GM Struggles to Convince Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer Customers To Remain Loyal

[jpd80]

LINK

 

 

 

 

[92merc]

Linky no worky.

[timmm55]

Try this

[probowler]

Is there a rule that you're not allowed to post the article contents on the forums? Because it's getting damn annoying every single thread expecting to read some cool info, only to get a godam "linky"

[MY93SHO]

Is there a rule that you're not allowed to post the article contents on the forums? Because it's getting damn annoying every single thread expecting to read some cool info, only to get a godam "linky"

 

You can post a small portion, not the whole article.

 

How is clicking on a link "killing" you?

[RichardJensen]

You can post a small portion, not the whole article.

 

How is clicking on a link "killing" you?

How in the world did they end up picking Harry K Chevy for inclusion in that article?

[mettech]

According to Scott Burgess, Lincoln is not getting the Mercury customers that Ford thought they would.

 

 

 

"...7. Mercury customers are not going to Lincoln.

 

While the Ford brand continues to prosper, the Lincoln brand does not.

Sales dropped .6 percent in April and are off 8.2 percent for the year.

It appears all of those Mercury customers are not going to Lincoln for their next vehicle, though they may be going to Ford.

Last April, Lincoln sold 7,279 vehicles and Mercury sold 9,128. This April, Mercury sold zero and Lincoln sold 7,236. That's more than 9,000 missing customers.

 

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110507/OPINION03/105070301/The-10-things-I-think-I-know-from-April-sales-figures#ixzz1Lfmwo3eV

 

 

[carforford]

According to Scott Burgess, Lincoln is not getting the Mercury customers that Ford thought they would.

 

 

 

I can see in to the future, the headline will read "2012 Model Year Last For Lincoln" . Cancellation of Lincoln This June....

 

Lincoln and Mercury were the old couple that were married for many decades, and like so many old married couples when one died the other was soon to follow....

 

Unfortunate but true. So Sad...

[CKNSLS]

I don't know what the buying experience is like for the Nissan small cars, but if she was charged the MSRP with a "no hassle" experience maybe that is what she is referring to.

[fordmantpw]

According to Scott Burgess, Lincoln is not getting the Mercury customers that Ford thought they would.

 

 

 

"...7. Mercury customers are not going to Lincoln.

 

While the Ford brand continues to prosper, the Lincoln brand does not.

Sales dropped .6 percent in April and are off 8.2 percent for the year.

It appears all of those Mercury customers are not going to Lincoln for their next vehicle, though they may be going to Ford.

Last April, Lincoln sold 7,279 vehicles and Mercury sold 9,128. This April, Mercury sold zero and Lincoln sold 7,236. That's more than 9,000 missing customers.

 

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/a...s#ixzz1Lfmwo3eV

 

 

 

 

Mercurys were a lot closer to Fords (in price and features) than they were to Lincolns. I would expect Mercury customer to buy Fords, not Lincolns.

[92merc]

Mercurys were a lot closer to Fords (in price and features) than they were to Lincolns. I would expect Mercury customer to buy Fords, not Lincolns.

My thoughts exactly. Ford's up-tick can be partially attributed to gaining Mercury customers. After all, everyone always complained Mercury was just another design of the same Ford vehicle with no differentiation.

 

And Lincoln's drop in sales is due to it's model line up. Not because they were supposed to get the Mercury sales. MKZ needs the redo ASAP. MKS needs a MCE as it isn't getting the sales they hoped. Lincoln needs a small vehicle too with fuel prices going upwards. Whether that's a Focus based car or a Escape/Vertrek vehicle is debatable.

[RichardJensen]

Ford's up-tick can be partially attributed to gaining Mercury customers.

The article in the OP says that only about a third of Mercury customers are buying new Fords/Lincolns. The other 2/3rds are going elsewhere.

[156n3rd]

For years, Lincoln-Mercury was almost one. And who cared if they looked so much alike (some models, not all)? GM has been doing that longer than anyone and they still do it today. Saturn could have survived if they let the breed alone and not install Chevy engines in them. They should have let it develop itself based upon it's original principals as the 1.9 engine allowed. It was an amazing engine. I too owned an older one, a '92 which ended service at 222,000 miles on almost all it's original components. That's amazing in anyone's book for a cheap little car. Pontiac, except for it's front end, was too closely connected in looks to Chevy which a contribution to it's death. Hummer was a total waste in citizen based transport. Why was it ever released? GM greed. And I know Olds died earlier and wasn't mentioned, but for years it was the testing ground for Cadillac. Shameful to have killed it as it's last models were downright pretty compared to the Chevrolet's line-up of that era. Why should those customers remain loyal to the company who lied back in the day about their engines and lies to this day that they will make decent cars and rarely do. The Cruze is a snooze, the Impala should be on a retirement pension (in the great junkyard in the sky) and the HHR is rotting on the vine. GM cannot be allowed to struggle since we are footing the bill. But they sell cars in other parts of the world that put certain models (not all) to total shame. How can they build such a good Malibu and let the Impala be such a turd? More greed. BTW, I mention the HHR because I own a PTC. The HHR needs just a few tweaks and it'd be awesome. Chrysler's engineers and designers didn't want the PTC because they wanted to go forward and not regress into the past. However, it has been shown time after time the the PTC was the highest quality thing they built since 2000 and in the following deacde. That's why I traded in my 2002 for a 2008 and I am thrilled that I did. HHR needs a throwback grille and a better loking interior with removable rear seats. I know I am pissing in the wind mentioning this, but the HHR is one of the Chevy's that has a distinct (and still selling style). I thought the last Mercs were very well done. They should have used those designs as alternative optional looks for Ford models, afterall....it's all trimming, right?

Edited May 7, 2011 by 156n3rd

[jpd80]

Maybe the articles are right and Ford only managed to convert about a third of Mercury customers over to the Ford brand but that makes the rise of Ford brand all the more impressive. Ford eliminating the Mercury brand helped reduce the "appeasement costs" of potential buyers.

 

A single minded approach to vehicle brands is paying big dividends for Ford, that's where the bulk of it's customers should be. The people who go on an on about the importance of Mercury and Lincoln are missing the big picture, how can brands of 7,000/mth ever compare with one bringing in 160,000 to 180,000/mth in the US let alone the rest of the world.

[156n3rd]

Maybe the articles are right and Ford only managed to convert about a third of Mercury customers over to the Ford brand but that makes the rise of Ford brand all the more impressive. Ford eliminating the Mercury brand helped reduce the "appeasement costs" of potential buyers.

 

A single minded approach to vehicle brands is paying big dividends for Ford, that's where the bulk of it's customers should be. The people who go on an on about the importance of Mercury and Lincoln are missing the big picture, how can brands of 7,000/mth ever compare with one bringing in 160,000 to 180,000/mth in the US let alone the rest of the world.

You're making it sound like Ford can do no wrong. We all know that's not true.

[xr7g428]

The first decision every Mercury buyer made was not to buy a Ford. This should have been obvious. Those that are buying Ford are doing so with Ford being their runner up choice. This doesn't bode well for brand loyalty. In marketing it is called satisficing. It means buy a product that is satisfactory to the need, but not emotionally engaging. These customers tend to look for issues, for reasons to be unhappy with what they were forced to settle for. They can actually be negative overall to a brands image. It is like picking a shoe that looks good, but buying it a little too large because they didn't have your size. It is never going to be something you want to wear, and you will end up hating the shoe, not the size.

 

In general, giving consumers more choices results in greater customer satisfaction, and increased sales. This has been proven so conclusively, in so many ways, that it has become absurd when people are shocked at the outcome of "simplification" focus on the core" or what ever buzz words are used to sell the organization on the process. Simply put, if you eliminate a color, total sales will decrease. If you eliminate a body style, total sales will decrease. If you eliminate a brand, total sales will decrease.The only question is whether the decrease in sales results in reductions in cost, at a rate more rapid than destruction of revenues. In a mass production world, only the most severely impaired products meet this test.

[630land]

"That's more than 9,000 missing customers."

 

 

Well, most Mercs were fleet cars, so Enterprise, Hertz, and Budget bought Fords.

 

I still say that the loyal "Mercury customer" is down to near zero, with most buyers knowing they were Fords underneath. Anyone stupid enough to think otherwise deserved to be abandoned. Only old farts living in the past think like that. No modern car buyer cares about 1950's car marketing smoke and mirrors.

[NickF1011]

The first decision every Mercury buyer made was not to buy a Ford. This should have been obvious. Those that are buying Ford are doing so with Ford being their runner up choice. This doesn't bode well for brand loyalty. In marketing it is called satisficing. It means buy a product that is satisfactory to the need, but not emotionally engaging. These customers tend to look for issues, for reasons to be unhappy with what they were forced to settle for. They can actually be negative overall to a brands image. It is like picking a shoe that looks good, but buying it a little too large because they didn't have your size. It is never going to be something you want to wear, and you will end up hating the shoe, not the size.

 

In general, giving consumers more choices results in greater customer satisfaction, and increased sales. This has been proven so conclusively, in so many ways, that it has become absurd when people are shocked at the outcome of "simplification" focus on the core" or what ever buzz words are used to sell the organization on the process. Simply put, if you eliminate a color, total sales will decrease. If you eliminate a body style, total sales will decrease. If you eliminate a brand, total sales will decrease.The only question is whether the decrease in sales results in reductions in cost, at a rate more rapid than destruction of revenues. In a mass production world, only the most severely impaired products meet this test.

 

So GM's 4 brands should logically sell twice as many vehicles as Ford's two, right?

[taxman100]

The article in the OP says that only about a third of Mercury customers are buying new Fords/Lincolns. The other 2/3rds are going elsewhere.

 

We bought a Volkswagen. With the Grand Marquis gone, there is literally nothing else like it being sold anymore. Combine that with the fact Ford doesn't sell a minivan, and we never even looked at a Ford. If I wanted another sedan, we probably would have gotten a Chrysler 300, and even then may not have even looked at the Taurus.

 

With Mercury gone, I have zero brand loyalty, so I considered every minivan on the market. I know the Routan is basically a nicer looking Town & Country with tighter steering and handling, but when you can buy one for $4,000 less than a comparably equipped T&C, it was not a difficult decision. You just have to shop around and find a dealer who is really motivated to unload one. It was also about $6,500 less than a comparably equipped Odyssey or Sienna.

 

It is funny how much peer pressure influences people. I live in the upper middle class suburbs, and the default minivan purchase is by far the Odyssey, followed by the Sienna. I would say 90 percent of consumers don't even consider any other minivan brands. It is almost Pavlovian how people buy what they think their neighbors want them to buy.

 

With globalization, brand loyalty is kind of out of date. Is a Ford with basic engineering done by Mazda, and assembled in Mexico, truly a Ford? Or, a Ford designed in Europe and built in Mexico really a Ford in the traditional sense? Most brand have been so diluted to try to appeal to as many consumers as possible that many have little cachet anymore.

Edited May 11, 2011 by taxman100

[jpd80]

You're making it sound like Ford can do no wrong. We all know that's not true.

Nowhere have I said or implied that Ford can do no wrong, they are making a lot of right moves

and five quarters resulting in $17 billion debt reduction and over $9 billion profit confirms that fact.

[aneekr]

It is funny how much peer pressure influences people. I live in the upper middle class suburbs, and the default minivan purchase is by far the Odyssey, followed by the Sienna. I would say 90 percent of consumers don't even consider any other minivan brands. It is almost Pavlovian how people buy what they think their neighbors want them to buy.

What about the Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan? YTD, both of those products sold in approximately the same volume as the Sienna and Odyssey.

 

Basically the U.S. market for minivans consists of the dominant players (Sienna, Grand Caravan, Odyssey, Town & Country) representing over 90%, and everything else (Kia Carnival/Sedona, Mazda5, Nissan Quest, VW Routan) getting a rather tiny piece of the pie.

Edited May 11, 2011 by aneekr

[630land]

Anyone who bought a Pontiac Sunfire, Grand Am, Grand Prix, or other badge jobs are stupid to think a Chevy is not as good, when the same damn car under the cladding. Most of those sold for loss to low credit score buyers at dealers competing with Chevy.

 

Pontiac's halo cars, Solstace, G8, GTO, were not enough to keep it going as a brand, their other cars overlapped Chevy and no need. Also, the cladding look was passe'.

 

The only brand that may have lost loyal buyers was Saturn, but that is GM's fault for not giving it product. But then again, it lost $$ for 20 years.

[lfeg]

The one big problem GM has with retaining former Saturn customers is their dealerships. In a comparison of how dealership service departments treated customers, very few equaled the Saturn experience. And this comes from someone who has dealt with Ford, Chevy, Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC, and Saturn dealers all at the same time for similar services. Saturn dealers were heads and shoulders above all others when it came to treating customers with courtesy and respect, meeting estimates, and having things done as committed to. GM even provided a year of free oil changes, tire rotations, and inspections to regular customers of Saturn dealer service departments at nearby Chevy dealers. I took advantage of that. Experience was not anywhere close, and after the freebies ran out I did not return.

Edited May 12, 2011 by lfeg