Ah yes, the wall between editiorial content and advertising sales. I've heard of it, but apparently not GM. What would be worse, would be if the L.A. Times decided to publicly (or even privately) apologize for having 'controversial' opinions. The old hoary cliche that what's good for the U.S. is good for GM was never very accurate anyway.
WSJ.com - GM, in Protest, Pulls Ads From L.A. Times:...
In response to a series of articles about the auto maker, General Motors Corp. has pulled all of its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times for the foreseeable future, GM said yesterday.
At the heart of the issue are “some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage,” said Ryndee Carney, a GM spokeswoman. “It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private.” Ms. Carney added, “As a general policy, we don't do this. It's very, very rare.”
Ms. Carney declined to specify the amount of money at issue, citing competitive reasons. Scott Smith, president of Tribune's publishing unit, declined to disclose the dollar value of the lost advertising, saying, “I'm not in a position to quantify the impact.”
One media buyer said the amount would likely be in excess of $10 million annually. The auto maker spent about $2.8 billion on media time and space for advertising in 2004, according to TNS Media Intelligence.
In a Wednesday column, Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times auto critic Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions and called for the ouster of GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner. In the column, titled “An American Idle,” he also described the Pontiac G6 as a “sales flop.” His conclusion: “When ballclubs have losing records, players and coaches and managers get their walking papers. At GM, it's time to sweep the dugout.”
{Business}
Technorati Tags: Business
