As I noted briefly yeterday in a follow-up in the Fastlane blog about the company’s decision to pull its advertising from the Times.

For some time, I’ve been defending GM’s decision to avoid using Fastlane as a channel for addressing every business issue the company encounters. There have been cries from the blogosphere for GM to talk about the potential for layoffs, lowered earnings expectations, and a host of other topics. My rationale is simple: Fastlane is about cars. The people who read Fastlane want to engage in a conversation about cars. Were the company to use Fastlane to respond to every issue that comes up, the car-focused audience would dissipate and GM would lose an important for interacting with the most passionate of the car-buying audience.

I had mixed feelings, therefore, when Grates posted his well-written missive on the Times advertising story to Fastlane. Was this the first step toward the dilution of the blog’s focus on product?

I’ve come to two conclusions since following the post and subsequent comments. First, the story doesn’t shift too far afield from the blog’s stated purpose. Take a look at this second paragraph from the post: “By far, the most frequently asked question has been: ‘Why doesn???t GM publicly detail the Times??? errors and misrepresentations?’”

The “errors and misrepresentations” Grates cites are about a car, the Pontiac G6. Grates firmly keeps the focus on cars, so the post—even though it’s addressing a business issue—remains true to the blog’s intent. That’s a nice bit of tightrope walking on Grates’ part.

Second, Fastlane readers aren’t particularly interested in business side of the story. Consider this comment: “Nevermind the LA Times issue, thats old news. Id like to hear more about the logic of the new ‘GM Tag’ on all vehicles. Will this include Saab and Saturn?” Several posts wanted to know more—or comment on—the tag story.

That’s not to suggest there are no comments focusing on the advertising brouhaha. Most are supportive of GM’s position, like this one: “I think pulling your advertising is an appropriate response to unfair and inaccurate reporting.” Most of the posts, though, like this one which, circle back around to talking about product: “It’s good that your finally standing up for yourselves. I just ask two things from you, kill any more brands off and your not getting my business anymore. Another thing is, whats with the badges, does ford put its badges on Jaguar?”

There are a few—very few—that take the company to task. But there was this post that catpures the essence of GM’s rationale in launching Fastlane in the first place:

“This Blog thing is Gutsy! And it is bringing you great notoriety and that is a VERY good thing! AND, it seems you have NO competition. No one else out there is intereested in hearing from their Consumers. This is just GREAT! You will reap great benefits from it for sure! Of course you have to seperate the wheat from the chaff.”

All in all, GM has done a fine job of using its blog to address a business situation without watering down its effectiveness as a conduit for a conversation about product between management and customers.