Eight-Brand Pileup Dents GM's Turnaround Efforts - WSJ

[buyacargetacheck]

Given that the Opel-Saturn thing isn't working as planned why not have Saturn take over the G6's new fleet queen role? Saturn could be GM's mostly fleet (75%?) brand to protect the Chevy and Buick resale values, image. Saturn has a weak image and the image that it has is "budget." Pontiac could be freed to offer 2 cars: the Solstice and G8. Maybe a Kappa based sport sedan later. The Sky gets axed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1204568746...=googlenews_wsj

Eight-Brand Pileup Dents

GM's Turnaround Efforts

By JOHN D. STOLL

March 4, 2008; Page B1

Michael Maguire has mixed feelings about General Motors Corp.'s coming launch of the Chevrolet Traverse, a seven-passenger crossover wagon that promises to boost sales at his family's Chevy dealership along Route 206 in Bordentown, N.J...

[gmpartsgirl]

That's what we've all been bitching about at work for the last ten years. This multiple nameplates on the same damn car is ridiculous and it's killing GM. We don't need 4-5 Trailblazers, it's stupid. Lose GMC, keep Caddy for luxury, Pontiac for sporty, Chevy for affordability. That would be the ideal, of course I know they have to keep Buick, I guess primarily because it seems to be selling so well in China. I guess it could fill the gap between Chevy and Caddy. Stop duplicating. We don't need 3-4 W-bodies, yada, yada, yada. Streamline man, for the love of GOD!!! We all kind of speculated for a while when they first started using the little GM badge on all the new cars that maybe that is what the future held, all under one nameplate(GM), but each keep their own look, like Caddy and Pontiac, etc. It would be major restructuring and would piss a lot of people off, but something has got to give. They can't let the damn Camry beat out all 4 of their competing brands. If they could put that much effort into just 1 of those 4, we'd kick everybodies ass!!!

[regfootball]

how bout simply, f-ck off wall street journal?

my email to the writer, below

does the media really need another 'gm has too many brands' article?

a-the story has been done already and everyone is bored with it

b-it would cost gm a buttpile of money to kill any more brands and they would not retain the market share

c-wall street doesn't know squat about cars anyways

d-GM is building some very good cars (the recently new ones) and has very targeted advertising for each model, even if they are not blowing big wads of cash on annoying, pompous, penis wagging ads like toyota is. Let the cars gain some ground in the marketplace, please. The g8, CTS, Malibu, Lambda CUV's, all great products. The Traverse will be a huge seller and expand GM's CUV share considerably.

e-GM has all these brands worldwide, going global it hurts no one to leverage them here as well. Would you tell P&G to kill off a bunch of its home products brands?

Can we please have articles that are ORIGINAL? thanks

Edited March 5, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

how bout simply, f-ck off wall street journal?

The guy makes a very salient and relevant point in today's marketplace.......

Something I've been about on this site for a long, long time.

Too many divisions......too many models.

[regfootball]

people seem to not get that the outlook will have been on the market 2 years before the traverse hits, and the outlook will likely be phased out for a smaller x-over. in the meantime, these 2 years, it has helped saturn fill out an all new lineup and redefine the brand. the outlook is a transitional product, the chevy is meant for long term volume, which is why it gets its own plant.

the astra will only be here for 2 years and change too, why stop with the outlook? we don't need the astra here!

bottom line, another worthless article that has already been done. GM already has 8 brands, i'll just say, why do we need another article about the same old $h!? seems a lot more redundant to fill paper and write the 57th article about the same old thing than it does to try to market 8 brands of cars.

its the same $h!. he is ripping GM for creating excess product, he is doing the same thing. another article about something we have already read 100 times over. it's classic pot calling the kettle black. put your fricking writing skills to work (assuming he has any) writing about some insight into something we haven't heard before or something that breaks new ground or new ideas?

for example, how about an article about posche buying VW and if VW Americanizing its lineup is good for the brand? Or, how about an article about toyota's fleet dumping, or huge incentives on the turd, or how scion is a worthless dud? How about an article about 'will Buick's resurgence in China benefit the brand in the US?' or why do less than 50% of BMW's sell with A/C or why do they have vinyl seats and still are considered a luxury product here? Why does Acura exist?

Edited March 5, 2008 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

or why do less than 50% of BMW's sell with A/C

That has to be a PFA...in the US I would expect BMWs to be 100% with A/C.... I'm amazed there are still any cars sold in the US w/o A/C...

[regfootball]

no its like in Europe or worldwide or something. in the US 100% a/c but that is a perfect example of perception. elsewhere, in many parts, BMW's are workaday $h!boxes like everything else. notice there are also no 4 cyl BMW's here too

[The O.C.]

for example, how about an article about posche buying VW and if VW Americanizing its lineup is good for the brand? Or, how about an article about toyota's fleet dumping, or huge incentives on the turd, or how scion is a worthless dud? How about an article about 'will Buick's resurgence in China benefit the brand in the US?' or why do less than 50% of BMW's sell with A/C or why do they have vinyl seats and still are considered a luxury product here? Why does Acura exist?

WTF...?

Toyota's "fleet dumping?" Scion a "worthless dud?" BMW's selliing "without A/C?" Why does "Acura exist?"

Man lay off the sauce.....it's too early in the evening......

[The O.C.]

no its like in Europe or worldwide or something. in the US 100% a/c but that is a perfect example of perception. elsewhere, in many parts, BMW's are workaday $h!boxes like everything else. notice there are also no 4 cyl BMW's here too

No diesels either.....

[Intrepidation]

Reg, if you get a reply please post it!

[regfootball]

hertz is one big toyo customer.....camrys and corollas and ravs a plenty at hertz and others these days

scion was supposed to not be a geriatric brand. no reason their products couldnt simply be branded as toyotas.

acura-level of interest in acura cars keeps declining like its sales. tarted up hondas, why not get rid of that brand?

there are parts of the world where yes BMW does not sell 50% of its cars with A/C. hardly what i call luxury.

[Robert Hall]

hertz is one big toyo customer.....camrys and corollas and ravs a plenty at hertz and others these days

scion was supposed to not be a geriatric brand. no reason their products couldnt simply be branded as toyotas.

acura-level of interest in acura cars keeps declining like its sales. tarted up hondas, why not get rid of that brand?

there are parts of the world where yes BMW does not sell 50% of its cars with A/C. hardly what i call luxury.

The article and thread were about the US market...so what if BMW sells cars outside the US w/o A/C? Irrelevant..

[regfootball]

no, it is relevant. because its about perception.

some think BMW is luxury. some do not. some think GM brands are not unique enough. Others disagree.

[Robert Hall]

no, it is relevant. because its about perception.

some think BMW is luxury. some do not. some think GM brands are not unique enough. Others disagree.

Well, BMW is RWD and driver focused...that alone gives it premium status. GM has too many overlapping FWD models.

[buyacargetacheck]

Why the defensiveness about a corporation and its (failing) strategy? You talk like GM is your mother or something. They're just brands. They're just cars. Saturn and Pontiac and Buick and Chevrolet don't/can't/will never love you back.

Really, is it so outlandish to think that GM's branding strategy might be a factor in why it continues to lose market share and money? P&G (and most other successful companies) would have done something by now. That's why these P&G brands no longer exist: White Cloud, Banner, Bold, Citrus Hill, Dash, Duz, Encaprin, High Point, Monchelle, Pace, SELF, Puritan, Rely, Salvo, Thrill, and Wondra.

[The O.C.]

no, it is relevant. because its about perception.

some think BMW is luxury. some do not. some think GM brands are not unique enough. Others disagree.

BMW is considered an "A-tier" luxury brand in Europe (along with Mercedes-Benz) and certainly is here too.

What we consider as "luxury" here isn't necessarily the same world-wide......many in Europe would laugh at the contention that Buick, or Lincoln, or even Cadillac were to be considered a "luxury" brand.

AND....for the record, according to BMW UK, even the barest-bones 3-series has A/C standard. The cheapo 1-series models have it optional, but anyone that knows the European market knows that that's not surprising for their market.

[The O.C.]

hertz is one big toyo customer.....camrys and corollas and ravs a plenty at hertz and others these days

scion was supposed to not be a geriatric brand. no reason their products couldnt simply be branded as toyotas.

acura-level of interest in acura cars keeps declining like its sales. tarted up hondas, why not get rid of that brand?

there are parts of the world where yes BMW does not sell 50% of its cars with A/C. hardly what i call luxury.

Like it or not, last time I saw retail-versus-fleet percentages, Toyota, even the Camry and Corolla, sell a fraction of the number of fleet cars GM (and Ford and Chrysler) do. So let's talk apples-to-apples....not spurt eroneous opinions blurted out like "facts."

Not that this is a "defend Toyota" post.....but Scion has worked. How long did it take Saturn to reach the same kind of sales figures? Who cares how old the people are....if people are buying them.

"Tarted-up Hondas?" Why not "get rid of that brand?" Gee Reg....could use the same argument with GMC. "Tarted up Chevy Trucks." Or with Pontiac. Or with Buick. Or with Saturn. Or with.....<ugh>

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, BMW is RWD and driver focused...that alone gives it premium status. GM has too many overlapping FWD models.

Three questions:

1. What cars aren't driver focused?

2. Does RWD give the Charger premium status?

3. Are overlapping RWD models ok?

[Robert Hall]

Three questions:

1. What cars aren't driver focused?

2. Does RWD give the Charger premium status?

3. Are overlapping RWD models ok?

You know what I mean...BMW's are serious driver's cars..not point A to point B appliances...

[Robert Hall]

Like it or not, last time I saw retail-versus-fleet percentages, Toyota, even the Camry and Corolla, sell a fraction of the number of fleet cars GM (and Ford and Chrysler) do. So let's talk apples-to-apples....not spurt eroneous opinions blurted out like "facts."

Not that this is a "defend Toyota" post.....but Scion has worked. How long did it take Saturn to reach the same kind of sales figures? Who cares how old the people are....if people are buying them.

"Tarted-up Hondas?" Why not "get rid of that brand?" Gee Reg....could use the same argument with GMC. "Tarted up Chevy Trucks." Or with Pontiac. Or with Buick. Or with Saturn. Or with.....<ugh>

Reg is full of it...may as well ignore his blatherings..

[Drew Dowdell]

You know what I mean...BMW's are serious driver's cars..not point A to point B appliances...

For 95% of drivers.... they're appliances.

I've never tasted BMWaid.... what's it like?

[Robert Hall]

For 95% of drivers.... they're appliances.

I've never tasted BMWaid.... what's it like?

BMW's drive a specific way that mass market models don't...they handle better, accelerate better, stop better,..the whole package is all about the pure joy of driving..

It's something that has to be experienced, can't easily be explained with statistics....

Edited March 5, 2008 by moltar

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The idea that GMC should be killed off is preposterous. GMC is essentially just another level of trims of chevy models. You know, new grill, some extra badges... more std equipment... it doesnt exactly cost GM much money to have GMC hang around, and it brings in some decent profit.

Plus there are people who would buy a GMC but would never buy a chevy and visa versa. So whats the idea behind killing GMC?

[Robert Hall]

The idea that GMC should be killed off is preposterous. GMC is essentially just another level of trims of chevy models. You know, new grill, some extra badges... more std equipment... it doesnt exactly cost GM much money to have GMC hang around, and it brings in some decent profit.

Plus there are people who would buy a GMC but would never buy a chevy and visa versa. So whats the idea behind killing GMC?

Also, GMC is becoming more differentiated from Chevy, with the Acadia and upcoming Torrent replacement.

And there is the dealer structure also... I can't see BPG dealers letting GMC go...but poor Pontiac?

Edited March 5, 2008 by moltar

[Oracle of Delphi]

Hmmmm, I could say something that would turn your hair gray. However, CPF is wearing purple ties for me, so I won't.

[Robert Hall]

Hmmmm, I could say something that would turn your hair gray. However, CPF is wearing purple ties for me, so I won't.

Unfortunately, when I grow my winter hair out, it's partially gray in the sideburns... looking forward to spring to shave my head again..

[Oracle of Delphi]

Unfortunately, when I grow my winter hair out, it's partially gray in the sideburns... looking forward to spring to shave my head again..

I feel your pain, I found a gray chest hair! :AH-HA_wink:

[The O.C.]

Also, GMC is becoming more differentiated from Chevy, with the Acadia and upcoming Torrent replacement.

And there is the dealer structure also... I can't see BPG dealers letting GMC go...but poor Pontiac?

Well, I didn't intend this to be a "Drop GMC" debate......but with the addition of the Traverse.....Acadia is more-and-more redundant.

[The O.C.]

I've never tasted BMWaid.... what's it like?

Hence your ignorance (in the nicest way, but lack of a better word) about the brand.

I too didn't "get it" before I bought (OK leased) my first BMW.....but now I do.

There's something about the whole product.....the way it drives, feels, performs, sounds. It's like nothing else out there.

Now if you are someone that is devoted to, let's say, old-school domestic-car values like cushy suspensions, tuffeted velour seats, and chrome rocker panels.......you may not "get it" with the BMW.

But those TRUE fans of "cushy suspensions, tuffeted velour seats, and chrome rocker panels" are a dying breed. That's why you see GM introduce a new-gen CTS that tries to mimic more-and-more of the driving feel of that BMW brand.....as opposed to going the opposite way....

It's like why the CTS is getting all the "headlines" and not the DTS......

[VenSeattle]

Oooooookkkkkaaaaayyyyyyy...... back to the article....

Last year GM introduced three -- the Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia, which are all but identical, and the more luxurious Buick Enclave. The Acadia and Enclave were hits but Outlook sales have been less than GM had hoped.

I'm going to be a little bitchy and rant some...

I think it's interesting to point out they state the two Lambda vehicles that are hits share the same showroom floor. One would think that if GM's problems with new models were with platform sharing/rebadging, that the Acadia/Enclave would be showing signs of cannibalism. The important difference is that the Acadia & Enclave are very brand focused and deliver a different package attracting different buyers. Chevrolet won't have a problem moving product either.

I'd venture to say that both Saturn and SAAB's problem is probably the opposite of what the article suggests. They don't suffer from internal cross-shopping. They suffer from the lack of it.

If more Buick-Pontiac-GMC owners considered SAAB a GM product, and possibly a step up, that would give SAAB a HUGE potential buyers base WITHOUT marketing. Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, GMC buyers already know Cadillac is the holy grail of GM. None seem to consider SAAB when they're thinking about moving up.

Now, I like SAAB. It has a lot of potential that GM hasn't cashed in on. However, GM needs to be serious and look at what "SAABness" is and quit being stupid about updating the brand. One example is the "key-in-console" issue. YES - SAABs have this, but why? The original reason was because SAAB determined the key protruding from the dash could actually injure the driver in a car accident. GUESS WHAT? GM now has push-button start!!!! Modern technology that actually eliminates the same potential threat that forced SAAB to move the key ignition. So what should GM do now that the world has caught up to SAAB? Give SAAB drivers the modern convenience of keyless go/push button start.

Born from Jets is fine as a slogan since it actually establishes history in a single comment. How relevant it is doesn't matter as much as the "perception that it creates." It's a positive enough impression to encourage someone to look a little deeper to see why.

The 2008 styling updates for SAAB are very good and I look forward to seeing them evolve on modern platforms in the coming replacements for the 9-1, 9-3, & 9-5... along with the new 9-4x.

SAAB does need more marketing dollars, but not until the new products arrive. Then, I think, sales will explode.

----

Saturn isn't "upscale enough" for Chevrolet buyers to view it as a step up. Now that Chevrolet will be GM's "Green" Global Environmental leader, there's no reason for Chevrolet buyers to move to Saturn for the "Greenline" versions either.

Most Pontiacs & Buicks are more expensive than their Saturn counterparts. Even the G6 can go over $30k in certain trim levels and body styles. Why would someone consider Saturn unless they're stepping down? Besides, if they already lean towards sport, they have Pontiac in the showroom. If they want something more upscale, they have Buick in the showroom. There are no vehicles at Saturn that would gain the attention of GMC owners.

But... to be fair, Saturn's product is sound. The product is actually great and competitive in each of their markets. Sure the Greenline isn't as great as the Camry Hybrid, but look at how many competitors that don't offer a hybrid AT ALL??? The Outlook is top of its class against the non-GM competition and has no disadvantages when you compare it to other GM Lambdas. The new VUE is an attractive, upscale appearing, well built CUV......So what's wrong? This is truly a brand that suffers from a lack of reason to support its existence.... not that a reason doesn't exist (now, anyhow.)

It has the "foundation" for a great brand:

1) Controlled and consistent ownership experience through a dedicated sales channel that provides a brand endorsed experience and accommodations

2) Easily identifiable "Brand Building" trim levels such as 'Green Line' and 'Red Line'

3) Cohesive design language

4) Competitive pricing

Problems with the above:

1) Sales channel too small. The "buyer & ownership" experience may be warm and fuzzy, but it's not premium compared to the 'mainstream' competition. There's no 'ownership envy' from drivers of other brands that pull them to upgrade towards a brand like Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes.

2) Green Line & Red Line trims are probably the smartest marketing idea that came out of Saturn . However, the execution has been horrible.

Green Line - Mild Hybrids on only; only two Green Lines available... doesn't Saturn sell 5 cars? Where's the Outlook Greenline which debuted last year? Didn't Saturn plan a hybrid for one of its newest and largest vehicle ever if it's dedicated to the environment? Where's an attention grabbing 50mpg Green Line Sky roadster? Or a Green Line Astra? Saturn's response: We have a Trim called Green Line?

Red Line - Once again MIA on most new models after launching the trim a few years ago. There's a Green Line Aura, but where’s a high-performance Red Line family hauler? Isn't this supposed to be Saturn's Flagship sedan? Astra and Outlook are the newest additions... No Red Line. Then there's the inconsistent message of the Red line. Sky gains 87 hp between the normal and Redline trims, but then VUE gains only 5hp. Whah????? Is the Redline only an Appearance package or is it a performance package? If it's only an appearance package, then why doesn't the Astra, Outlook and Aura have one already? If it's a performance package then why did the VUE only receive 5 extra HP???? Saturn's single voice response: Uhm... We're considering all options but can't decide. If we had customers, maybe they could tell us what to do. Would you like to be a customer?

3) Cohesive design is only skin deep. The interiors are neither cohesive or identifiably Saturn.

4) Fixed MSRP isn't the problem, but being excluded from GM Card, GMAC financing specials, etc really makes Saturn out to be an orphan among its corporate cousins. You'll slap a 'GM' mark of excellence on the car, but not take my GM card points? That keeps 20%-25% from considering the brand, and those people believe in GM with cold hard cash. We're not going to discuss the ones that have to be won over one at a time.

Then there's...

5) Rethink.... Uhm, thinking different is great for Saturn. When you finish making up your mind what you want to be, come up with a slogan that actually sends a message instead of telling the buyer to figure it out on their own.

Okay... outside of those issues, it could really become a stand-out brand for GM in the US. It could actually replace a couple of brands like Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Modern affordable upscale vehicles that have Spice and Responsibility.

[The O.C.]

Oooooookkkkkaaaaayyyyyyy...... back to the article....

I'm going to be a little bitchy and rant some...

I think it's interesting to point out they state the two Lambda vehicles that are hits share the same showroom floor. One would think that if GM's problems with new models were with platform sharing/rebadging, that the Acadia/Enclave would be showing signs of cannibalism. The important difference is that the Acadia & Enclave are very brand focused and deliver a different package attracting different buyers. Chevrolet won't have a problem moving product either.

I'd venture to say that both Saturn and SAAB's problem is probably the opposite of what the article suggests. They don't suffer from internal cross-shopping. They suffer from the lack of it.

If more Buick-Pontiac-GMC owners considered SAAB a GM product, and possibly a step up, that would give SAAB a HUGE potential buyers base WITHOUT marketing. Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, GMC buyers already know Cadillac is the holy grail of GM. None seem to consider SAAB when they're thinking about moving up.

Now, I like SAAB. It has a lot of potential that GM hasn't cashed in on. However, GM needs to be serious and look at what "SAABness" is and quit being stupid about updating the brand. One example is the "key-in-console" issue. YES - SAABs have this, but why? The original reason was because SAAB determined the key protruding from the dash could actually injure the driver in a car accident. GUESS WHAT? GM now has push-button start!!!! Modern technology that actually eliminates the same potential threat that forced SAAB to move the key ignition. So what should GM do now that the world has caught up to SAAB? Give SAAB drivers the modern convenience of keyless go/push button start.

Born from Jets is fine as a slogan since it actually establishes history in a single comment. How relevant it is doesn't matter as much as the "perception that it creates." It's a positive enough impression to encourage someone to look a little deeper to see why.

The 2008 styling updates for SAAB are very good and I look forward to seeing them evolve on modern platforms in the coming replacements for the 9-1, 9-3, & 9-5... along with the new 9-4x.

SAAB does need more marketing dollars, but not until the new products arrive. Then, I think, sales will explode.

----

Saturn isn't "upscale enough" for Chevrolet buyers to view it as a step up. Now that Chevrolet will be GM's "Green" Global Environmental leader, there's no reason for Chevrolet buyers to move to Saturn for the "Greenline" versions either.

Most Pontiacs & Buicks are more expensive than their Saturn counterparts. Even the G6 can go over $30k in certain trim levels and body styles. Why would someone consider Saturn unless they're stepping down? Besides, if they already lean towards sport, they have Pontiac in the showroom. If they want something more upscale, they have Buick in the showroom. There are no vehicles at Saturn that would gain the attention of GMC owners.

But... to be fair, Saturn's product is sound. The product is actually great and competitive in each of their markets. Sure the Greenline isn't as great as the Camry Hybrid, but look at how many competitors that don't offer a hybrid AT ALL??? The Outlook is top of its class against the non-GM competition and has no disadvantages when you compare it to other GM Lambdas. The new VUE is an attractive, upscale appearing, well built CUV......So what's wrong? This is truly a brand that suffers from a lack of reason to support its existence.... not that it doesn't exist (now, anyhow.)

It has the "foundation" for a great brand:

1) Controlled and consistent ownership experience through a dedicated sales channel that provides a brand endorsed experience and accommodations

2) Easily identifiable "Brand Building" trim levels such as 'Green Line' and 'Red Line'

3) Cohesive design language

4) Competitive pricing

Problems with the above:

1) Sales channel too small. The "buyer & ownership" experience may be warm and fuzzy, but it's not premium compared to the 'mainstream' competition. There's no 'ownership' envy by drivers of other brands that pulls them to upgrade towards a brand like Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes.

2) Green Line & Red Line trims are probably the smartest marketing idea that came out of Saturn and exclusive to the Saturn Brand. However, the execution has been horrible.

Green Line - Mild Hybrids on only; only two Green Lines available... doesn't Saturn sell 5 cars? Where's the Outlook Greenline which debuted last year? Didn't Saturn plan a hybrid for one of its newest and largest vehicle ever if it's dedicated to the environment? Where's an attention grabbing 50mpg Green Line Sky roadster? Or a Green Line Astra? Saturn's response: We have a Trim called Green Line?

Red Line - Once again MIA on most new models after launching the trim a few years ago. There's a Green Line Aura, but where’s a high-performance Red Line family hauler? Isn't this supposed to be Saturn's Flagship sedan? Astra and Outlook are the newest additions... No Red Line. Then there's the inconsistent message of the Red line. Sky gains 87 hp between the normal and Redline trims, but then VUE gains only 5hp. Whah????? Is the Redline only an Appearance package or is it a performance package? If it's only an appearance package, then why doesn't the Astra, Outlook and Aura have one already? If it's a performance package then why did the VUE only receive 5 extra HP???? Saturn's single voice response: Uhm... We're considering all options but can't decide. If we had customers, maybe they could tell us what to do. Would you like to be a customer?

3) Cohesive design is only skin deep. The interiors are neither cohesive or identifiably Saturn.

4) Fixed MSRP isn't the problem, but being excluded from GM Card, GMAC financing specials, etc really makes Saturn out to be an orphan among its corporate cousins. You'll slap a 'GM' mark of excellence on the car, but not take my GM card points? That keeps 20%-25% from considering the brand, and those people believe in GM with cold hard cash. We're not going to discuss the ones that have to be won over one at a time.

Then there's...

5) Rethink.... Uhm, thinking different is great for Saturn. When you finish making up your mind what you want to be, come up with a slogan that actually sends a message instead of telling the buyer to figure it out on their own.

Okay... outside of those issues, it could really become a stand-out brand for GM in the US. It could actually replace a couple of brands like Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Modern affordable upscale vehicles that have Spice and Responsibility.

I agree with most all of your post....which tells the story AGAIN.....

....that GM has way too many divisions and models.....

[regfootball]

only BMW can justify 40k+ price on subcompacts. not worth it, but if you got the money to burn i guess you will spend it if you have nothing else to spend it on. Seems silly when there are lots better places to spend or give one's dough.

i know quite a few folks who will buy GMC's but won't touch chevy. despite that there is not much difference. it's brand snobbery just like the asian luxury brands. that TSX is a nice honda. oops, it has to be an 'Acura' before i buy it. LOL.

a coworker just bought an aura, and already has a vue. think he'd buy a chevy? Um, no, scott. he's a saturn guy. think he's buy GM if they kill saturn? prob not. Killing olds did not preserve share.

i'd love a Pontiac G8. think I'd prefer to have a chevy badge, again, NO.

FIL wants a new car. MIL doesn't want a chevy. it will be pontiac or buick for them.

as long as all new products from GM continue to be excellent like we have been seeing lately, and the model count remains manageable, 8 brands is fine. unless y'all want to buy out the dealers and their franchise agreements. hummer and saab are simple niche brands anyways and BPG is one brand essentially. we have chevy, caddy, BPG, and Saturn. saab is like triumph or ducati motorcycles and hummer is like ktm or something.

doesn't pontiac sell more than chevy in Canada? think of our Canadian friends too, please.

instead of going to great efforts to kill our American brands, let's talk about how we can get rid of all those extra Asian brands instead. We don't need them. Let's kill Toyota, Subaru, Mits, Suzuki, Mazda, Scion, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. I don't need those brands clogging up the US landscape. the Germans and stuff already cover most luxo segments just fine and VW covers enough everyman segments. Nissan gets my exemption and honda does too, honda is more than just cars, even if their cars are bland suckage, they are not pompous bland suckage.

Edited March 5, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

only BMW can justify 40k+ price on subcompacts. not worth it, but if you got the money to burn i guess you will spend it if you have nothing else to spend it on. Seems silly when there are lots better places to spend or give one's dough.

i know quite a few folks who will buy GMC's but won't touch chevy. despite that there is not much difference. it's brand snobbery just like the asian luxury brands. that TSX is a nice honda. oops, it has to be an 'Acura' before i buy it. LOL.

a coworker just bought an aura, and already has a vue. think he'd buy a chevy? Um, no, scott.

i'd love a Pontiac G8. think I'd prefer to have a chevy badge, again, NO.

FIL wants a new car. MIL doesn't want a chevy. it will be pontiac or buick for them.

as long as all new products from GM continue to be excellent like we have been seeing lately, and the model count remains manageable, 8 brands is fine. unless y'all want to buy out the dealers and their franchise agreements.

doesn't pontiac sell more than chevy in Canada? think of our Canadian friends too, please.

Your presumption is that if a brand like GMC "magically" went away, that the business would leave GM and go to Ford, ChryCo, or the Imports.

My argument is that it wouldn't necessarily.

If your basic consumer is attracted to an Acadia, if that model is all-of-a-sudden not availabe, there's a great liklihood they'll go for an Enclave, Traverse, or Outlook. That's ONE example of my basic argument.

[regfootball]

Your presumption is that if a brand like GMC "magically" went away, that the business would leave GM and go to Ford, ChryCo, or the Imports.

My argument is that it wouldn't necessarily.

If your basic consumer is attracted to an Acadia, if that model is all-of-a-sudden not availabe, there's a great liklihood they'll go for an Enclave, Traverse, or Outlook. That's ONE example of my basic argument.

GMC buyer wants a tough truck brand.

they won't like a saturn. or a buick. and they don't want run of the mill chevy.

[The O.C.]

GMC buyer wants a tough truck brand.

they won't like a saturn. or a buick. and they don't want run of the mill chevy.

I'd venture quite highly that your argument is more conjecture and wishful thinking.

While assuredly there are some (emphasis on "some" not "most") consumers that may desire the "GMC" brand, I'd argue the vast majority of buyers are looking for "the deal" or convenience of purchase.

[regfootball]

i'll try to ask my boss. he is kind of a he man. i am sure he probably thought the enclave was too femmy. he probably would think the chevy was too soccer mom, and i doubt he'd want a 'saturn' over a tough guy GMC truck.

when the TB/Envoy came out, my buddy's boss specifically shopped for an envoy and hated the TB. He liked the GMC grille, and nicer interior, and GMC brand he felt was more upscale. Chevy's image will never contain the upscale component that GMC does. i.e. chevy will not be able to sell denali tahoes for example.

Edited March 5, 2008 by regfootball

[vonVeezelsnider]

The Way I see It...

Safe Brands:

Chevy

Buick

Cadillac

Opel

Merge:

Buick and GMC Divisions into one Buick-GMC division to conserve costs and make a larger talent and engineering pool.

Saturn into Opel- OUTLOOK is more redundant than Acadia, and that's the only distinct NA product... offer it as a Euro import VW esque franchise system with a BMW level of dealer distribution and for the love of god get rid of that pricing policy, it's nothing but an anchor.

Pontiac:

Let's see how it goes.

Saab:

Fix it or quit it. Could be sold alongside Opels at a GME Retailer (OOH, the Prestige)

[The O.C.]

i'll try to ask my boss. he is kind of a he man. i am sure he probably thought the enclave was too femmy. he probably would think the chevy was too soccer mom, and i doubt he'd want a 'saturn' over a tough guy GMC truck.

when the TB/Envoy came out, my buddy's boss specifically shopped for an envoy and hated the TB. He liked the GMC grille, and nicer interior, and GMC brand he felt was more upscale. Chevy's image will never contain the upscale component that GMC does. i.e. chevy will not be able to sell denali tahoes for example.

But you HAVE to admit....the differences between the brands are pretty minor....

It's not like Toyota's Highlander compared to Lexus' RX350......as one example.....

[ocnblu]

The money poured into Saturn has been a waste. The brand is now assimilated, which took away its unique selling point. This new image has been weakly crafted.

If each brand is truly focused on what we already perceive as their core value, they can survive.

SAAB will forever remain a fringe brand, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Spending huge amounts of money on SAAB here in the USA will bring diminished returns, as it has with Saturn.

Killing any more remaining brands will only increase GM's rate of decline. Snowball effect. Focus your brands and they have their sustainable niche. Killing brands will not grow the business. Too many Olds customers were lost forever. A repeat of this permanent loss of business will happen if another brand is killed.

[ZL-1]

I think we'll see something simple: Chevy at the bottom and Caddy at the top. Middle brands can be juggled with precedence for brands with global presence. Now... which global brands (or groupings of brands/badges) have global presence?

Edited March 5, 2008 by ZL-1

[RJB]

Well I will make a few short comments and leave most of the arguing to everyone else. I agree on most points that GM is reverting back to exactly what they wanted to eliminate, and that was too many duplicate products in the same market. It creates from my point of view too much infighting for sales which doesn't always equal sales for every vehicle. Look at what is happening with the Aura, sales are down 33% while the Malibu is a runaway hit. Why? They don't know how to balance all these similar vehicles. Most if not all of the ad dollars got dumped into the Malibu while the Aura is getting left behind. The Malibu and the Aura are very very similar cars to the point that most "average buyers" I've talked to can't tell the difference between the two of them when they see them on the road. It is only when they are side by side they can see the differences.

It is time to clean house again, I think. Each brand within GM has become - a me to me too, I want that to, we need that. It is sickening.

Edited March 5, 2008 by RJB

[enzl]

Well I will make a few short comments and leave most of the arguing to everyone else. I agree on most points that GM is reverting back to exactly what they wanted to eliminate, and that was too many duplicate products in the same market. It creates from my point of view too much infighting for sales which doesn't always equal sales for every vehicle. Look at what is happening with the Aura, sales are down 33% while the Malibu is a runaway hit. Why? They don't know how to balance all these similar vehicles. Most if not all of the ad dollars got dumped into the Malibu while the Aura is getting left behind. The Malibu and the Aura are very very similar cars to the point that most "average buyers" I've talked to can't tell the difference between the two of them when they see them on the road. It is only when they are side by side they can see the differences.

It is time to clean house again, I think. Each brand within GM has become - a me to me too, I want that to, we need that. It is sickening.

GM has no choice. There are 2 fundamental issues that come back to the same problem:

Too many dealers. (No $ to get rid of 'em.)

Not enough development time, effort and money to go around.

Both result in what you see. The 'bu is just the first in line. The Traverse will do the same in CUV's, and the pattern will repeat itself with the EpII and Delta.

GM is still half stuck in the 'packaged goods' theory of car building---and with Lutz not getting any younger, I'm not sure who will have the balls and the authority to get it done in the future.

[smk4565]

I read this article yesterday, I thought it was pretty accurate. GM has too many brands and too many models. They don't have enough money to develop vehicles for and advertise for all of them. One great product with a lot of advertising behind it will outsell 3 average ones with limited marketing.

There is no easy solution, but GM believing that in time it will work itself out is a poor strategy. While they are struggling to break even every year, Toyota is making over $15 billion annually. Over 10 years that leaves GM exactly where they are now, and Toyota with another $150 billion in the bank to develop new products like plug in hybrids and fuel cells, and money to advertise like crazy and drive other companies out of business.

I think Hummer and Saab should be first to go, they combined sold 5,000 cars last month. Starve those brands for product for 2 years then shut them both down. The tough call then becomes Buick, Pontiac, Saturn or GMC. They don't need all 4 of them.

[Robert Hall]

The Way I see It...

Merge:

Buick and GMC Divisions into one Buick-GMC division to conserve costs and make a larger talent and engineering pool.

Haven't they already done that with the current Pontiac-Buick-GMC division?

[Jazzhead]

I must be missing something, but I still see the value behind the original concept of separate "step-up" divisions. Take the same basic platform, and sell it in different guises to different demographics. It seems to me to be an efficient way to cover more of the market. Maybe it's obsolete today to have different dealerships for each brand, but GM's already taking care of this by combining Buicks, Pontiacs and GMCs at the same dealer in most areas.

But I assume it's not tremendously expense to produce four versions of the same crossover, that appear as different flavors for different groups of buyers. What's obsolete about the concept of diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks?

So long as combined sales are reaching their targets, what's wrong this business model? I assume that if they only sold one crossover, and sold it at Chevy dealers, then they'd have lower sales. But how much lower? Is the difference enough to justify the development/marketing costs of the different variants? Isn't the bottom line all about keeping plant capacity at its highest level? If all four variants are coming off the same line, then what's wrong with giving consumers more choice?

[The O.C.]

Killing any more remaining brands will only increase GM's rate of decline. Snowball effect. Focus your brands and they have their sustainable niche. Killing brands will not grow the business. Too many Olds customers were lost forever. A repeat of this permanent loss of business will happen if another brand is killed.[/b]

But....you can't focus on each of your brands to the extent you need to in order to sustain them when, in effect, you are giving Buick, Pontiac, and GMC limited product portfolios....because you are combining them all into one dealership channel (or trying to.)

You guys all save your rants on how expensive it would be to get rid of the dealers, how it's not realistic, yadda, yadda. I'm not here to debate that part of this argument.

But let's say we did live in a utopia....and BPG stores and brands could "go away." GM could survive, theoretically I believe, with Chevy at the bottom (including trucks), Cadillac at the top, and perhaps Saturn in the middle.

Why would GM survive? Now you have three brands instead of six (let's put Hummer and SAAB on the backburner because of their unique target markets).....each with full product portfolios that target their specific markets.....and because you are only supporting the growth of three brands, you can focus more of your marketing dollars, advertising, and product development funds to those brands.

You like the GMC name so much? Then transfer it to Hummer....the GMC Hummer H3 for example.

I don't know how GM does it. But clearly what they are doing now still isn't working. Unless they get a huge infusion of capital....or huge reduction in costs. But until that happens, Buick and Pontiac (especially) and somewhat Saturn are going to continue to flounder in the grand scheme of things. They simply don't have the dollars to support all the brands effectively (eg....AURA versus Malibu scenario that's being played out.)

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes there is some overlap, but we're not talking A-body rebadging here....

The epsilons are actually a good example. The Malibu is the everyman car... your basic Camry LE. The G6 is the sportier model... a Camry SE. The Aura is the more upscale but not yet luxury model....Passat. The <next> Lacross is the luxury model... like an ES. The 9-3 is the "Euro-Flavor" model... like a Volvo or Audi.

Now you can harp all day long on the deficiencies of these individual cars, however, each car has it's place. Simply slapping a different grill on and adding some ground effects the way Toyota does with the Camry isn't sufficient. I'm sure the SE model of the Camry would sell much better if it had a differently sculpted body and a more differentiated powertrain.

Additionally, look at how each new Epsilon has been better than the previous. GM is clearly learning along the way. With how good the Malibu has turned out, I expect the LaCross to be a stunner. I think the Aura is next up for redesign after the Buick.

[The O.C.]

I must be missing something, but I still see the value behind the original concept of separate "step-up" divisions. Take the same basic platform, and sell it in different guises to different demographics. It seems to me to be an efficient way to cover more of the market. Maybe it's obsolete today to have different dealerships for each brand, but GM's already taking care of this by combining Buicks, Pontiacs and GMCs at the same dealer in most areas.

But I assume it's not tremendously expense to produce four versions of the same crossover, that appear as different flavors for different groups of buyers. What's obsolete about the concept of diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks?

So long as combined sales are reaching their targets, what's wrong this business model? I assume that if they only sold one crossover, and sold it at Chevy dealers, then they'd have lower sales. But how much lower? Is the difference enough to justify the development/marketing costs of the different variants? Isn't the bottom line all about keeping plant capacity at its highest level? If all four variants are coming off the same line, then what's wrong with giving consumers more choice?

The business theory is that.....yes it may be less-expensive to produce four almost identical models.....but it's still more expensive than doing one or two that would most likely reach similar sales levels. Also, distributing them throughout four different brands effectively quadruples your marketing and advertising dollars. BUT, GM doesn't quadruple the marketing and advertising support to match....they give the vast majority to Chevy and lesser amounts to the other brands. That's the flaw in that theory.

The value behind the concept of step-up divisions at GM has lost most of it's luster because......with today's products, there isn't nearly enough differentiation between Chevy to Pontiac to Saturn to yes even Buick. That combined with much stronger competition, makes the old GM model more-and-more obsolete.

For example, what's truly more luxurious about an Enclave versus an Outlook or Acadia? Fully loaded, you'd be hard to tell other than outright style....and a few interior trim difference (softer dash in the Enclave, etc.)

Or, what's more "truckish" or "beefy" about an Acadia versus an Outlook? What gives the Acadia it's "GMC" heritage?

OR....what's more "import-like" with an AURA versus a Malibu? Not much in my eyes.

Finally, what makes a G6 "We Build Excitement" over an AURA or Malibu? Not powertrain.....they all share the same engines. Styling? Well that's subjective at best. Driving/ride-and-handling? No difference that I've been able to really discern in all my times in the G6.

[The O.C.]

The epsilons are actually a good example. The Malibu is the everyman car... your basic Camry LE. The G6 is the sportier model... a Camry SE. The Aura is the more upscale but not yet luxury model....Passat. The <next> Lacross is the luxury model... like an ES. The 9-3 is the "Euro-Flavor" model... like a Volvo or Audi.

You speak in theory....which is fine. But the cars don't match up to your theory.

How is a G6 any sportier than an LTZ V6 Malibu with 18-inch wheels and firmed up suspension (over the lesser Malibus?) How is AURA more "upscale?" Load any of the three with top option packages, leather, and top sound systems....and not only are each as "luxurious" they are even scarily close in price. Buff mag performance numbers for acceleration, ride, and handling don't seem to point to any major difference either....certainly doesn't make G6 look like the "sporty" version....

[Camino LS6]

Ugh.

You guys are just re-hashing the same tired old line, just like the author of the article. Ocnblu has the right of it, canceling brands will damage GM beyond recovery. If it happens, it will be the end.

GM has done, and is continuing to do, the right things to consolidate the brands into fewer sales channels (BPG = one channel not 3). Beyond BPG, the high-end brands are next ( Cadillac-Hummer-Saab). So, essentially, we are down to 4 sales channels in the US market already. Add to that the fact that differentiation between the brands is steadily becoming more and more pronounced with each cycle of new introductions (I do think there are at least one too many lambdas) and the ever-shrinking number of dealerships, GM is on the right track.

The lambdas are the only example of a new product that really steps over the line into too many versions of the same product. Even so, each version is far more distinct from its platform mates than in the bad old days. This article would have had more value if it had the tone of a warning about the lambdas veering too close to the old failing of badge-engineering, which in my opinion is true, than to indict the corporation for having too many brands. That thinking is pure bunk, and a failed strategy as proven by the demise of Olds.

With all of that said, Saturn was, and may always be, an obscene waste of money. The original premise and execution were fatally flawed from the start. Saturn should have been euthanized before Olds was even considered for the cut. I would never have been in favor of making the investment in Saturn that GM has made over the last few years. However, with that investment made, Saturn has something of a reason to be now and should live or die by how well it performs over the next few years. Saturn is the odd man out without partners in a sales channel or the massive volume (Chevy) needed to stand alone. As such, it is the only brand that really merits consideration when it comes to ending a brand (if it doesn't perform).

For those who would cancel Pontiac or Buick, you are being quite short-sighted. Pontiac is still GM's second best selling brand in the US, GM China depends on Buick (which is rebounding in the US), and GMC can't stand alone or with only one of its sales channel mates. Think of BPG dealerships as Chevy with extras, a dealership that can cover all of the bases - only with 3 brands rather than one. In similar fashion, GM's new luxury sales channel covers more ground by adding Hummer and Saab to existing Caddy stores while making it tenable to continue selling both smaller brands.

More work must be done on many fronts, but the strategy makes sense.