price tag is high, but then so is the cost of developing super-fast sports cars. And by limiting sales to 500, one wonders how much Toyota will lose on every sale.

But could Toyota be gearing up to turn the tables on its Korean rival? In an announcement today, the Japanese automaker said that it is now open for business Korea. In a statement, Toyota said it has begun selling Toyota-branded models at five dealerships, including three in Seoul. It will sell three models: the Prius gasoline-electric hybrid, the Camry sedan and the RAV4 crossover SUV. Toyota will also market a hybrid version of the Camry. "We intend to make every effort to contribute to South Korean society and earn a loyal following," Toyota Executive Vice President Yukitoshi Funo said in a statement, released earlier today.

Whether Hyundai has much to fear is another matter. Toyota’s ambitions, to start with at least, are unlikely to worry its Korean rival. Toyota aims to shift just 500 vehicles a month, rising to 700 by the beginning of 2010. That compares with roughly 420 monthly sales of Lexus, Toyota’s luxury marque, which has been in Korea since 2000, between January and September. Even combined, Toyota and Lexus won’t make much of a dent on Hyundai and Kia’s joint sales of 887,000 in 2008.

Moreover, the timing of Toyota’s move is curious. For one thing, analysts say that it is unlikely that Toyota can make a profit exporting cars from Japan to Korea even if it sells them at a premium price (its 2.4 liter Camrys will retail for $29,000, compared to $22,360 for the most expensive Hyundai Sonata). Indeed, Funo told reporters at a press conference in Seoul that Toyota didn’t expect profits in the near term.

Exchange rates are a major factor. As well import duties, the recent surge of yen is a huge disadvantage for Japanese exporters and particularly so against the weak Korean won. Since Jan. 2008, the yen has gained around 36% against the Korean currency, and is a reason why many Japanese companies have plunged into the red at a time when Korea exporters are thriving. This year, Toyota expects to make a loss of around $5 billion, whereas Samsung LG, and Hyundai are all recording strong earnings this fall. The weakness of the won also goes some way to explain why foreign imports to Korea account for just 5% of the market this year, compared to 6% in 2008.

Honda’s recent experience points to difficulties Toyota faces in Korea. Honda, which was the most popular import brand last year, with a 20% share among imported cars, saw its sales plummet 72% to 2,921 in the first nine months of this year with its among foreign brands fell to sixth with just 6.85% this year.

So what explains Toyota’s move into the Korean market? As tough as conditions are now, analysts say that, over the longer term, building up in Korea could make sense. Korea’s market size at well over a million sales a year, its close proximity to Japan and an increasing acceptance of Japanese brands make it attractive. What’s more, unlike Japan, where auto sales have been declining for years, the Korean market retains growth potential and the yen’s strength is unlikely to remain at its current highs indefinitely.
-- With Moon Ihlwan

But now, the EU is balking on the deal. Neelie Kroes, the EU’s competition commissioner, has told German Economics Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg that the European Commission thinks the loan conditions slapped on the Opel sale were likely illegal. They may decide that GM should be allowed to reconsider the sale and look at other bidders or keep the company. In short, the EU says that the German government manhandled the Opel sale.

This creates a giant mess. In theory, GM could keep Opel if the automaker can get the financing to restructure the company. Sources close to GM’s board say that it needed $5 billion to restructure Opel. That means the German government, which has already blamed American management for the company’s woes, would be in the position of loaning money to GM to save 15,000 of Opel’s 25,000 jobs. GM would need concessions from union IG Metall, which has also demonized America management. GM could also try to get funding from the Polish, British or Spanish governments since those nations have Opel factrories.

The German government could reconsider the RHJI bid, but the government and IG Metall, Opel’s union, see the private equity firm as a pawn for GM. Plus, sources at RHJI say the firm has moved on from Opel. The investment firm just spent $366 million to acquire financial services firm Kleinwort Benson. That could make a $500 million investment in Opel tough right now.

Even GM, whose executives favored the RHJI bid and whose board was dismayed when CEO Fritz Henderson came to them after having negotiated only one clear-cut option, still favors the Magna deal. It seems that GM just wants to move on, get the bulk of Opel’s losses off its books and focus on fixing its North American business. But in the long run, it may pay to revisit Opel and see if GM can’t keep it and get it restructured anyway. With the right cost cuts, GM could turn Opel around. The shame of this story all along is that just as GM was putting out some good products (the new Astra and Insignia look like winners) the company had to cede control. If the German government and unions will work with GM, a new Opel could emerge and be a tough competitor.

The recession and economic woes of the automakers has created a lot of discounting of new cars and trucks for those who are in the market for new wheels. That’s the good news. The bad news is that no matter what you are driving, law enforcement is handing out more parking and speeding tickets than ever to make up for everything from lower tax revenues to cuts in state aid.

That’s where Escort Inc. comes in. The leading maker of navigation systems and “fuzz-busters” is doing brisk business in the teeth of an economic meltdown. “It used to be that people were buying our products so they knew when they could speed up, but today the motivation is different—to know when to slow down,” says CEO John Larson.

It’s no joke. In hard-hit metropolitan Detroit, the number of moving violations issued has increased by at least 50% in 18 communities since 2002—and 11 of those municipalities have seen ticketing increases of 90% or more. State and city officials are pretty open about the strategy, since the state has cut billions of aid to communities in that time. You can’t get blood from a stone (the State of Michigan), but you can get it from Mustang and Camaro owners.

Escort’s newest products integrates global positioning and even navigation applications with traditional fuzz busting tech to alert drivers to where the speedtraps are, as well as where red-light cameras are installed. The company has its own proprietary database of the top-known speed traps based on tickets written.

The new tech also eliminates false beeping from things like garage door openers and the like. Larson says that he might hear 50-60 alerts on a typical drive from Cincinnati to Northern Michigan. With the GPS assisted devices, it’s more like four and they are all legitimate. “There is a big safety aspect to this because if you radar detector is always going off, on top of cellphone distractions, it gets to be overload.”

As Escort’s products are after-market, and there are so many gadgets hitting the market, and only so much space on a dashboard, Larson says a device that incorporates fuzz busting, navigation, blue-tooth and hands free telephony is around the corner.

According to J.D. Power, about 9% of spending this year by automakers will be digital, but that will rise to about 12% by 2012 as more companies embrace social networking, online gaming and rich media ads in place of traditional TV and print.

Speaking at J.D. Power’s Internet Marketing Roundtable in Las Vegas today, Ford’s chief marketing executive James Farley says the company has made a bigger digital and social media bet than rivals because, “If you are trying to communicate, as we are, that you have been reinventing the company , you can’t just say it. You have to get the people to say it to each other.”

Perhaps Ford’s biggest single bet on digital and social media has been the Fiesta Movement, a program that began in 2008, 18 months before the cars will actually arrive in dealerships. Ford gave 100 European Fiestas to people to drive and live with. The results of the blogging, Facebooking, Youtubing and Tweeting by those people, plus the echoing of those messages by the blogosphere, followers, etc. has been an eye opener.

Consider this: The awareness level of Fiesta, a car that is not even in the U.S. yet (though it has been a fixture in Europe for years), is 37% among Generation Y, according to Ford-commissioned surveys. That is about equal to the awareness level of Fusion and Flex, models that have received, especially in the case of Fusion, hundreds of millions of dollars in traditional media spend. “The Fiesta movement has changed the way the whole company views media planning and buying,” Farley said at the conference.

Here is one of the videos submitted to Ford by someone wanting to be one of the 100 Fiesta drivers:

If that isn’t an indictment of the impact of traditional media, and the power of viral and social media, I’m not sure what is.

Ford isn’t saying what it’s cost on the program is. But it says that just the Fiesta Movement has created 11 million social networking impressions; five million engagements on social networks (people sharing and receiving); 11,000 videos have been posted; 15,000 Tweets (not including re-tweets), 13,000 photos. And the cars have been driven over one million real-world miles by the 100 participants.

As first reported by Jean Halliday in Ad Age, it does not appear that long time ad agency Campbell-Ewald, Warren MI is facing a firing. But the automaker is finally doing what this blogger has been advocating for years---it is opening itself up to hearing great ideas to push the Chevy brand down the field to a better place.

For a long time, politics and personal relationships have kept the Chevy/Campbell-Ewald relationship bound together as if by Crazy Glue; even when the advertising and thinking that produced it was terrible. The agency has been Chevy's agency since 1922.

1922!!!!!!!

That was then. Chevy IS General Motors. It used to be that Chevy was just one of eight brands at GM in North America. Going forward, it is one of four. But in fact, it is the whole show. If Chevrolet does not increase market share and improve perception, it's not going to matter what happens at Buick, GMC and Cadillac.

New Chevy chief Brent Dewar obviously knows this.

Campbell-Ewald is expected to keep doing the bulk of work on the account. It is a huge account with lots of moving parts. And it requires that GM maintain continuity to keep the trains running on time. But new ad agencies will be invited to become roster agencies so that C-E is always challenged, not only on the ideas themselves, but regarding the talent they bring to bear for Chevy.

Why should the creative talent pool be restricted to people willing to live in Southeast Michigan?

There are going to be some "retirements" at Campbell-Ewald, I am guessing.

Dewar clearly understands, finally, that it is nuts not to have hungry, creative agencies, whether they are in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Brazil, Romania pitching Chevy ideas that will stir the conversation anew.

Finally....Religion has arrived at Chevy!!

The problem right now is that there are so many car accounts in review that it is taxing some of the better shops trying to respond.

Chrysler's brands have been in review. Volkswagen is in review, and will be decided after October 20. Cadillac is now in review. Now Chevy.

Deutsch, which is pitching Volkswagen right now, will be expected to pitch either Chevrolet or Cadillac if they should lose. Perhaps, they can pitch both--Cadillac from its LA office perhaps and Chevy from New York. Nike agency Wieden & Kennedy is pitching VW too, as is Goodby Silverstein. Those are two agencies I would love to have creating ideas for Chevy if I am Dewar.

Another terrific agency, Fallon, Minneapolis is pitching Chrysler. The Martin Agency (Geico) is available, and will most certainly be asked to pitch Caddy and Chevy. New York's Strawberry Frog is handling Indian automaker's Mahindra & Mahindra's launch in the U.S. Could they also pitch for a Cadillac model that doesn't compete?

Because C-E is expected to keep working on Chevy, GM has the luxury of tapping all kinds of small shops for ideas that don't have to be full-service ad agencies. Agencies in St. Louis, Kansas City, Texas.

The company should have done this a decade ago at least.

Politics is the only reason the company did not do it before. Funny, that it took U.S. government ownership of GM to get rid of the politics.

GM is advertising a campaign with the theme, "May The Best Car Win."

As far as Chevy's advertising goes...now, it's "Let The Best Idea Win" no matter where it comes from.

But so far, the program appears to be working. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told reporters today that consideration is up 15%. That means that 15% more people are giving its cars a look. Edmunds.com, which tracks web traffic and vehicle consideration, confirmed Lutz’s figure saying it comes form the website’s own research.

And the joy riders? Lutz said that of the 150,000 vehicles sold at retail during the program, only a few hundred even opted to take the 60-day guarantee. And of those buyers, only one returned his car. It was a Corvette. But Lutz said the buyer decided he didn’t want the bother of a manual transmission. So he returned his ‘Vette for one with an automatic.