Dodge is showing us “How to Change Cars Forever.” It involves breaking all the rules, and spotlights inspiration and the creative process as the true source of innovative product design.

The division of Chrysler builds on the “Imported from Detroit” campaign, which famously launched with music of Detroit native Eminem, with fast-paced and irreverent visuals backed with a hip, but foreboding, instrumental version of “No Church in the Wild” by Jay-Z and Kanye West.

The spot, from Portland-based Wieden + Kennedy, manages to portray the R&D department at Dodge as the guys who don’t care for the corporate overlords and liberally color outside the lines of the company org chart. “Kick out the committees. Committees lead to compromise. Call in the engineers. Call in the car guys. Call in the nerds. Not those nerds—those nerds. Uh oh…the finance guys. Kick out the finance guys.”

In short, we want to love the rule-breaking, car-loving guys fighting the boring and banal power of tie-wearing, fine-print-loving middle managers who’d rather “shift paradigms” than downshift gears to screech around a sharp turn in a cool car. We love their passion—and then we want their car.

In the next spot, “How to Make the Most Hi-Tech Car,” we see an actor called “Future Guy” who travels back from the future to design the Dart’s configurable 7-inch instrument cluster display. And if you’re a Star Trek fan you’ll recognize Future Guy. It’s Michael Dorn who played Worf—everybody’s favorite Klingon. So +4 on the nerd cred to both agency and client alike for entangling a little Trek in a spot about tech—and generally making a lot of sci-fi guys happy.

ethanol.gif

America’s fixation with corn-based ethanol, as it turns out, isn’t producing fuel that’s much greener or cheaper than regular old petroleum-based gasoline. True, ethanol from Iowa means we’re not sending money to Saudi Arabia, but it uses almost as much energy to produce ethanol as it delivers to end users—so there’s no real energy benefit.

It also uses substantial amounts of limited water resources. A typical ethanol factory producing 50 million gallons of biofuels guzzles over 26 million gallons of water—putting a heavy burden on aquifers in corn-growing areas.

Why is it economically viable? Because of heavy subsidies from state and federal governments, mandates by states for ethanol to be blended into gasoline, and high tariffs (like a 100 percent levy on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol) that keeps out foreign ethanol imports. With federal subsidies of 51 cents per gallon and many states mandating the E85 fuel blend (that contains 85 percent corn ethanol), biofuels are artificially buoyed in the marketplace by government policies.

So this market distortion has shifted corn from food to fuel. The number of ethanol factories has almost tripled from 50 to about 140 since 2000, with 60 or so more under construction. Last year President Bush signed a bill increasing mandated biofuel production 500 percent, to 36 billion gallons, by 2022.

As more land is used to grow corn for fuel instead food, prices rise. It also pushes up the price for soy, wheat, and rice. Rice prices rose 16 percent in 2007, and wheat increased 77 percent. Very sharp rises historically, but nothing compared to this year. Since January, rice rocketed 141 percent, and one variety of wheat shot up 25 percent in a single day.

And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat, milk, and cheese is also rising. And that’s just here in America.

Across the world there are riots over soaring food costs. It’s driven by biofuels, but also growing demand from emerging markets, droughts, high oil prices, increasingly expensive agricultural chemicals, and the weak dollar. This conflagration of events threatens to push million into poverty and starvation.

food.gif

Who’s benefiting from this? Big agribusiness like ADM produce around 70 percent of corn in America, and higher prices mean higher profits. And how do they keep the ethanol business safe? Lobbying, of course. And, if you’re a West Wing fan, you’ll remember the political problem ethanol causes for candidates who try to balance the truth with the need to win votes.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a conference in Alexandria, Va. that we need to start “moving away gradually” from ethanol made from food such as corn. “As we pursue diversity in our overall energy mix, we must also pursue diversity in our biofuels,” Mr. Bodman continued, “this means moving away gradually from ethanol produced from foodstocks like corn.”

Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, agrees we need to move away from corn-based fuel. He says “we’ve gone too far on corn ethanol. I think we now can see the real impact it’s having on food in the marketplace–around the world and at home. And I think we need to rethink the corn ethanol policy, absolutely.”

“I think the pursuit of the mandate for corn ethanol, especially in the 2007 energy bill, does more harm than good. I think mandating cellulosic ethanol that doesn’t use a lot of energy, doesn’t interfere with food production and doesn’t cause a lot of greenhouse emissions, I think that makes sense.”

Sugar is a different story. It provides 45 percent of Brazil’s fuel on only 1 percent of its arable land. Marcos Jank, the head of their trade group, explains “grain is good for bread, not for cars. But sugar is different.” In America, however, domestic politics has led to a 100 percent tariff on Brazilian ethanol.

But there’s something even better: cellulosic ethanol. It’s a biofuel made without food crops, using inedible plants not grown on premium farmland. It’s called switchgrass–yes, the switchgrass President Bush made famous in a State of the Union Address. Switchgrass grows across the prairies and doesn’t take the place of food crops.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln performed a long-term, large-scale field switchgrass study. Farmers in 10 fields of 15 to 20 acres each in Nebraska and North and South Dakota grew switchgrass over five years, and kept track of how much fuel and fertilizer they used during the trials. Vogel and his colleagues showed that switchgrass yielded 540% more energy as a biofuel than the amount of energy used to grow, harvest and process it.

So swichgrass is the cold fusion of ethanol. It will take a while longer to come into the mainstream, but it promises low carbon emissions, high energy returns, a replacement for foreign oil, and doesn’t take food out of anyone’s mouth. Here’s a crazy thought: maybe the money used to subsidize ethanol would be better spent developing cellulosic ethanol?

Truth in Advertising

December 16th, 2008 | Posted by admin in brand | business | funny ha ha - (0 Comments)

ford_fail.jpg

If major corporate identities reflected the reality of our current economic times, you might see cars with this revised badge on the hood. Check out some others at I Can Has Happy.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler are looking for $34 billion in loans to help restructure and prevent bankruptcy. But the public has become bailout-weary having seen the cost rise to a staggering $3.45 trillion before any auto deal. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey shows 61 percent of Americans against the loans—with 53 percent believing that aid to the automakers will not help the broader economy.

The automakers argue that if they are allowed to fail it could cost millions of jobs when the country can least afford it. They also argue for their piece of the bailout by saying that consumers won’t buy a vehicle from a bankrupt company. But a new survey indicates that potential car buyers wouldn’t be completely unwilling to buy from a bankrupt car company if the federal government is willing to play a role in their restructuring. Merrill Lynch & Co. recently completed a study showing 90 percent of car buyers would consider purchasing a vehicle from a car company in bankruptcy court.

The ad below captures the view that despite the polls, the bailout is coming anyway.

bailoutad.jpg

Hyundai says “think about it”

September 15th, 2007 | Posted by admin in advertising - (0 Comments)


Hyundai and Goodby, Silverstein & Partners have launched a $150 million campaign aimed at changing the carmaker’s image. Viewed as a “value brand” sold on the basis price, the campaign is designed to move Hyundai from a “Wal-Mart” image to more of a “Target” brand.

Seoul-based Hyundai is the world’s sixth-largest carmaker by sales, with a 50 percent share in the Korean market. But it sells 70 to 80 percent of its vehicles outside Korea. Since entering the U.S. market in 1986, Hyundai has achieved a marketshare of 3.1 percent—larger than more familiar brands like Volkswagen, BMW, or Mazda. In both Europe and the U.S., Hyundai prices its products lower than local makers and Japanese competitors like Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co.

It’s also been in the headlines for behind the scene drama such as the company Chairman being arrested for a $110 million slush fund and annual strikes since labor unions were established in 1987. But with the unions and management now playing nice, and Chairman Chung’s three-year jail sentence suspended, the company can now focus on the future. (Which is appropriate given that Hyundai, in Korean, means modernity.)

In Goodby’s first major campaign since winning the Hyundai account last April, the agency is trying to change the perception that Hyundai is a “cheap” car. One bit of research shows that a large number of people just don’t believe Hyundai’s quality rankings. In the last two years Hyundai surpassed Toyota—and that’s backed-up by J.D. Power and Associates. But that fact doesn’t match the Hyundai brand image.

In new TV spots Hyundai asks consumers provocative questions such as “Shouldn’t a car have more airbags than cupholders?” and “If you had the technology to save 10,000 lives? Would you hesitate to use it?” The campaign drives consumers to the thinkaboutit.com website.

It’s a smart ad that focuses on raising the brand—not even showing the product. Agency CEO Jeff Goodby describes the campaign as “disarming honesty.” Steve Wilhite, Hyundai senior vice-president for global marketing, said a few months ago “we need a big idea.” Let’s see if this fits the bill.