'GM's New Brand Strategy: Chevy Uber Alles'

[HarleyEarl]

GM’s New Brand Strategy: Chevy Uber Alles

By Andrew Dederer

July 31st, 2006 1,000 Views

When Alfred P. Sloan took the reins at General Motors, he had a clear vision of the company’s future: “a car for every purse and purpose." Sloan’s business model– offer customers a wide range of vehicles across distinct brands and encourage them to move “up” within the portfolio– was wildly successful. GM soon replaced Ford as US market leader, and never looked back. Ninety years later, the same structure is in place, but the car market has changed. And GM’s portfolio is part of the problem, not the solution.

While most enthusiasts recognize the philosophy behind Sloan’s GM brand structure, few realize that each company within the GM fold used to have just ONE car in its line-up. Even during the 50’s, in the middle of GM’s “golden years,” each brand had no more than two wheelbases and three body styles. With such a limited number of models within each brand, overlap was minimal. Moving “up-market” was simple enough; you took your old car and your new money to a different dealer.

When GM started adding new models, expanding their offerings to cover bases like “compact car,” “utility vehicle” and “minivan,” they altered the dynamics of their business. Despite this horizontal model spread, GM tried to hew to a vertical brand system. Buick and Olds stayed true to their roots, offering two to three big cars (aside from the Cadet experiment). But Chevy and Pontiac became their own worst enemies. Chevy dealers currently sell over a dozen different vehicles over a wide spectrum of price points, from $10k econoboxes to a wide range of pickups to $70k sports cars. At the same time, Pontiac’s place in GM’s firmament has become unclear.

The problem isn’t so much the sheer spread of vehicles– most companies’ “main” brands spread as far. The problem is that Chevy is still selling only discount cars, even though it embraces up-market price points. GM’s other divisions also have a discombobulated product mix. Pontiac exists in the gaps above each Chevy price point. Cadillac is still perched at the top of the market, but their line shows little commonality (save a bit of “bling” here and there). Product overlap is endemic for all divisions. Actually, it isn’t so much overlap as “strangulation”. Chevy is trapped under the new trinity of Pontiac/Buick/GMC. For every Chevy, there’s one or more up-market counterparts it dare not exceed.

Where once you chose your GM car with your pocketbook, now it’s more a matter of taste. GM’s website illustrates the point perfectly; enter a price range into the “shop by price function” and you get a list of differently-sized models and vehicle types across several brands. If a GM car buyer wants a certain type of vehicle or a vehicle at a given price, they have to shop at least two and quite possibly four GM brands’ dealers to see all their choices. Otherwise, they could end up being steered to an inappropriate vehicle– and we all know what that does to a brand.

Acting like it’s still 1955 has left GM with a huge product line that’s full of holes, along with “boutique” brands scattered about like polka dots. This so-called strategy’s lack of focus robs Chevy of the quality it needs to be a reasonable alternative to the price-sensitive end of their “foreign” competition. It restricts Pontiac, GMC and Buick to marketing cars “better than Chevy” (a standard that keeps slipping lower). It detaches Cadillac, Hummer and Saab from the ownership ladder. In fact, GM’s brands don’t just steal sales from each other; they pull each other into a pit of mediocrity.

GM’s oversized dealer network makes the problem worse– and solutions problematic. One answer: make some of the marques into models. Instead of trying to keep Buick and Pontiac alive with a tiny line-up and a huge dealer network, GM could fold their products into Chevy’s portfolio. The top trim sedans in the largest two sizes could be called Buicks, while a Pontiac would denote a performance model (the GT’s not the SS’s). GMC could go back to its commercial customers.

To make this realignment fly, GM would have to transform all Chevy and all Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers into Chevy dealers, all selling the same full line. The remaining single-marque dealers would be retired (a more affordable prospect than killing the two networks). Of course, there would be a severe dealer shake-out afterwards; only the strongest Chevy stores would survive. But that’s no bad thing. From a corporate perspective, the biggest loss would be less presidents, a smaller ad budget and a less burdensome bureaucracy (oh darn).

This brand consolidation would allow GM to offer a car for every “purpose” and most “purses” under a single roof. Alfred Sloan would spin in the grave at the idea, but it just might work.

[Flybrian]

That idea is retarded.

Here's a less retarded idea:

Chevrolet - Volume

Buick/Pontiac/GMC - Premium

Cadillac/SAAB/HUMMER - Luxury

Saturn - Saturn's dealer network operates independantly...I guess.

B/P/GMC volume is sustainable with Pontiac covering the lower-end up to midsize focusing on performance, Buick taking midsize and above, focusing on luxury without the price, and GMC doing the same with trucks. In this sense, Buick still needs a van, not GMC.

[CARBIZ]

He does raise a few valid points. Ever since the Chevy II and the Caprice edition of the Impala, it has been down hill. Fragmentation and overlap.

Look at the model changes of the '60s. Who could afford that today?

FWD, RWD, AWD - where does it all end? Each of GM's divisions cannot be all things to all people. Smaller manufacturers are cutting niche markets and doing those markets better. Death by a thousand cuts.

Sloan could never have imagined the wagon, the SUV, the mini-ute, the sport sedan, the minivan, hybrids. YIKES.

[Northstar]

He's right that the brands as they are are way out of whack, but he's not right about how to position them in the marketplace.

Chevy - As-is.

Pontiac: Performance only.

Buick: Luxury, but with less flash than a Cadillac and a half-step down, also less performance.

Saturn: What it's going to be, an American Opel. Targets those who would never consider a Chevy, don't want something too sporty, and don't want something as expensive or luxurious as a Buick or Cadillac. Basically the import buyers.

GMC: Targets those who want something slightly nicer than a Chevy truck. Pretty much as-is.

Saab: European luxury, but personally I would probably cut them.

Cadillac: All-out luxury and performance.

Hummer: As-is.

[CARBIZ]

Although I know it is opening a can of worms, Saturn really is a waste. GM should bring over Opel's product exactly as is, but if Saturn gets it that will have an impact on both Pontiac and Chevrolet.

Buick can be positioned safely above Chev and below Cadillac, but Pontiac and Saturn are just going to get in each other's way.

The Torrent would have been a great refresh of the Equinox. The G6/Malibu is great, but the Pursuit/Cobalt is a travesty.

[VenSeattle]

I'll say one thing; at least he offered his take on a solution. Most analysts and journalists just write about what they think is "obviously" wrong without any advice to fix the problem.

The above solution wouldn't work. BPG & Chevrolet Dealers are redundant in most markets. They don't occupy different regions, cities or even different neighborhoods.

The only fix is to give BPG product that's more expensive than Chevrolet's and is worth the price premium. That doesn't mean to keep Chevrolet in Budget/fleet Hell. IMO, if GM spaced out its divisions where they are suppose to be then Cadillac would be easily selling vehicles priced like Rolls, Bentley, & Maybach. But GM won't let go of Cadillac as an obtainable luxury brand with Buick there to fill the market.

Sorry, guys... $30k-$60k is "the new" obtainable luxury point. Exclusive (or Ultra) Luxury (where Cadillac truthfully belongs) is where STS V8 & XLR begin.

---------------------------------------------

My GM line-up, as I see it, would provide every NA Division international volume and an (almost) unique vehicle line-up that would not be shared between NA dealership showrooms:

Chevrolet

Market: Volume Division – tasteful, moderately priced vehicles

Distribution: Single dealership network

Product:

Cars: Sourced mostly from GMDaewoo with Holden/GMAP-source image vehicle(s) $0 – $40k

Trucks,Vans,SUVs: Engineered in colaboration with Buick/Pontiac/GMC $0 - $50k

(Corvette is the exception)

Buick/Pontiac/GMC

Market: Obtainable luxury and performance vehicles (The Trinity - I loved that!); Lateral Brand positioning

Distribution: Single/Merged dealership network

Product:

Cars: Sourced Holden/GMAP Vehicles $25k – $60k

Trucks,Vans, SUVs: Sourced from Chevrolet: $20k-$75k

Saturn/SAAB

Market: Premium European performance vehicles; Tiered Brand positioning

Distribution: Single/Merged dealership network

Product: Sourced GME line-up

HUMMER

Market: Off-Road Premium Truck division

Distribution: Stand-alone dealership network

Product: Exclusive Truck platform(s); Engineering team to develop unique platform(s) for trucks & SUVs between $25k-$110k (does not share with Chevrolet & BPG)

Cadillac

Market: Ultra Luxury

Distribution: Stand-alone dealership network

Product:

Cars: Exclusive sedan platform(s); Engineering team; Line Production & Custom made luxury vehicles (Compact to Limousine) from $50k-$200k

Trucks: Share engineering team with HUMMER division to develop unique platform(s) for trucks & SUVs between $60k-$200k

[regfootball]

another article that exposes how TTAC is a hack site with no clue.

can't we find a way to bring their site down or something so no one has to read it?

Edited August 1, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

My GM- don't have time right now but will later. I do think GM needs all its brands. GM's distribution and merchandising problems are its dealer network. Its cars are also the problem.

As for those who say Saturn should go, how clueless are you? Just watch Saturn explode this next 24 months. If they stay true to their customer service philosophy, it will serve as a model to other GM divisions.....or should....(if we start getting rid of dealers who remain anti-customer, which is many of them).

Saab could go or stay but i think they do have a role if they stay. They just need to be scaled down to a small unique level.

B-P-G is a stroke of genius. It bridges a lucrative gap between bread and butter chevys (face it no one wants to drive a chevy ford or dodge) and the exclusive cadillacs. You can still buy GM, but own a unique brand, and not have to get stuck driving a Chevy.

The article writer is a moron. If GM eliminated its middle segment brands, they would be eliminating half the market's potential customers. What a moron. "we'll only sell to the poor people and very wealthy". If GM poured all their resouces into Chevy, they wouldn't recover all the sales they lost from BPG. what a moron this guy is.

Chevy can never be expanded to sell a lot more higher priced cars. Corvette is an exception. SSR's couldn't sell at high prices. VW couldn't sell Phaetons and struggles to sell touaregs. Some brands cannot stratify to fill more/higher price points.

Edited August 1, 2006 by regfootball

[Cadillacfan]

(Someone please, put Saturn out of it's misery now...it's not needed)

174037[/snapback]

Have you completely ignored all Saturn news for the past 2 years? I hope that's the case because I think bringing Opel to the US is the best idea GM has had in years... other then fixing Cadillac.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I know that right now, since Cadillac has turned around and Saturn is getting new products and being the American Opel (although part of me would like to see Opels on the road here in the US since my father-in-law has five Opel GTs) Pontiac and GMC really need to be the focus. Turn them around like they did with Cadillac and the show will be on the road. That'll really only leave Chevy to be really turned around, although with ideas like a RWD Zeta-based sedan and Camaro coming around the corner, their turn around is started too.

[balthazar]

>>"Ninety years later, the same structure is in place"<<

FALSE.

>>"Even during the 50’s, each brand had no more than two wheelbases and three body styles."<<

FALSE.

>>"Buick and Olds stayed true to their roots, offering two to three big cars (aside from the Cadet experiment)."<<

Wha?? Is this a reference to the Chevy Cadet program of the early '50s? It wasn't even close to production! How would this brain-damaged squirrel have even heard about it?? How is mention of it even topical?

>>"Cadillac is still perched at the top of the market, but their line shows little commonality (save a bit of “bling” here and there)."<<

FALSE.

>>"For every Chevy, there’s one or more up-market counterparts it dare not exceed."<<

FALSE.

>>"Acting like it’s still 1955..."<<

FALSE (& unsubstantiated).

>>"It restricts Pontiac, GMC and Buick to marketing cars “better than Chevy” (a standard that keeps slipping lower)."<<

FALSE.

>>"It detaches Cadillac, Hummer and Saab from the ownership ladder. In fact, GM’s brands don’t just steal sales from each other; they pull each other into a pit of mediocrity."<<

FASLE (and laughable).

>>"...GM could fold their products into Chevy’s portfolio. The top trim sedans in the largest two sizes could be called Buicks, while a Pontiac would denote a performance model."<<

Talk about 'discombobulated'! The idiocy of this barn-buster is staggering.

>>"...GM would have to transform all Chevy and all Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers into Chevy dealers, all selling the same full line."<<

What about those people who refuse to buy a '"Chevrolet"? If you don't think there are any, explain GMC... and that's just one marque.

What about the near-endless flow of negative 'see-we-told-you-Rome-is-burning' articles from self-centered and self-righteous 'journalists' who will only focus on GM's continuing "decline", all accompanied by faux hand-wringing and 'remember-when' recollections now that it would truely be Too Late? What is the price tag on that bit of image 'efficiency'?

>>"This brand consolidation would allow GM to offer a car for every “purpose” and most “purses” under a single roof."<<

No it wouldn't- where is saab, hummer & Cadillac's price ranges? Are those Divisions discontinued, or is the 'disassociation' there fine & dandy?

>>"...it just might work."<<

No, asswipe, it wouldn't. Get your facts straight, filter out the artery-clogging hyperbole and came back with another 'solution'.

How can you guys even get past this sh!tstain of an article to react to it???

Edited August 1, 2006 by balthazar

[76ChevyTrucker]

balth, I'll be the first to admit, I didn't read the article, I just reacted to what everyone else posted, but now that you mention it and I've read it, this guy is full of &#036;h&#33;, to quote George Carlin.

[wildcat]

>>"Buick and Olds stayed true to their roots, offering two to three big cars (aside from the Cadet experiment)."<<

Wha?? Is this a reference to the Chevy Cadet program of the early '50s? It wasn't even close to production! How would this brain-damaged squirrel have even heard about it?? How is mention of it even topical?

174113[/snapback]

Did the writer mean the Opel Kadettes, sold at one point through U.S. Buick dealers?

[bowtie_dude]

His problem is spot-on, his solution is just a little...whack. GMs brand alignment should look a little more like this, IMO.

Chevrolet -- Mainstream volume, covering most models and trim levels. Look much like it does today, only more competitive.

Saturn -- Upper-trim volume, targetting customers looking at V6 Camcords or Altimas, Muranos, etc. Picks up where Chevrolet left off.

Combined Chevrolet and Saturn should have the biggest chunk of GMs marketshare. Both brands together will cover Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and Nissan.

Pontiac -- Niche sports/performance oriented premium cars. Division whole would sell no more than 100-150k a year. No FWD. AWD or RWD-only. No large cars, nothing larger than mid-size. Small Zeta would be acceptable, full-size Zeta would cause too much overlap with Impala (Zeta) SS. Acura is main target.

Buick -- Premium/Entry-lux mid-size and full-size cars and SUVs. FWD/AWD EpII Lacrosse, RWD/AWD full-sized Zeta Lucerne, Enclave, Zeta-coupe and convertible. Lexus competitor.

GMC -- Premium/Entry-lux mid-size and full-size SUVs/trucks. Looks much like it does today.

Pontiac-Buick-GMC, one dealer network. Combining all brands into one dealer creates a full lineup of vehicles that starts where Chevrolet and Saturn leave off in price and offerings.

Cadillac -- Mercedes/BMW/Audi.

Hummer, Saab -- Quirky cult brands. Expendable in America, GM could easily lose both and make up their sales in other brands.

Thats my thoughts on what GM should look like. Each brand offers unique vehicles with very very little overlap occuring between optioned-out and base-level vehicles. (EG, optioned-out Impala vs base-trim Lucerne).

[bowtie_dude]

And I realize that I'm armchair CEOing, seeing as how I have no experience in the automotive industry, have no market research data, and have no way of knowing that My Ideal GM would actually work, so don't tear me apart. Its just my opinion.

[CARBIZ]

Look, like it or not, the reality is that GM is the ONLY car company where the dealers have to compete with each other. That makes no sense as sales numbers drop below 4 million. (Take out the Fleet sales and where is GM now)

When a customer walks into a Toyota dealer, of course the dealer has to worry about losing a sale to Nissan or Honda, but when a customer walks into a Chevy store they risk losing the deal to a Pontiac store.

That is just madness. In 1965, it worked because GM owned the market and because a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala. Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car. GM does not have the development money to maintain that level of differentiation, thanks to legacy costs and other realities of the 21st century. Customers of today are often confused. They look at a Torrent and then at an Equinox. The Pontiac guys says the Torrent is better; the Chevy guy says the Equinox is better. The customer gets fed up and buys an Exterra.

LIke it or not, GM is heading for 20% market share. A year ago that was unthinkable. GM has been fixing a lot of things and doing many of them right, but there are absolutely too many leaks in the dike. If GM is going to sell 3-4 million units a year, it is crazy to maintain 4,000+ dealers and 8 product lines. The money is simply spread too thin.

Emotions about heritages and history have to be let go. It is up to the lawyers and the planners to decide how best to offload the damaged brands and dealers to get the company profitable and the product lines more competitive.

[NOW I WILL DUCK AND RUN FROM THE USUAL FIRESTORM!]

[HarleyEarl]

Look, like it or not, the reality is that GM is the ONLY car company where the dealers have to compete with each other.  That makes no sense as sales numbers drop below 4 million.  (Take out the Fleet sales and where is GM now)

  When a customer walks into a Toyota dealer, of course the dealer has to worry about losing a sale to Nissan or Honda, but when a customer walks into a Chevy store they risk losing the deal to a Pontiac store.

  That is just madness.  In 1965, it worked because GM owned the market and because a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala.  Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car.  GM does not have the development money to maintain that level of differentiation, thanks to legacy costs and other realities of the 21st century.  Customers of today are often confused.  They look at a Torrent and then at an Equinox.  The Pontiac guys says the Torrent is better; the Chevy guy says the Equinox is better.  The customer gets fed up and buys an Exterra.

  LIke it or not, GM is heading for 20% market share.  A year ago that was unthinkable.  GM has been fixing a lot of things and doing many of them right, but there are absolutely too many leaks in the dike.  If GM is going to sell 3-4 million units a year, it is crazy to maintain 4,000+ dealers and 8 product lines.  The money is simply spread too thin.

  Emotions about heritages and history have to be let go.  It is up to the lawyers and the planners to decide how best to offload the damaged brands and dealers to get the company profitable and the product lines more competitive.

  [NOW I WILL DUCK AND RUN FROM THE USUAL FIRESTORM!]

174274[/snapback]

Don't run. It makes sense.

[regfootball]

quote=CARBIZ,Aug 1 2006, 09:33 AM

Look, like it or not, the reality is that GM is the ONLY car company where the dealers have to compete with each other.

Only because of 2 reasons.....1- the products are not different / good enough and 2- its because the dealers think that way. if they opened their tunnel vision up and saw their real competition as being dealers of non-GM brands, maybe this would change.

When a customer walks into a Toyota dealer, of course the dealer has to worry about losing a sale to Nissan or Honda, but when a customer walks into a Chevy store they risk losing the deal to a Pontiac store.

Only because GM's products aren't at the level they should be yet. By the way, funny how Toyota CREATED the Lexus and Scion divisions to sell more cars and access more segments. Yet you want GM to lose divisions and lose access to market segments. that makes no sense. Chevy is and always will be too redneck for those that aspire to be hip and cool. Enter Saturn. (By the way, Dodge is the major redneck brand today)..The hipsters and import intenders won't be caught dead in a Chevy...but Saturn is ok. Likewise, the older set who wants something better than a chevy but can't afford a cadillac will want to have buick there. Someone who wants a performance car but doesn't want the crudity of a Chevy or the redneck/bland image of a Chevy may want something more inspired, like where Pontiac is headed. Chevy Solstice......yeah, that would work. NOT.

Customers of today are often confused.  They look at a Torrent and then at an Equinox.  The Pontiac guys says the Torrent is better; the Chevy guy says the Equinox is better.  The customer gets fed up and buys an Exterra.

because a- the Xterra is better than both, b- because the Torrent does not execute Pontiac's brand image enough and is a rebadge c-the equinox is lame to start with

Edited August 1, 2006 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

How do you answer the problem that Toyota is going to be selling the same number of vehicles with 3 brands (2 in Canada, BTW) that GM needs to sell with 8!!!!

We may not like it, but it is getting just silly that an entire brand can sell a quarter million units; whereas, one car line used to sell that many.

I WISH GM could go back to the glory days, but wishing isn't the same as happening. The Torrent, Pursuit, Wave and others are prime examples of a company that is stretched too thin.

At this juncture, kick ass products will only slow down the inevitable. There are over 350 models to choose from in North America. That is crazy. We are seeing more market splintering than in the early 1950s when the Big Three had to deal with the likes of Kaiser, Studebaker, Nash and others.

Unless (and this is a BIG unless) GM can effectively capitalize on its world experience and stop treating North America differently, then GM can spread the product development money amongst 9 million production, instead of 4 million and shrinking.

But I just don't see how GM can continue to support 8+ product lines in North America. I don't like it either. Being all romantic isn't helping.

[bowtie_dude]

quote=CARBIZ,Aug 1 2006, 09:33 AM

By the way, funny how Toyota CREATED the Lexus and Scion divisions to sell more cars and access more segments.  Yet you want GM to lose divisions and lose access to market segments.  that makes no sense. 

174351[/snapback]

Between those three brands how much overlap do you have? Very very little. THAT is the point. If Toyota's 3 brands were competing with each other the way GM brands do, Toyota would have either gained little or no share when they introduced Scion, yet every Scion was a plus to Toyota without stealing that many from Corolla.

Unlike Pontiac that is only an alternative GM product, not an alternative to any Toyota or Honda.

GM brands need to be unique in what they offer with very very little overlap between brands, or else GM will continue to devour itself instead of the competition.

[balthazar]

In 1965, it worked because GM owned the market and because a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala.  Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car.

It worked in 1965 because a Bonneville and an Impala were COMPLETELY different cars!!!

It doesn't work in 2005 because the cars are different yet still too similar, and that fact is repeatedly trumpeted to the high heavens by the press. Proof of that?: by association & extension, we have this:

In 1965... a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala.  Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car.

[The O.C.]

That idea is retarded.

Here's a less retarded idea:

Chevrolet - Volume

Buick/Pontiac/GMC - Premium

Cadillac/SAAB/HUMMER - Luxury

Saturn - Saturn's dealer network operates independantly...I guess.

B/P/GMC volume is sustainable with Pontiac covering the lower-end up to midsize focusing on performance, Buick taking midsize and above, focusing on luxury without the price, and GMC doing the same with trucks. In this sense, Buick still needs a van, not GMC.

174022[/snapback]

It's HARDLY retarded.......

I don't know if I agree with calling top-line Chevy's "Buicks" but the paragraph that describes the problem with GM and their divisions is SPOT on the money...."They don't just steal sales from each other, they pull themselves into a pit of mediocrity."

I did a quick check online......and Malibu sedans run from a base price of $17,640 to a fully-loaded LTZ at $25,394.

G6s run from a base price of $16,990 (what's the Pontiac doing coming in CHEAPER than the Chevy equivalent????) to a fully-loaded GTP at $27,955 (and that's mostly some extra options that are not available on Malibu accounting for a good portion of that extra amount.)

SO....there you have it. Two identical cars (basically....underneath the skin, architecturally and powertrain-wise) on two VERY similar, if not identical, pricing structures......with styling being the only real differentiator.

Total cannibalization of each other.

[Flybrian]

It's HARDLY retarded.......

174505[/snapback]

Agreed with the main crux of the article, one that most of us acknowledge and share, but again...the idea of consolidating B-P-GMC into Chevrolet is retarded. Chevrolet Buick? That's just stupid.

This overlap is not just a problem at GM, mind you. Chrysler also suffers from it with their LX cars. How come a Charger SE rolls in with more power, more features, and a smaller price tag (by thousands) compared to a 300? A few of their other products also do/have done this, such as the Chrysler Voyager.

Anyhow, styling does make the difference and Pontiac arguably has the winner in the scenario you presented. However, GM needs to make powertrains and feature content a differentiator as well. As I indicated, I think this is completely managable with a three-tier Volume/Premium/Luxury grouping mentioned by me. You can see where B-P-GMC is already being consolidated into one marketing outlet and the latest vehicles from the first and the last definitely showcase that premium image. Allowing Pontiac and Saturn to share a roadster (where there is little overlap in branding) rather than the almost bespoken Pontiac-Chevrolet bequeathing is a great start.

[regfootball]

How do you answer the problem that Toyota is going to be selling the same number of vehicles with 3 brands (2 in Canada, BTW) that GM needs to sell with 8!!!!

  We may not like it, but it is getting just silly that an entire brand can sell a quarter million units; whereas, one car line used to sell that many.

  I WISH GM could go back to the glory days, but wishing isn't the same as happening.  The Torrent, Pursuit, Wave and others are prime examples of a company that is stretched too thin.

  At this juncture, kick ass products will only slow down the inevitable.  There are over 350 models to choose from in North America. That is crazy.  We are seeing more market splintering than in the early 1950s when the Big Three had to deal with the likes of Kaiser, Studebaker, Nash and others.

  Unless (and this is a BIG unless) GM can effectively capitalize on its world experience and stop treating North America differently, then GM can spread the product development money amongst 9 million production, instead of 4 million and shrinking.

  But I just don't see how GM can continue to support 8+ product lines in North America.  I don't like it either.  Being all romantic isn't helping.

174369[/snapback]

GM could build nice vehicles like Siennas and Camrys but they choose not to. Instead, they build Uplanders and Malibus. That should sum it up right there.

Every response, all i can reply is, its the products.

Why does the Sienna havea nice interior, normal looking exterior and superior safety?

GM could go that route if they wanted to. They don't want to. Their management either doesn't know how or just simply refuses to do it.

Why is an Accord so palatable for so many Americans with its smooth DOHC v6 and pleasant interior but the Malibu suffers with schizo looks, heinous plastic, 4 speed trannies and iron block yesteryear pushrod v6s?

GM could go that route if they wanted to. They seem to prefer to keep all Chevy's except Corvette in the market's perceptual slum.

Is Lutz to blame? Rick? BUICKMAN? or some nameless high level managers who really ought to be relieved of their duties.

Or is the high priced UAW to blame? Is GM forced to cheap out on eveyrthing out of need or is it just the nature of a fat middle aged clueless American business man?

GM could support that many brands with good planning and a continued commitment to new exceptional products. They just choose not to. Enjoy that Torrent, I am sure it wil still around in 2012. If Pontiac had its act together they would have a budget x5/Cayenne type SUV out that was even like a CX-7 but superior and more attractive.

Edited August 2, 2006 by regfootball

[Chicagoland]

"In 1965, it worked because GM owned the market and because a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala. Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car. "

Show pictures to a 20 yer old, and he/she would only see that the Pontiac has vertical headlights. The 64 GTO looks alot like the Cutlass then too. But just that Boomers memorized the differences then.

The var has the same roof sweep and Coke Bottle hump. It is only in the emotional attachments to these old cars the old Boomers say 'they looked completely different".

[balthazar]

Chevy and Pontiac shared no sheetmetal except most rooflines. Chevy did NOT have the Pontiac 'Coke bottle' fuselage.

Sister divisions' competing models in the '60s really were far more different in appearance than modern sister division cars. It's not warm fuzzy emotion but cold hard steel that attests to this.

[The O.C.]

Anyhow, styling does make the difference and Pontiac arguably has the winner in the scenario you presented.

174525[/snapback]

Actually I disagree.

To me, the Pontiac is the least-attractive due to it's cheesy boy-racerish-without-the-ability-to-back-it-up looks........

I'm not a fan of any of the three's long front and rear overhangs.....but I'd have to say I'm more attracted to the Impala's conservative, attractive, yet bland looks to the GP's. LaCrosse at least adds some attempts at style with it's pseudo-Lexus front end.

[Flybrian]

Actually I disagree.

174883[/snapback]

You know, just because I say 'arguably' doesn't mean you have to. :AH-HA_wink:

[The O.C.]

You know, just because I say 'arguably' doesn't mean you have to.  :AH-HA_wink:

174888[/snapback]

<smooch>

[Sixty8panther]

Not quite, this idea is retarded.

Killing Pontiac & Buick will only mean GM sells

LESS cars not more. If this guy can't see that

logic then he's not firing on all cylinders.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Calling a "sporty" Chevy a "Pontiac?" A "luxurious" Chevy a "Buick?"

This guy is smoking some serious hash and is much loco, senior. Think he's maybe suffering from mild psychosis? In any case, send him to bed without dinner and writing paper -- please! -- for the sake of people who don't waste oxygen or take up needed space.

Edited August 2, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[SableStyle]

Bowtie dude has the best idea.

I've been thinking about FoMoCo's tiers while reading everyone's posts...and how Mercury has never really had a solid identity...at least GM has distinct identities for all of their brands.

What interests me here is that Ford has a ton of lines too, in some form or another. But they're not seen as a seven-marque company, you just think of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury.

So maybe the solution would be to give some of the GM brands more autonomy?

[Camino LS6]

GM knows what has to be done and is doing it. The only question is: can they do it fast enough?

[Backup7]

GM does not need a separate division to cover every niche. Sure, Buick, Pontiac, and GMC all have their unique target audiences, but is it really necessary to have an entire division devoted to each one? I'm sure someone could justify the need for a brand comprised of "sub 20k AWD convertibles" or one of "aspirational import-fighting performance vans with a hint of luxury" but they probably aren't good ideas.

Rather than spending effort on trying to differentiate each product and make it fit into the GM brand hierarchy, why not build fewer models and make each the best that it can be?

[Camino LS6]

The author's "plan" would be the end of GM, and quickly too. It can't and shouldn't be done.

GM is reducing overlap and producing fewer and better models.

The most important step has already been taken: the merging of Pontiac,Buick and GMC into a single sales channel and ,hopefully, a single entity for all intents and purposes. BPG is Chevy with some gloss and finesse, and a very good move.

This is an evolutionary process and as long as the goals remain clearly focused upon, GM will gain strength.

The transformation of Saturn is finally making it a viable division.

Cadillac is no longer a joke (like Lincoln has become)

It isn't going to happen overnight, but the change is obviously well underway.

Don't judge GM's progress by such things as the placeholder G5 and the soon -to-be-extinct minivans. Look at the new stuff and what we know to be coming soon.

[lostletters]

He's right that the brands as they are are way out of whack, but he's not right about how to position them in the marketplace.

Chevy - As-is.

Pontiac: Performance only.

Buick: Luxury, but with less flash than a Cadillac and a half-step down, also less performance.

Saturn: What it's going to be, an American Opel. Targets those who would never consider a Chevy, don't want something too sporty, and don't want something as expensive or luxurious as a Buick or Cadillac. Basically the import buyers.

GMC: Targets those who want something slightly nicer than a Chevy truck. Pretty much as-is.

Saab: European luxury, but personally I would probably cut them.

Cadillac: All-out luxury and performance.

Hummer: As-is.

174028[/snapback]

This is where I would do some eliminating. I would eliminate either the Chevy truck line or GMC altogether. I would also restrict ONE line to producing luxury SUVs. I would consolidate Cadillac and Buick (why two luxury lines anyway?). I would widen the Caddy line a little. I would restrict Pontiac to performance oriented cars.

I would transform Saturn into a Scion competitor. It is based on a similiar concept anyway.

Most importantly FEWER SUVs. Maybe GMC and a luxury SUVs from Caddy, and thats it. No Pontiac SUVs, No Saab SUVs, No Saturn SUVs.

Get rid of Hummer. The period of cheap gas prices are over. Hummer is going to be more and more of a burden as gas prices rise.

Also the person who wrote this article is way off with the diminishing quality of Chevy, the quality has VASTLY improved over the last 10 years and the reliability ratings show it. The only problem is the minivans, which have long needed to be completely redesigned.

Everything under Chevy is bad idea as it is GMs most generic brand. Being generic is NOT what GM needs at the moment. It needs the Chevy brand, but incorperating pontiac and buick under it is damaging. Eliminating Buick would be a good idea and widening the Caddy line on the other hand would work.

[Ghost Dog]

Hmm I thought the concept was to consolidate P-B-GMC into a Single lineup across a range similar to Chevy.

In That Context The Line up would Be?

GMT-900 - GMC

GMT-355-GMC

Lambda- GMC-Buick

Zeta /LWB-Buick

Eps2-Buick

Eps1-Pontiac

Theta-Pontiac

delta-Pontiac

A Basic Future P-B-GMC Dealer lineup?

Would the Lambda and Epsilon Overlaps Eventually be Phased out?