About 18 months ago we posted a piece concerning poorly designed car ads in Vogue magazine, as critiqued by a group of young, successful professional ladies. We revisit the topic.

The guys at Chevy’s agency came in for a beating last time, with a hackneyed and downright stupid ad for the Chevy Equinox. Come late 2011, Chevy has the best-looking car ad in Vogue, well received by our panel. Instead of ham-fisted riffs inspired by “Sex and the City,” lots of shoddily done PhotoShop work, and copy that was so patronizing as to be considered insulting, we have a true fashion ad that happens to include a Camaro convertible. Composition of the ad is excellent. They’ve chosen the convertible Camaro, which is less brutal looking. The white car plays off the alabaster skin of the model. The ad is framed in white, with limited text. The panes of glass are an excellent graphic treatment. And though the model is not exactly Pre-Raphaelite, her coloration and exotic appearance could be. Why is that important? Vogue interpreted a series of Pre-Raphaelite paintings in this particular issue. So, Chevy, you listened. Nicely done. Very nicely done. Our ladies salute you.

If you don’t know the Pre-Raphaelites, here’s a photo from the Vogue spread. My favorite Pre-Raphaelite is Dante Gabriel Rosetti, one of the three founders of the movement and an exceptional poet.

Now, Cadillac. Well, they didn’t listen too well, and their art director clearly does not understand how magazines are constructed. I suspect the photo was a left-over from a brochure/web/ad shoot, and was not sketched, composed and shot specifically for Vogue’s format. If it was a custom photo, shame on all involved. I’m sure this ad looked great mounted on a flat board, passed around meeting rooms, that humid Michigan summer weather just outside the big glass panels of the presentation room. I’m sure the Cadillac execs thought they were very astute approving it. They’d seem so cool to their wives and daughters.

Major problem? Ah, the gutter. Yes, we old ink-stained wretches who toiled in the print world of yore know that the fold of an opened magazine is known as the gutter, which is more pronounced on the perfect-bound magazines favored in recent decades. The photo places the highly angular and entirely sculptural CTS coupe in the middle of the gutter, making it look like a dwarfish freak. The agency should have composed the shot to fit Vogue’s dimensions, and made sure that the visually stunning surface forms of the CTS coupe were presented on a SINGLE PANEL of a two-page spread. (And yes, we like the current design philosophy at Cadillac.) The catch phrase about 20/20 vision is a bit trite, though it plays off the woman’s severed head. Whatever. Better to let the image speak for itself. Vogue is about design, yes? You can say much by investing in proper art direction, a talented photographer, and a layout that works within the confines of magazine construction. To a young lady lawyer, surgeon, doctor, or finance guru, Vogue is a treasured escape. Stun the senses with graphics and beauty, not trite phrases. If ever there was a magazine where art direction is paramount, it’s Vogue. Think of these ads as quality statements.

To illustrate our point about gutters, here is the Tiffany ad in the same issue of Vogue, shot in Central Park, I believe. Note that the pillar covers the gutter, and along with the arches functions as a frame over the central components of the story: man, woman, snow-covered steps, little blue box. So the darkness of the gutter helps frame the shot, and gives curve to the pillar. Every woman in our survey group loved this ad. Beautiful composition. Cadillac’s agency should take note. This is how you design around a magazine gutter. Come on, guys. It’s not that hard. Think.

Then, the Fiat 500 Gucci ad. Well, I love the babe sprawled on the hood. Excellent. But I’m a guy, and I only look at Vogue when a Stanford babe puts it under my nose. This ad might work in Playboy, Men’s Health, or Esquire. We love leggy babes. But in Vogue it comes off a bit…Cosmo. The Fiat 500 in our test fleet this week is one of the coolest looking cars of the decade. Very design-y, very Milan Cool, very chic. J-Lo has already defined 500 as a girl car. So play to that strength and design ads with intelligence and real style. The Fiat 500 design deserves more thoughtful layouts.

Finally, an ad for ladies’ driving shoes, with a Sixties Mercedes SL, sans Pagoda roof. This was considered amusing, though I keep hearing about the pink driving shoes and Christmas sotheir may be ulterior motives in pointing out this ad. Ralph Lauren ads featuring his classic and vintage cars are always perfectly done. They can provide guidance for any future efforts. It’s all about composition, and using the vehicle as a graphic component.

Editor Sawyer posted an interesting piece about the UAW. Fact is, most of us who live beyond the Rouge and Detroit Rivers could give a damn about the Detroit Three, who we view as producers of inferior products, and companies that have screwed themselves and the American consumer for decades, playing on Yankee Doodle Dandy marketing to convince enough Americans to buy their products when the sensible move was a Toyota or a Honda. Much as I’d like to see them succeed for the sake of the Midwest, I also think the Detroit Three have earned their current place in Hell. Volt is nothing but a poorly designed rip-off of the Toyota Prius, and it’s heavily subsidized, by government credits and GM. People we know contend the Volt is more like a $50,000 car—with a penalty box back seat.

Much as some want to fantasize, a “Lutz” Malibu is no equal for a Camry or an Accord. It’s good, yes. I’ve driven them and they are not all bad—very nice steering and cornering dynamics, for a family sedan. Oddly, Malibu is good enough to make a friend pose this question: “If GM knew how to make an OK car, why did they make all of us suffer with Luminas and Corsicas for so many years?” Reap the whirlwind, GM.

Those of us beyond the Rouge and Detroit Rivers have minimal sympathy for whatever GM is now.

• GM was unconstitutionally seized, and the bond holders were robbed of their private property.
• The UAW was given control over a vast percentage of the company, under the dubious pretext that the workers were owed money for their healthcare trust fund—and Obama gave them a pass on Obamacare.
• In the IPO, the banks made tens of millions on commissions in a single day, selling GM to their friends in what amounted to a private auction. The regular guy was not allowed to buy into the game. Here again, the bond holders were robbed of private wealth, and the taxpayer was screwed. Hey, why wasn’t I allowed to buy a few shares through Schwab or Edward Jones? Another reason to hate Detroit.

In the year prior to the election, Obama and Rahm Emanuel wanted a new leader for GM, someone to make a good showing, someone with energy, someone to be the Mulally of GM. Obama needed a boost because America was turning on him. He was given several fine recommendations through backdoor research, but he and Rahm failed to act. They hired a research firm that turned up the usual cast of losers from Detroit.

You also have kooky Obama politics in the mix. When you only allow a CEO to make $1 million a year, who’s going to take on the biggest headache in American industry? Not a chance.

Here’s a thought for you Detroit and Washington pinheads: Franz-Josef Paeffgen, who just handed over the keys at Bentley. He’s the former chairman of Audi who turned around the mess of Bugatti, where he proved himself tough but fair with suppliers. Paeffgen made Bentley into something more than a one-hit wonder, with new products coming that put a solid base under Bentley. He’s also one of those rare Germans who loves America and is not an insufferably pretentious European. As a young man, he drove a VW bus across America one summer. He has a very American style about him, much more relaxed and adaptable than the typical German exec. Paeffgen knows engineering, finance, design, manufacturing, has dealt with the German unions, and has enough good years left that he could be the man on horseback to turn GM around. But the price would be pretty steep. We’re talking Mulally money, and then some.

Also, when you have politicos involved, well, they reject such suggestions because having a foreign executive take over an American company is more than Obama can bear. Well, Obama, here’s the juice on the founders and significant players of the remaining key brands at GM.

• Louis Chevrolet was a “foreigner,” a French-Swiss born in La Chauxde-Fords, Switzerland in 1900.
• David Dunbar Buick was born in Arbroath, Angus, Scotland, and cars produced by the company he founded were exemplary into the 1960s, even if old Dunbar met a sad end.
• Father of the Cadillac V8? The engine design that defined Cadillac throughout its successful years? Another Scotsman, D. McCall White, graduate of the Royal Technical College in Glasgow. He had worked at Daimler and Napier prior to joining Cadillac in 1914.You can find great detail in Automobile Quarterly’s book, Cadillac, The Complete History.
• And for good measure, Fred Duesenberg was born in Lippe, Germany, and created what were arguably the finest and certainly among the most grandiose and technically advanced cars in the world prior to World War Two.

The other possibility is everyone’s favorite soap salesman, John Krafcik at Hyundai, who is American, a Stanford engineer with an MBA from MIT, well schooled in lean manufacturing, and an amusing little fella with tousled hair and boyish charm. He has recently been compared to an Amway salesmen by that autoextremist guy, but Krafcik has partially turned around Hyundai’s dealer network, and one is certain his product and manufacturing knowledge has benefitted the Koreans, who are on a steep upward climb, and making excellent headway. But if I were John, with my family happily resettled in California, I wouldn’t give up Hyundai for GM and an early grave. Hyundai would be foolish to let him go. He is their perfect collaborator, the Bob McCurry of Hyundai.

Me? I’d go with Paeffgen, but I’m sure the price would be $25 million down, and many million a year plus stock, and the opportunity to partake in subsequent stock offerings. Three years to get the monstrosity of GM shaken out and going in the right direction, and another three to complete the job and enjoy 18 months of high fives and parties like Mulally is getting at the moment. Sideline Ed Welburn, keep Tom Stevens in his new sidelines job, aggressively sift through the remaining execs in marketing, fire any stooges wandering around, and after time to figure out who’s any good, put the right guys in charge of engineering. Sad thing is, before Lutz piddled away the opportunity, GM was loaded with incredibly talented engineers and designers. I can recommend a couple of highly talented old timers who would happily spend a week consulting on who’s good and who’s not before returning to their retirement homes. GM’s talented guys were forced to play to Lutz’s various fetishes—to harness them and save that company, you need a real executive, and most likely an outsider.

Then again, Mulally is kinda old and perhaps Paeffgen can be the successor at Ford. I see NO ONE at Ford capable of running the ship properly. Soap salesmen and dandies from Dagenham. At least Paeffgen at Ford would ensure one of the Detroit Three could survive and perhaps thrive for awhile.

The supposed Detroit Renaissance needs to be kept in perspective. Easy to make a profit when Obama has relieved you of billions in debt.

And the rest of us are tired of hearing about it. Heal thyself, and leave the rest of us alone. I enjoy and appreciate the German and Japanese cars and trucks I own. I have fond memories of the French, Italian, and British cars I experienced as a child. I’m a Californian, and don’t much care about Detroit. And from here out, unless forced to cover Detroit under duress, really, I just don’t care. Fix yourselves, or go away without pillaging the American taxpayers.