Car Companies outraged at Top Gear AU

[bolly]

Originally Posted by efoolution

Now that´s what I call good publicity ...

(no irony here, promise!)

Although this kind of publicity may not have been exactly what they hoped for, I'll bet the TGA crew are just happy anybody's actually talking about them at all. Since the series ended the silence has been deafening. It was like the dead calm after the sh*#storm.

[melbournian]

Originally Posted by DXPetti

Silly stunts on Top Gear? What next? by Warren Brown
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...007146,00.html

Checkmate?

Go Warren. Nice to see some response. It must have been a slow news day really for that story to come out. Top Gear Australia dings some cars. No, really?

[ricochet]

Originally Posted by stiggie

I reckon it'll be gone and forgotten by the time they are back on the air.

In my experience, if you cause even minor damage to a test car it's almost impossible to erase that memory from the maker. It's not just the relationship with the current PR rep, no, it becomes documented on a permanent loan record. Yes, I have some personal experience with this. And it's not just the news/entertainment organization, sometimes they will single out individual journalists as no longer being approved to drive the loaners.

Granted if you have a program with a billion viewers, they have a tendency to push the loans through more readily, however none of the manufacturers want to see their cars damaged. Not even a scratch. TG Aus has yet to build an audience that will cause the car makers to overlook these issues going forward. I think it was foolish to unnecessarily cause this type of damage in the first year. They shouldn't need to break new cars to be entertaining.

As for the "free" advertising argument, that may make sense to some on the interwebz, but it's unlikely that advertising and car loans come from the same budgets. Not to mention that major damage is certainly not expected and therefore not budgeted, and like you and I they have insurance and don't to see their premiums go up, either.

The effect beyond the manufacturer is that damaged cars are removed from their limited service and simply not replaced. During the life of a test car it will be driven by many journalists and used for several events in the span of several months. I hate it when I can't get a press car because some tool accidentally crashed it while attempting to review it for their no-name newspaper.

[ricochet]

Originally Posted by melbournian

Go Warren. Nice to see some response. It must have been a slow news day really for that story to come out. Top Gear Australia dings some cars. No, really?

Interesting that he talks about how much passion the show has for driving and testing cars and then goes on to say this:

However, in the course of pushing different vehicles to demonstrate to viewers - and potential buyers - what various machines are capable of, there is always a risk of some form of damage.

...But then he illustrates this point by using the bowling example, which doesn't do any of that. No real testing or demonstrating of anything other than gravity (yay! gravity works!) He tried to excuse the performance as "look, the other guys do it!" and failed. And, no, damage is not expected by any other journalists. It can happen, but we're not rolling cars down ramps to amuse ourselves.

[JLM]

It would appear to me that they (the car companies) would only be able to sell the cars as demonstrators anyway as they would have a fair few K's one them before they become available for sale. Therefore, I would have thought that the cars could have been sold at a premium if they were advertised as the actual car that was on TG depending on how hard the car was driven and the verdict of TG. Surely there are people out there that would pay for a car with that history - a bonus to the seller. Also, as mentioned various times already, any appearance on TG is advertising for the car in question that can't be a bad thing for the car company.
It seems like petty complaining to me as any reputable car company would know what type of treatment a TG car is subjected to and is more likely to damage the brand than anything TG could do to it.
Cheers
JLM

[fbc]

Originally Posted by JLM

Therefore, I would have thought that the cars could have been sold at a premium if they were advertised as the actual car that was on TG depending on how hard the car was driven and the verdict of TG.

Knowingly buying a former press fleet car? No thanks, no matter which publication or TV show has used it. They lead a very hard life.

[NooDle]

Warren's response says it all really! GO WARREN!

[pepitko]

Originally Posted by GT - R

I dont get the Lamborghini , does that car need a respray after every 1000 km trip because of stone chips ?

( BTW didnt the Lambrghini Dealer said:"Buddy if tou scratch the Lambo you'll be sleeping with the fishes"? )

Seriuslly i dont get the 200 000 ins damages

Can someone give me examples ( i only remember Astras , and that Rav4 jump)

I'm sure they needed to repair the SUVs from the trans-Australia road trip segment. The Land Rover, Q7 and the Lexus (?) with all the dust in the interior..

But I don't get the Lambo as well, maybe they scratched it during filming? Because that way they'd also need to repair the Aston and the Porsche..

IMO, the Astra's were very much unnecessary, it really made me cringe to see perfectly good cars being smashed for such silly stunt. (and yes, I liked TGUK's soccer, because there was speed and tire smoke).

[stuvik]

For TGA it sounds pretty much like a case of "Damned if you do. Damned if you don't". People hate the show because it's too much, or not enough, like TGUK (why do you watch if you hate it so much? Go back to your game/reality shows), and now Holden and other manufacturers are pounding on them because they damaged the cars a bit. The only catalyst I can think of is the current slump in the car market.

Holden, grow some balls! You're only losing fans by being a crybaby...over Astras of all things! And it's pissy little complaints like that which reduce confidence in the Aussie car market.

TGA, here's a simple solution: If Holden are going to complain so much then don't use them anymore and see if they like you using {and promoting} the latest from <insert non-GM company owned brand here> instead.

[bolly]

I don't think Holden really made much of a fuss in the original article at all, so maybe we should keep some perspective. The only direct quote was: “All we will say is that it turned out to be a very expensive test drive,” said Holden spokeswoman Kate Lonsdale of the Astra bowls stunt.

That's not really too big a deal is it (especially since it was true)?

If you read the article a bit more analytically, it soon becomes obvious none of the "big claims" were attributed to any car company in particular, with the exception of the Lamborghini's chipped paintwork. And who knows. Maybe something else happened to the car? Maybe that's why the story just stopped dead in its tracks when it went to air? Either way, lending out a Gallardo Superleggera and getting it back damaged would kinda piss you off.

But my main point is, the article is just a puffed-up attack piece with a lot less substance than it's trying to imply. The car companies aren't the villains here. The crappy tabloid press are!

[cobs]

I might have missed an earlier comment - but why are the / some manufacturers crying in the first place?

Damage, so? either the manufacturer / dealer or production company should have had insurance - the production company will have insurance for everything else under the sun, so why the pissing and moaning?

Also - wouldn't the loan cars (except maybe the Astra) already be from press or demo fleet assignment? What nut would give a new super car/etc to each press hound that was going to run it to the limit for a review from 0km?

If as bolly suggests, it's tabloid manufactured muck racking, maybe someone can get the car companies to go on record.
Toyota had a healthy presence with a number of vehicles, and that nose-in-sand v6 RAV4 will have needed some work - what did they say?

[DXPetti]

I wouldn't mind see which car companies who weren't happy. Wouldn't be surprised if the "many" companies turned out to be like 3

If the press want to attack someone why not the local and state parties for providing such sh*thouse surfaced roads... another issue for another time perhaps

[GerFix]

Originally Posted by DXPetti

<snip>
If the press want to attack someone why not the local and state parties for providing such sh*thouse surfaced roads... another issue for another time perhaps

Amen to that

[rkc62]

Imagine what the local manufacturers would be saying if their press car was driven off the front of a Landing Assault Craft into the ocean then driven with sea water over the bonnet onto the beach while cartridges ricochet around the interior... And yet Ford would have been delirious over that segment.

Admittedly, the audience is a whole other league, making the sacrifice of the Fiesta worthwhile...

[skylock]

Originally Posted by TomCat

Sort of depends on how dumb Holden thinks it's car buyers are.

If TGA wanted the Astras for an epic all-Astra challenge, with drag races, agility tests, stunt tests, and a road race... then I'm sure Holden would jump at it. But the whole lawn bowls thing was beyond stupid. If there was a single person who saw that segment and went immediately to Holden to buy an Astra because of lawn bowls, I would be sincerely surprised.

"I want an Astra!"
"Why?"
"Because they rolled a few off a ramp on TopGear."
"...Oh. Does it handle ramps good?"
"Not very well, no."
"Does it handle well?"
"Not really sure."
"Is it fast?"
"I think one got up to 10 mph."
"Are they cheap?"
"I sure hope so."

Now the car soccer on UK TopGear, that actually tested the cars quite well. It showed how peppy they were, how well they could handle and spin around, how maneuverable they were, etc. Those segments were good advertising for VW and Toyota.

They also mentioned how well the car handled quite serrious bumps. Another thing a potential buyer would like to know.

I agree, that Astra lawn bowl thing was just plain unneccessary. Any old car would have done fine. They did not even have to have an engine. It would be like playing darts with new BMWs.

[whitehornmatt]

Well TGA couldn't have used a Barina (which would be much cheaper) because they might not have survived those crashes, and if they had used used cars, people would be jumping up and down about how TGA sucks because of its low budget and they can't afford decent cars.

They really can't win. I found the segment entertaining, one of the best on the show, surely that is the issue, not how much damage was done.

[tuesday]

The first segment next season needs to be Charlie behind the wheel of a supercar of some kind. Something unidentifiable but outlandishly posh and speedy. Have him talk about the performance, the handling, the panache of the thing, then have him sigh and say something like "and I'd love to show you, but this one's limited to 5 kph. Not by the car's electronics, but by that," the last word dripping with disgust, and he points left.

The camera cuts to show a perfectly coiffed, suit wearing lawyer/solicitor in the passenger's seat. Freeze frame on the lawyer and identify it as Mike Hunt (or some other indelicately unsavory name), solicitor. Charlie speaks up again "and we had to promise it we'd only drive the car on a surface free of debris that could damage the finish."

Cut to an outside shot on a wide strip of empty tarmac with dozens of men in bunny suits (clean room suits, not rabbit costumes) on their knees with dustpans and hand brushes behind dozens more with push brooms, and the low burble of a powerful engine just above idle somewhere off screen. The cleaning men scatter as the light from a car's headlights inches its way onto screen.

Just before the car appears, cut back to Charlie. He stops the car, puts his forehead against the rim of the steering wheel, and says something like "I just can't do this." Then he gets out of the car and goes into a diatribe about lawyers, prissy car manufacturers, people who buy cars like this and refuse to drive them the way they're designed to be, etc. The last line of the diatribe is something like, "and if you're planning on doing that, for god's sake don't buy one of these. Don't buy a" and the picture cuts to black with "That's it, I've heard enough. Mike Hunt, solicitor." Scrawled across the screen like it was with Clarkson's Porsche Coxster review.

Or, alternately, instead of getting out of the car and expounding, he says "fuck it" and brings the tire smoke until the lawyer wets itself and the engine explodes. Yes, that would be better.

Then the guys can go junker racing with a bunch of V8 supercar drivers. Backwards. In cars missing one wheel. And with blacked out rear windows.

The lawn bowls segment was brilliantly mad. The only way it could have been better is if it were done with properly posh cars. Range Rovers, Mercedes, Bentleys and the like. Besides, didn't TGUK already demonstrate how to deal with recalcitrant manufacturers in their recent trip to America? Get the car through alternate channels.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by whitehornmatt

and if they had used used cars, people would be jumping up and down about how TGA sucks because of its low budget and they can't afford decent cars.

They didn't pay for the Astra's either, so I guess they really can't afford decent cars.
They can't even afford to pay for the damage they cause to decent cars, apparently.

[stiggie]

Do you really think that TGUK pays for damage to the cars they review?

Of course not. The cars are press demonstrators, damage they sustain is just part of the cost of doing business.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by stiggie

Do you really think that TGUK pays for damage to the cars they review?

They tend not to damage press cars. They have had a few genuine accidents, but that's about it. The VW's and Toyota's they played soccer with showed up in later episodes, so they probably weren't press cars either.