At least that's what the booze merchant lobby's hoping to unleash on GM. They're upset at GM's financial backing of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, who've looked way too prohibitionist for their taste, and are running a MADDatGM campaign in their establishments.
This is one that will likely backfire. I was unaware of that relationship between MADD and GM prior to today, and it's one of the few positive things you can say of GM as a brand; they're generally a bit behind the curve. Both Eileen and I own GM cars, but they happened to be the right cars at the right time for us; we don't have any particular brand loyalty.
How big is the drinking vote verses the anti-drunk vote? You're not going to get too many politicians backing looser standards for drunk driving and looser tort laws on a bar's culpability in drunk driving. While more people drink booze than not, the people who'll vote on their right to get sloshed is less than the folks who want to encourage responsible drinking.
If they kept this campaign quiet, inside the bars and liquor shops, it might have more of an effect. However, if they're advertising the fact that GM's supporting MADD, it will actually send more business GM's way. You can point out plausible hypocrisies that they're supporting other things that will make driving more fun but less safe, like cell phones and satellite radio, but I don't see the booze lobby effectively being able to punish GM by going to the broad public with this.
[Update 2/25-The Free Press' Mike Thompson has this winner today]
Positive drinking...Hmmm...Shall we see the GM-produced Beer-Moblie next? Is positive drinking like the "Don't Drive and Drive -- You might Spill Your Beer" campaign? ;)
Posted by: Ogre | February 24, 2005 at 01:29 PM
You'd think someone would have told MADDatGM that MADD doesn't stand for "Mothers Against Irresponsible Drivers Who Talk on the Cell Phone While Driving Unless They're Drunk, Too."
Posted by: Malnurtured Snay | February 27, 2005 at 12:21 AM