GM Studies Killing Saab, Saturn, Pontiac

[regfootball]

Although axing a couple brands would be ideal for the long-term, I don't believe that would be in the best interest of GM at the moment. They need to fix the here-and-now.

Consolidate the brands as was mentioned all over this thread, and it should yield less overlapping, and possibly free up more money for R&D, earlier refreshes, etc.

Keep Pontiac-Buick-GMC but in there:

-Axe the G3 and G5 from Pontiac, keep the others

-Keep Enclave in Buick as the premium of TWO Lambdas in GM's lineup

-Make GMC sell midsize trucks and full-size trucks and Vans, possibly give them minivan variant to re-enter the market, axe Acadia

Roll Saturn and Saab in with Cadillac to allow for a premium division.

-Saturn to keep Astra, Aura and Vue but axe Outlook; Saab to offer 9-3 and 9-5 sedans and wagons; Caddy keeps CTS, STS and Escalade, but axe DTS

As for Chevy, scale them down to cars and keep Traverse (as the lower model of the two remaining Lambdas), axe the rest of the trucks from them. You don't need them to offer the same trucks as GMC, and because the truck sector is smaller than it used to be, it makes no sense to give them more.

i would axe saab (even though i love saab). give saturn the astra, vue, or just change it all to opel / cadillac and be done with it.

IMO, opel should be given the task of developing the next rwd small and big platforms for caddy and i feel opel deserves a rwd flagship.

[gm4life]

Some good ideas are getting tossed around here.

[A Horse With No Name]

Last time GM seriously considered killing off Pontiac was the early '50s, that decision was stayed and Pontiac went on to become one of the most successful marques of the '60s & '70s.

GM has stayed the execution of models / brands more than once, only to be proven absolutely right about the decision. I would hate for them to be wrong this time, and if there was no Oldsmobile case to draw data from, perhaps the immediate economic situation would build a strong case for discontinuance of Pontiac.... but Olds answers the question pretty thoroughly. 3 models only- forget folding 'Pontiac money into Chevy'; instead fold vibe/ Torrent/ G3/ G5/ G6 money into G8 / Solstice/ Alpha and avoid the image & bad press of killing off another brand.

Pontiac Builds Niche Performance.

Actually, in 1921 GM thought about killing Chevrolet, saying there was no money in/market for the brand.

I'll wager they are glad they didn't do THAT.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I'd actually like to see the G5 concept evolve somewhat. I think there is a market for a car at a price point between the Cobalt and the MINI. The Cobalt is a low dollar, low profit car...local paper has 2009 autotrajic Cobalts for under ten grand. GM can't make money at that price.

But if they could go about a third more expensive than the Cobalt and package the car nicely, I think that there would be a market. Not everyone is into dropping 25k into a small car and buying a GTI or MINI...but Volkswagen does get loyal buyers for the Rabbit. Pontiac needs a piece of that pie.

Chris

[hyperv6]

Is Pontiac/Satun making money?

How much money will it take to make Pontiac Profitable again.

How long till they are profitable?

How much money will GM lose till they make a profit vs how much it would cost to shut them down.

With the current economic market how much more money will they lose and how fast. In times like the the strong are hurting the weak are hardly holding on.

For most companies that are hurting finacially they have to lose divsions and sell of what they can. They need to get to the core part of the company they can make money now with. Then they have to rebuild expand as they go. In other words they have to take a step back before they move forward.

Goodyear tire has just gone through this in the last 5-7 years. They are a much smaller and leaner company. In the past Goodyear made belts, hoses, convair belts, tractor tires, Aero space products, chemicals, viynal wraps, fiberglass, oil pipe lines and much more.

Today Goodyear makes automotive, truck, aviation and motorcycle tires. Today Goodyear is a much smaller but stronger company and they are making through this down turn much better than some of their competitors. They were at one time as bad off or even worse than GM.

Robert Kegan has had to make some hard choices and we lost some heritage along the way. But the fact it he saved the company to build and live on. Google what he has done and it will show you a path to recovery. GM has studied some of what he has done.

To detemind if all or any of these division make it you have to consider the cold hard facts and not heritage and nostalgia. Just because you love Pontiac is not a reason to save or kill it.

You need to see how much it is losing how much it will cost to fix it and how long it will take vs how much it will cost to kill it. the one that cost the least will win.

Also what money you spend on Pontiac/Saturn with no assurance you will make a profit, what could you do with that money on a future Chevy or other product that will sell in greater numbers.

GM right now needs niche like a hemaroid. They need great small cars that will appeal to all sell in volume and make a profit. Honda and Hyundia have proven you don't have to be cool to make money just affordable and reliable go a long way. You can have time to be cool once we start making money again.

We here complain that too many at GM are bean counters and don't know or think cars. We are the oppisite here we think too much car and not not enough of paying the bills.

Saving Pontiac or Satun is not going to work if you think with your heart. GM needs to think with their heart but their head and the right thing to do in times like this are seldom the thing you want to do.

Too many want to talk about product but few here ever mentions cost and losses.

FYI I hate accountants but you have got to have them.

[saturnd00d]

I understand where your going with that, but at the same time, killing off a brand or two would sink GM faster at this point in time, than downsizing the amount of cars in each lineup. Think of how many dealerships would sue GM for cutting their dealerships out of the fold, vs consolidating brands under dealership "umbrellas" that could potentially bring new and exciting cars to each dealer network. Up here in Canada, they already have pairings. Pontiac/Buick/GMC is one of them, Saturn/Saab is another and the list goes on. Not all dealerships are paired though (ex. some Saturn dealers are paired with Saab, and some are not).

I think it would be beneficial to have 3 brands to a network so as to save GM the cost of closing a brand.

If GM cannot sell Hummer due to lack of interest, bundle it in with Pontiac/Buick/GMC

Likewise, think of this. If GM bundles Saturn and Saab with Cadillac, you'll now have Saturn more widely spread across the U.S. giving people more incentive to buy Saturn (one of the reasons I think people don't buy them as fast as other brands), and likewise, increase the coverage map for Saab and Cadillac through Saturn's standalone dealership network.

This could all work, in theory, and save GM tons of money instead of closing down divisions and dealers. At the least, until they can afford to downsize the proper way.

[hyperv6]

I understand where your going with that, but at the same time, killing off a brand or two would sink GM faster at this point in time, than downsizing the amount of cars in each lineup. Think of how many dealerships would sue GM for cutting their dealerships out of the fold, vs consolidating brands under dealership "umbrellas" that could potentially bring new and exciting cars to each dealer network. Up here in Canada, they already have pairings. Pontiac/Buick/GMC is one of them, Saturn/Saab is another and the list goes on. Not all dealerships are paired though (ex. some Saturn dealers are paired with Saab, and some are not).

I think it would be beneficial to have 3 brands to a network so as to save GM the cost of closing a brand.

If GM cannot sell Hummer due to lack of interest, bundle it in with Pontiac/Buick/GMC

Likewise, think of this. If GM bundles Saturn and Saab with Cadillac, you'll now have Saturn more widely spread across the U.S. giving people more incentive to buy Saturn (one of the reasons I think people don't buy them as fast as other brands), and likewise, increase the coverage map for Saab and Cadillac through Saturn's standalone dealership network.

This could all work, in theory, and save GM tons of money instead of closing down divisions and dealers. At the least, until they can afford to downsize the proper way.

Selling will not be an option for a good while. Hummer has sold not because no one whats them but the fact no one has the money to buy them right now. Everyone is hurting and few companies are willing to spend money on damaged brands in times like this.

With companies like Nissan, BMW, Toyota and others making cuts what CEO would have the nerve to buy Hummer Pontiac and Saturn. The Share holders would string them up. It is not like they were buying Honda.

The bottom line is no money=no sale of unprofitable divisions.

Everyone is trying to keep afloat in these times so few will grab the concrete block if you throw it to them.

Now if times were good and companies were cash rich Hummer and Saab would have been gone already.

Edited December 2, 2008 by hyperv6

[gm4life]

Is Pontiac/Satun making money?

How much money will it take to make Pontiac Profitable again.

How long till they are profitable?

How much money will GM lose till they make a profit vs how much it would cost to shut them down.

With the current economic market how much more money will they lose and how fast. In times like the the strong are hurting the weak are hardly holding on.

For most companies that are hurting finacially they have to lose divsions and sell of what they can. They need to get to the core part of the company they can make money now with. Then they have to rebuild expand as they go. In other words they have to take a step back before they move forward.

Goodyear tire has just gone through this in the last 5-7 years. They are a much smaller and leaner company. In the past Goodyear made belts, hoses, convair belts, tractor tires, Aero space products, chemicals, viynal wraps, fiberglass, oil pipe lines and much more.

Today Goodyear makes automotive, truck, aviation and motorcycle tires. Today Goodyear is a much smaller but stronger company and they are making through this down turn much better than some of their competitors. They were at one time as bad off or even worse than GM.

Robert Kegan has had to make some hard choices and we lost some heritage along the way. But the fact it he saved the company to build and live on. Google what he has done and it will show you a path to recovery. GM has studied some of what he has done.

To detemind if all or any of these division make it you have to consider the cold hard facts and not heritage and nostalgia. Just because you love Pontiac is not a reason to save or kill it.

You need to see how much it is losing how much it will cost to fix it and how long it will take vs how much it will cost to kill it. the one that cost the least will win.

Also what money you spend on Pontiac/Saturn with no assurance you will make a profit, what could you do with that money on a future Chevy or other product that will sell in greater numbers.

GM right now needs niche like a hemaroid. They need great small cars that will appeal to all sell in volume and make a profit. Honda and Hyundia have proven you don't have to be cool to make money just affordable and reliable go a long way. You can have time to be cool once we start making money again.

We here complain that too many at GM are bean counters and don't know or think cars. We are the oppisite here we think too much car and not not enough of paying the bills.

Saving Pontiac or Satun is not going to work if you think with your heart. GM needs to think with their heart but their head and the right thing to do in times like this are seldom the thing you want to do.

Too many want to talk about product but few here ever mentions cost and losses.

FYI I hate accountants but you have got to have them.

Pontiac has way more potential than Saturn does. Saturn and Saab should be sold along with Hummer if any brands have to go. Saturn never was really seen as part of GM anyways nor very American, some people still believe it is an Asian company! Bundle them with Saab another company folks don't think GM owns and then slide Hummer in to dump them and that would be pretty much a way to get rid of them. Theny you are left with "core" old fashioned and storied brands. Pontiac can be performance with FWD/AWD/RWD and the same platforms as its cousins but with different styling and more power/handling at a great price that is a slight premium to Chevrolet yet below Buick/Cadillac. It is pretty simple. I would like to see Hummer go first, followed by Saab then Saturn. Pontiac cannot go and will not go trust me those folks will buy Nissan.

[titan]

The easy answer is that Buick is strong in China, might as well try to make it a world brand. Pontiac is NA only and lives on uninspired rebadges. Plus, Pontiac has more overlap with Chevy than Buick does.

THANK YOU! I almost got tired of reading the posts looking for someone who recognized that fact also. Though GMC, Pontiac, and Buick have dismal numbers right now, Buick is the only brand that has a global presence out of the three. Saabs are great, but GM has never figured out how to make them sell, and it's a brand that will fetch much needed dollars; GM should sell it. GM has put a great effort in with Saturn, but nothing has come to fruition with it. It should be shuttered. As with Pontiac, I'd hate to see GMC go, but in this market place, there's no room for a brand dedicated solely to trucks and SUVs. Buick, who already has an extremely strong presence in China, can flourish in the NA market with it's not competing against GM stable mates. Also, GM has proven it can make very individual products through the use of product sharing, but it's still hard to convince consumers of the differences when you have to take care of so many brands (Lambdas are a perfect example). Buick is not a true luxury brand in China; it's highly aspirational, slotting just under MB and BMW. Buick can be the same here. A flaghship based of the LWB Commodore, the new Lacrosse, the Enclave and a baby Enclave, and perhaps Halo Coupe or Coupe/Hardtop Vert if everything goes well, is a great place to start. Give the lineup a pricing structure similar to Acura (fully loaded cars with just a few optional additions at a discount to Lexus) and market it as a Value Alternative to Lexus. If all goes well, the Lineup can incrementally be fleshed out. The other reason for cutting down on brands is Marketing; Marketing is NOT CHEAP, and running TV, Brochures, and prints ads are very expensive. These are expenses Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW, and others don't have. Chevy obviously won't be going anywhere, and it's a GLOBAL brand. Caddy is starved for product, and certainly has potential to be an MB rival; also, it's a GLOBAL brand. There's a happy medium between the Chevy and Caddy, and you can believe the money used to save a brand out of the BPG channel won't be one where I see people on this Thread still pining for an all RWD, sporty, excitement brand. That's simply not where the sales lie. The sales lie in quiet, understated, luxurious, isolated, and comfortable transportation (LEXUS PLEASE STAND UP); oh yeah, and Buick is a GLOBAL brand.

[Camino LS6]

...except that Pontiac outsells Buick exponentially.

[titan]

Still reading comments on this thread. I really think some of the suggestions for saving some of these brands are commendable. In the end, I just don't see it working. I LOVE Pontiac and GMC, but from a business standpoint I can't see keeping them. It's going to hurt, but GM will have to find a way to close some dealers. Saab and Saturn, along with Hummer (I know it's already for sale), have to go... This NA market won't sustain all of GM's brands, period. They don't own 50+ % of the market anywhere, and probably never will. I loved my mom's Cutlass Supreme, and hated to see Olds die. I loved my dad's Regal even more; hopefully Buick can be saved (see above argument for why). Either way, GM will have to get lean and mean, and do it soon. Hopefully we'll get a glimpse of the future in a few days...

[hyperv6]

...except that Pontiac outsells Buick exponentially.

Not on a global basis.

Buick lives because it is a global car. Saturn goes back to just being an Opel and the rest of the line dies.

Selling Hummer and Saab is a problem as no one has money.

Pontiac could only live on if it was fully merged with another brand and sold world wide. Holden is the prime one to consider but Hoden is not on the most stable of ground itself. Opel has already tried to be a Saturn ad I don't know if they could save Pontiac now.

At best Pontiac is going to be a rebadge of somthing but there are little options as it is just not that cool in the publics eye to own a Pontiac anymore.

Has anyone noticed the Opel Insignia is now a Buick Regal in China and was canceled here as a Saturn. Could it show up here as a Buick under a different name? It is the euro car of the year!

If Pontiac dies does the Holden Buicks sold in China come here as new product till the Zeta dies?

Lets face it Chevy and Dawoo have their future tied on a global market.

Caddy will go it alone on the global market with a few shared platforms but no rebadges.

Buick has Opel, Holden and Caddy to sahre platforms with that are already sold around the world.

Pontiac has ehh Canada.

If they have not pumped money into Pontiac when they had it I don't see any of the 25 B going to them even if GM gets it.

I own two Pontiacs now and would love to see GM give them the love that they need. But the truth is these are harsh times and Pontiac is like my Dog back in August. I could have spent a ton of money on her but the fact was she was 15 years old and no matter how much I spent she was not going to make it more than a month or two in great pain. I did not want to see her put down but understood it had to be done. It did not make it easier but the options I had just were not enough. I also could not bankrupt the family for a dog that had lived a full life with little hope of any recovery.

The money that could be spent on Pontiac may very well be the money that saves GM. Just saving Pontiac will never save GM.

[Camino LS6]

Actually, only Chevrolet really qualifies as a global brand in my view. And, I just can't see any part of the world accepting Buick beyond China. In fact, it is largely rejected here as a musty old brand that only bluehairs buy.

Something has to be interesting within the GM portfolio going forward, and the picture you paint doesn't offer that.

I think the whole notion of global brands is an over-rated goal anyway.

[Sixty8panther]

All of this speculation here in this thread adds up to a grand total of nothing good.

Should GM choose this path forward, my interest in the company will come to a screeching halt.

Databoutsayzitall.

In other news maybe someday I'll buy a new car... like

a Mercedes Benz CLK500 if I have the money, that is a

car that owes no apologies.

-RWD

-V8-powered

-Sturdy, Rigid chassis (you know "overweight" like a Zeta)

-Hardtop

All the things a classic GM car USED to be before they

decided to shove W-body four door sedans down our

collective throats for two decades as a solution to the

mediocre 1970s downsizers.

[balthazar]

>>"I think the whole notion of global brands is an over-rated goal anyway."<<

Agreed. And in that vein; I am still waiting on the answer to my question from page 1: of how Buick's success in China has anything to do with it's continuance here- they share zero costs. Buick in China is not successful because there's a Buick in America, no product development or advertising or assembly plant or administration or any other costs are shared... Buick in China might just as well be called "XYZ". Buick in the U.S. being discontinued would have no effect on Buick China.

Now- if costs, models, parts, even model namesplates were shared... if there was even a clear image relationship; that'd be one thing to bear in mind. Not the case to my knowledge.

Cadillacs abroad --BLS excepted-- are Cadillacs here. Completely different business case / discussion.

I have no idea what Chevys are overseas- aren't a lot of them the same situation that Buick China is?

Point is : saying 'Buick is big in China' is no reason to continue Buick here... unless someone can explain how that's incorrect. It's not "global"- it's 2 unrelated divisions with the same name.

If you acept that, likewise, saying 'Pontiac must go because it's not global' is rendered illegitimate. In other words, if Buick U.S.A., independant of Buick China is able to continue, Pontiac U.S.A. should be able to also.

Let's at least base 'kill/keep' arguments on factual realtities & consistancy.

This request applies to GMC, also- if the division is across-the-board profitable @ most any sales level, killing it in the name of saving money is backwards.

Edited December 2, 2008 by balthazar

[CARBIZ]

I read somewhere that Americans possess the lowest per capita number of passports in the OECD. I understand why. To be fair, America is huge and you could spend a life time travelling your country and still not see all there is to see; however, the downside is that Americans travel outside their country on a much lower percentage than many other 'rich' citizens of the world. Hell, the average Canadian probably knows more about American geography than the average American.

My point is that when a German travels to Egypt or Brazil, he will see the Corolla in both places. He may or may not know that his Opel is a GM. He may or may not know that Vauxhall is essentially the same as the Opel he drives at home. He certainly would not recognize the Malibu's roots as coming from the Astra.

GM has had the bragging rights to the #1 selling vehicle in both our countries for decades, but because the Sierra and Silverado are different nameplates, Ford gets that right. Hell, even now the G5/Cobalt are #2 in this country, but separately the Cobalt falls to 4th.

You do not want to know how many people don't know/don't care that a Soltice is sold only at a Pontiac store, or that the Malibu can't be had at a Buick store.

The world is changing. America has not. I find that ironic, because it was American corporations that first led the global assault. McDonalds and Coca Cola are global brands. But maintstream America has not changed much since the '50s.

If Detroit is going to survive, they must stop treating North Americans as somehow different than their European or Asian cousins. It goes beyond the 'dumbing down' of cars destined for the American market. It is the entire way the auto market is perceived in North America.

The 'enthusiasts' may cry and scream about their favorite brand, but I wonder how many enthusiasts (especially here on C&G) even BUY new cars? GM has to make global decisions going forward and if that means making global names and killing brands, then so be it.

[Camino LS6]

'Biz, this enthusiast puts his money where his mouth is. Every new car I have purchased has been either a Chevy or a Pontiac, 4 of them so far this decade, with numerous others purchased because I signed-off on them.

But even that is beside the point. Your hypothetical German tourist won't be buying a car while on "holiday", will he? He'll get his new Opel, or Benz, or BMW, or VW when he gets home. I don't see any great advantage to having a "global" brand - period.

Far more logical, in my view, is the Holden approach. One car (Commodore) is sold variously around the world as a Holden, Pontiac, Vauxhall, Chevrolet, and Buick - according to the local population's buying habits and loyalties. This is a far more sensible approach than trying to "launch" an unfamiliar brand in the name of making it "global". People aren't the same everywhere, so a "one-brand-fits-all" strategy runs counter to human nature in my opinion.

[Robert Hall]

'Biz, this enthusiast puts his money where his mouth is. Every new car I have purchased has been either a Chevy or a Pontiac, 4 of them so far this decade, with numerous others purchased because I signed-off on them.

But even that is beside the point. Your hypothetical German tourist won't be buying a car while on "holiday", will he? He'll get his new Opel, or Benz, or BMW, or VW when he gets home. I don't see any great advantage to having a "global" brand - period.

Far more logical, in my view, is the Holden approach. One car (Commodore) is sold variously around the world as a Holden, Pontiac, Vauxhall, Chevrolet, and Buick - according to the local population's buying habits and loyalties. This is a far more sensible approach than trying to "launch" an unfamiliar brand in the name of making it "global". People aren't the same everywhere, so a "one-brand-fits-all" strategy runs counter to human nature in my opinion.

Global brands do work, though...look at VW, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. they each have many models common across many markets, coupled with many market-specific models in the mix (like the US Accord and Camry, etc).

[Camino LS6]

Global brands do work, though...look at VW, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. they each have many models common across many markets, coupled with many market-specific models in the mix (like the US Accord and Camry, etc).

Oh?

Then explain the need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura.

And,

Can you give me an example where a company has eliminated brands in favor of a global homogeny and shown benefit from it?

[Robert Hall]

Oh?

Then explain the need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura.

Lexus is a global brand, Infiniti is going that way. Acura remains NA only AFAIK.

[longtooth]

"GM studies killing Saab, Saturn, Pontiac"

They may practice a bit of vivisection. Some grafting.

[Camino LS6]

Lexus is a global brand, Infiniti is going that way. Acura remains NA only AFAIK.

And Scion?

And potentially, Prius?

The fact is as those companies grow, they are adding brands to better tailor their product to the local market. Looked at in such a light, asking GM to give an established version of this approach away at the same time begins to look quite nonsensical.

There simply is no template available for the successful contraction of an automaker like GM - because there are no automakers like GM.

To adopt the braying of the analysts might well be suicide.

[Robert Hall]

And Scion?

And potentially, Prius?

The fact is as those companies grow, they are adding brands to better tailor their product to the local market. Looked at in such a light, asking GM to give an established version of this approach away at the same time begins to look quite nonsensical.

Those are growing companies, though. GM is shrinking...I still don't see how they can continue to adequately fund 8 brands in NA with 20% market share. Maybe 6 (eliminate Hummer and Saab).

Edited December 2, 2008 by moltar

[Chazman]

The fact is as those companies grow, they are adding brands to better tailor their product to the local market. Looked at in such a light, asking GM to give an established version of this approach away at the same time begins to look quite nonsensical.

Yeah, but they manage their brands brilliantly. GM has showed a failure to thrive in that regard.

[Camino LS6]

Those are growing companies, though. GM is shrinking...I still don't see how they can justify the cost of 8 brands in NA with 20% market share.

With less architectures, less models, and more focus.

You know, the things that they have talked about but never put into practice.

I'd rather see 2 good Buicks and 3 good Pontiacs than a full lineup of compromise/ badge cars.

They know how to do this, but have lacked the will and good sense to get the job done.

This logical solution has yet to be tried in any meaningful way.

Conversely, killing brands has been tried .... and has failed.

[Camino LS6]

Yeah, but they manage their brands brilliantly. GM has showed a failure to thrive in that regard.

GM has failed to even show that it is awake in that regard.

[haypops]

Saturn never was really seen as part of GM anyways nor very American, some people still believe it is an Asian company!

The old S series Saturn had some of the highest U.S. content of any vehicle. That and it's polymer panels were the two must quoted reasons for purchase among many Saturn fans. These cars sold well and at a higher transaction price than other small cars.

[Daryl Z71]

The G8 is a dud, I I don't see any more Holdens making their way here after these numerous failures....

I don't think that the G8 is a dud I just think it costs way to much. I know the other day I went through the dealership with my mother and Girlfriend and they really liked the look of the G8 including me, but when they saw the price tag they said no way thats just to much for a car. The prices of vehicles anymore is just so high people are sticking with what they have espically the way the economy is right now.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Daryl 83

[BuddyP]

With less architectures, less models, and more focus.

You know, the things that they have talked about but never put into practice.

I'd rather see 2 good Buicks and 3 good Pontiacs than a full lineup of compromise/ badge cars.

They know how to do this, but have lacked the will and good sense to get the job done.

This logical solution has yet to be tried in any meaningful way.

Conversely, killing brands has been tried .... and has failed.

..."I'd rather see 2 good Buicks and 3 good Pontiacs than a full lineup of compromise/ badge cars.

"...

Amen! Ditch the G3 and G5... stop listening to dealers b***hing just because they want car "A" to sell. That is the poorest excuse to create a rebadge.

Pontiac:

Ditch the G3 and G5 - If Saturn dies then replace G5 with Astra.

Solstice get's people in the showroom

G8... need that 4 cyl turbo with 28-30 mpg's hwy, and market the crap out of it.

G6, nice exterior refresh for '09. Now let's work on some refreshing of the interior.

Torrent, either make it as unique to the Equinox as the Acadia is to the Enclave or cut it from the lineup. NO MORE CHINESE MOTORS! This is another good candidate for a turbo 4 for milage and power....OR.... if Saturn does die, replace torrant with Vue. Also the Outlook could be used (give it a new name or whatever) but give it a true "performance" upgrade to be a "poor man's Cayanne (spelling) so to speak. But I'm not too giddy about keeping a 4th Lambda.

Buick:

Other than the enclave, nothing really going on there. Enclave should be SRX replacement. Then either ditch Buick instead of Pontiac or give it a whole new lineup... either option is costly, Buick NA is in a bad spot. I do NOT want to see GM start importing chinese Buicks into this country.

[BuddyP]

I don't think that the G8 is a dud I just think it costs way to much. I know the other day I went through the dealership with my mother and Girlfriend and they really liked the look of the G8 including me, but when they saw the price tag they said no way thats just to much for a car. The prices of vehicles anymore is just so high people are sticking with what they have espically the way the economy is right now.

Thank our Gov't for all the mandates/testing/layer fee's/ect. responsable for raising the cost of vehicles.

I drove a 3.6L G8 and really like it. Was very comfortable in the car. I'm 6'-3" and while I like our Aura, It's a bit on the small side for me.

Edited December 2, 2008 by BuddyP

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Actually, only Chevrolet really qualifies as a global brand in my view. And, I just can't see any part of the world accepting Buick beyond China. In fact, it is largely rejected here as a musty old brand that only bluehairs buy.

Something has to be interesting within the GM portfolio going forward, and the picture you paint doesn't offer that.

I think the whole notion of global brands is an over-rated goal anyway.

I think you've touched on the problem in it's entirity. GM needs to find out how to BUILD it's brands into something instead of trying to sustain them at their current level. If GM's only goal is to sustain it's current trends, then it's a fight that isn't worth fighting in the first place, because it'll be a slow suicide.

We don't need to be talking about sustaining dying brands, we need to be talking about growing/rebirthing dying brands. And I know everyone is going to throw rocks at me because GM is basically bankrupt. But it isn't about money, it's about a culture of DEFEAT or a mindset that says "this is as good as it's ever going to be" It's something that has been programmed into most Detroit employees/fans for 20 years now. So, instead of reaching for the sky, the industry seems to try to 'hang on to what it has for dear life'

[Camino LS6]

Agreed, Mr. FOG.

Surrender mentality at its worst.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

With less architectures, less models, and more focus.

You know, the things that they have talked about but never put into practice.

I'd rather see 2 good Buicks and 3 good Pontiacs than a full lineup of compromise/ badge cars.

They know how to do this, but have lacked the will and good sense to get the job done.

This logical solution has yet to be tried in any meaningful way.

Conversely, killing brands has been tried .... and has failed.

+1

What really needs to happen is GM needs to tell the union and the dealers to eff off. GM needs to shed dealers anyway, so there's no time like the present IMO.

GM could run very efficiently at 20% market share... Hell, the plan unveiled in 2005 had a TARGET of 20% market share. But they refuse to focus the brands.

And BTW, this whole shrinking argument is part of the problem as well IMO. It's almost like GM has accepted defeat and accepted that they're basically dying. Where are the innovators? Where are the movers and shakers that pick the corporation up off of the mat? Where are the inventive marketing people that make a splash in the eyes of the public? (AHEM... *FOG smiles*)

GM needs to develop a plan for growth instead of accepting defeat IMO. And I understand that there must be consolidation first, but make no mistake that GM CAN still be a competitive GROWTH enterprise if it gets it's house in order.

[Camino LS6]

Someone with real vision and dictatorial authority could get the job done.

Too much groupthink.

If I only had billions to play with...

[titan]

>>"I think the whole notion of global brands is an over-rated goal anyway."<<

Agreed. And in that vein; I am still waiting on the answer to my question from page 1: of how Buick's success in China has anything to do with it's continuance here- they share zero costs. Buick in China is not successful because there's a Buick in America, no product development or advertising or assembly plant or administration or any other costs are shared... Buick in China might just as well be called "XYZ". Buick in the U.S. being discontinued would have no effect on Buick China.

Now- if costs, models, parts, even model namesplates were shared... if there was even a clear image relationship; that'd be one thing to bear in mind. Not the case to my knowledge.

Cadillacs abroad --BLS excepted-- are Cadillacs here. Completely different business case / discussion.

I have no idea what Chevys are overseas- aren't a lot of them the same situation that Buick China is?

Point is : saying 'Buick is big in China' is no reason to continue Buick here... unless someone can explain how that's incorrect. It's not "global"- it's 2 unrelated divisions with the same name.

If you acept that, likewise, saying 'Pontiac must go because it's not global' is rendered illegitimate. In other words, if Buick U.S.A., independant of Buick China is able to continue, Pontiac U.S.A. should be able to also.

Let's at least base 'kill/keep' arguments on factual realtities & consistancy.

This request applies to GMC, also- if the division is across-the-board profitable @ most any sales level, killing it in the name of saving money is backwards.

Wow, you just made my point. First, Global brands do work, immensely. Having a brand recognized worldwide is huge. Just ask MB, BMW, Audi, etc. Just ask Toyota, who sells more Lexus models in the U.S. then any other Luxury make, but still desires to expand into Europe and Asia. Secondly, Chinese and American Buicks are being intergrated as we speak! That menas sharing "costs, models, parts, even model nameplates;" the next gen Epsilon II based Lacrosse was largely developed and DESIGNED in China, not in the U.S. (though the U.S. had a part in the development of the car). The U.S. built Enclave is being exported to China. Also, many rumored that the next Commodore based Buick would be brought to the U.S. One of the reason to not bring it here is to possibly give it to another brand, like Pontiac, just to appease them and try (in vain) to it alive. Also, the Insignia based Buick Regal was just introduced in China. That's a car that was supposed to go to Saturn... all in vain. Perhaps it'll go to Buick now.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

'Biz, this enthusiast puts his money where his mouth is. Every new car I have purchased has been either a Chevy or a Pontiac, 4 of them so far this decade, with numerous others purchased because I signed-off on them.

But even that is beside the point. Your hypothetical German tourist won't be buying a car while on "holiday", will he? He'll get his new Opel, or Benz, or BMW, or VW when he gets home. I don't see any great advantage to having a "global" brand - period.

Far more logical, in my view, is the Holden approach. One car (Commodore) is sold variously around the world as a Holden, Pontiac, Vauxhall, Chevrolet, and Buick - according to the local population's buying habits and loyalties. This is a far more sensible approach than trying to "launch" an unfamiliar brand in the name of making it "global". People aren't the same everywhere, so a "one-brand-fits-all" strategy runs counter to human nature in my opinion.

This is especially true given the 'fragmenting markets' we've been reading about from the automotive media for the last 10 years. AND the increasing diversity in america and to a lesser extent across the world.

GM could SERIOUSLY leverage it's vast portfolio of divisions to cater to the consumer like no other automaker does. But it seems that management would rather squander that opportunity in a Henry Ford-like "black model T for everyone" approach.

You can't sell the EXACT same car across the globe and be wildly successful... Even the 'king of homogeny' japanese companies know that.

[Robert Hall]

And BTW, this whole shrinking argument is part of the problem as well IMO. It's almost like GM has accepted defeat and accepted that they're basically dying. Where are the innovators? Where are the movers and shakers that pick the corporation up off of the mat? Where are the inventive marketing people that make a splash in the eyes of the public? (AHEM... *FOG smiles*)

GM needs to develop a plan for growth instead of accepting defeat IMO. And I understand that there must be consolidation first, but make no mistake that GM CAN still be a competitive GROWTH enterprise if it gets it's house in order.

I can only imagine how bad morale is within GM now--infinite dispair, a bleak future, the downward spiral...not to mention being stuck in dying gray Michigan. Hard to be forward looking and optimistic in a reality like that.

[titan]

Oh?

Then explain the need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura.

And,

Can you give me an example where a company has eliminated brands in favor of a global homogeny and shown benefit from it?

The need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura for their respective parents was a need for a luxury brand. That said, all three parents are trying they're best to make those brands global. Why, because it's important.

[Camino LS6]

I can only imagine how bad morale is within GM now--infinite dispair, a bleak future, the downward spiral...not to mention being stuck in dying gray Michigan. Hard to be forward looking and optimistic in a reality like that.

No one said it would be easy.

If they can't look forward, they should just lock the door and turn out the lights now - the battle will already be lost.

[titan]

And Scion?

And potentially, Prius?

The fact is as those companies grow, they are adding brands to better tailor their product to the local market. Looked at in such a light, asking GM to give an established version of this approach away at the same time begins to look quite nonsensical.

There simply is no template available for the successful contraction of an automaker like GM - because there are no automakers like GM.

To adopt the braying of the analysts might well be suicide.

Scion may die. Toyota has already announce that Prius will not be a separate brand.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

And Scion?

And potentially, Prius?

The fact is as those companies grow, they are adding brands to better tailor their product to the local market.

MY POINT EXACTLY!

Having multiple division with TONS OF EQUITY, both positive and negative is probably one of the biggest advantages GM has going forward in an increasingly schizophrenic market (Both from a sales and marketing standpoint) There are too many factors that can influence this market for homogeny across the globe to work and be successful for long periods of time. The 90's were a fluke and the automakers will learn the hard way that selling the same thing everywhere won't cut it. Unless 1 of 3 things happens. 1) We see a massive global economic slowdown that happens for a very long time (In which case most of the automakers wouldn't survive anyway. 2) The green movement saps the REST of our individual freedoms in the automarket "for the greater good" or 3) Electric vehicles are so expensive or easy to produce that the field is completely homogenous and our culture accepts it.

To adopt the braying of the analysts might well be suicide.

And that would be the point in the first place.

Wall Street analysts are guilty of the same short-sighted rhetoric as the automakers HAVE been for years. It's all about the "here and now" in america. We want profit and we want it NOW! Yet, in order to get that profit now, we're happy to screw ourselves down the road.

Look at the shape this country as a whole is currently in and then think about WHY it is in this condition. We wanted our McMansions and we wanted them NOW, not when we were able to actually afford them... We wanted growth economics and we wanted results NOW, now when the actual market could support the results.

GM needs to think long and hard about what it should do with it's remaining divisions. Oldsmobile has been squandered and Hummer will certainly BE squandered. Do we really need to lose anymore equity? Was selling GMAC, Allison Transmission, EMD, Hughes or GM Defense a good idea in retrospect?

We all know the answer.

Edited December 2, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Camino LS6]

The need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura for their respective parents was a need for a luxury brand. That said, all three parents are trying they're best to make those brands global. Why, because it's important.

"because it's important" is hardly a justification.

Important how?

Important why?

This world is diverse in the extreme, and this "stretch pants" approach does not address that reality.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Someone with real vision and dictatorial authority could get the job done.

Too much groupthink.

If I only had billions to play with...

Shoot, I wouldn't even wish for that...

If only GM would buy me a plane ticket to Detroit, or pay for my gas up there and then actually LISTEN to what I want to tell them.

I'll volunteer as a motivational speaker for the company I might not be a positive person, but I think we all know that I can light a fire under anyones ass if there's an impending battle. LOL.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The need for Infiniti, Lexus, and Acura for their respective parents was a need for a luxury brand. That said, all three parents are trying they're best to make those brands global. Why, because it's important.

It's important?!?! LOL.

Well, it's IMPORTANT that GM maintain 20% of the market and remain the worlds largest automaker via it's portfolio of brands that cover the entire market. It's IMPORTANT that GM not downsize for the sake of our economy and for the sake of middle class workers everywhere. Should I go on?

[titan]

This is especially true given the 'fragmenting markets' we've been reading about from the automotive media for the last 10 years. AND the increasing diversity in america and to a lesser extent across the world.

GM could SERIOUSLY leverage it's vast portfolio of divisions to cater to the consumer like no other automaker does. But it seems that management would rather squander that opportunity in a Henry Ford-like "black model T for everyone" approach.

You can't sell the EXACT same car across the globe and be wildly successful... Even the 'king of homogeny' japanese companies know that.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but in today's market the arguement still doesn't hold water. GM's vast portfolio only works when it controls enough of the market sales wise to make a business case for it. You're last sentence is very true, but we're not talking about selling the exact same CAR across the globe. We're talking Brands here, not cars. In that regard, the "king of homogeny" japanese companies have succeeded wildly. Toyota's brand is extremely valuable because their emblems are found across the globe. Ford's brand is much more valuable than most of GM's... it's a GLOBAL brand. Found in Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. GM recognized this years ago, and has strived to catch up to these brands, making Chevy a truly global brand. The same goes for they're hopes for Caddy. Even if Buick China has NO models in common with Buick NA, the fact that Buicks are found in both countries gives the brand huge strength. Also, I smile at the arguments I see on this thread regarding Buick as a "gray haired brand." That thinking is really narrow, and very short sided. With proper marketing and product, a brand's image can be changed in a generation... it only took Leus 20 years to become the powerhouse it is today. Buick can easily be an aspirational, near luxury brand; but it takes marketing dollars that are spread thin because some has to go to Saab, GMC, Pontiac, and Saturn. The same goes for product. That's ALOT of brands to nurture, and it's going wind up being a matter of survival of the fittest and a business case. It's my opinion that GM will choose Buick as the brand to save. It's also GM's oldest brand. As I said in an earlier post, we'll see soon enough what the fallout will be...

[Camino LS6]

I think it is important to realize that global branding is nothing but a marketing strategy, and just one of many possible strategies. It is not the "one true way" to get the job done. It is high time that a bit more creativity is applied to the problems at hand. No one ever "me too'd " their way to commercial success. The innovative and creative succeed.

This kind of secondhand thinking has crippled the domestics for years.

[titan]

It's important?!?! LOL.

Well, it's IMPORTANT that GM maintain 20% of the market and remain the worlds largest automaker via it's portfolio of brands that cover the entire market. It's IMPORTANT that GM not downsize for the sake of our economy and for the sake of middle class workers everywhere. Should I go on?

(sigh). Toyota is now the largest automaker, and after the year is over it'll be the largest in both sales and revenue. We're not talking downsizing sales volume. We're talking downsizing brands. Any car Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, and GMC sells can be covered under Chevrolet. Just like Toyota does now. All of those cars under one brands has helped Toyota get where it is. Out of the brands mentioned, Buick has the most potential for revival in the U.S. and is the only brand with a presence outside the NA market. I love all of them, but you can't think with your heart. If GM doesn't streamline brands, it will collapse; what will that do for the sake of our economy and middle class workers everywhere? Tell me, what does having to many brands have to do with middle class workers?

[titan]

I think it is important to realize that global branding is nothing but a marketing strategy, and just one of many possible strategies. It is not the "one true way" to get the job done. It is high time that a bit more creativity is applied to the problems at hand. No one ever "me too'd " their way to commercial success. The innovative and creative succeed.

This kind of secondhand thinking has crippled the domestics for years.

Marketing is extremely important. Also, Lexus "me too'd" MB to the point where they surpassed them, lol. GM has tried everything it save the other brands, and it hasn't work. Streamlining brands is necessary.

[Camino LS6]

Marketing is extremely important. Also, Lexus "me too'd" MB to the point where they surpassed them, lol. GM has tried everything it save the other brands, and it hasn't work. Streamlining brands is necessary.

]

NO.

They have talked about trying everything, that is not the same thing as actually doing it.

Streamlining is necessary, yes. But not via the killing-off of brands (proven failure).

As for the "me too" thing, every attempt by the domestics to "me too" has only weakened them.

You must see the crucial difference between Toyota adding brands and GM killing brands. Just because they end up with the same number doesn't mean a damn thing, less brands is not a panacea for GM.

[Daryl Z71]

Thank our Gov't for all the mandates/testing/layer fee's/ect. responsable for raising the cost of vehicles.

I drove a 3.6L G8 and really like it. Was very comfortable in the car. I'm 6'-3" and while I like our Aura, It's a bit on the small side for me.

Yep I agree with you there 100% Maybe if the government wants them to have all of this crap done to the cars maybe they should take over and worry about how to get it done.