The writer, a Los Angeles freelancer and former Detroit News business reporter, writes a blog, Starkman Approved.
By Eric Starkman
Sir Martin Sorrell, the British empty bespoke suit responsible for destroying advertising creativity in favor of spreadsheets and Wall Street returns, recently opined that creativity must be “tech-enabled, efficient, and measurable.” He hailed GM for pioneering what he claimed was a fully integrated, AI-led in-house marketing model.
Photo from Ford commercial about American workers
Here’s some efficient and measurable creativity for Sir Martin to ponder: Ford’s sales and marketing team put GM’s AI-led operation to shame in the second quarter, orchestrating a human-conceived advertising campaign that helped spike Ford’s sales by 14%. As a result, Ford emerged as America’s No. 1 selling auto brand so far this year—albeit by a teeny-tiny margin.
Ford sold 1,058,323 vehicles in the first half, besting Toyota by just 550 units and outselling Chevrolet by 136,437.
Ford’s performance is especially impressive considering it’s been the industry’s safety recall leader for several years. Its 80-some recalls this year alone exceed the combined total of all its rivals. Sales were also hindered by the limited availability of the electric Mustang Mach-E.
“Had we not beat Toyota, we’d still be high-fiving, honestly,” Robert Kaffl, Ford’s director of U.S. sales and dealer relations, told the Detroit Free Press’ Jame LaRue. “This campaign and what Ford represents isn’t just a marketing campaign. It’s every man and woman working tirelessly in our Michigan and Kentucky assembly plants… This is the U.S. manufacturing that makes us so proud to be working for a company like Ford. To beat Toyota is the cherry on the sundae.”
Farley’s Marketing Coup
Ford’s success speaks well of Lisa Materazzo, the automaker’s chief marketing officer who Ford CEO Jim Farley less than two years ago poached from Toyota, where she spent two decades over two tours.
Lisa Materazzo (Linkedin photo)
Kaffl credits Ford’s second quarter triumph to its “From America, For America” campaign, which aligned the company with Trumpian themes of revitalizing U.S. manufacturing—an about face, given that Farley previously warned the tariffs would “blow a hole” in the U.S. auto industry.
LaReau reported that Ford is the only one of the Detroit Three to increase hourly jobs in the U.S. since the Great Recession, adding 4,500 positions for a total of 57,000. GM—Mexico’s No. 1 vehicle manufacturer—slashed its domestic workforce to 47,000 from 78,000 in 2007. Europe-based Stellantis cut its U.S. hourly workforce to 38,800 from a pre-recession 45,000.
Ford imports just 21% of the vehicles it sells in the U.S., while GM—despite being bailed out by American taxpayers—imports 46%.
Deceptive Patriotic Claims
Still, Ford’s flag-waving deserves an asterisk. When considering parts sourcing and manufacturing footprint, its patriotic chest-thumping is debatable.
According to Cars.com’s latest American-Made Index, which considers domestic parts content and final assembly, Ford has zero vehicles in the top 20—despite its bold “All In on America” slogan. Even GM managed to sneak in one vehicle. Tesla and Honda dominated.
Robert Kaffl (Linkedin photo)
Meanwhile, Ford’s engineering complex in Mexico is the largest in Latin America and increasingly oversees global design functions. The company also employs 12,000 in India—where it had planned to add 3,000 more before Trump’s election.
While GM imports more cars, two of Ford’s most popular and profitable vehicles—the Maverick pickup and Bronco Sport—are assembled in Mexico. The electric Mustang? Also made there. And the acclaimed Lincoln Nautilus? Proudly manufactured in China.
Conceived in Michigan
Nevertheless, Ford’s emphasis on U.S. job creation is a legitimate point of pride—unlike its prior campaigns exaggerating Super Duty payload capacity. Ford paid $19.2 million to settle multi-state claims over those deceptions.
LaReau reports that the “From America, For America” campaign was conceived and executed by Michiganders working from Ford’s “Glass House” in Dearborn and was tightly coordinated with Ford’s manufacturing execs and dealers.
It began on the evening of Thursday, March 27, when Kaffl spearheaded a leadership meeting to scrap the existing April campaign.
Ford CEO Jim Farley
“We were talking about things like during 9/11, right?” Kaffl told LaReau. “That was a time when the U.S. industry could be there for the consumer… It was just collectively: How do we get the message out that we are the largest U.S. manufacturer—the most American?”
CEO Farley approved the pivot. To his credit, he stepped aside and let the marketing team lead.
“We went into full execution mode,” Kaffl explained. “Working through the weekend—Friday through Sunday—to pull together the offers, dealer playbooks, and align production and inventory.” The team had to sync up with manufacturing to ensure vehicle flow, especially with new Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators launching amid the push.
LaReau didn’t disclose which agencies created the ads, but Ford spokesman Said Deep said they were developed by Detroit-based teams from GTB, a subsidiary of WPP, and Wieden+Kennedy.
Meanwhile, at GM…
Ford’s reliance on homegrown marketing talent is notable. Two months before hiring Materazzo, GM tapped Norm de Greve—former CMO of CVS and digital marketing veteran from Digitas—as its chief marketer. De Greve, who began his career in investment management and consulting, I’m told commutes weekly to GM’s Warren Tech Center from New England. CVS is headquartered in Rhode Island.
Materazzo, Ford’s CMO, reports directly to Farley, underscoring the importance Ford places on marketing. De Greve reports to GM President Mark Reuss.
Norm de Greve (Linkedin photo)
Under de Greve and Molly Peck, GM’s chief transformation officer, the company severed ties with longtime local agencies and outsourced to “best-in-class” firms with little automotive grounding.
“We’re moving away from a traditional AOR structure to having a roster of agencies that will help meet those needs,” Peck told Crain’s Detroit Business.
GM – A Tech Company
GM CEO Mary Barra fashions herself as no longer running an old-line automaker but rather a technology company focused on achieving her dream of GM becoming an exclusive and respected manufacturer of electric vehicles. GM’s top software and battery executives are located in the company’s Silicon Valley office, which Barra opened last year because she said that’s where the talent is.
Lin-Hua Wu, GM’s head of communications and formerly of Google, is also based in the Bay area. Arden Hoffman, GM’s chief people officer, works from Detroit, the Bay area, and Montana, where I’m told she lives on a ranch.
By contrast, Kaffl and Materazzo live in the Detroit area and are automotive veterans. They and their teams cleaned GM’s AI-driven marketing clock using local talent. That’s cause for some Motor City celebration.
Farley recently predicted that AI would replace half of America’s white-collar workforce.
Let’s hope he has the good sense to keep his marketers and creatives off the layoff list. As the second quarter proved, nothing beats human ingenuity—especially in the age of computer-driven algorithms.
