February 7th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^

I'm really rooting for Detroit to turn around, because I love going down there............but can you name another major downtown area in the United States where the majority of skyscrapers are abandoned?

While it seems to be showing serious signs of improvement, Detroit is currently still a shithole.


February 8th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^

itself calls out this guy. 

It calls out the people who write about Detroit's downfall and decay, yet haven't visited in 20 years, if ever.  It calls out those who judge the city based on news headlines and don't actually see, first hand, the good that is coming from parts of the city.

Detroit's not perfect, but it is slowly crawling back.  It's tough to do when the industry, upon which you were built, fell apart.

Haters gonna hate, talkers gonna talk. 


Clarence Beeks

February 7th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^

I understand your point (and the point of others who have posted here), but really, this subject was a thinly veiled political shot.  What Steyn said is something that a lot of people all over the country believe, and said, when they saw the commercial and since.  This ad produced bipartisian criticism (easy to find, by the way) and, with that being the case, I have an extremely difficult time believing that the OP didn't have a political motive in posting this article (i.e. who said it and in what forum), as opposed to (or, at the very least, in conjunction with) some of the other ads that were far more scathing in their criticism.  If I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize, though.

Clarence Beeks

February 7th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^

No worries.  I think the subject makes for a good discussion.  I think you would have hit a homerun with it i you'd just provided a few more articles from across the political spectrum that were on point.  That way it wouldn't have come across as political.


February 7th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^

The guy quoted isn't wrong because he's a conservative; he's wrong because he's a douchebag. But you can find even nastier criticism of the ad in the Washington Post, and I think in one of the Philly papers (not political, and assuredly not conservative).

But since this is the one brought up- it's ok to believe to the Bailouts or not; a case can be made well for either. But the dude needs to be consistent. If he's coming down on Automakers, he better be slamming Wall Street firms that got way more money just as hard. At least this $9 million is going to try to sell stuff to make more money back. Not sure where all the money went to the Fannie Mae's of the world.

But I'm bias...I thought the ad was bloody brilliant.

Feat of Clay

February 8th, 2011 at 9:21 AM ^

Yes, the Philly guy who blasted it was Aaron Proctor.  They were reading his column on the radio this morning.  In addition to insulting Detroit, he called Eminem "washed up" with which the DJs were having a field day.

They made another point to the haters who were bitching about the expense, and whether this is a good use of "taxpayer money":  so a company is supposed to build new cars, but then not advertise them?  It would be better stewardhsip, perhaps, to take out a few classified ads in the Penny Press?  Or here's a revolutionary idea: promote a car during the superbowl when the audience is staggering and people don't tune out during the commercials.

There are always pundits who make their names off hating what other people like.  I'll try to remember to must some admiration for this guy's courage, individualism and discernment.



February 7th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^

yeah, the OP didnt have any political agenda by posting this, all of us made it political.  I say if a post ends up being political by a good amount of posters then you shouldnt point out the boards no politics stance like a jackass know-it-all, you should just let the discussion wear itself out, besides this is something people around here feel strongly about

Clarence Beeks

February 8th, 2011 at 1:11 AM ^

"yeah, the OP didnt have any political agenda by posting this, all of us made it political."

Uhhh... yeah, he did.  I suppose you missed his post about five up from yours...

"I say if a post ends up being political by a good amount of posters then you shouldnt point out the boards no politics stance like a jackass know-it-all, you should just let the discussion wear itself out"

Frankly, I don't think anyone cares what your stance on how the "no politics" rule should be enforced.  Brian and the mods have made it quite clear that no politics means no politics and not no politics, but if the thread turns into politics then OK politics.

"besides this is something people around here feel strongly about"

Obviously they do.  I don't recall saying otherwise.

Clarence Beeks

February 8th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

I appreciate the humor, that was funny!  Now, that said, you know as well as I do that a big part of this particular forum is that the Board self-polices itself.  If you have a problem with what I've said here, I fully expect to see this exact same post from you every time someone here acts on that self-policing concept (hint: it happens every single day, so you'll probably be posting a lot).


February 7th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^

I am *shcoked* that a conservative radio voice would blame the fall of a city on the "liberalism" that he claims it embodies. 

This is a non-issue beyond the fact that it put Chrysler, and to a greater extent Detroit, into the national discussion for something other than a mayor's impeachment or some other event that makes the city and the region look horrible.

Personally, loved the ad.  I think it means way more to Michiganders than everyone else in the country, but so be it.  We had to hear about why Texas rocks for 2 weeks, even though they apparently cannot handle even the faintest bit of snowfall and Dallas/FTW was a Critter-fritter even without the snow.


February 7th, 2011 at 10:20 PM ^

I may not have the best analysis of defense, or the spread 'n shred, or recruiting, the list goes on. However, there are some things I can speak on with authority, and one of those things is advertising.

By all accounts, this ad was the biggest resounding success of the entire Super Bowl. Chrysler put itself in a position to fail miserably, which was actually what many expected. They bought two whole minutes of airtime during a game that normally relegates commercial breaks to a minute and a half. If you make this kind of bold move (that IS bold in the ad world), you better be a) right, b) better than other brands in your category, and c) bringing something new to the table. And I just don't mean a new product.

Chrysler nailed all three on every possible level. I am not originally from the Detroit Metro area, and I admit I got a little misty. Whoever the copywriter was on this spot deserves a huge, huge raise.

As for the comments, Limbaugh and proxy can kiss my ass. Portraying Detroit in a positive light was by default NOT what the ad was doing, and the comments on the show prove that they just flat-out didn't get it. This wasn't about painting a city in a positive light. This was about IDENTITY. Good or bad. In sickness and in health. This was municipal patriotism.

And with the comment of "spending 9 million dollars of taxpayer money" on the ad (because Chrysler took a bailout). This is the kind of ad that saves a company. It's the kind of thing that changes perceptions about a brand. This kind of piece, if given the right coverage, can not just change the perception of the Chrysler brand, it can change the way people think about how to repair Detroit.

This commercial is pure genius, and shows how a damaged city, no matter how downtrodden, can begin to save itself through perseverance, dignity, and hard fucking work.


February 7th, 2011 at 11:56 PM ^

You contradicted yourself, big time.

Portraying Detroit in a positive light was by default NOT what the ad was doing.... This wasn't about painting a city in a positive light.


This commercial...shows how a damaged city, no matter how downtrodden, can begin to save itself through perseverance, dignity, and hard fucking work.

That's a positive light to me. And yes, it was about painting Detroit positively. Why? Because there are a lot of people who think: Detroit is a shitty town, therefore they must produce shitty cars. That's the perception that the ad tackles head-on.


February 8th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

That's not contradictory in my view. Showing how a city can BEGIN to get un-shitty isn't portraying it in a positive light. It's offering progress toward a solution.

The shitty city/shitty car thing I think is valid. But I think this is less about how Detroit is a good city. The city admits its faults by explaining they've been roughed up. It shows some abandoned buildings. It's much more stark than "this is a great city." It's much more realistic. To me, it was, "Our city may be downtrodden, but we want to get up off the mat." 

And painting Chrysler/the people of Detroit (rather than the city itself) in the positive light, because again - perseverance, dignity, hard fucking work.


February 7th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^

Look at the recruiting board and how many kids we target from Detroit High Schools. I don't think anyone on this website wants to be the one to dis the entire city, and therefore the residents (and high schools) of that city. Mayor Bing is trying hard to fight corruption (along with Kim Worthy) and the city could really have a bright future. It is important for all of the state of Michigan that Detroit does well. Don't be a hater.


February 8th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^

Come on, man.  You are really stretching here.  My statement that I wouldn't buy a Chrysler has nothing to do with me disliking Detroit, its schools, or the state of Michigan.  It just means I don't like Chrysler automobiles.  Maybe my perception will change, and the next time I buy a car I'll consider some Chrysler models.  But, I don't have to be a fan of their vehicles in order to be a fan of Detroit and hoping the city turns around.

I hope Chrysler does well, but that doesn't mean I'll like their cars or perceive them as high-quality automobiles that will last a long time.


February 7th, 2011 at 10:47 PM ^




Anyway, I'm 99% sure this thread is nothing more than people who don't realize people rag on Detroit because there are better options.  Just like people rag on Sparty because there are better options.  Or the elitists on this board always talk about how Michigan academics are the big difference.

People are getting all butt hurt about the media ragging on Detroit, but raise your hand if you'd go raise a family there.  And that's no one.


February 7th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^

That's not what people are getting upset about. It is the fact that for the length of a two minute commercial the families that are there in Detroit right now got to puff out their chest and feel some pride even if for just that moment. Now some asshole tried to take that from them and for none other than politics. 


February 8th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^

It isn't a blank slate.

It is a slate full of decay, urban blight, and unsustainable costs.

I was born in Detroit and hope that the city can be restored to greatness, but it is far from it.  The fact remains that there aren't many (any?) new compelling reasons for a business to be located there.  State taxes are among the highest in the nation and it is nearly impossible for an industrial concern to compete vs. a right-to-work state.


February 7th, 2011 at 11:22 PM ^

I'm not really taking a strong position other than douchebaggish off-the-cuff sarcasm out of boredom.  But I do abhor Chrysler and the 3 bailouts (80's, Cerebrus, TARP) it's received.  At what point does the concept of paying luxury prices for Dodges finally get shot in the head and put to rest?