GMC Moving On Up?

[Camino LS6]

It's dripping with opportunity, and lacks the identity squeeze the other brands are hampered by.

That could have been said for any other brand had GM not pigeon-holed all of their brands in the 30k or less starting price bracket. I mean think about it...If Cadillac were really upmarket, Buick would have followed, as would have Oldsmobile, Pontiac, SAAB and well Saturn could just stay out in orbit because I never liked them anyway.

I certainly agree with you on the pricing aspect - it's undeniable.

But right now, GMC has the cleanest focus and no need to compromise. The other three brands are constantly making trade-offs.

[smk4565]

Even though I think they could kill GMC and not miss a beat, I believe General Motors will keep GMC around for the foreseeable future. So the question is what to do with GMC because right now they are Chevy overlap. I see two paths:

1. Work grade trucks (fleet, contractor special, delivery vans, utility company vehicles, etc). This would range from a small pickup and Transit type van up to the full size pick up and vans, and the medium duty tucks for dump trucks and moving vans. This gives GMC a unique focus and takes that away from Chevy and Chevy can focus on the regular customer, not the business customer.

2. Denali trim crossovers, SUVs, Sierra, and van. The Canyon would have to die, the Savana could stay if it was more a conversion, luxury van. At least this way GMC has a luxury focus, and if a Silverado is $22k base, make the Sierra $35k base. Part of the higher price points could allow more diesel and hybrid technology as well. This would separate GMC and Chevy, but at the same time, Buick and Cadillac are in the luxury crossover business so overlap could occur there.

I prefer plan 1.

[balthazar]

GMC is the second highest volume division at GM- both currently and prior the BK with 8 divisions.

GMC is very profitable and has done nothing but trend upward in quality, choices, models, profit & transaction price.

"overlap" is completely irrelevant.

[smk4565]

GMC is the second highest volume division at GM- both currently and prior the BK with 8 divisions.

GMC is very profitable and has done nothing but trend upward in quality, choices, models, profit & transaction price.

"overlap" is completely irrelevant.

GMC is competition for Chevy as it stands now. Not being able to differentiate brands and having them compete with each other was part of what led GM to bankruptcy. GMC has volume now, but gas is rising. And GMC is a useless brand outside of North America. But as I said, I wouldn't kill it off, I would make it only for fleet/commercial use. That makes GMC the specialists on that and can maybe go after the Ford "work solutions" trucks.

[Camino LS6]

GMC is the second highest volume division at GM- both currently and prior the BK with 8 divisions.

GMC is very profitable and has done nothing but trend upward in quality, choices, models, profit & transaction price.

"overlap" is completely irrelevant.

Thus ends the debate portion of our program.

[balthazar]

Charlie Brown ~ >>"GMC is competition for Chevy as it stands now."<<

Where's your documentation to support this?? Any links, or just a gut feeling/ wishful thought?

We've been over this numerous times- the same was said about Pontiac/Chevy, and Olds/Buick... but the bulk of those customers LEFT GM.

As a long-time truck buyer, I can tell you I've seen uncountable testimonials that these are distinct consumer entities of considerable volume.

I mean, if 'GMCs are rebadged Chevys'- then how the hell did GMC move so much damned volume???

Continually repeating the same ignorant untruths about GMC will not a 'problem' make.

>>"Not being able to differentiate brands and having them compete with each other was part of what led GM to bankruptcy."<<

Not in this case.

And not everything you don't get 'led to GM's bankruptcy'.

>>"GMC has volume now, but gas is rising."<<

This country will ALWAYS need trucks. And GM trucks get the some of the best mileage out there.

>>"And GMC is a useless brand outside of North America."<<

It's not "useless"; it's "not exported". Huge difference, even bigger than ride vs. handling.

-- -- --

Your entire post overlaps & competes with all your other GMC-centric posts, meanwhile, again, being completely irrelevant.

Edited May 19, 2011 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

I mean, if 'GMCs are rebadged Chevys'- then how the hell did GMC move so much damned volume???

It's all through effective, clever marketing..it's amazing how trivial cosmetic differences like grille and badging (and fender creases in the current generation) can sway a buyer one way or another..

Edited May 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

^ Grilles, headlights, taillights, fenders, quarters, hoods, bumpers, rims.... all trivial stuff...

Edited May 19, 2011 by balthazar

[Z-06]

I mean, if 'GMCs are rebadged Chevys'- then how the hell did GMC move so much damned volume???

It's all through effective, clever marketing..it's amazing how trivial cosmetic differences like grille and badging (and fender creases in the current generation) can sway a buyer one way or another..

So is it wrong to perceive buyers of what you want them to believe? Look at BMW, MB, Toyota, all these manufacturers perceive their image through clever marketing and effective propaganda. What is fair for goose should be fair for the gander.

The truth is:

1. GMC is profitable by a vast margin.
2. GMC customers are NOT Chevy customers and vice a versa.
3. GMC needs differentiation and innovative lineup to survive going forward.
4. Killing GMC is NOT a solution.

In one breath people talk about GM should listen to customers in other breath people say that GMC should be killed. Well killing GMC is not listening to customers who made it the second most selling GM brand, is it?

[daves87rs]

Buick tried with trucks, and failed. GM doesn't need anymore truck divisions, it should be limited to just Chevrolet and GMC brands only - Cadillac should be crossovers only (move the Escalade to Lambda).

Again with the upmarket suggestions... yes there are a lot of consumers that have the $45K+ needed to buy Denali's and loaded up SLT-trimmed GMCs. But on the other end there are a lot of consumers that have under $35K to spend... why get rid of them? Same with Chevy Truck owners, they'll likely not want to go to GMC for their top-of-the-line trucks if they're Chevy fans (same with GMC owners). Look at how many SLE-trimmed Terrains are sold, and in the past SLE-trimmed Envoys, to see how this market would respond to a large increase in price. You'll drive away GMC's business and give GM enough reason to discontinue GMC without the lower-end models.

So the best solution would to differentiate the two brands further apart. Differences in JUST grilles/headlights can no longer be the mode of GM. Different frontend styling AND different rear boxes are in order (GMC could offer the Pro-Tec beds where Chevies get the metal beds). Give the Silverado/Tahoe/Suburban a different interior from the Sierra/Yukon/Yukon XL (could have been easily done with the 2007 models - two dashes are currently used). Make GMCs come with a standard set of upgraded features that increase the MSRP, whereas the Chevy has a basic set of features that can be upgraded in packages (like the current Equinox and Terrain), and give GMC some luxury options (ex. Heads Up Displays) that you can;t get on a Chevy. Offer different premium seat fabrics and interior colors for the GMCs that you can't get in a Chevy. Heck, I would even make color choices different - basics like white, silver, red, black can be shared, but give the GMCs more premium paint colors that won't be offered on the Chevies (dark reds, grays & blues, metallic black and white).

Basically treat GMC and Chevy Trucks like how Cadillac and Chevy Cars have always been treated and you'll see why some people will prefer the GMC over the Chevy. Also, with today's economy and people's financial woes, you can't make GMC the $50k+ trucks and expect the brand to survive - it just doesn't make good business sense.

This. GMC needs to be different, not so much pricey. And each side should have something the other does not.

Unless you live in Cali, NY, or Texas, most people don't care about Lux trucks around here anymore.....

[Robert Hall]

^ Grilles, headlights, taillights, fenders, quarters, hoods, bumpers, rims.... all trivial stuff...

Completely trivial..no substantive differences

[balthazar]

The degree of 'triviality' is your opinion.

On the big pick-ups, the differences are still more than just a grille & badge as you dismissively suggest- that's a fact.

And obviously that works @ the consumer level.

Irrelevant; the fact remains that whatever the opinion of how or why, the division is successful by every metric.

That should be celebrated, not torn down.

[Robert Hall]

The degree of 'triviality' is your opinion.

On the big pick-ups, the differences are still more than just a grille & badge as you dismissively suggest- that's a fact.

And obviously that works @ the consumer level.

Irrelevant; the fact remains that whatever the opinion of how or why, the division is successful by every metric.

That should be celebrated, not torn down.

Yes, the Sierra has some cosmetic differences from the Silverado. Nothing substantial--still the same dirty bits, same cab, same interiors (the Denali trim adds more bling, but Chevy will have an equivalent model in time). The Savana and Canyon are merely badge and grille differences. The Yukon is a Tahoe/Suburban w/ an ugly nose. The CUV fluff are platform-shared w/ distinct designs, but still are redundant.

Face it, however successful GMC is, today it is just a marketing effort to give Buick/Cadillac dealers something to compete w/ Chevy dealers..that's all. It will be interesting to see what GM does with it going forward..

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

The dealership competition scenario is a tiny, tangential subset of GMC's overall performance.

If the 'marketing effort' wasn't successful, GMCs wouldn't sell and/or the division would lose money.

Let me help you out with your obviously thorny GMC issue: think of it as a option on Chevy trucks- an extra-cost appearance option that allows broader customization/individualization vs. the much more common Chevy trucks. You know, like the trivial differences BMW installs on their M brand vs. the pedestrian 3-series. Now- who could argue against that?

[Robert Hall]

The dealership competition scenario is a tiny, tangential subset of GMC's overall performance.

If the 'marketing effort' wasn't successful, GMCs wouldn't sell and/or the division would lose money.

Let me help you out with your obviously thorny GMC issue: think of it as a option on Chevy trucks- an extra-cost appearance option that allows broader customization/individualization vs. the much more common Chevy trucks. You know, like the trivial differences BMW installs on their M brand vs. the pedestrian 3-series. Now- who could argue against that?

Apples and oranges. The M-models are still BMWs. They aren't badged as a distinct brand. Now if GMCs were badged as Chevrolet GMCs, then that comparison might hold water. And the M differences aren't merely cosmetic--they have serious hardware upgrades.

The problem with the GMC approach is that for some of the models (Canyon, Savana) it's about as lame as what Chrysler used to do with Dodge and Plymouth from around 1975 until Plymouth's demise--trivial badging/grille/taillight differences on otherwise identical models...like Dodge Omni vs Plymouth Horizon. Or Dodge Neon vs Plymouth Neon. Chevy Suburban vs GMC Suburban (which they were until the Yukon name), Chevy Colorado vs GMC Canyon, etc.

I just don't see the point in keeping GMC around as is when GM could be more focused and competitive with just Chevy, Buick and Cadillac to focus on. GMC could make sense if they were distinct from Chevy trucks/SUVs.

Though a focus on distinct Jeep-like models could be an interesting direction...but they don't have any platforms currently for such vehicles.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Wonder how well GMC sells up here in Canadia... I'm seeing averts for $9500 in rebates $0 down and low financing.

[SAmadei]

No other automaker has two truck brands..I just don't see the point in keeping GMC around as is when GM could be more focused and competitive with just Chevy, Buick and Cadillac to focus on.

Ram and Jeep are Chryslers two truck brands... and since Chrysler is part of FIAT now, I'm sure I could add quite a few more truck brands to that... FIAT Professional (FIAT's trucks), FIAT Industrial (Iveco and numerous minor brands). So FIAT-Chrysler has at least four truck brands. Diamler, has like 6 truck brands and had about 9 with Dodge Trucks and Jeep.

[Robert Hall]

No other automaker has two truck brands..I just don't see the point in keeping GMC around as is when GM could be more focused and competitive with just Chevy, Buick and Cadillac to focus on.

Ram and Jeep are Chryslers two truck brands... and since Chrysler is part of FIAT now, I'm sure I could add quite a few more truck brands to that... FIAT Professional (FIAT's trucks), FIAT Industrial (Iveco and numerous minor brands). So FIAT-Chrysler has at least four truck brands. Diamler, has like 6 truck brands and had about 9 with Dodge Trucks and Jeep.

I figured some smarta** would say that..I should have been more specific...Jeep is an SUV brand, Ram is a truck brand..no overlap or common models. I should have said 'no automaker has two cloned truck brands'... you know what I mean...and Daimler's truck brands are each distinctive, as are FIATs. Different concept...

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Freightliner - Mercedes

[Robert Hall]

Freightliner - Mercedes

Other than the Sprinter, they don't both sell trucks in NA.

[balthazar]

"Ram" is just semantics. Don't the Durango & GC share the same filthy greasy oily bits & a 'grille & badging' (and some other trivial stuff)?

>>"I just don't see the point in keeping GMC around"<<

Read the thread- it's all in here.

Or keep burying your head, makes no difference.

[SAmadei]

I figured some smarta** would say that..I should have been more specific...Jeep is an SUV brand, Ram is a truck brand..no overlap or common models.

SUVs are trucks. You might be able to argue some Jeeps are CUVs, whose truck status is questionable... but I usually just go by what the EPA says... They don't have a SUV catagory, only "light duty trucks".

There is some overlap... but not much.

I should have said 'no automaker has two cloned truck brands'... you know what I mean

Yeah, you should have. I knew exactly what you meant... but we're here to keep you honest. ;-)

[Robert Hall]

"Ram" is just semantics. Don't the Durango & GC share the same filthy greasy oily bits & a 'grille & badging' (and some other trivial stuff)?

The Durango and GC are an example of platform sharing, like the GMC CUVs which are platform shared (Terrain, Arcadia) and well differentiated. That is different from simply badge engineered models like the Sierra and Yukon which have most sheetmetal, interiors, glass, etc in common..or the Canyon/Colorado and Express/Savana, which you can agree are trivially differentiated..

I figured some smarta** would say that..I should have been more specific...Jeep is an SUV brand, Ram is a truck brand..no overlap or common models.

SUVs are trucks. You might be able to argue some Jeeps are CUVs, whose truck status is questionable... but I usually just go by what the EPA says... They don't have a SUV catagory, only "light duty trucks".

There is some overlap... but not much.

EPA categories don't count. SUVs are either truck based (Tahoe, Yukon, etc) or on dedicated platforms (GC, Durango, Wrangler, 4Runner, X6, etc). CUVs are FWD/AWD.

No Jeep overlap with Ram, but with Dodge there is some platform sharing and overlap (GC & Durango, Liberty & Nitro) but they aren't the blantant badge jobs as with the Canyon and Colorado, for example.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar