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

[enzl]

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?

Excuses are like a$$holes, my friend, everyone's got one, most of 'em stink.

Competition is nothing new. If your defense of GM centers around the idea that the competition overwhelmed them one day---that won't fly.

GM left the door open for the competition. They just waltzed in and stole the family jewels while mgmt. was asleep. Period.

I lived thru GM's 70's, 80's & 90's product. Toyota didn't force GM to build any of their misguided product. BMW didn't tell Caddy to build a fleet of FWD petro-wood mobiles.

The USA is founded on the ideal that everyone has an opportunity to live the dream, be they 7th generation or fresh off the boat. GM is like the drunken offspring of the landed gentry--they've been clueless for so long, its been quite difficult to consider a proper response to the current competition. Now it may be too late.

Does Washington or the American consumer share some blame? Yes. But this started with GM's arrogance and negligence--please don't paint them as victims--these wounds are deep, old, festering & self-inflicted for the most part.

[buyacargetacheck]

What the delusional cheerleaders here don't understand is that GM's real market share is a lot lower than the published one when you factor in fleet sales and incentives. Unfortunately, fixed costs on the manufacturing side and the franchise laws have them backed into a corner - they don't seem to have a choice but to produce more of the wrong kinds of vehicles than the market can absorb.

Cutting brands and factories and adding new products to Caddy and Chevy to take up any marginal slack would right the ship immediately.

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.

[buyacargetacheck]

That's just about right. Before any sane, rational, out-of-the-box steps can be taken GM's hoary old culture needs to change. Maybe the situation is hopeless and those of you under 30 can expect to see the same show those of us over 30 have watched for what seems like forever. Except intermission is well over and the curtain is about to fall for good.

Excuses are like a$$holes, my friend, everyone's got one, most of 'em stink.

Competition is nothing new. If your defense of GM centers around the idea that the competition overwhelmed them one day---that won't fly.

GM left the door open for the competition. They just waltzed in and stole the family jewels while mgmt. was asleep. Period.

I lived thru GM's 70's, 80's & 90's product. Toyota didn't force GM to build any of their misguided product. BMW didn't tell Caddy to build a fleet of FWD petro-wood mobiles.

The USA is founded on the ideal that everyone has an opportunity to live the dream, be they 7th generation or fresh off the boat. GM is like the drunken offspring of the landed gentry--they've been clueless for so long, its been quite difficult to consider a proper response to the current competition. Now it may be too late.

Does Washington or the American consumer share some blame? Yes. But this started with GM's arrogance and negligence--please don't paint them as victims--these wounds are deep, old, festering & self-inflicted for the most part.

[turbo200]

Excuses are like a$$holes, my friend, everyone's got one, most of 'em stink.

Competition is nothing new. If your defense of GM centers around the idea that the competition overwhelmed them one day---that won't fly.

GM left the door open for the competition. They just waltzed in and stole the family jewels while mgmt. was asleep. Period.

I lived thru GM's 70's, 80's & 90's product. Toyota didn't force GM to build any of their misguided product. BMW didn't tell Caddy to build a fleet of FWD petro-wood mobiles.

The USA is founded on the ideal that everyone has an opportunity to live the dream, be they 7th generation or fresh off the boat. GM is like the drunken offspring of the landed gentry--they've been clueless for so long, its been quite difficult to consider a proper response to the current competition. Now it may be too late.

Does Washington or the American consumer share some blame? Yes. But this started with GM's arrogance and negligence--please don't paint them as victims--these wounds are deep, old, festering & self-inflicted for the most part.

I hope GM management either fully understands the issues being presented in this thread or is reading here. This is all great stuff coming here, all from the crowd in favor of information as opposed to 'misinformaiton'.

thegriffon made points I can't help but say could have come directly from my own mouth. I fully agree 100% and who couldn't with the idea that GM's product strategy seems like the results of drunk idiots or mentally impaired or miserable arrogant know-it-alls in the middle of the country.

This is wonderful discourse where inherently GM could chime in, show us somehow they are listening and understand all the points we are making, beginning with what choices they are going to be making to improve product strategy, ultimately the only hope they'll have of gaining share is through imporving product, and the compeititon is moving at warpspeed with thier new product.

What would it hurt for GM to chime in at a local board that rarely gets press, and even if it came to anyone else's attention, the resultant discourse could be nothing but good for GM. We are knowledgable here, and now would be a good time to address not only shareholders, but the public at large, what do you plan to do with the company planning you've inherited in your positions?

I completely agree with thegriffon on his points on Lambda, Trailblazer, G8 v. Malibu fuel economy, Buick's lineup, Pontiac's lineup, and the point about retail sales at Pontiac. It still is a brand people are willing to consider, if only the right product were there.

[turbo200]

GM's complete and appalling failure with product startegy, there really aren't enough negative words to express how wrong they've gotten it on so many occassion. This is exactly the reason all the waffling currently going on with Zeta boils my blodd literally. Zeta could have been the lynchpin for a truly upscale market of cars to be released at GM. Remember the Velite? Boy it's been a long time since anyone here uttered the name of this fabulous car. The Velite was a 35,000-45,000 Buick that would have created an aura of luxury, refinement, sophistication, class, luxury at Buick like no other car has done for them in a long time.

The accompanying sedan could have been Buick's low volume high priced answer to the LS460. Think 40k-50k. The Epsilon LAcrosse would have had room to compete with the ES 350 on even ground, going from 29k-44k. An open spot would have existed for a small coupe and sedan with the right sporting missions to attract youth.

Pontiac could have a G8, G8 coupe, G8 wagon, G8 sport truck. OMG, all of a sudden Pontiac would have a wonderful, huge lineup, that would create buzz on its own and not need much advertising and of course the product investment is nearly paid for at Holden. They could have a mass market, volume G6 based on Alpha, call it Ventura/Tempest, whatever. Basically a car sized like the last Grand Am, with better space utilization, having 4 cylind turbos as the high end engines, and potentially a high end V6 turbo as the only V6 engine offered as a 'sport' model for around $40k. This would be an ultimate Pontiac, similar to how a Lancer Evolution is an ultimate Mitsubishi Lancer, except an investment in more expensive raw materials to build the car would pay off in exclusivity along with actual performance. Pontiac could then have a performance coupe, based on Gamma or Delta, just a 2 door coupe, similar to the Fiero concept, but with a small backseat, like a favorite of mine, the Acura RSX.

If I can sit here and write a winning stategy on paper that requires little work and is based on existing platforms or platforms in development, why the F$%^ is it so hard for GM to do? What are they, mentally retarded? The market is being stolen from right underneath them, and I agree with enzl, the lot of them should be fired!

[thegriffon]

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!

Umm, sales. On a segment by segment basis—G6 outsells Fusion, consistently. Hell it outsells Mlaibu half the time. The Grand Prix, while it was being run down no less, was still outselling the Taurus (both are heavily fleeted, so you can't claim "but Pontiacs go to fleets" there). If there is any difference it's Fords dominance of the commercial-vehicle market (Crown Vic-retail sales virtually non-existent; Econoline-why on earth do people buy such an old piece of crap; F-series etc.).While GMC takes up most of the retail truck slack, it's the dearth of product in key segments that is hurting Pontiac more than anything else.

You're arguing in circles. They have no brand strategy, or if they do, they have failed to implement it. You can't criticize an unused strategy based on the too-clear failure resulting by not using it. The original brand strategy is still sound. What hasn't worked for the last 30-40 years is the complete abandonment of that strategy (at the insistence of dealers chasing volume I might add).

Selling the same four products at the same price through 3/4 different channels makes no sense. A multibrand system which GM is supposed to have does make sense and can be supported. Volume and revenue are maximized for a given investment. There is certainly pricing room, although GM does not make use of it to maximize revenue and thus the potential advertizing dollar. GM's problems are not the number of brands or models, but the way they are positioned and the margin it makes on each. Cutting just gets you less money to work on the remaining brands. It would still need to sell just as many vehicles. Do you seriously think Chevy could sell over 800,000 Malibu's every year (the number of fwd Epsilon and W-body sedans GM sold in the US alone last year), or that the development cost for this one sedan will be really a fraction of the cost it is for the lets see, 2 Chevys (one rebadged as a Pontiac), 1 Opel/Saturn, 1 Buick and 2 Saabs it will develop? Extra models on the same platform are cheap, and quick to do. After the Insignia debuts this summer they will start dropping like hailstones. Hey, let's see, Toyota worldwide has more models than GM, for what is only now a similar number of sales. All that extra work really takes its toll on development eh? Wake up and smell the BS.

Multibranding must be a bad idea, that's why Toyota has so many different channels in Japan, and keeps adding more in the US. Even Hoinda plans to add another brand to its lineup.

[regfootball]

GM's complete and appalling failure with product startegy, there really aren't enough negative words to express how wrong they've gotten it on so many occassion. This is exactly the reason all the waffling currently going on with Zeta boils my blodd literally. Zeta could have been the lynchpin for a truly upscale market of cars to be released at GM. Remember the Velite? Boy it's been a long time since anyone here uttered the name of this fabulous car. The Velite was a 35,000-45,000 Buick that would have created an aura of luxury, refinement, sophistication, class, luxury at Buick like no other car has done for them in a long time.

The accompanying sedan could have been Buick's low volume high priced answer to the LS460. Think 40k-50k. The Epsilon LAcrosse would have had room to compete with the ES 350 on even ground, going from 29k-44k. An open spot would have existed for a small coupe and sedan with the right sporting missions to attract youth.

Pontiac could have a G8, G8 coupe, G8 wagon, G8 sport truck. OMG, all of a sudden Pontiac would have a wonderful, huge lineup, that would create buzz on its own and not need much advertising and of course the product investment is nearly paid for at Holden. They could have a mass market, volume G6 based on Alpha, call it Ventura/Tempest, whatever. Basically a car sized like the last Grand Am, with better space utilization, having 4 cylind turbos as the high end engines, and potentially a high end V6 turbo as the only V6 engine offered as a 'sport' model for around $40k. This would be an ultimate Pontiac, similar to how a Lancer Evolution is an ultimate Mitsubishi Lancer, except an investment in more expensive raw materials to build the car would pay off in exclusivity along with actual performance. Pontiac could then have a performance coupe, based on Gamma or Delta, just a 2 door coupe, similar to the Fiero concept, but with a small backseat, like a favorite of mine, the Acura RSX.

If I can sit here and write a winning stategy on paper that requires little work and is based on existing platforms or platforms in development, why the F$%^ is it so hard for GM to do? What are they, mentally retarded? The market is being stolen from right underneath them, and I agree with enzl, the lot of them should be fired!

you know, it's funny. your pontiac strategy sounds good and workable. it is a shame they are not implementing it. but my real question is, if you kill pontiac, now what is your avenue for selling that same type of car? Chevy? ok, let's have a FWD Malibu, a RWD alpha sedan, a FWD Impala, a RWD Impala (because all the older folks like sport tuned suspensions), a RWD Caprice (because the impala and caprice don't overlap), cobalt sedan, hmmm, what else?

again, all toyota sells is vanilla appliances. toyota has only really ever been asked to design and build appliance cars. Pontiac is a performance brand. kill pontiac and insert it into toyota's lineup. ok, that's the same thing as trying to insert it into chevy's. Toyota's only performance heritage is let's see.....supra? what else?

the person who wanted the performance car and is hell bent on the zeta or alpha isn't gonna want the toyota badge on it, and the person who wants an appliance will be confused as hell and won't make of it as a toyota either, which muddies up the brand.

to some degree that makes you question the SS line and the camaro. valid argument, except a car like the camaro has legacy that toyota products do not.

by killing brands you give GM no avenue to sell the type of models you are killing. chevy and cadillac cannot absorb the attributes of the other brands. you would confuse chevy and dumb down cadillac.

another thing. i really doubt it's neccessary for caddy to be completely toe to toe with mercedes for example. i would not settle for caddy being third tier junk like acura, but there is no reason for caddy to have sell 6 figure MSRP's to be worthy.

the number of brands is not the issue. it's the rate at which they are bringing out the product and lack of speed in decision making.

Edited March 12, 2008 by regfootball

[Z-06]

GM's complete and appalling failure with product startegy, there really aren't enough negative words to express how wrong they've gotten it on so many occassion. This is exactly the reason all the waffling currently going on with Zeta boils my blodd literally. Zeta could have been the lynchpin for a truly upscale market of cars to be released at GM. Remember the Velite? Boy it's been a long time since anyone here uttered the name of this fabulous car. The Velite was a 35,000-45,000 Buick that would have created an aura of luxury, refinement, sophistication, class, luxury at Buick like no other car has done for them in a long time.

The accompanying sedan could have been Buick's low volume high priced answer to the LS460. Think 40k-50k. The Epsilon LAcrosse would have had room to compete with the ES 350 on even ground, going from 29k-44k. An open spot would have existed for a small coupe and sedan with the right sporting missions to attract youth.

Pontiac could have a G8, G8 coupe, G8 wagon, G8 sport truck. OMG, all of a sudden Pontiac would have a wonderful, huge lineup, that would create buzz on its own and not need much advertising and of course the product investment is nearly paid for at Holden. They could have a mass market, volume G6 based on Alpha, call it Ventura/Tempest, whatever. Basically a car sized like the last Grand Am, with better space utilization, having 4 cylind turbos as the high end engines, and potentially a high end V6 turbo as the only V6 engine offered as a 'sport' model for around $40k. This would be an ultimate Pontiac, similar to how a Lancer Evolution is an ultimate Mitsubishi Lancer, except an investment in more expensive raw materials to build the car would pay off in exclusivity along with actual performance. Pontiac could then have a performance coupe, based on Gamma or Delta, just a 2 door coupe, similar to the Fiero concept, but with a small backseat, like a favorite of mine, the Acura RSX.

If I can sit here and write a winning stategy on paper that requires little work and is based on existing platforms or platforms in development, why the F$%^ is it so hard for GM to do? What are they, mentally retarded? The market is being stolen from right underneath them, and I agree with enzl, the lot of them should be fired!

I like this ONE platform strategy for Pontiac. Make it versatile with 1) Sedan, 2) Coupe, 3) Covertible, 4) Wagon, 5) Sport Truck, and 6) SUV -> May be not if there will be one in GMC. Give them like you said a choice of engines with 4 and 6 NA and turbos, and RWD and FWD. Make them fuel efficient. It may be on Alpha or Zeta does not matter, so as long the combined volume is close to 300-350K annually, which I do not think why it will not be, Pontiac will have a winner in their hands. But the most important thing is to keep the prices between 25-35 large. In some sense, this platform can be shared with other vehicles from other brands so cost of building just one platform for Pontiac will be invalid. Pontiac need not compete with cars of different EPA sizes, but compete in vehicles of different EPA categories.

Economics wise, let us say it is a stand alone platform for Pontiac with 5 years of life. Then it will be about 1.5 Million cars at average transaction price $30K each = $45B. It costs about 3-4 Billion to make a platform from ground zero, or roughly $2,000 per vehicle. I think that is achievable.

[The O.C.]

Umm, sales. On a segment by segment basis—G6 outsells Fusion, consistently. Hell it outsells Mlaibu half the time. The Grand Prix, while it was being run down no less, was still outselling the Taurus (both are heavily fleeted, so you can't claim "but Pontiacs go to fleets" there). If there is any difference it's Fords dominance of the commercial-vehicle market (Crown Vic-retail sales virtually non-existent; Econoline-why on earth do people buy such an old piece of crap; F-series etc.).While GMC takes up most of the retail truck slack, it's the dearth of product in key segments that is hurting Pontiac more than anything else.

You're arguing in circles. They have no brand strategy, or if they do, they have failed to implement it. You can't criticize an unused strategy based on the too-clear failure resulting by not using it. The original brand strategy is still sound. What hasn't worked for the last 30-40 years is the complete abandonment of that strategy (at the insistence of dealers chasing volume I might add).

Selling the same four products at the same price through 3/4 different channels makes no sense. A multibrand system which GM is supposed to have does make sense and can be supported. Volume and revenue are maximized for a given investment. There is certainly pricing room, although GM does not make use of it to maximize revenue and thus the potential advertizing dollar. GM's problems are not the number of brands or models, but the way they are positioned and the margin it makes on each. Cutting just gets you less money to work on the remaining brands. It would still need to sell just as many vehicles. Do you seriously think Chevy could sell over 800,000 Malibu's every year (the number of fwd Epsilon and W-body sedans GM sold in the US alone last year), or that the development cost for this one sedan will be really a fraction of the cost it is for the lets see, 2 Chevys (one rebadged as a Pontiac), 1 Opel/Saturn, 1 Buick and 2 Saabs it will develop? Extra models on the same platform are cheap, and quick to do. After the Insignia debuts this summer they will start dropping like hailstones. Hey, let's see, Toyota worldwide has more models than GM, for what is only now a similar number of sales. All that extra work really takes its toll on development eh? Wake up and smell the BS.

Multibranding must be a bad idea, that's why Toyota has so many different channels in Japan, and keeps adding more in the US. Even Hoinda plans to add another brand to its lineup.

First of all, who gives a crap about Japan.

We are discussing GM's plan for the U.S....and in the U.S..., Toyota has three brands to GM's eight.

And what information do you have about Honda adding another brand to it's lineup? What brand? Positioned how? This is not something I've heard of at all......

And GM's problem IS the number of brands and models. With 8 brands, there is NO way you can effectively differentiate all of them on price or market segment.

[regfootball]

just like there is no way to differentiate all the umpteen different bland asian brands

is that a forester? no, it's a rav.....wait. it's an outlander! no.....hold on...............oh yeah, that's a rogue. wait! it's a CRV!

gm brands are better differentiated than all the soulless asian crap.

Edited March 13, 2008 by regfootball

[turbo200]

First of all, who gives a crap about Japan.

We are discussing GM's plan for the U.S....and in the U.S..., Toyota has three brands to GM's eight.

And GM's problem IS the number of brands and models. With 8 brands, there is NO way you can effectively differentiate all of them on price or market segment.

no, it's definitely relevant. a successful execution of a multi-brand strategy is what we're discussing here. his point was toyota has more brands in japan and handles less volume than GM in America.....

no, the problem is not the number of brands. it's been the execution. hummer and Cadillac may compete in a similar price class, but they offer a complete different style and focus, Hummer is ideally focused to off-road and Cadillac is focused to technology/luxury. Similar to Audi and VW offer markedly similar cars and many times competing in price, they offer different styles and 'raison d'etre'....perception wise they are going after a differently minded consumer.

Dell has a number of different laptops, in some cases competing with each other for pricing, however each distinct line goes after a different consumer. The bigger cheaper Inspiron goes after light use consumer, XPS goes after more hardcore, etc. you get the point.

[daves87rs]

But there is a bigger factor here: Gas prices.

No regular "joe" is worried about performance when he can barely afford his own gas. And there are more and more "Joes" out there every day.

It comes down to this: Are you more worried about "image" or "great history", or are you more worried about getting from point A to point B?

I guess we will see....

[daves87rs]

just like there is no way to differentiate all the umpteen different bland asian brands

is that a forester? no, it's a rav.....wait. it's an outlander! no.....hold on...............oh yeah, that's a rogue. wait! it's a CRV!

gm brands are better differentiated than all the soulless asian crap.

Come on Reg, they are a little different.

Honda does a pretty good job...and Subie...

How Toyota on the other hand....wow. I just saw a few mini-Camries the other day.....

[turbo200]

But there is a bigger factor here: Gas prices.

No regular "joe" is worried about performance when he can barely afford his own gas. And there are more and more "Joes" out there every day.

It comes down to this: Are you more worried about "image" or "great history", or are you more worried about getting from point A to point B?

I guess we will see....

gas prices are the wild card. hard to predict, except obviously things are going up only. how drastically and how soon is left undetermined.

you see if we had more forward thinking execs, they would have already positioned the brands like we've been discussing here, and invested in better tech to still adhere to these brand philosophies.

going into the future, i see a lot more cars with 4 cyl, and hopefully the tech everybody wants to try to make us think will work actually does end up working, and we can actually have DI dual turbo 1.8 I-4s producing more than 240 hp/200tq and still getting more than 40 mpg highway. we will see.

that being said, under current market circumstances, my plans would work.

[thegriffon]

First of all, who gives a crap about Japan.

We are discussing GM's plan for the U.S....and in the U.S..., Toyota has three brands to GM's eight.

And what information do you have about Honda adding another brand to it's lineup? What brand? Positioned how? This is not something I've heard of at all......

And GM's problem IS the number of brands and models. With 8 brands, there is NO way you can effectively differentiate all of them on price or market segment.

Honda's new brand is not a secret, they've already officially announced they are going to do it. What's secret is the name and how far they plan to use it, which is why I get paid for this kind of information.

[turbo200]

I like this ONE platform strategy for Pontiac. Make it versatile with 1) Sedan, 2) Coupe, 3) Covertible, 4) Wagon, 5) Sport Truck, and 6) SUV -> May be not if there will be one in GMC. Give them like you said a choice of engines with 4 and 6 NA and turbos, and RWD and FWD. Make them fuel efficient. It may be on Alpha or Zeta does not matter, so as long the combined volume is close to 300-350K annually, which I do not think why it will not be, Pontiac will have a winner in their hands. But the most important thing is to keep the prices between 25-35 large. In some sense, this platform can be shared with other vehicles from other brands so cost of building just one platform for Pontiac will be invalid. Pontiac need not compete with cars of different EPA sizes, but compete in vehicles of different EPA categories.

Economics wise, let us say it is a stand alone platform for Pontiac with 5 years of life. Then it will be about 1.5 Million cars at average transaction price $30K each = $45B. It costs about 3-4 Billion to make a platform from ground zero, or roughly $2,000 per vehicle. I think that is achievable.

I'm kind of big on the three pronged strategy. small, small medium, and medium, with medium being the Zeta G8 [though it can obviously be classified as large to some].

I think performance, rebeliousness, style are all part of Pontiac's image. These can be reinforced in the traditional three categories dividing the market, just obviously in Pontiac's case we would offer distinctly different alternatives, since the middle and large would be RWD and offer great performance/handling for affordable prices. I do think Pontiacs should be at least 3k more expensive than Chevy. A small sports coupe I described above should go for 18-22k. Minimal options list. Engines varying performance. I'm not against having a lightweight engine so long as the core performance characteristics of great handling/performing/driving remain intact. For anyone who's ever driven a '91 240sx, think this car updated. Next should be the RWD Grand Am-sized car. this should be a 24k-30k car. Again, options should remain fairly minimal as Pontiacs should come decently loaded. Like the G8. Think Acura for equipment levels and trim levels/packages. Last would be G8, which I think is fine from 27k-33k.

[The O.C.]

Honda's new brand is not a secret, they've already officially announced they are going to do it. What's secret is the name and how far they plan to use it, which is why I get paid for this kind of information.

You've basically said nothing.

I've heard nothing of a new Honda brand.....and I'm not exactly un-connected in the business......

So if you know something, give us your details.....otherwise I consider it non-existent....

(edit: It's just like everyone thinking Alfa Romeo is coming back to the U.S. market.....guess what? Notgonnahappen.com......)

Edited March 13, 2008 by The O.C.

[Z-06]

I'm kind of big on the three pronged strategy. small, small medium, and medium, with medium being the Zeta G8 [though it can obviously be classified as large to some].

I think performance, rebeliousness, style are all part of Pontiac's image. These can be reinforced in the traditional three categories dividing the market, just obviously in Pontiac's case we would offer distinctly different alternatives, since the middle and large would be RWD and offer great performance/handling for affordable prices. I do think Pontiacs should be at least 3k more expensive than Chevy. A small sports coupe I described above should go for 18-22k. Minimal options list. Engines varying performance. I'm not against having a lightweight engine so long as the core performance characteristics of great handling/performing/driving remain intact. For anyone who's ever driven a '91 240sx, think this car updated. Next should be the RWD Grand Am-sized car. this should be a 24k-30k car. Again, options should remain fairly minimal as Pontiacs should come decently loaded. Like the G8. Think Acura for equipment levels and trim levels/packages. Last would be G8, which I think is fine from 27k-33k.

I agree. Although thinking how "tarnished" some people think this brand is, having one platform to test its capabilities will certainly help and then can be diversified in sizes like you mentioned, a combined volume of 500k may not seem impossible, and like I said those platforms need not be Pontiac only.

Like you mentioned, a minimum option list will be viable like the Acuras, although options are like cash cows to GM. But please do not let it be like BMW where the car can be loaded to 160% its base value.

[smk4565]

GM's complete and appalling failure with product startegy, there really aren't enough negative words to express how wrong they've gotten it on so many occassion.

The accompanying sedan could have been Buick's low volume high priced answer to the LS460. Think 40k-50k. The Epsilon LAcrosse would have had room to compete with the ES 350 on even ground, going from 29k-44k. An open spot would have existed for a small coupe and sedan with the right sporting missions to attract youth.

If I can sit here and write a winning stategy on paper that requires little work and is based on existing platforms or platforms in development, why the F$%^ is it so hard for GM to do?

Yes, they do have a bad strategy. I've said for years if Pontiac is supposed to be a sporty Chevy, why does it have the same engine and usually cost less? I see Pontiac as fleet sale central, regardless of what their marketing says.

The Lexus LS460 is $70-110,000, if GM is going to compete with it, the car should cost $70-110,000. Cadillac doesn't even have a sedan that bases at $45,000 or higher. An Epsilon LaCrosse could work if done well, but Buick's image is badly hurt, and it would be priced right inline with the Genesis. There is a place in the market for soft, luxurious mid-size sedans, but can Buick win buyers from Toyota, Lexus, and Acura?

The reason it is hard for GM to do is there is no money to do it. The company doesn't make profit, so it is hard to crank out new products. Also once Brand A gets a new car, Brands, B, C and D start saying me too, me too, or dealers whine, so GM caves and rebages a car for a quick fix.

[thegriffon]

First of all, who gives a crap about Japan.

We are discussing GM's plan for the U.S....and in the U.S..., Toyota has three brands to GM's eight.

And what information do you have about Honda adding another brand to it's lineup? What brand? Positioned how? This is not something I've heard of at all......

And GM's problem IS the number of brands and models. With 8 brands, there is NO way you can effectively differentiate all of them on price or market segment.

Actually, it's easy, especially as a number are actually sub-segments of a certain price-level.

Chevrolet-value price, economical family cars (a sub $20K 4-cyl midsize sedan) and light commercials.

Pontiac- midlevel, $5K premium on a midsize sedan, sportier and perhaps smaller than a Chevrolet. (a lower-midsize sedan starting at close to $25K for a 4-cylinder).

Buick-premium cars, a $10K premium over Chevrolet for midsize sedans (closer to $30K for a 4-cylinder, fwd upper-midsize sedan, and nearly $40K for a rwd 300 hp V6. Yes this means a smaller 300+ hp midsize Cadillac will start in the low $40s. So it should).

GMC-midlevel and premium crossovers an SUVs, heavy-duty commercials.

Hummer-hardcore offroad vehicles.

Saab-small fwd luxury sport sedans (subcompact 9-1, compact 9-2, lower-midsize 9-3 and 9-4 crossover—dump the 9-5)

Cadillac—larger rwd luxury sedans and SUVs (lower-midsize, midsize and large sedans, lower-midsize, upper-midsize and luxury [not offroad] large SUVs).

Fleetwood—custom, low-volume and one-off Cadillacs built to spec. "Ostrich leather sir? No problem sir. An extra 3" rear legroom? No problem sir. If you'll just enter your swiss bank account number here sir?"

Say that's 8 and I haven't even mentioned Saturn.

Let's make it 9 then and make use of the Saturn franchise for experimental retailing and vehicle concepts—really a different kind of car company. More expensive "green" vehicles, plugin hybrids, smaller MPVs etc. Or just sell it to BMW for their "green" brand.

I can even lay out a separate position for Vauxhall in the European market (a typically British luxury brand with big American engines, like Bristol, Bentley etc.).

Of course I don't expect GM to really pull this off, they just could. That's an entirely separate issue. Blame dealers, current owners (I can hear the howls from C&G members about prices now), a lack of confidence (once bitten twice shy), and political shenanigans within GM from people like PCS.

[thegriffon]

You've basically said nothing.

I've heard nothing of a new Honda brand.....and I'm not exactly un-connected in the business......

So if you know something, give us your details.....otherwise I consider it non-existent....

(edit: It's just like everyone thinking Alfa Romeo is coming back to the U.S. market.....guess what? Notgonnahappen.com......)

I don't give info like this for free. Try browsing Honda's global press releases for the publicly released info.

[thegriffon]

… The reason it is hard for GM to do is there is no money to do it. …

And there is GM's real problem when it comes to marketing. No money. The sales are there to support the brands, given that development costs are largely incremental (the basic vehicle and powertrain must be developed anyway, so only the little that is required for a new body and suspension tuning is needed for each additional version). High legacy costs (which will eventually go away), and poor product positioning (which may not), even of good product, may not. It's not so much a problem outside North America (better positioning, not fewer brands is the reason), so it can be done.

[smk4565]

you know, it's funny. your pontiac strategy sounds good and workable. it is a shame they are not implementing it. but my real question is, if you kill pontiac, now what is your avenue for selling that same type of car? Chevy? ok, let's have a FWD Malibu, a RWD alpha sedan, a FWD Impala, a RWD Impala (because all the older folks like sport tuned suspensions), a RWD Caprice (because the impala and caprice don't overlap), cobalt sedan, hmmm, what else?

to some degree that makes you question the SS line and the camaro. valid argument, except a car like the camaro has legacy that toyota products do not.

the number of brands is not the issue. it's the rate at which they are bringing out the product and lack of speed in decision making.

If they kill Pontiac, then Saturn would get the Alpha car, Jetta like interior and build quality but rear drive would set them apart from the rest. Like a BMW 128i minus some luxury and prestige. If Pontiac goes, you also use the SS Chevrolets to get performance types, and keep Buick for the slushy-floaty $27-37,000 sedans. Basically if GM picked one of the three (Buick, Pontiac or Saturn) and killed it, the remaining 2 and Chevy could fill all the gaps.

Toyota has the Corolla which has sold 32 million units since 1966. 32 million sales in 41 years is about 750,000 a year, that isn't a bad legacy.

GM can only bring so many products to market every year. 2008 was Enclave, CTS, Malibu, and G8 (I think Astra is a 2009) and all 4 of those vehicles was on a platform used in 2007 with existing engines. If they can only do 5 products per year, every brand can't get a new vehicle, and models will go for 7 years without update (9-5, H2, GMT360s). The Camaro could be on sale now, but they stopped work on Zeta in favor of GMT900s. With 8 brands they will always move slowly, because they have to spread money and resources thin.

[smk4565]

Toyota has less than 5,000 dealerships in the US, vs about 14,600 for GM. GM isn't selling 3 times as many cars, they don't need 3 times as many dealers. If there were 8-10,000 GM dealers that would be plenty.

The other issue GM has to face is rising gas prices, and their product portfolio doesn't address that need right now. They need smaller cars for one, and nicer small cars like Europe has. They should have a CTS or Enclave like interior in a car the size of a Cobalt. 1.8 liter DI turbo 4 cylinders and turbo diesels will be needed also. The Mini cooper has a 1.6 turbo and makes 162 hp, an engine like that can replace the 2.2-2.4 liter ecotecs, matching it to a 6-speed and BAS hybrid can really boost mileage.

[thegriffon]

A Corsa has a 1.6 Turbo and makes 189 hp.

[buyacargetacheck]

Toyota also owns nearly 50% of the Japanese market. At one time GM had a similar market share here and it's nameplates were actual divisions with their own engineering and design staffs and vice presidents. Now, GMNA is one big company masquerading as if it was still 1966 and pretending that there is any difference in the individual nameplates. There isn't. There's hardly such a thing as a "sporty" Pontiac buyer. Only on this board does anyone believe that.

Truly, there's nothing in Saturn's, Pontiac's or Buick's stable that couldn't be absorbed by Chevy or Cadillac.

no, it's definitely relevant. a successful execution of a multi-brand strategy is what we're discussing here. his point was toyota has more brands in japan and handles less volume than GM in America.....

no, the problem is not the number of brands. it's been the execution. hummer and Cadillac may compete in a similar price class, but they offer a complete different style and focus, Hummer is ideally focused to off-road and Cadillac is focused to technology/luxury. Similar to Audi and VW offer markedly similar cars and many times competing in price, they offer different styles and 'raison d'etre'....perception wise they are going after a differently minded consumer.

Dell has a number of different laptops, in some cases competing with each other for pricing, however each distinct line goes after a different consumer. The bigger cheaper Inspiron goes after light use consumer, XPS goes after more hardcore, etc. you get the point.

[buyacargetacheck]

If it's so easy why has GM (or any car company for that matter) failed to make 6 or more namplates based on the same basic underpinnings work for the last 30 years? History doesn't support your statements.

Truly delusional my friend. How would the Malibu compete against the Camry or Accord when, in your world, you hem Chevrolet into only selling products that compete against only part of the Camry lineup? Pontiac and Saturn would presumably handle the Camry XLE and V-6 buyers? So there you have it: 3 GM brands get to share the limelight that Toyota wisely gives to only one terrific car. A Chevy Malibu in your perfect GM world would always be a sales loser. And who wants to be associated with a loser?

Actually, it's easy, especially as a number are actually sub-segments of a certain price-level.

Chevrolet-value price, economical family cars (a sub $20K 4-cyl midsize sedan) and light commercials.

Pontiac- midlevel, $5K premium on a midsize sedan, sportier and perhaps smaller than a Chevrolet. (a lower-midsize sedan starting at close to $25K for a 4-cylinder).

Buick-premium cars, a $10K premium over Chevrolet for midsize sedans (closer to $30K for a 4-cylinder, fwd upper-midsize sedan, and nearly $40K for a rwd 300 hp V6. Yes this means a smaller 300+ hp midsize Cadillac will start in the low $40s. So it should).

GMC-midlevel and premium crossovers an SUVs, heavy-duty commercials.

Hummer-hardcore offroad vehicles.

Saab-small fwd luxury sport sedans (subcompact 9-1, compact 9-2, lower-midsize 9-3 and 9-4 crossover—dump the 9-5)

Cadillac—larger rwd luxury sedans and SUVs (lower-midsize, midsize and large sedans, lower-midsize, upper-midsize and luxury [not offroad] large SUVs).

Fleetwood—custom, low-volume and one-off Cadillacs built to spec. "Ostrich leather sir? No problem sir. An extra 3" rear legroom? No problem sir. If you'll just enter your swiss bank account number here sir?"

Say that's 8 and I haven't even mentioned Saturn.

Let's make it 9 then and make use of the Saturn franchise for experimental retailing and vehicle concepts—really a different kind of car company. More expensive "green" vehicles, plugin hybrids, smaller MPVs etc. Or just sell it to BMW for their "green" brand.

I can even lay out a separate position for Vauxhall in the European market (a typically British luxury brand with big American engines, like Bristol, Bentley etc.).

Of course I don't expect GM to really pull this off, they just could. That's an entirely separate issue. Blame dealers, current owners (I can hear the howls from C&G members about prices now), a lack of confidence (once bitten twice shy), and political shenanigans within GM from people like PCS.

[daves87rs]

If it's so easy why has GM (or any car company for that matter) failed to make 6 or more namplates based on the same basic underpinnings work for the last 30 years? History doesn't support your statements.

Truly delusional my friend. How would the Malibu compete against the Camry or Accord when, in your world, you hem Chevrolet into only selling products that compete against only part of the Camry lineup? Pontiac and Saturn would presumably handle the Camry XLE and V-6 buyers? So there you have it: 3 GM brands get to share the limelight that Toyota wisely gives to only one terrific car. A Chevy Malibu in your perfect GM world would always be a sales loser. And who wants to be associated with a loser?

While some of that is true-it does offer one benefit that Toyota doesn't- Flavor.

While there are people who buy a car like they buy a washer, some people still like to have a choice in what you buy.

Don't like a look of the Camry. Too bad.

Don't like the new Malibu? Try an Aura? Not your cup of Tea? How about a nice G6?

GM doesn't have to beat the Camry-but be as close as possible. GM's niche, if the want to keep their brands, is to offer different solid cars to the comsumer....have a little overlap, but not Trailblazer crazy. And use those Global resources, and Turbo mentioned.

While there may be nothing wrong with buying that Consumer's Report darling washer, someone might want that washer in blue. That has 20 settings instead the other washer's 10.

You get the idea.

[thegriffon]

If it's so easy why has GM (or any car company for that matter) failed to make 6 or more namplates based on the same basic underpinnings work for the last 30 years? History doesn't support your statements.

Truly delusional my friend. How would the Malibu compete against the Camry or Accord when, in your world, you hem Chevrolet into only selling products that compete against only part of the Camry lineup? Pontiac and Saturn would presumably handle the Camry XLE and V-6 buyers? So there you have it: 3 GM brands get to share the limelight that Toyota wisely gives to only one terrific car. A Chevy Malibu in your perfect GM world would always be a sales loser. And who wants to be associated with a loser?

You're ignoring the fact that even Toyota offers three fwd sedans in $20-35K range—the Camry, Avalon and ES350. Include rwd sedans and that's 4 in China (and that doesn't include the Avalon). You don't think GM can do the same with just as many (wait, at the moment, it's more) sales? I'm not proposing three or four vehicles to compete with Camry. I'm proposing moving the Pontiac and Buick models out of Camry's path and killing the Aura altogether (if we must keep Saturn, let them have an MAV more like the Ford S-Max). The LaCrosse should be a true premium ES350/Avalon competitor in the US, with pricing to match. The rwd V6 Invicta is primarily for the Chinese market, competing with Toyota's Crown, but is a better choice than the big Lucerne for the US market as well (and the Crown may be offered there as well). The G6 would become a smaller, rwd sedan competing (as a Buick) with Toyota's Mark X/Reis in China and replacing the aging and now poor selling Regal (this may actually happen). As a smaller, more nimble offering it is far out of the Camry buyer's view, and will appeal to buyers without the budget for the big Invicta and more expensive luxury sport sedans.

[The O.C.]

You're ignoring the fact that even Toyota offers three fwd sedans in $20-35K range—the Camry, Avalon and ES350.

GM....? In the $20K-$35K range?

Malibu

Impala

G6

Grand Prix/G8

AURA

LaCrosse

Lucerne

9-3

CTS

That's 9.........(did I forget any?)

[thegriffon]

I thought I was defending my vision for the brands, not GM's current lineup. If we compare the two:

GM....? In the $20K-$35K range?

Malibu—mainstream Camry fighter, slightly bigger than the global midsize sedan facing the Toyota Avensis.

Impala—gone, in favor of an MPVish taxi/patrol vehicle a little like the MkT (better wheelchair/perp access, luggage room etc.) with diesel and hybrid powertrains.

G6—replaced by the Ventura, a small, nimble rwd sport sedan, a Pontiac version of the Chinese-market Buick premium car to slot below the larger, more luxurious LaCrosse

Grand Prix/G8—gone in favor of a much more expensive Buick Invicta in the $35K+ price range

AURA—gone, in favor of a plug-hybrid MPV like the Flextreme

LaCrosse—base 4-cylinder just under $30K, where it should be priced, and more expensive diesel and hybrid.

Lucerne—gone in favor of the smaller rwd Invicta and a fwd MkT style crossover/wagon/MPV to replace the GL8 Firstland (2nd-best selling MPV in China and the most popular large MPV)—a V6 250+ hp Town and Country is over $36K, and this is where the future lies for all but the most expensive large cars.

9-3— A TSX rather than a Camry/Avalon/ES350 competitor surely.

CTS—will move up to the $40K+ range once the more compact BT3 debuts. Any slack will be taken up by the BT3 and Invicta.

That's 9.........(did I forget any?)

[enzl]

While some of that is true-it does offer one benefit that Toyota doesn't- Flavor.

While there are people who buy a car like they buy a washer, some people still like to have a choice in what you buy.

Don't like a look of the Camry. Too bad.

Don't like the new Malibu? Try an Aura? Not your cup of Tea? How about a nice G6?

GM doesn't have to beat the Camry-but be as close as possible. GM's niche, if the want to keep their brands, is to offer different solid cars to the comsumer....have a little overlap, but not Trailblazer crazy. And use those Global resources, and Turbo mentioned.

While there may be nothing wrong with buying that Consumer's Report darling washer, someone might want that washer in blue. That has 20 settings instead the other washer's 10.

You get the idea.

That's why they're in the position they're in.

Beat Camry (not that hard). Beat Accord. Beat Altima.

Then you'll.. conquer a tough market.

The more GM goes mainstream and center of market, the worse they'll do. You need to give people a strong reason to swap allegiances.

I'm afraid that the washer analogy is completely off base. GM's problem is people don't make their choice like a washer--no-one sees you cruising in your washer---but lots of people see you in your 'safe' choice, i.e. Camry, Accord--and consider it a wise one nowadays. DCX got fannies in the seat with design---GM needs to couple that creativity with underlying excellence, just to survive!

[Drew Dowdell]

So.. wait. Toyota can conquer the market without beating the Accord and Altima..... but the Malibu has to conquer all 3?

[enzl]

So.. wait. Toyota can conquer the market without beating the Accord and Altima..... but the Malibu has to conquer all 3?

Yes.

That's the unenviable position GM finds itself in...when people openly mock the choice of a Detroit 2.8 product...when the default choices are all Japanese...when your reputation takes a battering everyday in the press ("layoffs in the thousands", ""sinking stock price", "bankruptcy possible", "Strike closing 20+ Plants") you must come out swinging---a no holds barred barrage of brave, unique, well-designed and well-built product that is DEMONSTRABLY SUPERIOR to other available product.

Otherwise, close up shop, sell off the US assets and move the rest of the company to China, where they don't know how bad you sucked for years.

The guys in charge have proven, repeatedly, that they don't know how to do what is needed.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

I know we all live in North America and are panicking by what we see, but Toyota is not invincible. In Japan, their 50% market share is 50% of a market in decline. The only market they are doing well in, is ours and 2008 is going to be a hellish year. GM, on the other hand, is doing extremely well in Europe and in the only markets that are growing (Brazil, Russia, China, India), GM is very well positioned. Do not be surprised if GM ends up decidedly ahead of Toyota again for calender year 2008.

As most of us on C&G make our money here, I guess we are guilty of only giving a damn about what goes on here, but GM is actually in very good shape elsewhere - and ELSEWHERE is increasingly becoming more important.

Getting back on topic, the market has become way too fractured in the past 20 years for Pontiac to be Pontiac and Chevrolet to be Chevrolet, etc.: that was something the marketing boys could easily acheive in the '50s and '60s. Pontiac should never have had a truck, but with the huge surge in the truck market over the past 10-15 years, those dealers would have been crushed without one. Ditto, Buick. Amalgamation will certainly help.

The real danger here is what will $5 a gallon gas do to all these market niches? Suddenly, vehicles like the Tahoe virtually disappear, while vehicles like the Aveo, Yaris and others become top sellers. This will be another challenge to the divisions: how do they differentiate their product when 60% of the market becomes motorized skateboards?

[buyacargetacheck]

Cadillac should be expanded at the low end with an ES350 competitor. The Cadillac name is less tarnished than Buick and would likely command a slightly higher price with fewer incentives than the same car with a Buick badge. The Enclave could easily be restyled as a Cadillac RX competitor. The Lucerne, if replaced at all given the shrinking of that market, should become the Chevrolet Caprice.

BTW, I don't hate Buick. I just think it's irrelevant in NA. It's being kept around because of legacy channel commitments unfortunately at Cadillac's expense.

I'm proposing moving the Pontiac and Buick models out of Camry's path and killing the Aura altogether (if we must keep Saturn, let them have an MAV more like the Ford S-Max). The LaCrosse should be a true premium ES350/Avalon competitor in the US, with pricing to match.

[smk4565]

Europe differentiates fairly well with small cars. If gas goes to $4-5 per gallon, people will want small cars, but some will want luxury, some will want performance, so they could do a soft riding Buick that is as small as a Cobalt, a Cadillac like the 3-series, etc. They can differentiate and cover various segments with 4-5 brands.

Toyota isn't invincible, but they are in a very good position. They do well in China (the top Toyota outsells the Park Ave), Lexus is growing quickly in Europe. They sold 9.3 million cars last year to GM's 9.35 million, and they sell fewer in the US than GM does, so globally Toyota is doing better actually. More importantly, the last few years while GM and Ford have been losing money, Toyota made $13 billion in profit in 2006 and $15 billion last year.

[enzl]

And, why not give 'em (RW,BL, FH) raises and stock options while you're asking the factory labor to take it in the shorts?...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205360636...=googlenews_wsj

Unbelievable. I couldn't make it up and have it be more offensive.

[daves87rs]

That's why they're in the position they're in.

Beat Camry (not that hard). Beat Accord. Beat Altima.

Then you'll.. conquer a tough market.

The more GM goes mainstream and center of market, the worse they'll do. You need to give people a strong reason to swap allegiances.

I'm afraid that the washer analogy is completely off base. GM's problem is people don't make their choice like a washer--no-one sees you cruising in your washer---but lots of people see you in your 'safe' choice, i.e. Camry, Accord--and consider it a wise one nowadays. DCX got fannies in the seat with design---GM needs to couple that creativity with underlying excellence, just to survive!

Actually, people DO buy their cars like washers.....

How many people just buy that LG washer because CR says so, or beacuse their neighbors have one?

A buttload of people buy their Toyotas the same way.

Granted their "safe " choice may be a costy one....which is why the Korean automakers are doing so well.

So GM is not going to be able to sell on benchmark, or on price. So they have to be different....

Though I really agree with the mainstream comment.. That is why the Mailbu is doing better...

[daves87rs]

Cadillac should be expanded at the low end with an ES350 competitor. The Cadillac name is less tarnished than Buick and would likely command a slightly higher price with fewer incentives than the same car with a Buick badge. The Enclave could easily be restyled as a Cadillac RX competitor. The Lucerne, if replaced at all given the shrinking of that market, should become the Chevrolet Caprice.

BTW, I don't hate Buick. I just think it's irrelevant in NA. It's being kept around because of legacy channel commitments unfortunately at Cadillac's expense.

GM is not going to be able to compete in every market with Toyota.

Just the important ones (midsize, compact, etc), and their strengths (trucks), and get out of the declining markets(SUV)

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Europe differentiates fairly well with small cars. If gas goes to $4-5 per gallon, people will want small cars, but some will want luxury, some will want performance, so they could do a soft riding Buick that is as small as a Cobalt, a Cadillac like the 3-series, etc. They can differentiate and cover various segments with 4-5 brands.

Toyota isn't invincible, but they are in a very good position. They do well in China (the top Toyota outsells the Park Ave), Lexus is growing quickly in Europe. They sold 9.3 million cars last year to GM's 9.35 million, and they sell fewer in the US than GM does, so globally Toyota is doing better actually. More importantly, the last few years while GM and Ford have been losing money, Toyota made $13 billion in profit in 2006 and $15 billion last year.

How do you figure that? GM is increasing with double digits in the EXPANDING markets of Brazil, China, China and India, while Toyota is growing at single digits in the DECLINING markets of the U.S., Canada and Japan. Of course, they are more profitable, but that can change at a moment's notice. It would seem that Toyota is in a good position, but as the North American market 'matures' (like it already has in Europe), they will find it tougher to slog it out. It is easy to double one's sales from 5% to 10%; not so much from 10 to 20%.

[PurdueGuy]

Cadillac should be expanded at the low end with an ES350 competitor. The Cadillac name is less tarnished than Buick and would likely command a slightly higher price with fewer incentives than the same car with a Buick badge. The Enclave could easily be restyled as a Cadillac RX competitor. The Lucerne, if replaced at all given the shrinking of that market, should become the Chevrolet Caprice.

BTW, I don't hate Buick. I just think it's irrelevant in NA. It's being kept around because of legacy channel commitments unfortunately at Cadillac's expense.

IMO, GM should take Caddy further upscale (raise the profit margin, not the sales volume), which would make Buick more relevant again.

[buyacargetacheck]

At no time in the modern history of the auto business has moving a brand upscale ever worked. Theoretically it would take more time, money, and discipline than General Motors has.

IMO, GM should take Caddy further upscale (raise the profit margin, not the sales volume), which would make Buick more relevant again.

[PurdueGuy]

At no time in the modern history of the auto business has moving a brand upscale ever worked. Theoretically it would take more time, money, and discipline than General Motors has.

tell that to Hyundai, VW, and others.

[turbo200]

Actually, people DO buy their cars like washers.....

How many people just buy that LG washer because CR says so, or beacuse their neighbors have one?

A buttload of people buy their Toyotas the same way.

Granted their "safe " choice may be a costy one....which is why the Korean automakers are doing so well.

So GM is not going to be able to sell on benchmark, or on price. So they have to be different....

Though I really agree with the mainstream comment.. That is why the Mailbu is doing better...

just because a car is an automatic option on someone's shopping list does not mean that person does not do thier research. many toyo buyers are faithful, but the same can be said of other carmakers. the difference is, today, there are many good cars on the market, and the camry is one of them, except with the camry you get many other virtues that are appreciated by the discerning buyer. longevity, proven quality, resale value, and an everyday car you can't really frown upon but obviously won't get you any stature either.

in terms of pricing, this is where the mfgs are killing each other. the price wars are in full effect, and when you have a readily available lease for a Camry at under $200/month, this means seriously intense competition, especially when we're talking about a car only on sale for two years already. the attention span of the auto buying public moves fast here because of the surplus of options, and the pricing is reflecting that.

Edited March 13, 2008 by turbo200

[turbo200]

Cadillac should be expanded at the low end with an ES350 competitor. The Cadillac name is less tarnished than Buick and would likely command a slightly higher price with fewer incentives than the same car with a Buick badge. The Enclave could easily be restyled as a Cadillac RX competitor. The Lucerne, if replaced at all given the shrinking of that market, should become the Chevrolet Caprice.

BTW, I don't hate Buick. I just think it's irrelevant in NA. It's being kept around because of legacy channel commitments unfortunately at Cadillac's expense.

opinions are like a$$holes like someone else said in this thread. let me tell you something, if Audi and VW believed they were tarnished in the '90's, we would never have thier great designs and interior quality influencing industry leaders. if Nissan/Infiniti gave up in the '90's a whole slew of competitive product that has turned the top 20 best selling cars upside down would never have been released. if Zarella hadn't let Caddy's designers do whatever they wanted, CTS and Escalade wouldn't have come to fruition and we'd be dealing with an even worse problem than what we have today.

please don't repeat this garbage again. it has been proven time and time again that brands can be revived with a stroke of product genius.

[turbo200]

Toyota has less than 5,000 dealerships in the US, vs about 14,600 for GM. GM isn't selling 3 times as many cars, they don't need 3 times as many dealers. If there were 8-10,000 GM dealers that would be plenty.

The other issue GM has to face is rising gas prices, and their product portfolio doesn't address that need right now. They need smaller cars for one, and nicer small cars like Europe has. They should have a CTS or Enclave like interior in a car the size of a Cobalt. 1.8 liter DI turbo 4 cylinders and turbo diesels will be needed also. The Mini cooper has a 1.6 turbo and makes 162 hp, an engine like that can replace the 2.2-2.4 liter ecotecs, matching it to a 6-speed and BAS hybrid can really boost mileage.

nobody disagrees with you on either of these points. dealers need to be trimmed and they need to be listened to less often. the company in charge of putting out the product that sells needs to be in charge again.

[turbo200]

Toyota also owns nearly 50% of the Japanese market. At one time GM had a similar market share here and it's nameplates were actual divisions with their own engineering and design staffs and vice presidents. Now, GMNA is one big company masquerading as if it was still 1966 and pretending that there is any difference in the individual nameplates. There isn't. There's hardly such a thing as a "sporty" Pontiac buyer. Only on this board does anyone believe that.

Truly, there's nothing in Saturn's, Pontiac's or Buick's stable that couldn't be absorbed by Chevy or Cadillac.

there isn't any difference because the product planners have not built in differences into the brands. there isn't any money to do so because the product planners have failed at thier job of making attractive, viable, alternatives within each brand that aren't merely copies of one another. we've seen so many copies and rebadges because GM has constantly bent over and bowed down to the will of extenuating circumstances instead of taking the high road and building product that market at large will react to and want to buy.

there is such a thing as a difference right now between a pontiac buyer and chevy buyers. currently, the only viable difference is that pontiac buyers are attracted to more aggressive styling than is available at chevy. no it isn't enough to distinguish the buyers, but there is a huge gap in style between the conservative Impala and aggressive Gran Prix. they may be some of the worst characterizations of what these brand tenets stand for, but they exist and they certainly differentiate the kind of buyer going after these brands.

the case we're trying to make is to further separate these brands.

finally, Japan's market is also much much smaller than our own, a fact you conveniently left out in your statements.

[turbo200]

At no time in the modern history of the auto business has moving a brand upscale ever worked. Theoretically it would take more time, money, and discipline than General Motors has.

what?!???

So Bugatti always sold a $1 million car? Porsche always had a Carrera GT at $500,000? Mercedes always had at least 5 products over $100,000? BMW too? Lexus just started in the $70k market spontaneously? Cadillac always had a $70k Escalade? Audi always had an R8?

This whole last decade has been about moving brands upscale, and they are still doing it, actually ever moreso than before. Where have you been?

this is actually where the American market as a whole has been going, carmakers worldwide are responding our market's explosive growth in the wealth market, as well as across the globe. do you think Ipod's, Iphone's, and all the other common commodities we have today were thought of in the expendable way they're thought of today?

Edited March 13, 2008 by turbo200

[smk4565]

Cadillac should never get an ES350 style sedan or any other front wheel drive based product. Every model on the lot should be longitudinal engine mount. The focus should be performance luxury and technology. They should also start the BTS at $34,995 and move everything else up in price. That way Chevy or Buick can sell the $28-35,000 range and there isn't overlap. They can move upscale, they just need the right products, and the resources to do it.