Indie Auto reader Daniel Mix wrote a comment that brings up some important issues, so I thought I would elevate both his missive and my response.
Here’s what he had to say about our story, “Why did Patrick Foster settle for fanboy fluff in his 1968-70 AMC Javelin story?”
“I do not personally know Pat Foster, but I have read a number of his articles and books. I would encourage you to consider an interview with him using your platform, as he has a lot to offer, especially regarding AMC history, cars, and the like. I am sure he would welcome your criticisms and thoughts and provide some insights of why he covers specific information and not others…it could be due to word limits set by the periodical, specific parameters set by the publisher, or the target audience. He could easily write a book, which he did…but he was writing an article, so something has to be let go or risk of rewriting another book.
Yes, I agree that we should not dumb down our automotive history as it is very important for us car nuts! Thanks for sharing your thoughts as you are not alone thinking or wondering the same!”
Collectible Automobile is merely a symptom
I would agree with Daniel that word limits can constrict the depth of an article in a printed magazine, but I don’t see that as an insurmountable challenge in at least summarizing one’s historical analysis. For example, instead of declaring that the 1971 reskinning of the Javelin “would add still more glory” to the nameplate’s legacy, Patrick Foster could have briefly repeated his book’s conclusion: That the redesign was a mistake. My guess is that Foster would have done so if left to his own devices.
One reason I critiqued Foster’s article was to note the importance of groups that give awards to auto history media. When Collectible Automobile receives an award, that sends a signal that its content is considered high quality. Is it in the best interests of the American auto history field to legitimize content that tilts heavily toward fanboy fluff? I don’t think so. However, it is important to acknowledge that this is ultimately a “systems problem.”
Also see ‘Wheel spinning happens when car buffs and scholarly historians don’t collaborate’
Collectible Automobile’s superficial content would not be so problematic if the American auto history field wasn’t already quite weak. A key reason why is that it has not established much of a presence in academia. As far as I can tell, there isn’t even one major scholarly journal, nor is there an abundance of academic programs that function as a market for textbooks.
That helps explain why the few scholars who write about auto history don’t have much support within academia for their work. Thus, it would make sense if their books are oriented toward lay readers, which all too often can mean an emphasis on rote description over analysis. Just as importantly, there doesn’t appear to be a strong enough scholarly community to provide the rigorous debate that elevates the quality of the dialogue. That can slow the advancement of fresh thinking and result in more errors slipping through the cracks.
For-profit media is the tail that wags the dog
Without a strong academic presence, American auto history is largely propelled by for-profit media such as Collectible Automobile. They understandably have pop-culture sensibilities because that’s where the most money can be made.
In addition, writers without advanced academic training may possess neither the skills nor the interest in approaching automotive history from a more analytical perspective. Indeed, the field can be so tilted toward gearheads that a certain anti-intellectualism can rear its head.
Also see ‘The downside of auto historians writing about their friends’
This is not to suggest that, say, the intricacies of a famous engine are unimportant. However, that is only one piece of the puzzle if we are trying to better understand the automobile’s impact on American society.
I don’t have high hopes that the fanboy tilt to American automotive history is going to change — and that Collectible Automobile will lead the way. Even so, I think it is important for Indie Auto to discuss this topic because . . . we can.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
I have both editions of Mr. Foster’s AMC books, and they are quite good. I’m guessing that he went “soft” on the Javelin for Collectible Automobile because that is what the editors wanted. Automotive journalism is a tough field, and writers have to give customers what they want. Ateupwithmotor has excellent, well-researched articles…and I recently made a donation to a GoFundMe account set up to help the site administrator/writer pay his back rent and replace his cellphone! That was somewhat sobering. At the end of the day, writers have to pay the bills.
I’m guessing the editors of Collectible Automobile don’t wish to become a target of those upset over criticisms of their favorite car or manufacturer. Also note that, if a writer is making claims regarding the profitability of one car line, it helps to have actual figures to back up that claim. Wouldn’t this require access to corporate records such as board minutes, annual reports, etc.? We may have a sense that a certain model wasn’t profitable (or generated a lower level of profit than its predecessor), but ultimately settling that argument will require hard numbers from verifiable sources.
For example, my sense with Chrysler Corporation is that its slide began with the 1969 C-bodies, and continued with the 1970 Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Barracuda and 1971 B-bodies. A strong domestic auto market in 1972-73 masked those problems, but when the market was hit by the double whammy of the first fuel crunch in late 1973, followed by a sharp recession during the 1975 model year, the chickens came home to roost.
But verifying that would require access to corporate records, and those would have to be looked at by someone who can determine such things as profit-per-unit (or lack thereof). That requires an investment of time and specific skills.
If you’ve carefully read Foster’s AMC books you know that he frequently makes reference to development costs and breakeven numbers. For example, he has written that the Hornet and the 1974 Matador coupe each cost around $40 million and the Pacer coupe $60 million. On the Javelin he stated that AMC was hoping to sell at least 35,000 units, which could be interpreted as a breakeven point (but is lower than what Motor Trend estimated). Foster does not use scholarly citations so I don’t know where he got this information from, but he appears to have looked at corporate documents such as annual reports in light of the other data he includes in his books, such as annual revenues.
In addition to corporate documents, sometimes an automaker will tell trade journals and car-buff magazines how much a new car cost to develop, e.g., I recall reading back in the day that the Pacer wagon cost an extra $6 million. If one is writing a full-length book, surely a basic literature review would be conducted.
You conclude by saying: “That requires an investment of time and specific skills.” Exactly. That’s what professional automotive historians do. Just like lawyers have a basic body of skills. I would think that Foster has published enough by now that we might consider him to be a professional.
When a publication such as Collectible Automobile that draws readers from all over the nation includes that type of information, and uses it to suggest that the car in question wasn’t as successful as hoped (or led to the automaker’s downfall), then it will inevitably lead to pushback from readers. References to sources that support those numbers would ultimately have to be included in the article, or as a footnote. That will change the nature of the magazine.
Mr. Foster’s number on the cost to develop the 1974 Matador coupe, for example, was used in an Ateupwithmotor article, and led to pushback from a reader who claimed the figure was too high. There ensued a back-and-forth between the site administrator and the reader on the accuracy of that figure. We may have a gut feeling that Mr. Foster’s figures are accurate (I certainly trust him), but settling the question requires verifiable figures from reputable sources.
Lawyers have made an investment of time and money to develop a basic body of skills. But they do so with the expectation that those skills will enable them to earn a living. Automotive history (and automotive journalism, in general) is currently a very tough way to earn a living. This prevents the development of a strong scholarly community.
I’m not questioning Mr. Foster’s skills as a professional historian. The concern is that very few people are going to invest the time and money to develop those skills for use in the automotive history field unless they can use them to earn a living.
This site, along with Curbside Classic and Ateupwithmotor, are the top three automotive history sites, in my opinion. But you are pursuing this avocation after retirement, and Paul Niedermeyer already had a successful home rehabilitation/property management career before he started his site as a sideline venture.
Mr. Severson turns out a high-quality product, but appears to be having a tough time making a living from his site, and automotive journalism in general.
That isn’t encouraging young people to pursue a career in automotive history.
I do think it is expecting too much that a publication like Collectible Automobile go very much into the downsides of a car they do an article on. Their audience is going to be interested in the attributes of that car. It would be fair to put it into perspective against the general market, or as Hemmings does on weak areas should on be looking to acquire such a car. Fair game does include what happened through the model’s development so one gets a sense of the conflicts, but again the average reader of such a magazine, isn’t going to want to go too far down the Trials & tribulations” path of those battles. While there will be some car that I feel is an abomination the article is most likely looking at the car in a kind light since someone else likes that car enough to own it and wish to share their positive feelings for it.
On a different point, I want to address the following statement:
On the Javelin he stated that AMC was hoping to sell at least 35,000 units, which could be interpreted as a breakeven point (but is lower than what Motor Trend estimated).
I would be careful about any inference that the 35,000 units was a breakeven point. I would read that to be an expectation of projected (aka hoped for) sales volume. That may or may not have been the number used for the amortization rate for the costs.
As for where to find real financial numbers, the Annual Reports are pretty presentations but the real nitty gritty information, if it is disclosed, is going to be in the 10Q and 10K reports. Even then it may take multiple of those reports to unearth the faulty expectations.
I would suggest that there is a difference between substantive automotive history and content focused on car collectors. In the past Hemmings has tried to straddle both roles but more recently seems to have tilted largely toward collector-relevant information.
If Collectible Automobile wants to follow suit, that’s their choice. However, I don’t think that organizations dedicated to advancing substantive automotive history should give them awards for fanboy content.
Regarding the Javelin’s breakeven point, I’ve mentioned that Motor Trend used a higher figure — 45,000 units per year. That strikes me as more plausible but I wonder if it is on the low side for a stand-alone design. As a point of comparison, the 1967-69 Plymouth Barracuda also had unique sheetmetal but shared considerably more internal body parts with the Valiant than the Javelin shared with the American. So even though the Barracuda didn’t sell as well as the Javelin in 1968-69, Chrysler may have done better financially due to stronger economies of scale.
I mentioned annual reports as an example of the corporate information Foster’s books appear to have drawn from. He sounds to me like he is well aware of various sources of information.
I’ve been a reader of CA since 1987, and have noticed over the last ten years or so that their story quality varies surprisingly. Occasionally I am annoyed by the superficiality of an article to the point of wondering why they bothered, and then they go and surprise me by going really in-depth, like when they discussed then design of the ’49 Ford.
I do remember thinking the article you cite was surprisingly lightweight for Pat Foster. Having enjoyed a lot of his work, I’m more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. As a writer myself (non-automotive mostly), being constrained by a word limit is hard enough, without having the possibility of well-meaning editors with different priorities stepping in and modifying what you have written.
All history needs to strike a balance between popular appeal and the nitty-gritty. I remember in school being annoyed at learning about all the famous people, but not what life was like for real people in that era. General history these days has more of interest in that regard, so maybe I wasn’t alone in feeling that way.
An article or book which is too focussed on the business side of things can be heavy going, if you don’t come from a financial background. I remember reading R. J. Wyatt’s 1981 book on Austin and being left disappointed – what about the product? For something more modern, Chris Cowin’s “British Leyland: Chronicle of a Car Crash. 1968-1978” is an example of a book that gives way more business information than I could digest without stinting on the product side. But I knew that going imn, so I wasn’t disappointed.
A speaker needs to know his or her audience. For a magazine, ultimately I guess it comes down to knowing your readership. Historical writing must never give us fake news, but there is a whole spectrum between fanboy puff pieces and arcane academic technicalia. A magazine should strive to maintain a consistent place on that spectrum.
Peter, you make good points. I don’t mean to put academic writing on a pedestal, e.g., my reviews at Indie Auto have criticized some scholarly books for lack of accessibility as well as fact errors that car-buff writers would never make. I do think that the playing field has become so tilted toward the for-profit buff media that we don’t have enough serious historical analysis — and that the problem is getting worse.
As a case in point, I have found Foster’s more recent books to be more fanboyish than his earlier works. That may primarily reflect the pressures of getting published. Glossy coffee-table books seem to be what the big-box book stores most want.