Huff Off: Ed Welburn Defends GM from Huffington Post Attack

Gerald Sindell is an idiot. Ignorance is one thing but to proudly put it in print? Well, that's confirming idiocy.

GM has a diverse workforce and multi-cultural design force. GM has been at the leading edge of design for many, many years.

The problem has been at the top, where decisions are made. Go to the bean counters and CEO's, not design department.

Despite GM's talent only being able to showcase their talent in the showcar circuit for many years, even that had a huge influence in the auto community.
The cars now are solid contenders. They should be better but they are getting there and stupid op ed pieces like Sindell's are easy rhetoric; jump on the bandwagon and kick the fat kid.

Who cares.

Welburn shouldn't dignify that kind of remark with a response. He's got too much class for that. Send that gruff Lutz to sweep up.

I'm interested how GM will re-invent and pay back the tax dollars while targeting world-class products.

Ferrari and Rolls-Royce are ugly too. It's just the emperor's new clothes that keep billionaires flocking to them.

The Huff Post is a hate rag.

Since the guy is an idiot who knows nothing about cars I doubt his mind would be changed. GM has invited numerous haters to come and see their products in Michigan- they never get a response. They have asked Friedmen numerous times to come and talk to their people about their technology and he has never accepted- but he still writes anti GM articles every month.

Hilarious how huffy all the GM execs get when a blog attacks them for the ANYTHING. They're responding to blogs for frak's sake!

Let your product do the talking.

BDC:

The world communicates by blogs these days. If they didnt respond someone like you would be saying GM needs to get acquainted with the "new media" and stop living in the pasts. Allowing your products and and staff to be slandered by idiots who don't even know how a car works is an example of cowardice. HAve you ever noticed no journalist has ever responded to GM's response? Why is that? GM execs likely wouldn't care to respond if their competitors got equal scrutiny from the media but only GM gets attacked by journalists who normally don't cover the industry. I find it interesting that you say the product should do the talking when you wouldn't buy any of their products.

1487, Company execs taking the time to respond to a tweet or a blog debase a brand. Blogs are irrelevant. People blog opinions - not facts. Going to GM and bothering to look at the cars isn't important. They're posting to get views (just like Edmunds) for advertising revenue. That's it.

It's not about "journalism" or posting something important or relevant. Like Fox News and CNN it's about making people pause to look at: the carnage, the muckraking, the sex. If it has something titillating it'll get a peek (Pig Flu Pandemic! Ms. California Sex Scandal! Holocaust Massacre!).

And I have told you repeatedly if the CTS were priced at what it's worth to me I'd be willing to buy it. Private valuation is the only amount that matters when it comes to a purchase (not MSRP, not average selling price). Other people see value in the CTS at its prices - enjoy. I don't.

GM is getting baked by the media because they're a provocative topic. You have the haters, the lovers and the majority who just like to smirk. Everybody wants to read about how GM blows chunks so they can cheer along, rant about the injustice or chuckle that that only car companies in the news are failures. Why post a blog about Porsche turning a profit? Boring. Who reads that beyond Porsche fans? A blog about Ford's new Fiesta? Yeah, econo buyers and Ford loyalists care the most - but hardly a piece that will incite people to bemoan anything.

I was on Welburn's side until he went on to talk about how designers are listeners who respond to focus groups. That's exactly the opposite of design! Focus groups are often more of a curse than a blessing to good designers.

The quote isn't used here but it was in autoblog's writeup.

GM does make some ugly cars.

Taking a seat in these cars (camaro excepted) won't make then any less ugly.

BDC:

If you dont respond you imply that there is merit to the attacks. Blogs arent only about spewing ignorance, they can also be used to spread information. GM's blog is about corporate PR and occasionally they respond. Better to show you are plugged in to the real world than to hide in Detroit and act like all this stuff will just go away on its own. GM used to do that and it didn't work out so well. Bottom line is its smart to respond and GM gets a lot of free press when they do respond. Its cute that you think people are smart enough to not take Huffington style blog opinions seriously but that is hardly the case. The average person who knows little about cars is likely to take the opinion of any journalist/blogger as relatively factual. The garbage shouldn't be dished out if people can't handle the response.

Kinghalas:

GM cars are ugly compared to what? Hondas? Surely you jest.

1487,

Information/PR = opinions. It's just like a press release only lacking any effort.

GM's getting press because they're an epic failure. People love to look at the carnage on the side of the road. Bloggers attack GM's rotting corpse and the remaining nerve twitches cause the body to spasm, thus creating a show for everybody else.

It's hilarious to think ANY person takes anything in media seriously - TV, film, internet, magazines, newspapers. They're all for-profit enterprises that have no similarity to truth. It's about an angle to generate interest and thus revenue.

"The garbage shouldn't be dished out if people can't handle the response."

They handled it fine. in recent weeks the worthless Huffington Post has made it into the national news several times. That's quite a feat for what amounts to a liberal Drudge Report. In 2009 it's remarkable ANY blog gets national attention. It's a blog. It's a person in underwear typing an opinion. And yet hear you are wringing your hands over what's "factual". Facts are irrelevant to media. Media is about DEFINING something. What it is factually is not important.

Bravo blueguy.

What blogs have done, more than anything, is give more ignorant people a voice. Bloggers at HP and elsewhere are not journalists; for them, facts are useful insofar as they support some ideological bent, agenda, or simply score some cred points or attention.

I'm sure GM's execs have read WSJ and NYTimes reports on their failures and have gauged the public's reaction through them. You know, authoritative reporting on the issues. A lost art nowadays.

If I was a VP at GM, the last people I'd be looking to for design advice would be all the apathetic dilettantes at HP. Trust your talent that put together the CTS and G8.

"I was on Welburn's side until he went on to talk about how designers are listeners who respond to focus groups. That's exactly the opposite of design! Focus groups are often more of a curse than a blessing to good designers"

You mean how FORD used focus groups to help make their fullsize pickups stay #1 forever or how they used focus groups to keep the Mustang loyalists happy?
Focus groups are a tool. One way to gain an outside, layman's view of your product.

It is not "the opposite of design". Go ahead and explain that statement.

The challenge of designers is to use any and all information and venues to create something viable. This is a product and focus groups can be useful.
Like any aspect of design, it is not the be-all end all. It is just one link in the chain.

BTW, EVERY company uses focus groups. Even if they are internal, they are still a valuable part of the process because critical analysis from many perspectives can refine and point to areas not thought of.
That is not the same as "design by committee".

Again, ignorance that can do more harm than good.

+1 Blueguy. Welburn had no business addressing this.

This is a classic general statement-specific rebuttal situation. GM has always had good cars just as other automakers have always had duds.

The bottomline is that regardless of how many good cars GM made/styled/sold & how many duds similar automakers made/styled/sold, GM is now...wait for it...wait for it...BANKRUPT!

This whole mess could apply equally to Chrysler.

That said, I think Welburn's response was motivated more by the old white guys in suits quip than anything.

"Focus groups are a tool. One way to gain an outside, layman's view of your product."

That statement I agree with cruiserhead1. It's a tool, but not the primary one, and it's not the main responsibility of the designer to cater to them. It is just as important to ignore focus groups as it is to listen to them. Things made to appease a focus group will very often end up appealing to the lowest common denominator. CoughPONTIACCough!

Design is inspiration, foresight, and thoughtfulness. Focus groups can be used to refine an idea, but not to create one. A designer needs to be a step ahead of them, not reactive to them. This is my main beef with Welburn's comment.

I'm an engineer, not a designer, but in my work I get to see what happens to a great design when lots of people who aren't intimately involved have their say on the final product. Obviously there is always a balance, and any design has to consider the customer first. However what the customer wants and what they think they want isn't always the same. Ever see that episode of the Simpsons when Homer designed a car? That's a focus group car!

Let me take a second shot at this.

Who is the better "designer" in this situation?

1. A Subway sandwich "artist" who makes you your sub by putting whatever you want on it.
2. A chef who hands you the best sandwich you ever tasted.

It's obviously #2, and if GM isn't handing you the best sandwich you ever tasted, then they have to hire some new chefs.