TomServo92 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 I agree. +2 In fact, the "old GM" is already emerging from the shadows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 The sales volume generated by the discarded brands is roughly 15 to 18%, that doesn't seem like a huge reduction in volume and could easily be filled once the economy starts going again. Except the bulk of it is gone for good. Those Pontiac customers aren't going to be buying Chevrolets. If they wanted Chevys they'd have already bought them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Except the bulk of it is gone for good. Those Pontiac customers aren't going to be buying Chevrolets. If they wanted Chevys they'd have already bought them. I'm thinking in terms of future Silverado and GMC (?) sales increases wiping out a lot of the volume lost at Ponitac for a start. That product would probably be more profitable too.... Their plan is still fundamentally flawed, they have no plan to change, just to keep doing what they do. Chevrolet/GMC Trucks and SUVs are where GM makes the bulk of its money, they can't change that. Edited July 18, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) I'm thinking in terms of future Silverado and GMC (?) sales increases wiping out a lot of the volume lost at Ponitac for a start. That product would probably be more profitable too.... Except GM could have had both. You start by saying, "Would our Pontiac/Saturn customers switch to Chevrolet?" When the answer comes back "no" as it almost certainly would, the next question is: "What is our cost of customer acquisition?" (basically: 'how much are we spending to differentiate Saturn & Pontiac products?') The next question is: "Can we reduce this cost to a profitable level?" I simply do not believe that GM did the kind of unbiased, careful study that was needed in this situation. Instead, IMO, they did what came easiest to hand: they axed brands. If eliminating brands and improving product were all that GM needed to do..... but they've done that already and it hasn't helped. Edited July 18, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I simply do not believe that GM did the kind of unbiased, careful study that was needed in this situation. Instead, IMO, they did what came easiest to hand: they axed brands. If eliminating brands and improving product were all that GM needed to do..... but they've done that already and it hasn't helped. Of course they took the easy out, GM can't even figure out which day it is let alone viable products. They're sitting on a product line that is little more than a house of cards designed to keep factories full. If you looked closely at their products, I doubt many really turn a profit after all those incentives are paid. That's why I believe they'll look to their Trucks and SUV to do the traditional pull out of the slump. GM learned nothing from all of this, they're like snickering kids returning from the principals office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 they're like snickering kids returning from the principals office. Or an overweight person who has liposuction but keeps on eating Twinkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Or an overweight person who has liposuction but keeps on eating Twinkies. A very fitting analogy, there's only so much you can do... Ford must be delighted, it's not easy to change a company and mind set, they've done it. I just hope Ford can fit a new RWD sedan under the envelope as well just to piss GM off..... Edited July 18, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Woah, wait a second!?! What day is today? Thursday? Thursday is the day for Plan D....don't worry folks.....tomorrow's Friday, so we'll see and hear about Plan E tomorrow. ...how about "Plan 9 from outerspace"....it is about as wacky as it ever gets Meh. It's good... but it's not POTW grade. POTWs should leave your monitor stained with coffee. ..or beer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Except the bulk of it is gone for good. Those Pontiac customers aren't going to be buying Chevrolets. If they wanted Chevys they'd have already bought them. no one knows that because they've never had to decide between a Chev or nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 no one knows that because they've never had to decide between a Chev or nothing at all. OK, if you owned a G6 or G8, what would your next GM car be, a Malibu/Impala/LaCrosse/Lucerne? I think what RJ is pointing to is that it's not Chev or nothing, a lot of buyers will go elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 OK, if you owned a G6 or G8, what would your next GM car be, a Malibu/Impala/LaCrosse/Lucerne? I think what RJ is pointing to is that it's not Chev or nothing, a lot of buyers will go elsewhere. If I were a true blue Pontiac fan...I would head upmarket to Buick.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 If I were a true blue Pontiac fan...I would head upmarket to Buick.... Many of the true blue Pontiac fans are angry at GM for killing their favorite brand. They may not be looking to buy anything from GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Many of the true blue Pontiac fans are angry at GM for killing their favorite brand. They may not be looking to buy anything from GM. Let's hope they chose another American car company - Ford, Mercury or Lincoln would do nicely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 no one knows that because they've never had to decide between a Chev or nothing at all. Except that when Ford killed Mercury in Canada and when GM killed Oldsmobile stateside, that volume left. There are instructive prior examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Well then GM better get used to the fact that their best days are behind them. Ford is going to take their ex customers and gap these clowns like there's no tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
156n3rd Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 When those blind GM loyalists realize that the company sucked, sucks and will always suck, it will be too late. Then Hyundai will tkae over all the GM plants and build Kias for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Well then GM better get used to the fact that their best days are behind them. That is a sad epitaph for the entire American Auto industry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Killing divisions isn't 'tough'. It's what GM management has wanted to do for years. What bad, inept GM management has wanted to do for years. It's a lazy man's way of trying to solve a very real problem. You're complaining of a sharp stabbing pain in your left arm? Well, let's chop it off. That'll solve that problem for you. I don't think that analogy is good for GM...part of the reason why they got where they got to was they where spread too thin for the market share they truly had. You even stated prior that the biggest problem GM had was they had too many Brands....basically you had to make a Pontiac, Chevy, Saturn, Buick and even maybe a Caddy all off the same platform...basically you have spread your money around 5 different name plates, thus driving up development costs for that platform. Then that leads to products rotting on the vine since there isn't enough $$$ around to update them all or just do stupid shit like not having a Chevy version of the Lamba at launch and making a Saturn model instead. If your limb has gangrene your best option is to chop it off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) You even stated prior that the biggest problem GM had was they had too many Brands....basically you had to make a Pontiac, Chevy, Saturn, Buick and even maybe a Caddy all off the same platform GM had too many brands because of how they managed them. The breakevens were ridiculously high, thus volume product ended up subsidizing niche product which left less money available to upgrade the products. A Saturn division that mirrored the Chevrolet lineup from compact to midsize, with a couple crossovers, all with funky colors, interior options and ultra simple package specifications--the ultimate in IKEA-esque packaging combined with 'no-haggle' pricing. A Buick/Pontiac/GMC range that mirrored the Chevrolet range, with Pontiac having a compact and midsize set of cars and a compact CUV, and with Buick having only a large sedan and one or two CUVs. GMC would get no CUVs, just trucks--and the Yukon XL. All products would be differentiated in the exterior solely by lights, molded plastic pieces (front & rear clips) and some minor sheetmetal differences (hood/trunk/fender stamping). ----- Make differentiation a ridiculously small portion of the cost of the platform and reinvest in the platform continually. Edited July 19, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) GM had too many brands because of how they managed them. GM had too many brands because of how they managed GM.... Can't fight the imports with what you got? Create a "new" division....soon, that division will be discontinued... Can't fight the near luxury market with an existing division? Kill it off but don't bother to work on the other divisions to pick up the customers that felt betrayed.. Can't pay your debt load and want to file bankruptcy? Drop four divisions and continue on your merry drunken path of destruction after you get a boat load of cash from the US government and burn all your shareholders in record time in bankruptcy court... Can't find your market after your trip through bankruptcy court? Roll out a re-badged RWD sedan from a discontinued division...then retract that statement days later... The dance goes on at "new GM"...... Edited July 19, 2009 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WC-MAN Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 It's not like Toyota hasn't made the same mistake with Scion. Other than tC, the ones I see have the same grey hairs that buy Buick..I mean Toyotas nowadays. Look, GM kept too many brands round for too long. End of story. Imagine if Ford was still trying to sell Continental and Edsil too. Or if Chrysler (who also has too many brands) was still trying to sell Plymouth, AMC, Eagle, & Imperial? GM's brand structure dates back to the 50's when there only truly 3 competitive companies and moving from a Chevy to a Pontiac really represented social climbing. GM kept the brands alive by essentially offering the same vehicles from every brand from the 70's on. GM should have cut Olds and Buick in the 80's, then Pontiac might survive today. They didn't, and apparently Buick has better staying power than Pontiac does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Which leaves me wondering if there is a future for Mercury after all....I understand the Ford families reluctance in retiring the Mercury division since it was created from scratch by Edsel Ford himself...but to sit by and watch it wither is truly saddening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 GM had too many brands because of how they managed GM.... That's actually a pretty profound statement. Regarding the future of Mercury: It will be around as long as it satisfies a cost-benefit analysis. It doesn't cost much to keep it around, it would cost quite a bit to kill it, and it brings in -different buyers-. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Regarding the future of Mercury: It will be around as long as it satisfies a cost-benefit analysis. It doesn't cost much to keep it around, it would cost quite a bit to kill it, and it brings in -different buyers-. Exactly. Mercury simply doesn't require as much investment as the ditched GM brands. It doesn't cost that much to do new front / rear clips and different interior trim. I'd wager that the biggest cost of Mercury is advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 .... I'd wager that the biggest cost of Mercury is advertising. And Jill Wagoner is worth every penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.