Behind The Mask

[Guest buickman]

Behind The Mask

Jim Dollinger

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Here is further proof that GM intends to close Buick and probably Pontiac. How can you not have an "identity" after 100 years? Management is falsely protraying their intentions as their plan is to eventually own and control distribution. This hidden agenda is part of the reason the call was made for the indictment of "Red Ink Rick". Please don't be fooled by the spin offered by PR experts. The market share slide and the move to offshore production continues.

Forbes.com

Market Scan

GM Ready To Roll In 2007: Report

R.M. Schneiderman, 08.11.06, 8:15 AM ET

Ailing auto giant General Motors will begin to see the benefits of its new product line starting in the first quarter of 2007, according to a Thursday report by Credit Suisse.

Rob Hinchliffe, an analyst for the research firm, said negative margin trends should continue throughout the third quarter for the company, before improving slightly in the fourth.

The report was released following GM's analyst day on Wednesday during which the company introduced new products such as T900 pickup and the Lambda crossover SUV.

"GM will launch a rich, crew cab T900 pickup mix in October with two of the five plants up and running this year," said Hinchliffe. "The Lambdas look great, with a risk of cannibalizing existing GM customers."

The Detroit-based company also offered further details on its strategy going forward.

"GM's plan creates four 'core' brands which include Chevy, GMC, Cadillac and Saturn," said Hinchliffe.

"These will be supported by four 'focus' brands which include Buick, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab. This strategy will require GM to scale down Buick and Pontiac in the near-term until these brands have a clear&identity."

On Thursday, GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner also announced that his company will bring back its muscle car, the Chevrolet Camaro, beginning in 2008.

Chevy began making the Camaro in 1967, before putting a halt to the speedster in 2002. The new models will begin retailing in the first quarter of 2009.

UBS maintained a "reduce" rating on the company with a target price of $24.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I dont get why that would mean they are going to close the brands. That just tells me the same thing GM has been saying for years, that they wont be full brands, and will be more focused. Like Pontiac not having a minivan.

[wildcat]

Maybe they mean Buick and Pontiac need a clear identity in today's marketplace. The past shows what they were, but, during the last few decades (!) they lost much of their essence. So GM has to make crystal clear what a Buick and Pontiac are now, both in terms of other GM makes and against all the competition from other manufacturers that there is.

Besides, the report says ". . . scale down . . . in the near-term until they have a clear . . ." which makes it sound like if Buick and Pontiac enjoyed rising sales, their models could be expanded (perhaps by coupe or convertible variations, as opposed to completely new models).

See, this is what GM forces its customers and fans to do, when they say little about specifics. Having nothing else to go on, we have to read into every word.

[Guest buickman]

Consider that perhaps the greatest automobile buying demographic (baby boomers) were allowed to move through the Buick segment as it was starved of product and exemplified by assinine marketing. Ponder the thought of a successful division retaining and even winning these potential customer dollars, then you'll likely realize the utter, complete, and unaccounted for failure by GM management. Still, their legions of lawyers, accountants, and spin artists create and provide more illusion than most even partially comprehend.

Buickman

[Dragon]

I dont get why that would mean they are going to close the brands. That just tells me the same thing GM has been saying for years, that they wont be full brands, and will be more focused. Like Pontiac not having a minivan.

179358[/snapback]

or a little FWD econobox

[76ChevyTrucker]

I wouldn't mind seeing Pontiac and Buick both getting scaled back some. Chevrolet is the "bread and butter" of GM, so let them have the lion's share of vehicles. Pontiac should focus on high-performance vehicles, both sedans and coupes, with convertible versions if possible. Buick should get upscale cars and SUV's, something to fight off the likes of Infinity and Lexus, whilst leaving Porshe, MB and BMW on Cadillac's plate to eat.

[91z4me]

Consider that perhaps the greatest automobile buying demographic (baby boomers) were allowed to move through the Buick segment as it was starved of product and exemplified by assinine marketing. Ponder the thought of a successful division retaining and even winning these potential customer dollars, then you'll likely realize the utter, complete, and unaccounted for failure by GM management. Still, their legions of lawyers, accountants, and spin artists create and provide more illusion than most even partially comprehend.

Buickman

179382[/snapback]

Wait...wasn't it you that said that your plan could remedy GMs problems reguardless of product? Who said the Park Ave and Lesabre were fine the way they were?

[Guest buickman]

Wait...wasn't it you that said that your plan could remedy GMs problems reguardless of product?  Who said the Park Ave and Lesabre were fine the way they were?

179645[/snapback]

Actually, I said Return to Greatness would increase sales while lowering costs. Never did I claim that product was irrelevant. The point is that GM unwisely invested in failed joint ventures and alliances, simultaneously ignoring the long standing divisions who were left to basically survive with outdated and badge engineered vehicles. The Plan simply would replace ineffective, distress marketing with successful initiatives, in turn leading to improved profitability.

Buickman

[91z4me]

Actually, I said Return to Greatness would increase sales while lowering costs. Never did I claim that product was irrelevant. The point is that GM unwisely invested in failed joint ventures and alliances, simultaneously ignoring the long standing divisions who were left to basically survive with outdated and badge engineered vehicles. The Plan simply would replace ineffective, distress marketing with successful initiatives, in turn leading to improved profitability.

Buickman

179706[/snapback]

The vehicles weren't ignored, the managment made decisions based upon putting funding to use in the most profitable areas,SUVs and trucks. At the time it was a wise investment. The lower qualities of interior materials and re-badging were cost saving measures that were instituted to provide some sort of product for the divisions to sell. Otherwise there would have been a Chevy of each model line and that would have been it. But badge engineering hasn't been a problem of GMs since about the mid 90s on. The Trucks and SUVs are the only badge engineered vehicles, GMT400/GMT360s, S-series, GMT355s. The cars were all a little different from each other, except the Century/Regal which was more like to 2 different trim lines than different models. You may say it was unwise to invest top heavy into SUVs now but at the time I am sure that, like most dealers, you would liked to have had a couple of high margin, high cost SUVs on your lots to sell. Hindsight is 20/20, think what it was like at the time.

[Guest buickman]

Buick has dropped 25-30% almost every year. We received Rendezvous (Aztek), Rainier (Trailblazer), and Terraza (Venture) while losing our best products. LeSabre was the best selling, highest quality car in America, so they quit making it. That makes any kind of sense? The marketing initiatives couldn't be any worse. I like Tiger but he has no business as Buick's spokesman, wrong demographic. He should have been signed to Pontiac. Corporate changes the slogan on a regular basis resulting in confusion. Our last General Manager, John Larson, knows virtually nothing about cars or retail and only got the job because his father in law is Bill Hoglund. No surprise, JT Battenberg's father in law was Tom Murphy. At times it seems GM isn't run by any standard of accomplishment other than birthright or marriage.

GM has done a fine job shrinking Buick. The dealers are almost completely alienated. Here's an example email received yesterday at GeneralWatch.com...

"I will be voluntarily terminating my Buick franchise after 46 years because I suspect this is a valid report of yours. What else do you know about Buick's situation? Future? Selling only 3 models in the future is not viable."

I have one thing to say to Mr LaNaive..."Channel This"

Buickman

Edited August 13, 2006 by buickman

[Flybrian]

Buick has dropped 25-30% almost every year. We received Rendezvous (Aztek), Rainier (Trailblazer), and Terraza (Venture) while losing our best products.

Rendezvous nearly dominated the premium midsize crossover segement for years and brought down your average buyer age like no other model, even the Regal GS.

LeSabre was the best selling, highest quality car in America, so they quit making it. That makes any kind of sense?

I will agree in GM's piss-poor Lucerne rollout. Leaving dealers with nothing but the most undesireable 'value edition' trims of their best-selling product with its replacement still months away was simply idiotic. However, the Lucerne is doing very well in sales; adjust for massive fleet dumps of the 2005 LeSabre, and the numbers are rather impressive, especially considering the hightened focus on well-optioned Lucernes versus LeSabre Customs.

The marketing initiatives couldn't be any worse. I like Tiger but he has no business as Buick's spokesman, wrong demographic. He should have been signed to Pontiac. Corporate changes the slogan on a regular basis resulting in confusion. Our last General Manager, John Larson, knows virtually nothing about cars or retail and only got the job because his father in law is Bill Hoglund. No surprise, JT Battenberg's father in law was Tom Murphy. At times it seems GM isn't run by any standard of accomplishment other than birthright or marriage.

Agreed about the advertising sentiments, though Tiger Woods and golf go hand-in-hand. Use it, exploit it, love it.

GM has done a fine job shrinking Buick. The dealers are almost completely alienated. Here's an example email received yesterday at GeneralWatch.com...

"I will be voluntarily terminating my Buick franchise after 46 years because I suspect this is a valid report of yours.  What else do you know about Buick's situation?  Future?  Selling only 3 models in the future is not viable."

I have one thing to say to Mr LaNaive..."Channel This"

Buickman

179747[/snapback]

I would hate to believe that e-mail is factual because there is still plenty in store for Buick in future, your report notwithstanding. I would hope you replied to that franchisee telling him to keep his head high, believe in the product he's selling, believe in the Spirit of Buick, and use what collective pull the retailers have to persuade GM that Buick can pay dividends similar to those reaped from Cadillac's revitalization instead of giving up and kowtowing to this doomsday ideal.

[Guest buickman]

It's true that Rendezvous has sold well, but only because of cheap leases. It is a Mexican made motor vehicle with a fancy French name, looks like an import, and was promoted as "The Spirit of American Style". This is far from a classic example of effective marketing. The vehicle did however bring a new class of customer to Buick. Trouble is they will now be left behind, as were previous Buick loyalists (see 4/01 when Park Avenue lease supports were pulled as the spring market began) when GM abandons this category for the more upscale and expensive Enclave. Tens of thousands of Rendezvous lessees will be left to scramble for a replacement within their budget.

Buick once sold 800,000 units in a year, now we are diminishing rapidly toward 100,000. Olds was similarly taken apart from 1,000,000 to ZERO. No one is that sequentially stupid. Wagoner and Company know exactly what they are doing, which is why he continues to have the support of the Board of Bystanders. Most Directors are also members of investment banks, including Morgan, Deutsche, Goldman Sachs, and of course the infamous Merrill Lynch. Ask yourself why these large insititutions have kept their stock as it lost $50 Billion in value, and backed "Red Ink Rick"? They have, and are, bleeding the Corporation of untold Billions in investment banking fees and shenanigans like Fiat. Meanwhile management has continued down their chosen path toward eventually owning distribution of offshore production.

Now suppose this Grand Plan of "Rickin' Little" (Blue Sky HAS fallen) had been conceived from the womb like Dell. It wouldn't be so bad having not had to lie to shareholders, dealers, customers, employees, and retirees. If communities across the land hadn't become so intimately intertwined with the prosperity of GM's American operations perhaps Wagoner's desired business model would be of benefit. Since that is not the case, and since he has LIED about his direction, goals, and purpose, it's well past time he be removed from his position and placed before a Grand Jury.

Buickman

Edited August 13, 2006 by buickman

[Flybrian]

It's true that Rendezvous has sold well, but only because of cheap leases. It is a Mexican made motor vehicle with a fancy French name, looks like an import, and was promoted as "The Spirit of American Style". This is far from a classic example of effective marketing.

179773[/snapback]

If you don't personally like the Rendezvous, just say so. Your blasts against it fall flat. What about that snooty Rolls-inspired, French-named coupe that became legendary? Or Canadian-made Centuries that somehow dominated the midsize quality rankings? Foreign-named Electras, Invictas, and the French-themed LeSabre? What about the 1991 Park Avenue being dubbed an "American Jaguar?"

Must also be lousy marketing...

[Guest buickman]

Personally, I have made a lot of money selling Rendezvous. With the 7 passenger seating I have had roughly 35 of them as a demo due to my many children. Still the example holds of the basic error in marketing. It should have been an import fighter for Olds while Buick maintained it's heritage of substantial, powerful, mature, and distinctive American automobiles.

There's nothing wrong with the name Rendezvous. In fact, I would have attempted to sign Bruce Springsteen to use his concert song of the same name to promote the vehicle. The difference is that it was a combination of errors and should not have been in the Buick lineup to begin with. LeSabre, Electra, and others in Buick history did have French names (many due to the great stylist Henry Lauve), but the vehicles themselves looked like they were "Born in the USA".

Buickman

Edited August 13, 2006 by buickman

[Flybrian]

Personally, I have made a lot of money selling Rendezvous. With the 7 passenger seating I have had roughly 35 of them as a demo due to my many children. Still the example holds of the basic error in marketing. It should have been an import fighter for Olds while Buick maintained it's heritage of substantial, powerful, mature, and distinctive American automobiles.

Given what they had to work with, it was very well-executed with traditional Buick styling cues. Keep in mind, the entire crossover segement is foreign by its very nature. The Americanization of it thanks to Buick worked out pretty well; I'd consider it a home run - again - considering what it was built off of and what was under the hood.

There's nothing wrong with the name Rendezvous. In fact, I would have attempted to sign Bruce Springsteen to use his concert song of the same name to promote the vehicle. The difference is that it was a combination of errors and should not have been in the Buick lineup to begin with. LeSabre, Electra, and others in Buick history did have French names (many due to the great stylist Henry Lauve), but the vehicles themselves looked like they were "Born in the USA".

Buickman

179811[/snapback]

Old's certainly would've received a production Recon or Profile, with their more modern looks, if Olds had remained around. On one hand, you complain Buick is starved for relevant, well-executed product that will sell itself, yet you judge the one relevant, well-executed Buick as of late as being a "combination of errors." You attested yourself how many you got off the lots.

Fine. Let's go back to late-2000 and shelve the Rendezvous. Kiss 50-70k sales a year good-bye. Kiss the lowered demographics good-bye. Maybe kiss Buick good-bye? Like it or not, its a vehicle that carried Buick through some doldrum years.

If outselling the brand-new Acura MDX every other month and coming extrodinarily close to beating out the 4-year-established RX300 is an "error," maybe Buick needs more similar 'poor decisions.'

And as far as the Enclave goes, the Rainier (as much of a hackjob as it is) shows that people are willing to pony up over $30k for a Buick utility, even one that's not very good. The Rendezvous shows Buick has a customer base for a 7-seater. Enclave will sell itself on its luxury, its value, and its handsome American good looks.

[Guest buickman]

Your points are well taken, but my issue is not what was but rather what could have been. Buick never would have moved Rendezvous's without the cheap lease, and I contend that the company made no money when consideration is given to the losses incurred by GM at maturity. Next watch what happens when this vehicle is shelved and the replacement is many thousands more expensive forcing buyers to flock elsewhere in search of "the Deal". Loyalty is one thing, affordability another.

Now I will tell you that I think the Enclave looks dynamite and will probably fly off the lots. The trouble I foresee is that our many Rendezvous customers will switch brands and we will lose that hard earned business. I sometimes wonder why they don't continue Rendezvous while adding Enclave? The vehicles are manufactured in different plants. This scenario would give Buick stores a fighting chance with two crossovers which are steadily gaining in popularity.

Buickman

Edited August 13, 2006 by buickman

[Flybrian]

A Theta Rendezvous may not be a bad idea and I know quite a few advocate a nice, luxurious version for that reason.

However, there is a gulf between 'price' and 'value.' My question to you is - would you rather see Buick reduce volume and increase profitability by selling vehicles that are a good 'value', or simply continue offering the best 'price' with a bloated lineup of rebadges as it has at different points in the past?

I think Buick would have a lot more respect with a tighter lineup of truly fantastic cars, ditto with Pontiac. GMC is there to provide the financial float to pay for the initital cost of these better cars and combined, the three make a complete lineup. That is the logic I see behind the quoted material in your original post.

I know from an enthusiast's point of view - despite having 8-10+ carlines in the past - I'd much rather have the choice of three Oldsmobile models than none at all.

[razoredge]

I cant see how anyone could not see that Buick has been sent to the desert, starved, castrated and left to limp back home on its own.

I cant see how anyone could not see unbalanced priorities in allocating R&D funding.

I dont know the details like so many others do but just whats on the surface makes the whole thing so obvious.

saturin had sales barely above Olds when they shut the door on the investment they made in Olds........brilliant

Chevy and Pontiac midsize car was getting real poor performance and not so great reliability in powerplants, until they recieved the engine designed by Buick which sold well and made lots of money for large BOP cars.

Cadillac was flat on its face got some real bad rep in powerplants, but yet got billions to "reposition" itself in an area it was never positioned in and the results have been touted as positive but the volumn of new and old (90's) Cadillacs I can visually see are still far less than Oldsmobiles or Buicks. I think the New Cadillac = success is just spin, Im just not seeing all these new A&S cars on the road. The older Sevilles, Eldorados and Devilles were plentiful (by comparision) in the late 90's

Now it seems we have heard all the crying about the 3.8 still being around in Buicks and how the 3.6 was the answer but its only available in one Buick and thats the highest trim option on a model that didnt really take off. Yet I keep hearing about how all these other brands and their models are going to recieve this "must have" GM engine............

BTW where is this damn engine ? Reserved for Caddy's and Saab's but holdin at Holden ?

The way I see it is GM has only thrown Buick a little bone now and again. Well if thats not a long term plan of destruction. It is a plan to just water weekly and save the fertilizer for others. Others that we know did not get the job done in the 80's & 90's while Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac did.

Man I hate saturin...............such a farce, such a stupid "division" such a stupid name

[fbodfather]

Consider that perhaps the greatest automobile buying demographic (baby boomers) were allowed to move through the Buick segment as it was starved of product and exemplified by assinine marketing. Ponder the thought of a successful division retaining and even winning these potential customer dollars, then you'll likely realize the utter, complete, and unaccounted for failure by GM management. Still, their legions of lawyers, accountants, and spin artists create and provide more illusion than most even partially comprehend.

Buickman

179382[/snapback]

This tells me you don't understand what's happened within the auto industry ...and how the playing field is NOT level.

Plymouth is gone.

Ford is struggling.......

........GM has more Divisions than any manufacturer........

.................any idea of what a new entry costs????

Don't mean to bash -- but being that you're bashing.................

[fbodfather]

It's true that Rendezvous has sold well, but only because of cheap leases. It is a Mexican made motor vehicle with a fancy French name, looks like an import, and was promoted as "The Spirit of American Style". This is far from a classic example of effective marketing. The vehicle did however bring a new class of customer to Buick. Trouble is they will now be left behind, as were previous Buick loyalists (see 4/01 when Park Avenue lease supports were pulled as the spring market began) when GM abandons this category for the more upscale and expensive Enclave. Tens of thousands of Rendezvous lessees will be left to scramble for a replacement within their budget.

Buick once sold 800,000 units in a year, now we are diminishing rapidly toward 100,000. Olds was similarly taken apart from 1,000,000 to ZERO. No one is that sequentially stupid. Wagoner and Company know exactly what they are doing, which is why he continues to have the support of the Board of Bystanders. Most Directors are also members of investment banks, including Morgan, Deutsche, Goldman Sachs, and of course the infamous Merrill Lynch. Ask yourself why these large insititutions have kept their stock as it lost $50 Billion in value, and backed "Red Ink Rick"? They have, and are, bleeding the Corporation of untold Billions in investment banking fees and shenanigans like Fiat. Meanwhile management has continued down their chosen path toward eventually owning distribution of offshore production.

Now suppose this Grand Plan of "Rickin' Little" (Blue Sky HAS fallen) had been conceived from the womb like Dell. It wouldn't be so bad having not had to lie to shareholders, dealers, customers, employees, and retirees. If communities across the land hadn't become so intimately intertwined with the prosperity of GM's American operations perhaps Wagoner's desired business model would be of benefit. Since that is not the case, and since he has LIED about his direction, goals, and purpose, it's well past time he be removed from his position and placed before a Grand Jury.

Buickman

179773[/snapback]

OK.....now I'm more convinced than ever that you've completely lost it and need professional help. And no, I'm not being facetious.

There is soooooo much wrong with this post I don't even know where to start.

(and you are reduced to further name-calling? 'Ricken Little???')

[Petra]

Your points are well taken, but my issue is not what was but rather what could have been. Buick never would have moved Rendezvous's without the cheap lease, and I contend that the company made no money when consideration is given to the losses incurred by GM at maturity.

179815[/snapback]

The Rendezvous wasn't exactly an expensive vehicle to design in the first place. It was basically a re-skin of the Aztek, which itself was based on GM's minivan platform, which, furthermore, was already at least 5 years old by the time the Rendezvous came out. GM might not have amde much money leasing the Rendezvous, but they didn't have much money invested into it to lose, anyway.

I, too, look forward to seeing a Buick lineup that, while selling a lower number of vehicles, has a more concentrated and solid portfolio of products. Hate to break it to some of you, but it is quite clear that the days of Buick selling 500,000 cars a year are long gone. Why, then, should GM continue to build hundreds of thousands of cars that nobody wants, and then have to sell them at a loss to fleets, or using heavy discounts to lure in buyers? It makes far more sense to build 100,000 cars that the public will actually buy and that will sell at a profit. In fact, GM should have made the move to consolidate Buick, GM & Pontac 10 or 15 years ago.