GM Response

[Olds Guy]

General Motors Responds to Editorial

The Toledo Blade

August 7, 2006

How ironic that The Blade's smugly ignorant editorial on General Motors ("D-Day near for GM," July 31) referred to D-Day.

Both the D-Day invasion of Normandy and your editorial relied upon misinformation. The military used misinformation before the invasion to confuse the Germans and help end World War II. We're still puzzled why The Blade used misinformation against GM, which has helped support Toledo 's economy since 1916.

One gets the sense after reading the editorial that The Blade, rather than bothering to do any research, based its assessment of GM on faded memories of the satirical film, Roger & Me. The editorial was woefully inaccurate, uninformed, and mean-spirited.

Before The Blade dismisses GM's management by suggesting it's less talented than "a bunch of former Soviet collective farm managers," it should take its own advice and "look at the numbers." It would see the remarkable progress that GM, under Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner's leadership, has made in the past year to turn itself around.

Here are the facts:

* GM's second-quarter operating earnings - the adjusted number analysts and investors use to accurately measure a company's performance - totaled a better-than-expected $1.2 billion. That marked the second consecutive quarter that GM posted an operating profit. Wall Street was encouraged because the improved numbers showed that Mr. Wagoner's turnaround plan is working.

* While GM reported an overall $3.4 billion loss in the second quarter, that was due to several one-time charges, including a $3.7 billion charge from our successful hourly employee attrition program. A total of 34,400 employees took advantage of the buyouts, which are intended to help them make the transition to another line of work or early retirement.

* GM has far exceeded the aggressive structural cost-reduction targets we set earlier this year. We now expect to reduce our costs by $6 billion this year, and additional reductions are planned to boost the bottom line in 2007 and beyond.

* We increased our revenue per vehicle in the second quarter by over $1,000, leading to record revenues of $54.4 billion.

* We're seeing significant sales momentum in our newest models. The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky are sold out for the year. The Buick Lucerne, Chevy HHR, and Pontiac G6 are grabbing consumers' attention. Even our new full-size SUVs, which lead the segment in fuel economy, have grown market share despite higher fuel prices.

* GM's market share is not "almost in free fall." While our share did slip last year to 26 percent, and was softer in the first half of this year, it increased in June and July to nearly 27 percent. That came on the strength of our new cars and trucks, even as we reduced our incentive spending to levels substantially lower than that of our domestic competitors.

* GM increased its average transaction price per vehicle in the first half.

* Outside the United States , GM is performing very well. GM is the No. 1 automaker in the world's fastest-growing automotive market: China . Our sales in Europe are strong and earnings are on the rise, while our earnings in our Latin America-Africa-Mideast region more than quadrupled in the second quarter versus a year ago.

The Blade accurately notes that GM once had half the new-car sales in the United States . That was in 1962, when we had just two major domestic competitors; foreign automakers were just entering the market. Today, the U.S. market is the world's most competitive, with 13 automakers marketing nearly 40 car and truck brands. It's natural that new entrants would mostly take share from the established leaders in any market over 44 years.

Take daily newspapers, which in the 1960s had a far greater readership share of their local populations than they do today. Their lower share is largely due to more competition from today's many alternative sources of information on TV, radio, and the Internet.

At GM, we remain the U.S. market leader by a significant margin despite our smaller market share.

GM today employs 2,700 people at our Toledo transmission plant. Earlier this year, we announced plans to invest $500 million to expand that plant for a new, state-of-the-art, six-speed transmission. Perhaps your former Soviet collective farm managers would have invested elsewhere, but we think putting it into Toledo made a lot of sense.

Unlike your editorial.

GM has had its challenges and made its mistakes in nearly a century of doing business, and we appreciate criticism where it is warranted and constructive. Your editorial was neither.

Your readers and GM deserve better.

[FAPTurbo]

pwnt

Edited August 9, 2006 by Captainbooyah

[balthazar]

>>"...daily newspapers, which in the 1960s had a far greater readership share of their local populations than they do today."<<

ouch. You never hear those numbers, do you??

[CARBIZ]

Very good point about the newspaper thing. Newspaper readership is down everywhere, largely due to the likes of CNN and the internet.

I am glad to see GM hitting back. Are there any links to the original article?

[76ChevyTrucker]

Gotta love those response letters. Its good to see GM hitting back with something like that. I know that most people around here don't get the paper, or if they do, then they get it just because, not really to read it.

[Drew Dowdell]

I only ever get the sunday paper and even then only for the coupons.

oh yah... and Toledo Blade =

[RJB]

The Toledo Blade only goes to show the trend of todays sh!t for brains media, or the let's jump on the anti-american manufacturer me-too bandwagon without researching the facts. I swear some of the news reported today is bought and paid for. These people must be sleeping with these outside corporations. Good for GM, they shouldn't sit back while the kids across the street are throwing rocks at them. Stand up fight and say - WE ARE NOT F#CKING GOING ANYWHERE BUT UP!!

[Flybrian]

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Give the Blade some credit, though - they printed GM's rebuttal...uncensored.

[ellives]

Gotta love those response letters.  Its good to see GM hitting back with something like that.  I know that most people around here don't get the paper, or if they do, then they get it just because, not really to read it.

177885[/snapback]

Well people have to wipe their asses with SOMEthing.

[ellives]

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Give the Blade some credit, though - they printed GM's rebuttal...uncensored.

178311[/snapback]

It would be especially stupid not to print it in its entirety.

This article is the epitome of media today. It rehashes the same old information that everyone has heard already and they don't indicate and author of the article. Can't take the heat I'm sure. Nothing new is added and no suggestions on how THEY (being all knowing media types) would fix things. Toilet paper is a good ultimate destination for this paper.

[X2222]

GM's response was great but the original editorial really wan't that bad or very wrong for its critisism of GMs leadership.

GM is still overall a struggling company. Its current leadership have been turning GM around but only at a very slow pace and the future is still not garaunteed for them.

Is it that wrong for this paper to be demanding better and faster results from GM? Does the greater compeition analogy really hold up at a point where toyota is fast becoming the US's and world's biggest automaker? We'll see...

[zhawk]

Yeah, that editorial WAS that bad. So much that has been going on in the automotive world was ignored or glossed over that the article was essentially worthless.

Yes, GM is still struggling but the truth is that things are getting better. They don't need someone who only cares about the cash getting in the way of what GM needs to do, which is build great cars and get them sold! They had enough of that with Zarrela.

The product is either here or on its way. I've seen signs of some pretty good advertising. Let them keep improving things and let's keep cheering for the improvements and letting them know what needs to still be improved.

As for Toyota, they may have moved into the #2 spot but its earned them a whole lot of quality issues and recall notices. #1 might not be where they want to be.

[LTB51]

Yeah, that editorial WAS that bad. So much that has been going on in the automotive world was ignored or glossed over that the article was essentially worthless.

178325[/snapback]

While not a great article, it used GM's Q2 numbers from 2005 and 2006, which is what GM most recently reported. GM's response ignored those numbers and looked only at the past couple of months.

I'd say the article is about as selective in the facts they used as are GM's claims about their fleet sales and the extent of their turnaround. I'm not sure if GM should be one to criticize.

[ellives]

GM is forced to fight fire with fire. I don't blame them.

[haypops]

Good read and I approve of the feisty attidude GM is displaying.

However,

That was in 1962, when we had just two major domestic competitors; foreign automakers were just entering the market.

In MY 1963 Studebaker was feazturing the Hawk and the Avanti with supercharging. AMC had a whole new lineup of cleverly named models (220-440,550-770,880-990) many with a truly excellent new cylinder engine and clever transmission options. International Harvester was strong with the Scout and Travall, not to mention the pickups. Jeep was there too.

Are Isuzu, mitsubushi, Jaguar and Land Rover really that much more a part of the automotive business?

[balthazar]

RE: Studebaker- I hear you haypops, but the fact of the matter is, sales-wise Stude was in 12th place selling only a little over half of Cadillac's volume in '62. If GM hadn't brought out the intermediate A-bodies in '61, I have no doubt Stude's fine Lark line, revamped for '62, would've carried the corporation farther into the future, along with the other compelling lines. Stude & Rambler were the economical alternatives, but GM jumped into the segment, and with Stude's limited resources in playing on the same dollar level, the future die was cast. I wish it had worked out otherwise....

[Ghost Dog]

GM, which has helped support Toledo 's economy since 1916.

I Honestly Don't Believe GM has any plan or intention to remain a part of any Community in the U.S.

How the Communities react time will tell.

[Cadillacfan]

Editorials really give people insight into the overall mentality of different news organizations. The blade obviously has jumped on the bandwagon of sensationalism seeing that the editor allowed this very biased/unfair opinion piece to grace the paper's pages. This type of reporting won't save print media's inevitable demise. It only quickens it. People are tired of one opinion. That's why the internet and cable news has become so popular.

[Regalguy01]

I loved reading this article. Its especially funny when at the end, GM mixes a little diplomacy with downright smart assness(is that a word?) by pointing out how much they have invested in toledo. Basically saying that what's good for GM is good for Toledo, so quit with all the unsubstantiated hate.. Way to go General!.

Edited August 11, 2006 by Regalguy01

[regfootball]

Editorials really give people insight into the overall mentality of different news organizations.  The blade obviously has jumped on the bandwagon of sensationalism seeing that the editor allowed this very biased/unfair opinion piece to grace the paper's pages.  This type of reporting won't save print media's inevitable demise.  It only quickens it.  People are tired of one opinion.  That's why the internet and cable news has become so popular.

178696[/snapback]

newspapers are so biased in their reporting. the Minneapolis Star Tribune (i.e. the Star and Sickle) everyone is tired of their relentless bleating of liberal issues. The only reaosn folks get the papaer is for the sunday ads and the sports page. It would be fun to buy a newspaper and fire their entire editorial staff. It would be fun to just tell some of those folks, 'no one gives a crap what you think'. People like Nick Coleman. What a liberal ass.

The reason follks hate em is they don't report objectively. Everything is so laced with an agenda.

Journalism education teaches these folks to drown in the euphoria of their own thoughts and opinions, like they are better than everyone else.

Edited August 11, 2006 by regfootball