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

[Drew Dowdell]

It worked for Toyota....for right or for wrong.....

'Could've worked for GM.....

Not if they didn't have the spare cash laying around to take a loss on the project for the first 8 years.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I get my car serviced at a Cadillac dealership (they used to have Olds and are one of few places with Aurora parts). The dealership is Cadillac only now, and they own a Buick/Subaru lot 1-2 miles down the road. The service manager told me they wanted to do Buick-Cadillac at the same lot, and GM wouldn't allow them because Buick would hurt Cadillac's image.

Cadillac has to stand alone and move upscale, otherwise they are Lincoln-Mercury. The local Lexus dealership has a cappauccino bar and gives back and neck messages while your car gets fixed.

Interesting... I can definitley see their point.

I know a "family" dealer here that started out selling Cadillacs and eventually bought Pontiac and GMC franchises. GM kept hassling him about trading his Cadillac franchise for a Buick franchise from a dealer up the road (I'm sure money was involved too) The Buick dealer also sold Saab, Isuzu, Mitsubishi, Porsche, VW and Audi.

Subsequently, GM had also tried to sell him an Oldsmobile franchise back in the day. Apparently GM, in an attempt to lift Oldsmobile off the mat, tried to pair that franchise with Cadillac. The dealer told me that the 'project' didn't get very far.

Finally, the dealer I know just flat out bought Saab and Buick from the other guy. So now his dealership (a rather small location) sells Buick/Pontiac/GMC and Saab/Cadillac.

Ironically, our Oldsmobile dealer in town (which paid Oldsmobile no attention -- literally, what few models they carried were always shoved in a back corner of the lot next to the service center) shedded that franchise and purchased the Mitsubishi franchise from the original Buick dealer.

Edited March 11, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Drew Dowdell]

Most Cadillac-Olds dealers have been around since Old's highpoints in the 70's and 80's

[turbo200]

And therein lies the flaw to your post.

Buick is no longer for the masses.

is it only obvious to me I didn't mean that? Buick still would have to be cool to the masses, similar to how Porsche and BMW is cool and desirable yet unattainable[except loyal diehard domestic car fans] for the masses.

[smk4565]

whatever you wanna call it man.....

By process of elimination, it sounds like you use Baierl in Wexford. They have a lot more than just Cadillac, Buick and Subaru. They'd have to start over if they did a Cadillac - Buick lot. I'm not sure how they managed when Olds was still there. That place is tiny but they've given me great service.

I do use Baierl in Wexford and the dealership is small and needs a facelift. That building isn't nearly as nice as the Rahal Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar/Land Rover dealerships around Pittsburgh.

The problem in Wexford is Baierl has Cadillac, Chevy, Buick in 3 separate stores. Wright has Saab sales in one store, Hummer sales in one store, neighboring GMC/Pontiac Sales and the service for all 4 is done at the GMC/Pontiac dealer. Not exactly pushing the upscale image of Saab when your car is fixed at the Pontiac dealer, even though Saab had it's own service adviser. My mom was a Saab customer there, the service was horrid, I've heard others say that Wright is bad as well, so she is no longer a Saab owner. Saturn of Wexford is owned by another group, but Baierl and Wright have GM split, so that B-P-G and Saab-Cadillac sales channel won't happen, instead there are 6 sales channels and 4 service channels, plus Saturn off on it's own.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

GM has made a name for itself in being notoriously late-to-the-party in just about any market segment it competes.

They are still being hampered by that issue.....just like Camino said.

What they need to do, more importantly than the goodness of the upcoming product, is find a way to somehow invest further in the product development program and start getting this stuff here earlier. (And yes I realize the challenges behind decreasing this lead time.)

In 1986, Ford brought out the award-winning, and critically-acclaimed, Taurus. Two years' later, we get three GM-10 coupes. We had to wait ANOTHER, what 3-4 years before we got a midsize 4-door sedan to compete with Taurus, Accord, and Camry?

In 1991, GM introduced the new N-car compacts.....with no airbags, and a 3-speed automatic.....at a time when the market had already embraced airbags and 4-speed autos.

When Ford introduced the original 4-door Explorer off of the Bronco II chassis.....how many years did it take GM to chop-and-paste the Blazer/Jimmy into a 4-door competitor?

Chrysler introduced the minivans. GM, to this day, has never built a truly competitive entry. (Although neither truly has Ford.)

Toyota introduced the Prius.....Honda, the Insight. We STILL don't have a mainstream full-hybrid (two-mode?) GM car. (edit: okay Insight is hardly "mainstream" but I believe it was the first, no?)

There are just examples of major market missteps......but missteps of the kind that I still see GM making. The big debate is....when you are playing continual "catch-up," how do you pull ahead and begin leading the pack?

(Whew.....caffeine-induced rant has finally ended.....)

First off, GM brought out the Blazer and Jimmy way ahead of Ford (not to mention the imports) and pretty much invented the SUV market - even though Jeep had been playing around in the market for years. Yes, Ford was first out with the 4 door mid-size, but the Jimmy/Blazer twins continued to sell very well. Do you imagine an engineer can just cut two extra doors in the existing truck?

Chrysler came out with their 4 door vans in '96, but even they were stunned by the demand for them. Ford had come out the year before with their Windstar so it took them 3 years before they could engineer the 4th door; GM was lucky and able to alter the upcoming Venture to accomodate the 'optional' 4th door.

BTW, the GM minivans outsell both the Sienna and Odysse in Canada; in fact, GM is #2 in minivans in Canada. Not bad for the supposedly 'inferior' vans.

I'll have to side with GM on the hybrid buses. Toyota has spent a lot of money on endowments and PR hacks in Washington and they have won the PR wars on the hybrid debate, but I doubt they are making money on them. Let's see how well the 2-mode trucks do this Fall, shall we? Now there is something even the New York Times can cut its teeth on.

The original Tauruses were design marvels and certainly sold well, but Ford was in no danger of becoming #1 in the mid-size market in the mid-80s. That was a time when the GM strategy of 4 or 5 models based on the same platform served it well.

Hindsight is always 20-20. If GM hadn't poured money into its trucks in the mid-90s and continued to 'own' that market, I guess we would all be bitching about that , wouldn't we?

[PurdueGuy]

I have no complaints about GM standing tall in the truck market, not then, not now, not ever. Have they maybe over-focused on trucks at times? Maybe. But again, they are a company that exists to make a profit (and in the process provide tools [vehicles, etc] that are vital to our economy, and jobs that are also vital). Trucks have been and will continue to be in demand. I see no reason GM should be ashamed of making a solid product and selling every single one that people want to buy. They should and would love to do so in every segment, and generally do. People that want to get mad about trucks need to be mad at people that don't need 'em and buy 'em anyway, not get mad at the company. Companies sell what people want. McDonalds sells greasy burgers because people buy them. Obesity is the fault of the people (somewhat including myself ) that make that buying decision, NOT the company that supplies it, unless the company deceives the customer.

[The O.C.]

First off, GM brought out the Blazer and Jimmy way ahead of Ford (not to mention the imports) and pretty much invented the SUV market - even though Jeep had been playing around in the market for years. Yes, Ford was first out with the 4 door mid-size, but the Jimmy/Blazer twins continued to sell very well. Do you imagine an engineer can just cut two extra doors in the existing truck?

Chrysler came out with their 4 door vans in '96, but even they were stunned by the demand for them. Ford had come out the year before with their Windstar so it took them 3 years before they could engineer the 4th door; GM was lucky and able to alter the upcoming Venture to accomodate the 'optional' 4th door.

BTW, the GM minivans outsell both the Sienna and Odysse in Canada; in fact, GM is #2 in minivans in Canada. Not bad for the supposedly 'inferior' vans.

I'll have to side with GM on the hybrid buses. Toyota has spent a lot of money on endowments and PR hacks in Washington and they have won the PR wars on the hybrid debate, but I doubt they are making money on them. Let's see how well the 2-mode trucks do this Fall, shall we? Now there is something even the New York Times can cut its teeth on.

The original Tauruses were design marvels and certainly sold well, but Ford was in no danger of becoming #1 in the mid-size market in the mid-80s. That was a time when the GM strategy of 4 or 5 models based on the same platform served it well.

Hindsight is always 20-20. If GM hadn't poured money into its trucks in the mid-90s and continued to 'own' that market, I guess we would all be bitching about that , wouldn't we?

How many 2-door SUVs or CUVs are on the market now? FORD invented the 4-door "family" SUV with the Explorer. GM missed this opportunity in the marketplace.....there is no mistake in that.

GM minivan sales in Canada basically mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Canada's auto industry is what FRACTION the size of the USA's....?

Taurus was a sales leader up until they "gave up" on the car and let it slide into oblivion. Doesn't change the fact that the best-selling car today is a 4-door sedan....and way back in 1988, GM decided to introduce three coupes......(WTF????)

[balthazar]

>>"In 1986, Ford brought out the award-winning, and critically-acclaimed, Taurus. Two years' later, we get three GM-10 coupes. We had to wait ANOTHER, what 3-4 years before we got a midsize 4-door sedan to compete with Taurus, Accord, and Camry?"<<

So the Celebrity sedan (and it's siblings), out since well before '86, wasn't a mid-size 4-dr sedan? (BTW- available w/ a 4-spd auto!)

Question might be better worded: where was Ford's competition in a 2-dr coupe??

>>"Doesn't change the fact that the best-selling car today is a 4-door sedan....and way back in 1988, GM decided to introduce three coupes......(WTF????)"<<

You want to re-read your statement above ??

[enzl]

I have no complaints about GM standing tall in the truck market, not then, not now, not ever. Have they maybe over-focused on trucks at times? Maybe. But again, they are a company that exists to make a profit (and in the process provide tools [vehicles, etc] that are vital to our economy, and jobs that are also vital). Trucks have been and will continue to be in demand. I see no reason GM should be ashamed of making a solid product and selling every single one that people want to buy. They should and would love to do so in every segment, and generally do. People that want to get mad about trucks need to be mad at people that don't need 'em and buy 'em anyway, not get mad at the company. Companies sell what people want. McDonalds sells greasy burgers because people buy them. Obesity is the fault of the people (somewhat including myself ) that make that buying decision, NOT the company that supplies it, unless the company deceives the customer.

While I agree with 90% of what you're talking about, it's the 10% that kills GM:

As others have mentioned, part of the issue is trend following rather than trend leading--the GM10's exemplify how far behind GM let itself get...to take from your example--McDonald's has witnessed the Starbuck's revolution and now offers 'gourmet coffee'--IIRC, McDonald's, despite the public issue with health, has responded and excelled profitably by allowing itself to go in new directions. Now, while a cup of coffee is a far cry from a billion-dollar car architecture, the point is that GM never saw their 'Starbuck's' in the rearview--premium prices for the same cup of joe (family sedan) is exactly where they'd like to be.

The idea that no-one at GM considered the $3-4.00 gallon of gas when war is raging in the Middle East (now 5+yrs...a product cycle) & China/India are soaking up greater portions of the world production of oil is absurd. That's where I take issue with the leadership of GM. The GM900 pull ahead nearly singlehandedly killed Zeta and delayed both Zeta & Alpha--for what, exactly?

I'm afraid that the GM we know can no longer exist. Unfortunately, another round of vicious downsizing will probably result from an extended period of time at 20% or less of NA market share. All future product has to be the best--or at minimum a great execution--and even that (as we've seen with Aura, Outlook, Lucerne, SRX, et al.) may not be enough.

Edited March 12, 2008 by enzl

[buyacargetacheck]

Not to split hairs here too much...the front-drive A-bodies were an outgrowth of the X-body platform probably in response to the '79 energy crisis. As popular as the Celebrity/Ciera/6000/Century were the Taurus was light years ahead in terms of design. GM-10 was GM's aerodynamic answer to the Taurus, and it failed spectacularly in the eyes of the critics. GM assumed that because of the long-running success of mid-sized coupes the GM-10 coupes should come first. Bad move. By the time the 4-doors came out they looked even more dated in comparison to the Taurus while the coupe market started to wane. The Machine That Changed the World describes the failure of the GM-10 program pretty well - a good read if you get the chance.

Regarding coupes...are you kidding? The Thunderbird and Cougar were some of the most popular and nicest-looking cars of the 1980s. As popular as the Regal and Cutlass Supreme were they looked old in comparison. Ford really got ahead of everyone in design starting in 1982 (well, 1979 if you count the Fox Mustang).

>>"In 1986, Ford brought out the award-winning, and critically-acclaimed, Taurus. Two years' later, we get three GM-10 coupes. We had to wait ANOTHER, what 3-4 years before we got a midsize 4-door sedan to compete with Taurus, Accord, and Camry?"<<

So the Celebrity sedan (and it's siblings), out since well before '86, wasn't a mid-size 4-dr sedan? (BTW- available w/ a 4-spd auto!)

Question might be better worded: where was Ford's competition in a 2-dr coupe??

>>"Doesn't change the fact that the best-selling car today is a 4-door sedan....and way back in 1988, GM decided to introduce three coupes......(WTF????)"<<

You want to re-read your statement above ??

Edited March 12, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[buyacargetacheck]

This is why GM has to start leapfrogging the competition with Chevy and Cadillac. Maybe 3 year product lifecycles are an answer? Something that just puts the full court press on Toyota and Honda. The longer GM dicks around with expensive European losers (Saab) or has-beens (Pontiac and Buick) or unremarkable experiments (Saturn) the harder it will be to salvage the heart of the company: Chevrolet and Cadillac in NA. The Malibu looks promising as an example in this regard although sales look pretty unremarkable so far this year.

I'm afraid that the GM we know can no longer exist. Unfortunately, another round of vicious downsizing will probably result from an extended period of time at 20% or less of NA market share. All future product has to be the best--or at minimum a great execution--and even that (as we've seen with Aura, Outlook, Lucerne, SRX, et al.) may not be enough.

[balthazar]

>>"Regarding coupes...are you kidding? The Thunderbird and Cougar were some of the most popular and nicest-looking cars of the 1980s."<<

But the T-bird/Cougar were about 20% higher in price, hence not in the same segment as the Taurus/Celebrity. They were also positioned differently, as personal lux coupes as opposed to 2-dr versions of 4-drs. The GM-10 coupe was certainly a nicer design than the Tempo, Ford's nearest (yet downmarket) 2-dr offering.

RE design- sure, the Taurus trumped the GM-10s, but it also trumped everything else out there then.

[Robert Hall]

>>"Regarding coupes...are you kidding? The Thunderbird and Cougar were some of the most popular and nicest-looking cars of the 1980s."<<

But the T-bird/Cougar were about 20% higher in price, hence not in the same segment as the Taurus/Celebrity. They were also positioned differently, as personal lux coupes as opposed to 2-dr versions of 4-drs. The GM-10 coupe was certainly a nicer design than the Tempo, Ford's nearest (yet downmarket) 2-dr offering.

RE design- sure, the Taurus trumped the GM-10s, but it also trumped everything else out there then.

I wouldn't compare the T-Bird/Cougar to Taurus/Celebrity...t

The T-Bird and Cougar competed with G-bodies (Monte Carlo, GP, Regal, Cutlass Supreme) until they were dropped, and then their GM-10 replacements (GP, Regal, Cutlass Supreme) which were certainly personal-lux coupes in both their G-body and FWD forms..

It was interesting how around 1990 Ford had 4 ranges of 4drs (Escort, Tempo, Taurus, CV--the usual subcompact, compact, midsize, full size ladder) while GM had 5-6, depending on the brand (J,L/N,A,GM-10,H,C,B)..

When the Taurus first came out, I suppose it's closest GM competitor were the lookalike A-body siblings... then the GM-10 sedans followed 4 years later.

Of course, in retrospect relative the '80s thread, 1989-1990 is a period in GM history best forgotten...

Edited March 12, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

Right- which is why I didn't mention them while asking for Ford's 2-dr competition to the GM-10 coupes.

[CARBIZ]

How many 2-door SUVs or CUVs are on the market now? FORD invented the 4-door "family" SUV with the Explorer. GM missed this opportunity in the marketplace.....there is no mistake in that.

GM minivan sales in Canada basically mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Canada's auto industry is what FRACTION the size of the USA's....?

Taurus was a sales leader up until they "gave up" on the car and let it slide into oblivion. Doesn't change the fact that the best-selling car today is a 4-door sedan....and way back in 1988, GM decided to introduce three coupes......(WTF????)

The last time I looked, GM could ill-afford to blow off 450k in annual sales. Canada may be a 'blip' in the auto market, but that 'blip' is the ony profitability that Detroit has left. There isn't a car market on Earth (much to our chagrin) that is so easily handled as is Canada and the U.S.' - across the Detroit river, literally. And the guys/gals in Georgia are probably DAMNED glad the Uplander/SV6 are outselling the Sienna and Odyssey here - it's keeping them in jobs.

Ford did not invent anything. Jeep owned 25% of the SUV market. They invented it. GM grew it with their 2 door offerings in the early '80s. (I worked at a GM dealership in '81/'82 when those things came out - and the public was literally blown away! You have to compare those trucks with what else was out there - they were simply amazing.) Yes, Ford did come our with their 4 door first (but long after Jeep), but the GMC/Chevy twins still continued to do very well - and their 4 doors were only a couple years behind.

After the Exploder debacle in 2000, the Exploder's sales tanked, while the Jimmy/Blazer did very well and the TB/Envy still continue to kick ass.

One of the dangers of playing Revisionist History, is that for those of us who lived through those troubled times, we didn't sit back and lament 'what could be.' We only knew what is. The original Taurus was a blockbuster in terms of sales and, yes, it was ahead of itself in terms of packaging and style, but that was short lived. Early rust problems, and Ford's problematic 4 spd automatics started killing off sales.

[buyacargetacheck]

Re-read my post. I compare the GM-10s to the Thunderbird and Cougar which were competitors to each other. I do not compare the Celebrity and Taurus to the Thunderbird.

To be clear: the GM-10 coupes competed against Thunderbird and Cougar. Before that, the G-body 2-doors competed against the Thunderbird/Cougar.

Right- which is why I didn't mention them while asking for Ford's 2-dr competition to the GM-10 coupes.

[The O.C.]

The last time I looked, GM could ill-afford to blow off 450k in annual sales. Canada may be a 'blip' in the auto market, but that 'blip' is the ony profitability that Detroit has left. There isn't a car market on Earth (much to our chagrin) that is so easily handled as is Canada and the U.S.' - across the Detroit river, literally. And the guys/gals in Georgia are probably DAMNED glad the Uplander/SV6 are outselling the Sienna and Odyssey here - it's keeping them in jobs.

Ford did not invent anything. Jeep owned 25% of the SUV market. They invented it. GM grew it with their 2 door offerings in the early '80s. (I worked at a GM dealership in '81/'82 when those things came out - and the public was literally blown away! You have to compare those trucks with what else was out there - they were simply amazing.) Yes, Ford did come our with their 4 door first (but long after Jeep), but the GMC/Chevy twins still continued to do very well - and their 4 doors were only a couple years behind.

After the Exploder debacle in 2000, the Exploder's sales tanked, while the Jimmy/Blazer did very well and the TB/Envy still continue to kick ass.

One of the dangers of playing Revisionist History, is that for those of us who lived through those troubled times, we didn't sit back and lament 'what could be.' We only knew what is. The original Taurus was a blockbuster in terms of sales and, yes, it was ahead of itself in terms of packaging and style, but that was short lived. Early rust problems, and Ford's problematic 4 spd automatics started killing off sales.

My point is.....GM shouldn't make a decision to keep the minivans around in their current form (totally uncompetitive in the marketplace) simply based upon their performance in the Canadian market.....IMHO, that is why we now have the Lambdas.

And anyone on here that TRIES to spin away the fact that the original Explorer was a total game-changer for Ford is only fooling themselves. It's an opportunity that GM did not foresee. That's the point. They continue their missed opportuntites to this day......

[Robert Hall]

Swerving back to the original topic---10 years ago, GM NA had 8 brands. Now, GM NA still has 8 brands (-Olds, +Hummer).

What was their US market share in '98 vs. now? How many models now vs. then?

Edited March 12, 2008 by moltar

[buyacargetacheck]

GM had 28.8% of the US market in 1998 compared to 23.8% in 2007. Check out the scary trend in car market share between 1998 and 2006. GM lost 1/3 of its car market share. Now, cars are becoming more popular because of rising gas prices. GM is caught flat footed again.

If these trends continue the debate about dropping brands will become irrelevant. The dealers simply won't be able to stay in business.

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_infor...s_1998-2006.pdf

http://money.aol.ca/article/gm-toyota-1st-...hru-bgt/131843/

Swerving back to the original topic---10 years ago, GM NA had 8 brands. Now, GM NA still has 8 brands (-Olds, +Hummer).

What was their US market share in '98 vs. now? How many models now vs. then?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Swerving back to the original topic---10 years ago, GM NA had 8 brands. Now, GM NA still has 8 brands (-Olds, +Hummer).

What was their US market share in '98 vs. now? How many models now vs. then?

From memory.

In '98 I believe pre UAW strike share was 30-32% (This figure I'm not that certain of)

Post UAW-strike share was around 28% (This I'm pretty certain of)

Not much has changed on the share side IMO because a lot of the surplus GM had in 1998 was from fleet sales and employee sales. Fleet sales have been cut and employee sales are obviuosly on the downtrend with all of the downsizing. (If you no longer get a deal on a GM car, you'll be compelled to give the other guys more of a chance)

As of now, share is at what? Roughly 23-24%?

EDIT: buyacargetacheck beat me to it.

P.S. It's funny how Toyota released an 'estimate' of it's 2007 sales... LOL. Pure arrogance and shady business. They just don't want to admit defeat after all of the chest beating last year. FWIW, it's not like it matters, I'm sure they'll sell more than GM this year anyway.

Edited March 12, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[buyacargetacheck]

Here's a thought. If GM loses the same percentage of market share in the next 10 years as it did in the last, it'll end up with about 19.5% in 2017. It's not hard to imagine Toyota matching that figure or surpassing it by then as it had 16.3% in 2007. How then, does GM continue to afford developing and marketing 8 brands most of which can't command a premium when Toyota is able to do it with 2 (Scion really being a sub-brand of Toyota)?

GM had 28.8% of the US market in 1998 compared to 23.8% in 2007. Check out the scary trend in car market share between 1998 and 2006. GM lost 1/3 of its car market share. Now, cars are becoming more popular because of rising gas prices. GM is caught flat footed again.

If these trends continue the debate about dropping brands will become irrelevant. The dealers simply won't be able to stay in business.

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_infor...s_1998-2006.pdf

http://money.aol.ca/article/gm-toyota-1st-...hru-bgt/131843/

[The O.C.]

Let's look at the situation.......

* Many of us agree that GM cannot fully support 8 brands from a sales and marketing standpoint....at least at a level competitive with what Toyota and others can support their brands.

* Most of us agree that GM can't simply "get rid" of 2, 3, or 4 brands and the dealerships that go along with them......even if many of us have the opinion that's just what GM should do.....

* Even with the brands they do have, GM is less-than-competitive with a good number of the products they have in the current lineup.

* GM is struggling to regain lost ground. Other manufacturers have no where to go but up.

Even though I honestly think GM will NOT go under, or go bankrupt, or go out of business......this is like the "Kobiashi Maru"......a "no-win" scenario.

We are going to see weak GM dealers die off the vine......and we'll see GM market-share continue to plummet until it hits a (for lack of a better word) a more appropriate "saturation" point. What will that point be? I don't know....but I'd guess somewhere in the mid-teens.

I don't see any other way around it. They'll definitely survive.....but they won't be the biggest.....or the strongest......

[enzl]

From memory.

In '98 I believe pre UAW strike share was 30-32% (This figure I'm not that certain of)

Post UAW-strike share was around 28% (This I'm pretty certain of)

Not much has changed on the share side IMO because a lot of the surplus GM had in 1998 was from fleet sales and employee sales. Fleet sales have been cut and employee sales are obviuosly on the downtrend with all of the downsizing. (If you no longer get a deal on a GM car, you'll be compelled to give the other guys more of a chance)

As of now, share is at what? Roughly 23-24%?

EDIT: buyacargetacheck beat me to it.

P.S. It's funny how Toyota released an 'estimate' of it's 2007 sales... LOL. Pure arrogance and shady business. They just don't want to admit defeat after all of the chest beating last year. FWIW, it's not like it matters, I'm sure they'll sell more than GM this year anyway.

First-

Pre-strike counts...so it's 30%+ as a fair starting point. If anything, the 10% loss of share due to the strike is also a managerial misstep, so it certainly is a legitimate point.

As for the cut in fleeting, it was 100k units last year...not even close to explaining the lost sales here in the states---and the reason that there may be less Employee Discount cars sold is, simply, they have less workforce.

GM's market share has been trending down for years...the slide appears endless---and it's currently propped up by 1 million+ fleet sales, IIRC---so the real retail % is probably less than Toyota's nationally.

As for your PS-GM counted vehicles (originally) that were produced by companies they don't own a majority of (and thus shouldn't be counted)--the changed figures resulted in Toyota's #1 ranking, not Toyota's estimated figures.

Bottom Line: GM's performance is simply indefensible. If you want to accuse people of arrongance or shadiness, make sure you apply the same rules to GM---or anyone else.

The people on this board that get upset with the 'humpers' should really spend the time and energy upset with the absolute negligence that has brought one of the greatest companies ever to its knees.

Edited March 12, 2008 by enzl

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Let's look at the situation.......

* Many of us agree that GM cannot fully support 8 brands from a sales and marketing standpoint....at least at a level competitive with what Toyota and others can support their brands.

* Most of us agree that GM can't simply "get rid" of 2, 3, or 4 brands and the dealerships that go along with them......even if many of us have the opinion that's just what GM should do.....

* Even with the brands they do have, GM is less-than-competitive with a good number of the products they have in the current lineup.

* GM is struggling to regain lost ground. Other manufacturers have no where to go but up.

Even though I honestly think GM will NOT go under, or go bankrupt, or go out of business......this is like the "Kobiashi Maru"......a "no-win" scenario.

We are going to see weak GM dealers die off the vine......and we'll see GM market-share continue to plummet until it hits a (for lack of a better word) a more appropriate "saturation" point. What will that point be? I don't know....but I'd guess somewhere in the mid-teens.

I don't see any other way around it. They'll definitely survive.....but they won't be the biggest.....or the strongest......

I completely disagree with this bleak outlook.

enzl: There you go again... Trying to start a fight.

Edited March 12, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[regfootball]

>>"In 1986, Ford brought out the award-winning, and critically-acclaimed, Taurus. Two years' later, we get three GM-10 coupes. We had to wait ANOTHER, what 3-4 years before we got a midsize 4-door sedan to compete with Taurus, Accord, and Camry?"<<

So the Celebrity sedan (and it's siblings), out since well before '86, wasn't a mid-size 4-dr sedan? (BTW- available w/ a 4-spd auto!)

Question might be better worded: where was Ford's competition in a 2-dr coupe??

>>"Doesn't change the fact that the best-selling car today is a 4-door sedan....and way back in 1988, GM decided to introduce three coupes......(WTF????)"<<

You want to re-read your statement above ??

from that era, the Tbird and Tbird turbo were awesome cars, but also the W body coupes were all eagerly anticipated products in a lucrative segment. For someone who questioned the, now, 20 years later, is not recognizing how strong big mid size coupes were in the market back then, not to mention that they were replacing fuel sucking RWD coupes with efficient front drivers.

[regfootball]

I have no complaints about GM standing tall in the truck market, not then, not now, not ever. Have they maybe over-focused on trucks at times? Maybe. But again, they are a company that exists to make a profit (and in the process provide tools [vehicles, etc] that are vital to our economy, and jobs that are also vital). Trucks have been and will continue to be in demand. I see no reason GM should be ashamed of making a solid product and selling every single one that people want to buy. They should and would love to do so in every segment, and generally do. People that want to get mad about trucks need to be mad at people that don't need 'em and buy 'em anyway, not get mad at the company. Companies sell what people want. McDonalds sells greasy burgers because people buy them. Obesity is the fault of the people (somewhat including myself ) that make that buying decision, NOT the company that supplies it, unless the company deceives the customer.

Yeah, I agree. looking back through automotive history, the need for trucks and the sales of them have always been strong. for decades. For someone to suggest that trucks are not a worthy market, or a solid one, now and forever in the future, well, that person is being a shortsighted, ignorant dillhole.

GM has been strong in trucks forever and should always plan to remain that way.

Edited March 12, 2008 by regfootball

[The O.C.]

from that era, the Tbird and Tbird turbo were awesome cars, but also the W body coupes were all eagerly anticipated products in a lucrative segment. For someone who questioned the, now, 20 years later, is not recognizing how strong big mid size coupes were in the market back then, not to mention that they were replacing fuel sucking RWD coupes with efficient front drivers.

Everyone misses my point.....that being, it doesn't matter how "strong" mid-size coupes were in the market back then.....because the trend shifted to sedans. That's something Ford was able to foresee....and GM didn't....and much damage was done as a result.

[regfootball]

While I agree with 90% of what you're talking about, it's the 10% that kills GM:

As others have mentioned, part of the issue is trend following rather than trend leading--the GM10's exemplify how far behind GM let itself get...to take from your example--McDonald's has witnessed the Starbuck's revolution and now offers 'gourmet coffee'--IIRC, McDonald's, despite the public issue with health, has responded and excelled profitably by allowing itself to go in new directions. Now, while a cup of coffee is a far cry from a billion-dollar car architecture, the point is that GM never saw their 'Starbuck's' in the rearview--premium prices for the same cup of joe (family sedan) is exactly where they'd like to be.

The idea that no-one at GM considered the $3-4.00 gallon of gas when war is raging in the Middle East (now 5+yrs...a product cycle) & China/India are soaking up greater portions of the world production of oil is absurd. That's where I take issue with the leadership of GM. The GM900 pull ahead nearly singlehandedly killed Zeta and delayed both Zeta & Alpha--for what, exactly?

I'm afraid that the GM we know can no longer exist. Unfortunately, another round of vicious downsizing will probably result from an extended period of time at 20% or less of NA market share. All future product has to be the best--or at minimum a great execution--and even that (as we've seen with Aura, Outlook, Lucerne, SRX, et al.) may not be enough.

and yet mcdonalds food is terrible and makes you sick nearly every time you eat it. priorities.

[The O.C.]

I completely disagree with this bleak outlook.

enzl: There you go again... Trying to start a fight.

Please.....I invite you to explain how any of my post is not an accurate view of the current situation GM is facing......"bleak" outlook or not......

[regfootball]

This is why GM has to start leapfrogging the competition with Chevy and Cadillac. Maybe 3 year product lifecycles are an answer? Something that just puts the full court press on Toyota and Honda. The longer GM dicks around with expensive European losers (Saab) or has-beens (Pontiac and Buick) or unremarkable experiments (Saturn) the harder it will be to salvage the heart of the company: Chevrolet and Cadillac in NA. The Malibu looks promising as an example in this regard although sales look pretty unremarkable so far this year.

I'm afraid that the GM we know can no longer exist. Unfortunately, another round of vicious downsizing will probably result from an extended period of time at 20% or less of NA market share. All future product has to be the best--or at minimum a great execution--and even that (as we've seen with Aura, Outlook, Lucerne, SRX, et al.) may not be enough.

simply put, you cannot make chevy the catch all brand of GM. you cannot absorb pontiac and buick buyers in chevy.

my dad and my father in law, simply will not buy chevy except for a pickup. if they buy a car, it has to be cadillac or buick or olds or what have you. toyota only attracts one type of customer. appliance buyers. they do not cover the market except with Lexus on the very high end. the consumer is led to believe that toyota is the only purveyor of good appliances, that is not true. Chevy can compete in some segments for the appliance buyer, but in the same vein, by doing so, cannot provide the embellishment that a pontiac or saturn or buick customer wants and cadillac is too expensive.

You simply cannot make 75% of GM's sales Chevy. People that like the diversity of GM's brands will not accept the mindless blandness of a a neutered catch all chevy brand like the way toyota is a neutered nothingness.

All you want to do is turn chevy into another mindless Asian brand offering. So to do that, let's get all the excess proliferating Asian brands out of our country first. We don't need them for sure.

[regfootball]

Let's look at the situation.......

* Many of us agree that GM cannot fully support 8 brands from a sales and marketing standpoint....at least at a level competitive with what Toyota and others can support their brands.

* Most of us agree that GM can't simply "get rid" of 2, 3, or 4 brands and the dealerships that go along with them......even if many of us have the opinion that's just what GM should do.....

* Even with the brands they do have, GM is less-than-competitive with a good number of the products they have in the current lineup.

* GM is struggling to regain lost ground. Other manufacturers have no where to go but up.

Even though I honestly think GM will NOT go under, or go bankrupt, or go out of business......this is like the "Kobiashi Maru"......a "no-win" scenario.

We are going to see weak GM dealers die off the vine......and we'll see GM market-share continue to plummet until it hits a (for lack of a better word) a more appropriate "saturation" point. What will that point be? I don't know....but I'd guess somewhere in the mid-teens.

I don't see any other way around it. They'll definitely survive.....but they won't be the biggest.....or the strongest......

YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT 'MOST OF US' AGREE TO THAT gm cannot fully support 8 brands ABOVE strike that BS from your statement

Edited March 12, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

First-

Pre-strike counts...so it's 30%+ as a fair starting point. If anything, the 10% loss of share due to the strike is also a managerial misstep, so it certainly is a legitimate point.

As for the cut in fleeting, it was 100k units last year...not even close to explaining the lost sales here in the states---and the reason that there may be less Employee Discount cars sold is, simply, they have less workforce.

GM's market share has been trending down for years...the slide appears endless---and it's currently propped up by 1 million+ fleet sales, IIRC---so the real retail % is probably less than Toyota's nationally.

As for your PS-GM counted vehicles (originally) that were produced by companies they don't own a majority of (and thus shouldn't be counted)--the changed figures resulted in Toyota's #1 ranking, not Toyota's estimated figures.

Bottom Line: GM's performance is simply indefensible. If you want to accuse people of arrongance or shadiness, make sure you apply the same rules to GM---or anyone else.

The people on this board that get upset with the 'humpers' should really spend the time and energy upset with the absolute negligence that has brought one of the greatest companies ever to its knees.

dear lord, your optimism makes Buickman appear to be Joel Osteen or Richard Simmons or Tony Robbins.

[regfootball]

Everyone misses my point.....that being, it doesn't matter how "strong" mid-size coupes were in the market back then.....because the trend shifted to sedans. That's something Ford was able to foresee....and GM didn't....and much damage was done as a result.

that's just revisionist thinking. there was no reason or indicator to suspect that coupes would wither.

the beretta coupe actually took a buttload of sales from the larger coupes. cars like the Laser/Eclipse did also. it's not that the coupe market wasn't there. It got spread around some.

[The O.C.]

YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT 'MOST OF US' AGREE TO THAT gm cannot fully support 8 brands ABOVE strike that BS from your statement

Take the f*cking chip off your shoulder.

I won't change my post.

You don't like the word? Tough.....so consider it "many" of us....or "some" of us....whatever tickles your tonsils.....

[The O.C.]

that's just revisionist thinking. there was no reason or indicator to suspect that coupes would wither.

the beretta coupe actually took a buttload of sales from the larger coupes. cars like the Laser/Eclipse did also. it's not that the coupe market wasn't there. It got spread around some.

And you are just spinning away GM's lack of foresight in the marketplace.

There were signs EVERYWHERE. There was no explicable reason why GM should invest SO much money into the GM-10 program without even considering sedans. Taurus debuted two years EARLIER than the GM-10 coupes.....and was met with instant success. It took GM way too long to come to the market with competition.....and then that competition was already dated when it was introduced.

(Not to mention the fact that Honda, Toyota, et al, were gaining huge strength in the mid-80's in compact and midsize sedans.......)

BTW....your own GM dealers even knew better. I can't tell you how many times I had to endure the rant of a Buick dealer as to why GM went to all that effort to give them a Regal Coupe.....instead of a Sedan......

[The O.C.]

Reg...I'm not trying to pick a fight with you......

.....but this constant, what appears to me IMHO, "head in the sand" thinking just really gets my goat......(and I'm not saying you are the worst-offender....)

[smk4565]

GM had 28.8% of the US market in 1998 compared to 23.8% in 2007. Check out the scary trend in car market share between 1998 and 2006. GM lost 1/3 of its car market share. Now, cars are becoming more popular because of rising gas prices. GM is caught flat footed again.

If these trends continue the debate about dropping brands will become irrelevant. The dealers simply won't be able to stay in business.

GM also had about 38% market share in 1990. So that is a 15% slide since then, 5% slide over the past 10 years, they could easily be around 18% in 2017, possibly less if the truck market keeps sliding. Then how do they keep 8 brands going at 18% share or less.

The 8 brand strategy has failed for the past 18 years, yet they still want to use it. If they try to keep all 8 running, they will always have dated or uncompetitive products in their portfolio, a dealer network that is too large, dealers going out of business or not investing any money into their buildings because they only have 3 models to sell. If GM continues doing business the way they did in the past, sales will continue sliding.

The way to grow is to cut the fat and pump money into the core products. Chevy and Cadillac obviously stay, Hummer and Saab go. The decision then is to cut Saturn and have Pontiac sell a couple small cars from Opel and the Solstice and G8, or cut Pontiac and let Saturn be the Mazda-VW-Honda competitor. A zeta Impala would make the G8 irrelevant anyway, although if they make that Impala nice it can replace the Buick sedans. It would be best if Chevy and Cadillac were individual channels, then either Saturn or B-P-G was the 3rd sales channel. Saturn would be easier to close down.

[enzl]

dear lord, your optimism makes Buickman appear to be Joel Osteen or Richard Simmons or Tony Robbins.

Please explain the optimism I should feel about a company that holds MY future in its hands and has done little but fumble its responsibilities for the past 25+ years?

Tell me how I will 'positively' explain to my staff of 275 people that GM is no longer in business---or unable to support their livelihoods?

Put a spin on things however you like. The fact remains that those responsible for GM's possible demise should be held accountable--immediately.

How bad do things need to get, exactly? NA operations will lose money for 4 years running--that's GM's optimistic projection, not mine.

Me or you would lose our jobs for a similar performance---and should. That no-one in a position of power at GM could reasonably foresee the events of the past 5 years is not credible.

I'm not pessimistic, I'm realistic---the problem is with those here that don't realize the true state of affairs. Cheerleading is fine--but that's all it is--we're down 10 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning. Care to bet the rest of the game's results on those that have put us in that position in the first place? I don't.

Edited March 12, 2008 by enzl

[regfootball]

Reg...I'm not trying to pick a fight with you......

.....but this constant, what appears to me IMHO, "head in the sand" thinking just really gets my goat......(and I'm not saying you are the worst-offender....)

it's not head in the sand. i come at more from things GM has done right lately instead of constant focus on negative woe is me BS.

as if to assume it's written in stone there is no way for GM to trend upward. which is the BS i am calling you and EVERYONE on.

[regfootball]

GM also had about 38% market share in 1990. So that is a 15% slide since then, 5% slide over the past 10 years, they could easily be around 18% in 2017, possibly less if the truck market keeps sliding. Then how do they keep 8 brands going at 18% share or less.

The 8 brand strategy has failed for the past 18 years, yet they still want to use it. If they try to keep all 8 running, they will always have dated or uncompetitive products in their portfolio, a dealer network that is too large, dealers going out of business or not investing any money into their buildings because they only have 3 models to sell. If GM continues doing business the way they did in the past, sales will continue sliding.

The way to grow is to cut the fat and pump money into the core products. Chevy and Cadillac obviously stay, Hummer and Saab go. The decision then is to cut Saturn and have Pontiac sell a couple small cars from Opel and the Solstice and G8, or cut Pontiac and let Saturn be the Mazda-VW-Honda competitor. A zeta Impala would make the G8 irrelevant anyway, although if they make that Impala nice it can replace the Buick sedans. It would be best if Chevy and Cadillac were individual channels, then either Saturn or B-P-G was the 3rd sales channel. Saturn would be easier to close down.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE....YOU CANNOT CUT YOUR DEALER NETWORK IN HALF OR MORE OVERNIGHT. IT WILL BE A CONTINUOUS PROCESS THAT OCCURS OVER YEARS. LIKEWISE THE SAME REASONS YOU CANNOT GO FROM 8 BRANDS TO 2 OVERNIGHT.

[regfootball]

Please explain the optimism I should feel about a company that holds MY future in its hands and has done little but fumble its responsibilities for the past 25+ years?

Tell me how I will 'positively' explain to my staff of 275 people that GM is no longer in business---or unable to support their livelihoods?

Put a spin on things however you like. The fact remains that those responsible for GM's possible demise should be held accountable--immediately.

How bad do things need to get, exactly? NA operations will lose money for 4 years running--that's GM's optimistic projection, not mine.

Me or you would lose our jobs for a similar performance---and should. That no-one in a position of power at GM could reasonably foresee the events of the past 5 years is not credible.

I'm not pessimistic, I'm realistic---the problem is with those here that don't realize the true state of affairs. Cheerleading is fine--but that's all it is--we're down 10 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning. Care to bet the rest of the game's results on those that have put us in that position in the first place? I don't.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, DEALERS ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ARE OVERHEAD IN THE PROCESS, AND HONESTLY THE CUSTOMER WOULD RATHER SEE MANY OF YOU GO UNDER TO BE TRUTHFUL.

the customer doesn't care if denny hecker or red mccombs needs to make the payment on one of the many commerical real estate buildings they own, or the huge excessive salaries and profits a dealer owner makes. or the sales manager etc.

if a customer could, they most likely would prefer a factory direct experience to make the buying process easier and cut the profit, fat and overhead out of the price of THEIR car.

I am for eliminating the dealer and their greedy mugs as much as possible in this equation to the point you still get sufficient vehicle service after the sale.

we criticize the car companies to make them take out the fat in manufacturing and design and management, it's time the dealers pay in blood and get rid of the fat and gravy train.

downsize your 275 man op. to stay in budget, like GM has to do. stay lean.

Edited March 12, 2008 by regfootball

[enzl]

it's not head in the sand. i come at more from things GM has done right lately instead of constant focus on negative woe is me BS.

as if to assume it's written in stone there is no way for GM to trend upward. which is the BS i am calling you and EVERYONE on.

Explain how GM will increase sales in NA?

Trucks are tanking.

The new products are selling, but they're not best sellers.

Other than the market shrinking and GM treading water, I can't see a scenario where market share rises.

Where is the product that will lead a renaissance? What will replace truck volume? Saab, Hummer, Saturn, Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac have all been on a downward trajectory--sh!t, Saturn can't even blame a lack of new product.

Please, enlighten us!

And, as for your above commentary on dealers: My employees are people with families too---it not just about the principals or their wealth-RW's Golden Parachute is just as relevant as my owner's RE holdings to this argument--If you're going to depend upon the geniuses in Detroit to move metal in Cali or Mass or AZ, you'll really see how deluded and provincial GM is!

Edited March 12, 2008 by enzl

[The O.C.]

it's not head in the sand. i come at more from things GM has done right lately instead of constant focus on negative woe is me BS.

as if to assume it's written in stone there is no way for GM to trend upward. which is the BS i am calling you and EVERYONE on.

I agree with Enzl above......

You can pat GM on the back as much as you want for the good products that have come forth lately (I've done the same) but that doesn't change the reality of the situation they are in.

AND....while not written in stone, given the current nature of GM's situation, I also do not see any way for GM to begin trending upwards.....at all. MAJOR life-changing decisions are going to have to be made......in order for GM to stop the slide.....not to mention cause it to begin trending upwards......

That's the reality of the situation the corporation is facing today. Trying to dance around that isn't going to do anything but delay the inevitable (inevitable, that is, if GM doesn't do something drastic.....) What they have today is an unworkable business model. Can they change it? I really don't know. But I know they HAVE to change it...if they are going to remain the #1 biggest and most powerful auto company.

GM will survive due to overseas business. But I bargain you will see a dramatic reduction in the importance of the N.A. market to GM......much to (all of) our disappointment.....

Edited March 12, 2008 by The O.C.

[thegriffon]

The one fatal flaw in the "too many models, too many brands" argument is the assumption that GM will have more money to advertise the remaining brands. It will not. Lack of advertising at Saturn and especially Pontiac effectively subsidizes Chevrolet. True, too many Pontiacs go to fleet, but the brand can consistently outsell Ford in the retail market when it has comparable product and the G6, despite its packaging deficiencies and age, still outsells the Malibu in many months. Take away Pontiac volume and revenue (which is a minimal development cost) and there isn't enough money to market what's left. You can't cut your way to success.

GM's former stepladder branding strategy has not failed. It no longer exists. Is there any consistent difference between any of GM's brands? No. The new Malibu is the most expensive Epsilon sedan, not the cheapest. Which is the cheapest? Pontiac. All of GM's brands are priced too much the same, and usually much too low. Chevy should be the baseline brand, with the cheapest models. It is not. Pontiac should be a step up in price ($2-3K, not $3-500), offering better performance and style. Saturn should be "different", offering non-mainstream products like the Agila, Meriva and Zafira. It is not (even Opels may be too mainstream for the Saturn brand). Buick should be a premium brand, with true premium pricing to compete with Lincoln, Volkswagen and the ES350. It does not (it underprices Toyota too often at present). Cadillac should be going head to head with BMW and Mercedes. Instead it priced a full class down, with products that don't know whether they are fish or fowl (a 5-series class sedan priced below the 3-series, another which does not know whether it should be a 5-series rival or a bargain 7-series rival etc.). The current strategy is no strategy at all. It's hopelessly flawed. Is there any reason a LaCrosse can't be a luxurious sedan with a premium image well above the Malibu, even if they are both largish Epsilon sedans? Why not, Toyota does it with the Camry/ES350, the latter began life in Japan with Camry badges!!

The lack of any true brand strategy is compounded by delusional thinking about what vehicle they are and should be selling. The Equinox and Torrent are not compacts. Selling a V6, midsize SUV as a compact is just crazy. Trying to fill the resulting gap by selling a fullsize crossover as a midsize model is just as stupid, no matter how good it is. The Rendezvous, which was a true midsize crossover, sold better than the Enclave does, even last year, and often better than the Acadia. How much better would a new midsize model sell if it was as good as the new fullsize crossovers? We may never know unless the new midsize thetas are actually priced and marketed as such (but still, no Buick to replace the Rendezvous as premium 7-seat midsizer). Despite what people think I don't see people still buying a 5-seat midsize Trailblazer (still consistently 10-14K a month) suddenly switching to a fullsize 7-seat Traverse. Tahoe buyers on the other hand …

Have Buick's sales fallen? Yes, but when you factor in the loss of the Rainier, Rendezvous and Terraza, it's not so bad. The unsurprising lack of demand for a fullsize family car like the Lucerne (even without $3+ gas) more than accounts for the rest.

While I'm ranting, note that the G8, with a more powerful V6, and a 5-speed instead of a 6-speed auto, gets almost the same mileage as the Malibu (same in the city and just one less mpg on the highway). swap the 5-speed for a 6-speed and voila! Just as good if not better mileage from a rwd as a fwd car. Somebody done be lying to you missah Lutz. Take a leaf from Toyota, rework the G6 as a lower-midsize rwd model like the G35 and Mark X (but with 4-cylinder engines—the new turbos will provide more than adequate performance), and sell it as a Buick Regal in China and a Pontiac Tempest/Ventura in the US. Add a 4-cylinder to the LaCrosse in the US for economy (the Chinese will get a 2.4 L 6-speed which will account for 90% or more of sales), and dump the PA/Lucerne and merge it with the G8 to create a new Invicta, a premium V6/V8/hybrid to rival the Toyota Crown (which outsells the PA by more than 10:1 in the V6 sedan segment in China and may soon arrive in the US as well).

Edited March 12, 2008 by thegriffon

[smk4565]

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE....YOU CANNOT CUT YOUR DEALER NETWORK IN HALF OR MORE OVERNIGHT. IT WILL BE A CONTINUOUS PROCESS THAT OCCURS OVER YEARS. LIKEWISE THE SAME REASONS YOU CANNOT GO FROM 8 BRANDS TO 2 OVERNIGHT.

I never said overnight, Saab and Hummer would be easy to phase out of 2-3 years, most of their stuff has been on the market a while already, they can finish out life cycles like they did with Olds. Then they could phase out another brand in 2010-2012. In the process of phasing out Buick for example, they could give Chevy a more luxurious full size sedan (Avalon price range) that would replace the Lucerne in the marketplace. Or if Pontiac is the one to go, make the Impala a little more sporting to replace the G8. Over five years or so they could focus products more and have better products that will sell in higher volume without the incentives.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

It would have been interesting to sit in on a Board meeting at K-Mart in the mid-80s as the first Wal-Marts were going up. What would your advice have been to them? Fire the board. Buy out Wal-Mart? Cut their prices? Move their buyers to China?

Sears was a powerhouse to be reckoned with. Now, they are looking nervously over their shoulders, too.

Hindsight is 20-20. GM is fighting a 20 sided war right now - a war that it is winning everywhere but HERE. I find that very, very curioius. So should Washington. So should people on this board.

GM is not faultless in this decline, but I'd wager that half the blame is our own. Our own greed and selishness has allowed the barbarians to the gate. And now we are whimpering because they are clamoring over the wall?

[smk4565]

TheGriffon is 100% correct about GM's brand strategy. Pontiac is really the lowest priced brand, with Saturn close to it. The LaCrosse and Impala are priced about the same. You can spend more on a Malibu than on a Lucerne, all those cars overlap. The 9-3 is actually the most expensive Epsilon, but it is still under $30k, and costs similar to a loaded Malibu or Aura. The Lambdas may in fact be very good (although not as good as the CX-9) but they aren't as spacious or fuel efficient as a minivan (thus won't replace minivans), their main competitor is full size SUVs, which is GM's strong suit. GM created competition for themselves, rather than making a midsize crossover to replace the aging GMT360s. It does seem like there is no clear strategy other than to make large SUVs because they know how to make profit on that.

Enzl said "I can't see a scenario where market share rises." I can.

Discontinue the G6, Aura and 9-3, and put all the research, development, production capacity and advertising behind the Malibu. They'll have a car better than the Accord and will sell 400,000 a year with ease, if they are smart and make it a global car, they can sell it elsewhere also. Same strategy works for the Cobalt, forget the G5, Astra, 9-5, 9-7, etc. Make a global Cobalt on Delta II with a 6-speed auto standard, panel fits as good as the CTS, BAS hybrid option, and make it get over 40 mpg average, not highway. They could sell it worldwide (it could get a Holden or Opel badge) and move 500,000 or more, maybe even 750,000. If BMW can sell 500,000 3-series, GM should be able to sell 750,000 Cobalts and 600,000 Malibus/Insignias.

Edited March 12, 2008 by smk4565

[regfootball]

reading about how Kia's management treats their US employees and how they want to do business here makes me question why people are stupid enough to buy a vehicle made with their name on it at all. much less work there to help promote their mission.

most folks do not care. they throw up their hands and give away the farm. because they would rather be negative and make people here in our country the scapegoat. and we have this obsession with welcoming the outsiders in on a white horse when really what they are riding in on is a vacuum cleaner, raking up our cash we leave littered by the driveway.

griffon has it right. they are not going to increase r/d and advertising just because they cut brands. the net effect is not going to be that different. especially when you consider Gm would immediately go down in market share.

Edited March 12, 2008 by regfootball

[buyacargetacheck]

What's your source that Pontiac "can consistently outsell Ford in the retail market when it has comparable product?" I highly doubt it.

This isn't 1966 any longer. Toyota and Honda have rewritten the rules of the car game, sorry. Chevrolet cannot survive being the "stripper budget 1976 Nova Custom" brand. Chevrolet can't be hemmed in by delusional thinking that says Pontiac is a "step up" (it isn't) or that Buick is "prestigious" (it isn't) and therefore Chevy can't have it's own Avalon or Supra or MR2 or Celica or whatever. The problem is that GMNA is a platform-based company with lots of channel outlets. They might be able to get away with stretching a platform across 2 brands without harm but 4 or 5?

Sorry, the proof is in the results: no profits, lost market share, weak to no brand images, crappy resale values. All of these have been going on for so long now that it's almost like tradition at GM!

The one fatal flaw in the "too many models, too many brands" argument is the assumption that GM will have more money to advertise the remaining brands. It will not. Lack of advertising at Saturn and especially Pontiac effectively subsidizes Chevrolet. True, too many Pontiacs go to fleet, but the brand can consistently outsell Ford in the retail market when it has comparable product and the G6, despite its packaging deficiencies and age, still outsells the Malibu in many months. Take away Pontiac volume and revenue (which is a minimal development cost) and there isn't enough money to market what's left. You can't cut your way to success.

GM's former stepladder branding strategy has not failed. It no longer exists. Is there any consistent difference between any of GM's brands? No. The new Malibu is the most expensive Epsilon sedan, not the cheapest. Which is the cheapest? Pontiac. All of GM's brands are priced too much the same, and usually much too low. Chevy should be the baseline brand, with the cheapest models. It is not. Pontiac should be a step up in price ($2-3K, not $3-500), offering better performance and style. Saturn should be "different", offering non-mainstream products like the Agila, Meriva and Zafira. It is not (even Opels may be too mainstream for the Saturn brand). Buick should be a premium brand, with true premium pricing to compete with Lincoln, Volkswagen and the ES350. It does not (it underprices Toyota too often at present). Cadillac should be going head to head with BMW and Mercedes. Instead it priced a full class down, with products that don't know whether they are fish or fowl (a 5-series class sedan priced below the 3-series, another which does not know whether it should be a 5-series rival or a bargain 7-series rival etc.). The current strategy is no strategy at all. It's hopelessly flawed. Is there any reason a LaCrosse can't be a luxurious sedan with a premium image well above the Malibu, even if they are both largish Epsilon sedans? Why not, Toyota does it with the Camry/ES350, the latter began life in Japan with Camry badges!!

The lack of any true brand strategy is compounded by delusional thinking about what vehicle they are and should be selling. The Equinox and Torrent are not compacts. Selling a V6, midsize SUV as a compact is just crazy. Trying to fill the resulting gap by selling a fullsize crossover as a midsize model is just as stupid, no matter how good it is. The Rendezvous, which was a true midsize crossover, sold better than the Enclave does, even last year, and often better than the Acadia. How much better would a new midsize model sell if it was as good as the new fullsize crossovers? We may never know unless the new midsize thetas are actually priced and marketed as such (but still, no Buick to replace the Rendezvous as premium 7-seat midsizer). Despite what people think I don't see people still buying a 5-seat midsize Trailblazer (still consistently 10-14K a month) suddenly switching to a fullsize 7-seat Traverse. Tahoe buyers on the other hand …

Have Buick's sales fallen? Yes, but when you factor in the loss of the Rainier, Rendezvous and Terraza, it's not so bad. The unsurprising lack of demand for a fullsize family car like the Lucerne (even without $3+ gas) more than accounts for the rest.

While I'm ranting, note that the G8, with a more powerful V6, and a 5-speed instead of a 6-speed auto, gets almost the same mileage as the Malibu (same in the city and just one less mpg on the highway). swap the 5-speed for a 6-speed and voila! Just as good if not better mileage from a rwd as a fwd car. Somebody done be lying to you missah Lutz. Take a leaf from Toyota, rework the G6 as a lower-midsize rwd model like the G35 and Mark X (but with 4-cylinder engines—the new turbos will provide more than adequate performance), and sell it as a Buick Regal in China and a Pontiac Tempest/Ventura in the US. Add a 4-cylinder to the LaCrosse in the US for economy (the Chinese will get a 2.4 L 6-speed which will account for 90% or more of sales), and dump the PA/Lucerne and merge it with the G8 to create a new Invicta, a premium V6/V8/hybrid to rival the Toyota Crown (which outsells the PA by more than 10:1 in the V6 sedan segment in China and may soon arrive in the US as well).