David E. Davis, Jr......October, 1988

[The O.C.]

I'm retyping this from an editorial written by David E. Davis, Jr., in the October '88 issue of Automobile Magazine.....almost 18 (!) years ago.....about General Motors.....

He starts......."When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that General Motors was a dangerous monopoly that should be broken up?"

....and continues......"Never mind, General Motors has come a long way. All of the car divisions have spiced up their product lines, and some great saves have been made. We've seen an Indianapolis victory and a 200-mph Corvette. The Lotus connection is bubbling happily, and lots of exciting projects beyond the ZR1 Corvette are in the pipeline. Some very good executive moves have been made as well. A number of men with excellent hands-on automotive experience have been moved into key jobs in the past year. Obviously, General Motors is making a major effort to turn itself around."

"Unfortunately, it is still a corporation very much at odds with itself. Share of market is still down. The public still has doubts about the corporation and its products. The EDS acquisition has turned out badly, offsetting the Hughes Aircraft acquisition, which has been a big success. Internally, there are a lot of hurt feelings, bitterness, and management paranoia about what is characterized as GM bashing....the constant round of bad news and critical comment that's come from the national, enthusiast, and business press over the past ten years. One runs into senior GM guys who look at the world with the thousand-yard stare of people who've been in combat too long, guys who've been so gun-shy that they interpret comments about the weather as GM bashing."

"Deeper in the ranks, there's a growing morale problem among GM's best and brightest engineers, designers, and planners. They've heard all the corporate rhetoric. They want to believe. They're ready to play their parts in the great turnaround that must come soon in GM's core automotive businesses, but they see no evidence that the eighteen or twenty men who actually run GM have yet developed a vision of the automotive future, a clear-cut idea of GM's automotive mission. GM's future leaders are feeling a bit like Captain Yossarian in Catch-22, struggling in vain to save the life of the tail gunner dying in the wrong wound. They see themselves dutifully doing what they're told, making splints and rolling bandages for a patient whom they fear is suffering from advanced arteriosclerosis."

He concludes......."I think they should take another look. Perception always lags reality, and I believe that the midsummer round of management changes at GM will have an important ventilating effect on the corporate intellect and help the corporation through this process of redetermining who it is and why it's been put here. As mehitabel used to tell archy, when the things got grim, 'There's a dance in the old dame yet.' "

----------

I was thumbing through some old Automobile mags.....and came across this issue and got major goosebumps reading his editorial. It felt like I was reading something that very well could have been written TODAY.....almost two decades later!

It really makes you wonder if GM will EVER turn around. For all the changes, for all the new product, for all the Lutzs and Wagoners......What really has been accomplished in the last 18 years????

It's sad.....and scary....

[evok]

" For all the changes, for all the new product, for all the Lutzs and Wagoners......What really has been accomplished in the last 18 years????"

To the end user, meaning the customer - absolutely NOTHING positive!

[Sixty8panther]

" For all the changes, for all the new product, for all the Lutzs and Wagoners......What really has been accomplished in the last 18 years????"

To the end user, meaning the customer - absolutely NOTHING positive!

Ummm... if the Solstice/Sky, Sigma Cadillacs, C6/Z06, GMT900s & Cobalt

are "nothing positive" to you then you might be spending time on the

wrong forum.

[bobo]

Good trucks, and a handful of good niche cars. A lot of times when a company is on the brink, it has to reinvent itself. GM may not get many more chances.

[enzl]

Ummm... if the Solstice/Sky, Sigma Cadillacs, C6/Z06, GMT900s & Cobalt

are "nothing positive" to you then you might be spending time  on the

wrong forum.

If less than 10% of the line-up is an impressive accomplishment to you, you may want to look up the definition of the word 'positive' in this context....

...It doesn't sicken you that the SAME issues haven't been resolved in two decades? GM's about to blow a 10 run lead in the 9th, and that's progress?

C'mon. You did that at work, you wouldn't have a job.

[evok]

Ummm... if the Solstice/Sky, Sigma Cadillacs, C6/Z06, GMT900s & Cobalt

are "nothing positive" to you then you might be spending time  on the

wrong forum.

Look at the big picture my friend. A couple models do not make a trend as The O.C.'s post illustrates from 18 years AGO.

Edited May 6, 2006 by evok

[CARBIZ]

I could go further back, to the mid-70s and pull out MT and Car & Driver doing their "shoot outs" and claiming that "Detroit is back."

Is this a clear indication that the Big Three have failed, or that everything has already been written before and these writers just rehash the same old stories every 10 years?

Or could it be that Detroit is just not building what these guys want to drive? And could we have witnessed the seeds of resentment when the media felt THREATENED by GM's market dominance and decided to knock it down a peg or two?

Let's face it: do these magazines benefit from 3 car companies that control 90% of the market, or 15 companies scrapping over 1 percentage point of market share?

[The O.C.]

Look at the big picture my friend.  A couple models do not make a trend as The O.C.'s post illustrates from 18 years AGO.

The ONLY volume product GM offers that is TRULY class-competitive/superior is the GMT-900s...and they are REALLY good.....

The Sigma Cadillacs aren't. STS, while a "nice" car, is a dude in the competitive landscape....and CTS, as good as it is, still has issues that haven't been resolved (mostly poor interior trim quality compared to its upscale competition at BMW, Audi, and M-Benz.)

The others are much smaller volume products.

[The O.C.]

I could go further back, to the mid-70s and pull out MT and Car & Driver doing their "shoot outs" and claiming that "Detroit is back."

  Is this a clear indication that the Big Three have failed, or that everything has already been written before and these writers just rehash the same old stories every 10 years?

  Or could it be that Detroit is just not building what these guys want to drive?  And could we have witnessed the seeds of resentment when the media felt THREATENED by GM's market dominance and decided to knock it down a peg or two?

  Let's face it: do these magazines benefit from 3 car companies that control 90% of the market, or 15 companies scrapping over 1 percentage point of market share?

Don't you see? It doesn't matter if it's DED Jr., or the Detroit News, or the LA Times, or Car & Driver, or James Healy....

The cars are simply not good enough to pull GM out of their hole.

The market is proving that.

Sure....a Lucerne is a nice car, and is getting good reviews. Is it going to bring people back into GM showrooms looking for a roomy, comfortable, stylish, powerful (with V8) sedan in the $30-$40K range? Chrysler showed how to do it (300C)......but GM insists on not competing on the same level.

You think a Malibu or Impala has ANY realistic chance of making ANY sort of dent in the eyes and minds of anyone seriously considering a new Camry or Accord?

Sure.....as GM enthusiasts, we like these cars.....and even critical bastards as myself can admit that I like the Impala....even the SS model. BUT, I will admit that car is no where NEAR the kind of product GM needs to do the job. Unfortunately, it's FAR from it.....

DED Jr's comments from 18 years ago told a story that we should NEVER be revisiting in 2006. That's what I found interesting in his column and what I found chillingly ironic.....

[evok]

  Or could it be that Detroit is just not building what these guys want to drive?  And could we have witnessed the seeds of resentment when the media felt THREATENED by GM's market dominance and decided to knock it down a peg or two?

Or could it be that for the most part Detroit is not building what the Average American wants to drive?

GM has lost about 15 points of market share since that article was written.

Your post sounds like something FOG would write. Well I will leave it at that...

[CARBIZ]

Hey, guys... I never said what Davis wrote isn't true. I never said GM didn't deserve to lose half its market share in the past 30 years.

All I said is that the car writers have been putting the same slant on things for just as long.

As far as the AVERAGE American is concerned....nearly one in three are still buying them, probably more still driving them DESPITE 30 years of carping by the media.

I just remember a time when reading MT and the others was enjoyable. I haven't bought one in several years, but I see them laying around and flip through them occasionally.

As far as FOG is concerned, I will take that as a compliment.

[evok]

  All I said is that the car writers have been putting the same slant on things for just as long. 

 

There is no slant. Nothing positive has happened as far as the average person is concered. Hint: Toyota has a market value of over $222,000,000,000. GM is 12,000,000,000. GM has been on a death spiral in the US for 30 years. What do you do, pat them on the back and say "good job" on another round of mediocre product.

The truth is, many of us have been waiting for GM to turn around for as many years. But in actuality we are always let down. If there is a slant that is it. And 18 years ago, there was hope they would do just that. 18 years later we still are hoping.

As far as the AVERAGE American is concerned....nearly one in three are still buying them, probably more still driving them DESPITE 30 years of carping by the media.

It is more like less than 1 in 5.

I just remember a time when reading MT and the others was enjoyable.  I haven't bought one in several years, but I see them laying around and flip through them occasionally.

The rags were only ever good for one thing, spy photos. And with the internet and CD/PB around, the rags are a waste of money.

As far as FOG is concerned, I will take that as a compliment.

Well, I will not take that one any further.

Edited May 6, 2006 by evok

[CARBIZ]

Ah, GM's market share is less than 20% now.....do you know something I don't?

[enzl]

Ah, GM's market share is less than 20% now.....do you know something I don't?

Retail market share, without inclusion of fleet numbers is around 20%.

Simple math...At least 25% fleet sales and 25% market share means more than 5 points are wholesale rather than retail sales...(and both of those numbers are generously pro-GM, BTW)

Evok knows his stuff. You may not like what he or OC or I have to say, but our information is generally solid and the facts, unfortunately, speak for themselves. I think alot of GM fans suffer from a Stockholm syndrome about their favorite company...GM has squandered alot of people's futures and deserve every bad word they get, IMO.

Edited May 6, 2006 by enzl

[CARBIZ]

I am sorry for you both if you are that bitter and angry. Neither of you has even bothered to acknowledge my argument that the media doesn't have anything new to say. You don't find it amusing that they were carping about Detroit's comeback even when a comeback wasn't necessary?

A sale, even to fleet, is still a sale. SOMEONE is still driving the 25-27% market share GM is currently hovering at.

If it makes you feel better to go and buy a Toyota because someone in the RenCen has screwed up, then fine.

I, on the other hand, would never buy a Japanese car. I think Toyota and Honda build great cars, but they don't play fair. They hide behind the MITI in Japan and enjoy a closed market at home. The media has an axe to grind, plain and simple. I could bring up a hundred examples (most recently I mentioned the lawsuit against GM for their alleged 3.1/3.4 gasket problems was put on the FRONT page of the Toronto Star).

GM has screwed up, to be sure. I think we could all list a hundred things they've done wrong, but they've also done a hundred things right.

As far as resolving the issues from the last 18 years, that would be easy if the market/economy/consumer tastes didn't change, too.

And perhaps there is a disconnect between those on this board who work at GM (or Toyota!) and can only see the negative because they've "heard it all before," and those of us in the trenches who deal with real customers every day.

If given a chance, it can be easily demonstrated that GM builds competitive products. The consumer will listen and observe patiently. And there can even be small victories. I have personally driven people in a Cobalt and a Corolla to SHOW that the ride, handling, power and value is far superior to the Corolla.

The trick is convincing the consumer, who has to wade through the hyperbole and outright lies in the media, to actually drive the vehicle and judge for themselves.

I prefer to be a glass half full kind of guy. Sure, my livelihood depends on it, but if GM did go bankrupt and sell off its assets in Canada (as Texaco had to do), then I would get out of the business because I would never work for the Japanese.

[evok]

Retail market share, without inclusion of fleet numbers is around 20%.

CARBIZ: What he said. Actually I think GM is about 18% retail. As for your other post, well it speaks for itself. I might come back to it later if I have the time but really, it speaks for itself about what you know about the business and your ability to grasp what enzl, The O.C. and myself have been saying.

Edited May 6, 2006 by evok

[CARBIZ]

Why does this have to be a "death spiral?" Many American companies enjoyed virtual monopolies at one time, then were forced to reinvent themselves with new products/ways of doing things.

Look at Kodak. It was nearly wiped out a few years ago. Sears is another company. The department store market changed vastly in the past 25 years. Many venerable chains (in Canada it has been a killing field: Eatons, Woodwords and others).

There is no way GM could hold onto 50% market share. As far as I recall, GM was quite profitable until last year. There is no denying Toyota's emergence as a formidable competitor, just as Wal-Mart has shaken up the retail world. Like Wal-Mart, Toyota has come out of virtually nowhere in the past 25 years.

I think Americans are at their best when their backs are against the wall. Call me crazy, but I don't think it is such a bad thing if GM settles at 20% market share in North America, with Toyota and Ford maybe tied at 15-18%, then Chrysler, Honda, Nissan and Mazda pulling up the rear. It could be a healthy, thriving market for all.

But can someone please tell me why nobody else on this board even wonders why Japan is the only market in the world where there is NO foreign compeition?

Am I the only person here who thinks this is a concern?

[enzl]

Why does this have to be a "death spiral?"  Many American companies enjoyed virtual monopolies at one time, then were forced to reinvent themselves with new products/ways of doing things. 

  Look at Kodak.  It was nearly wiped out a few years ago.  Sears is another company.  The department store market changed vastly in the past 25 years.  Many venerable chains (in Canada it has been a killing field: Eatons, Woodwords and others).

  There is no way GM could hold onto 50% market share.  As far as I recall, GM was quite profitable until last year.  There is no denying Toyota's emergence as a formidable competitor, just as Wal-Mart has shaken up the retail world.  Like Wal-Mart, Toyota has come out of virtually nowhere in the past 25 years.

  I think Americans are at their best when their backs are against the wall.  Call me crazy, but I don't think it is such a bad thing if GM settles at 20% market share in North America, with Toyota and Ford maybe tied at 15-18%, then Chrysler, Honda, Nissan and Mazda pulling up the rear.  It could be a healthy, thriving market for all.

  But can someone please tell me why nobody else on this board even wonders why Japan is the only market in the world where there is NO foreign compeition? 

  Am I the only person here who thinks this is a concern?

The Japanese partnership between gov't and industry spans an enormous number of sectors. It partially explains the difficulty GM and Ford are having, but the situation did not have to be this way.

At the end of the day, there has been a failure of imagination at the Big 2. An inability to recognize that the light at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train.

There are 100's of examples of this myopic behavior, and I suppose you feel that critics have been unfair in doling out their venom. While I will admit that the press can be ferocious, the issue at hand is, that at the end of the day, they smell blood---two icons blood---and that can be a powerful force that invades lots of stories.

To me, this is about not giving them fodder to write the stories, but our domestic industry has been perpetually putting out mediocrity and also-rans...the Cobalt you speak of so highly is a nice car---but it replaced a Cavalier which, to be kind, was uncompetitive in 1992...how many people are going to hear it was replaced and run to a Chevy dealer---they all bought their perfectly adequate Corolla, Civic or whatever in 1993--were happy with it and have moved on to two generations of Accords, Camries or Siennas...the point being that they have NO reason to visit the local Chevy store anymore...

That's but one of a thousand examples of how GM put automaking second to money making and, now, they've got to figure out how to make cars again, no that they are no longer the default choice.

I'm actually optimistic they can do it, but time is short and severe action needs to be taken now! If my words on this board are a call to action for GM, great...if not, I'm OK with that too. (My livelihood is deeply effected by their progress, so I really have put my money where my mouth is. I have the right and reserve the right to speak my mind, even if others disagree.)

[evok]

Another blast from the past:

http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_first_dont_succeed/

[ZL-1]

Another blast from the past:

http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_first_dont_succeed/

lol, that's almost 11 years old and the "GM talk" is EXACTLY the same as today's. Makes one wonder if they'll ever learn...

Edited May 8, 2006 by ZL-1

[balthazar]

Cliche'd analogies aside, those here with shall I say... pessimistic viewpoints might have better luck attracting converts if they addressed the facts less editorially.

In other words, to me "absolutely NOTHING positive" means exactly that: nothing. However, I cannot agree with that allegation and it unintentionally casts dispersions on everything else written. The discussion would be much more balanced if credit was given where due once in a blue moon.

-- -- -- -- -- --

On another front, what exactly are these same opinion-holders really looking for from General Motors? What would make you happy WRT GM? I am truely interested in knowning.

[evok]

Cliche'd analogies aside, those here with shall I say... pessimistic viewpoints might have better luck attracting converts if they addressed the facts less editorially.

In other words, to me "absolutely NOTHING positive" means exactly that: nothing. However, I cannot agree with that allegation and it unintentionally casts dispersions on everything else written. The discussion would be much more balanced if credit was given where due once in a blue moon.

--  --  --  --  --  --

On another front, what exactly are these same opinion-holders really looking for from General Motors? What would make you happy WRT GM? I am truely interested in knowning.

bla bla bla -

[balthazar]

bla bla bla -

Right... and "absolutely nothing positive" isn't exactly that.

[evok]

Right... and "absolutely nothing positive" isn't exactly that.

Look at the continuing market share decline. Look at the continuing decline in share price, look at the continuing decline in profits.

Even in the better recent years, the profit picture normalized for RONA is in the 1-3% range.

Dismissing "wordsmithing", to the average vehicle buying public, GM has not consistently delivered world class product and buyers are migrating elsewhere. GM and world class are oxymorons. Positive means better than average, and GM at best in the US is average to the public at large.

If that were not the case this thread would not exist, GM would be making money in their auto operations, and market share would be improving.

And that, is not the case.

Edited May 9, 2006 by evok

[evok]

"Q -- GM has reduced production schedules, but your investories are still high. How do you view GM's production and market share (year-to-date 37@ vs. 41% a year earlier) for '87 and '88?

A -- I think our market share will move up, simply with the new cars we have coming out (such as the GM10 midsize coupes). Those cars are going to help us, but it will take awhile to get back up where we should be, and it may be '89 or even '90 before we're really on full load.

Q -- 40% by '89 or '90?

A -- I don't know. Let me say this: It's a strange thing, but I believe if the market goes down, our share will go up."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...ai_6247173/pg_3

"A decade-long slide in market share is proof of that. Now, three years after Jack Smith's dark-days-of-1992 edict of "profits before market share," Mr. Wagoner declares the worst is over and share gains lie ahead. GM, he says, is sizing itself to claim 35% of the U.S. market, a share it last reached in 1991."

"

TCC: Can you meet the target you've set of achieving a 5 percent return on sales?

SMITH: We have two goals: margins and return on net assets. We're much closer to our target on RONA. That is coming along nicely. (Margins) are more difficult for us (because of) the pressure on pricing in the market. But it continues to be our goal, and in 1998, even after the strike, we hit 3.5 percent."

PS They never hit 5%

“We’re pleased to see the significant progress in our first-quarter results and in the implementation of all four elements of our North American turnaround plan,” Wagoner continued. “And we remain focused on accelerating our return to profitability and cash generation.”

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...S193.A1276.html

"Lutz Says GM Is Over the Worst,.."

Edited May 9, 2006 by evok

[The O.C.]

"Q -- GM has reduced production schedules, but your investories are still high. How do you view GM's production and market share (year-to-date 37@ vs. 41% a year earlier) for '87 and '88?

A -- I think our market share will move up, simply with the new cars we have coming out (such as the GM10 midsize coupes). Those cars are going to help us, but it will take awhile to get back up where we should be, and it may be '89 or even '90 before we're really on full load.

Q -- 40% by '89 or '90?

A -- I don't know. Let me say this: It's a strange thing, but I believe if the market goes down, our share will go up."

"A decade-long slide in market share is proof of that. Now, three years after Jack Smith's dark-days-of-1992 edict of "profits before market share," Mr. Wagoner declares the worst is over and share gains lie ahead. GM, he says, is sizing itself to claim 35% of the U.S. market, a share it last reached in 1991."

“We’re pleased to see the significant progress in our first-quarter results and in the implementation of all four elements of our North American turnaround plan,” Wagoner continued. “And we remain focused on accelerating our return to profitability and cash generation.”

"Lutz Says GM Is Over the Worst,.."

Some Things Never Change.

I quit GM seven years ago due to my forsight of the "impending doom" and to be honest, I really DO wish I was here today saying "I never should have left."

Unfortunately, seven years later, I'm reaffirmed that my departure from General Motors is the BEST thing that I ever did (career-wise).....

From an enthusiast standpoint, I may be even MORE frustrated with them. GM should be the most successful car company in the world producing the best engineered and most well executed designs in the marketplace.

[CARBIZ]

Do you seriously believe, that with the improvements in the competition's product in the past 15 years that there is any way GM could have held onto 40% or even 30% market share?

When I went car shopping in 1990, Toyota, Nissan and Honda were a JOKE. There is nothing that they built that appealed to me at all. I looked at the Thunderbird SC, the new Grand Caravan and ended up with a Caprice wagon. (I even considered the Pontiac Transport for about 1/15 of a second!)

Now, I have to admit, there is amazing product out there from even the likes of Hyundai. With 80+ models, it is a physical impossibility for GM to have class-leading products in all categories. The goal posts simply move too fast - I think we can all acknowledge that.

But why is it that the media is leading the charge that GM isn't building "class-leading" cars and trucks? If the consumer keeps hearing the same old refrain, then eventually they will be led to believe that GM is, in fact, building crap and buy something else.

GM can only build "good" cars and trucks, even "better" cars and trucks. There is simply too much choice and the consumer is overwhelmed. A truck used to be a truck and a car a car - now the lines have blurred and confusion is rampant.

The media, with their cynicism and "we know better than you poor unwashed masses" attitude is not helping matters. If GM is on a "death spiral" it is largely due to past mistakes of GM and current badgering of the peanut gallery.

[Croc]

  The media, with their cynicism and "we know better than you poor unwashed masses" attitude is not helping matters.  If GM is on a "death spiral" it is largely due to past mistakes of GM and current badgering of the peanut gallery.

Oh, I wish that were the case...

[evok]

  But why is it that the media is leading the charge that GM isn't building "class-leading" cars and trucks?

Why, because they have not and for the most part continue to not build "class leading" cars and trucks.

[CARBIZ]

I realize this is supposed to be a GM fansite, although there are times when I wonder myself, but people are missing my point. Let me repeat: WITH 80+ MODELS, IT WOULD BE BOTH PHYSICALLY AND FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GM TO BE CLASS-LEADING IN ALL CATEGORIES.

For Pete's sake, Toyota isn't class leading in all categories - or in any, arguably.

With the competition out there today, it is no longer possible to be All things to All people. The market and consumer tastes are far too fragmented to do that.

GM just needs to do MORE things right than anybody else. It could be argued that GM is spreading itself too thin with too many brands, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

[evok]

I realize this is supposed to be a GM fansite, although there are times when I wonder myself,...

Being a fan and accepting the corporate BS product are two different things.

As for the rest of your comments well if GM doesn't stop the slide, and accepts your "class leading" logic, well . . . we may soon say we WERE GM fans.

Edited May 9, 2006 by evok

[turbo200]

Carbiz, upon introduction, most Toyota products are considered class-leading or very near the forefront of the class. Even the last generation that saw Corolla and Camry be relative "duds" in the critical sense but not the sales sense, they were not tops of the class but very near it.

Your opinion of the "other companies" is flawed and based in GM fan perception. Everytime a new product gets released its usually better in many ways, and sometimes all ways, than what was there before, except if you are a GM car. or Ford car, or DCX car, this isn't always the case.

Honda Civic: drive the new one, put aside your indifference to its styling, its the most alluring compact car I've ever driven. A complete luxurious ride. The Hybrid version has a more luxurious presence than the CTS on the inside!

When the bar is set that high, it is very hard to reach it, but that doesn't mean you give up and release rental specials that compete with no one, much less the newest and best from Honda or Toyota.

[turbo200]

"Q -- GM has reduced production schedules, but your investories are still high. How do you view GM's production and market share (year-to-date 37@ vs. 41% a year earlier) for '87 and '88?

A -- I think our market share will move up, simply with the new cars we have coming out (such as the GM10 midsize coupes). Those cars are going to help us, but it will take awhile to get back up where we should be, and it may be '89 or even '90 before we're really on full load.

Q -- 40% by '89 or '90?

A -- I don't know. Let me say this: It's a strange thing, but I believe if the market goes down, our share will go up."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...ai_6247173/pg_3

"A decade-long slide in market share is proof of that. Now, three years after Jack Smith's dark-days-of-1992 edict of "profits before market share," Mr. Wagoner declares the worst is over and share gains lie ahead. GM, he says, is sizing itself to claim 35% of the U.S. market, a share it last reached in 1991."

"

TCC: Can you meet the target you've set of achieving a 5 percent return on sales?

SMITH: We have two goals: margins and return on net assets. We're much closer to our target on RONA. That is coming along nicely. (Margins) are more difficult for us (because of) the pressure on pricing in the market. But it continues to be our goal, and in 1998, even after the strike, we hit 3.5 percent."

PS They never hit 5%

“We’re pleased to see the significant progress in our first-quarter results and in the implementation of all four elements of our North American turnaround plan,” Wagoner continued. “And we remain focused on accelerating our return to profitability and cash generation.”

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...S193.A1276.html

"Lutz Says GM Is Over the Worst,.."

beautiful beautiful post. i am very apathetic towards the company's management right now

[turbo200]

Even in the better recent years, the profit picture normalized for RONA is in the 1-3% range. This has been terrible for some time as you eloquently pointed out.

Dismissing "wordsmithing", to the average vehicle buying public, GM has not consistently delivered world class product and buyers have migrated elsewhere.  The tide of opinions is largely, completely, a brick wall against GM's favor. The next part is why. 

GM and world class are oxymorons.

Positive means better than average, and GM at best in the US is average to the public at large. They are mostly below average, but you used best case scenario

If that were not the case this thread and the thousands of others here over the years would not exist, GM would be making money in their auto operations, and market share would be improving.

And that, is not the case.

Again, beautiful post

[The O.C.]

WITH 80+ MODELS, IT WOULD BE BOTH PHYSICALLY AND FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GM TO BE CLASS-LEADING IN ALL CATEGORIES.

....and with 80+ models, take all biases and enthusiasm aside, in reality's sake, only the C6 Corvette, the GMT-900s, and MAYBE the CTS (although it's poor interior trim quality keeps it from being "leading") could be called class-leading or even class-competitive.

[enzl]

I'm not going to pile on...suffice it to say that I do believe that GM can do better...I believe they have the talent to do it and, certainly, the motivation...

I can imagine GMT900 effort to create an original, midsize platform...like what the epsilon should be....RWD/AWD with enough differentiation to be a great Chevy on the low end and a sophisticated Saab on the high end...imagine 1 million plus excellent cars! Just like their truck bretheren!

...but until that happens, its mediocrity and excuses. That ain't going to cut it in a World Market where only 80% of capacity is truly needed and the losers will no longer be independent entities within the decade.

That's all that's at stake. That should be enough to inspire and rally the troops. I guess we'll see.

[balthazar]

Look at the continuing market share decline.  Look at the continuing decline in share price, look at the continuing decline in profits.

Those are catchwords of the investor; they don't interest me to a great degree. I am 'here' for product, not the annual report.

'Marketshare' is greatly overemphasized and almost without fail taken out of context. What do I mean? Only the investor would compare current marketshare to the modern historical peak instead of the historical average. Peak, by the way was 60.1%, tho no one bothers to find out when. I did; it was 1931, the first year GM was #1 in volume, not the late '60s as any 'journalist' will try and tell you. By '46 it was 37.5%- was there unending journalistic teeth-knashing & hair-pulling about the "death spiral" then like we're all enjoying now? Again since no one bothers to find out: no; there wasn't.

Yes, marketshare has been declining for many years. Frankly I don't care up until the point it affects profits and curtails reinvestment/future planning. Yep, it's done that some years ago. But far too many believe the link is tangible and direct, ie: the worse marketshare is, the worse the vehicles must therefore be, yet the opposite is closer to the truth, yet many here prefer to ignore that.

Which is where my objection comes in. No one who harps on marketshare and profit statements ever bothers to give credit to vastly improved quality & reliability, far outpacing the industry average there. Naysayers love to gloss over the turnaround of Cadillac, who has undoubtedly & soundly increased their marketshare of the luxury segment. 1996 entry-level Cadillac sales: 0. 2000 Catera sales: 17,290. Aren't recent CTS sales in the 50,000+ unit range? What has happened to the 3-series marketshare in the last 10 years- we never hear those numbers. Who would disagree that those figures would be MOST REFRESHING to learn?

Cannot this possibly be considered one of many 'absolutely positives'? Or is it all just 'bla bla bla / wordsmithing'?

Nevermind; already know the 'answer'; there is only The Big Picture That Is General Motors, Where Everything Is Absolutely f@#ked and Nothing Good Can Ever Shine Forth From The Blinding Darkness That Is Marketshare Now Shutup About The Individual Examples Of Progress And Goodness And Get Down With The Sickness.

f@#kin' A, Manny.

[enzl]

Look at the continuing market share decline.  Look at the continuing decline in share price, look at the continuing decline in profits.

Those are catchwords of the investor; they don't interest me to a great degree. I am 'here' for product, not the annual report.

'Marketshare' is greatly overemphasized and almost without fail taken out of context. What do I mean? Only the investor would compare current marketshare to the modern historical peak instead of the historical average. Peak, by the way was 60.1%, tho no one bothers to find out when. I did; it was 1931, the first year GM was #1 in volume, not the late '60s as any 'journalist' will try and tell you. By '46 it was 37.5%- was there unending journalistic teeth-knashing & hair-pulling about the "death spiral" then like we're all enjoying now? Again since no one bothers to find out: no; there wasn't.

Yes, marketshare has been declining for many years. Frankly I don't care up until the point it affects profits and curtails reinvestment/future planning. Yep, it's done that some years ago. But far too many believe the link is tangible and direct, ie: the worse marketshare is, the worse the vehicles must therefore be, yet the opposite is closer to the truth, yet many here prefer to ignore that.

Which is where my objection comes in. No one who harps on marketshare and profit statements ever bothers to give credit to vastly improved quality & reliability, far outpacing the industry average there. Naysayers love to gloss over the turnaround of Cadillac, who has undoubtedly & soundly increased their marketshare of the luxury segment. 1996 entry-level Cadillac sales: 0. 2000 Catera sales: 17,290. Aren't recent CTS sales in the 50,000+ unit range? What has happened to the 3-series marketshare in the last 10 years- we never hear those numbers. Who would disagree that those figures would be MOST REFRESHING to learn?

Cannot this possibly be considered one of many 'absolutely positives'? Or is it all just 'bla bla bla / wordsmithing'?

Nevermind; already know the 'answer'; there is only The Big Picture That Is General Motors, Where Everything Is Absolutely f@#ked and Nothing Good Can Ever Shine Forth From The Blinding Darkness That Is Marketshare Now Shutup About The Individual Examples Of Progress And Goodness And Get Down With The Sickness.

f@#kin' A, Manny.

I don't think there's anyone here that would/could deny bright spots or reasons to hope...that being said, when 80+ models result in 4-8 clear cut 'successful' vehicles ---in the sense of PRODUCT excellence---there's ample reason for doubt and concern.

Analogy- If I have Cancer, but my heart is strong, I still need to go to the doctor, since without proper care, the Cancer may kill me (and my strong heart.) GM hasn't addressed the Cancer and the heart may not be so strong either...until they can produce consistent, excellent product over their entire range (or some large portion) they will continue to be selling deals, not cars & trucks. That type of Cancer will eventually kill them, unfortunately.

[evok]

Look at the continuing market share decline.  Look at the continuing decline in share price, look at the continuing decline in profits.

Those are catchwords of the investor; they don't interest me to a great degree. I am 'here' for product, not the annual report.

'Marketshare' is greatly overemphasized and almost without fail taken out of context. What do I mean? Only the investor would compare current marketshare to the modern historical peak instead of the historical average. Peak, by the way was 60.1%, tho no one bothers to find out when. I did; it was 1931, the first year GM was #1 in volume, not the late '60s as any 'journalist' will try and tell you. By '46 it was 37.5%- was there unending journalistic teeth-knashing & hair-pulling about the "death spiral" then like we're all enjoying now? Again since no one bothers to find out: no; there wasn't.

Yes, marketshare has been declining for many years. Frankly I don't care up until the point it affects profits and curtails reinvestment/future planning. Yep, it's done that some years ago. But far too many believe the link is tangible and direct, ie: the worse marketshare is, the worse the vehicles must therefore be, yet the opposite is closer to the truth, yet many here prefer to ignore that.

Which is where my objection comes in. No one who harps on marketshare and profit statements ever bothers to give credit to vastly improved quality & reliability, far outpacing the industry average there. Naysayers love to gloss over the turnaround of Cadillac, who has undoubtedly & soundly increased their marketshare of the luxury segment. 1996 entry-level Cadillac sales: 0. 2000 Catera sales: 17,290. Aren't recent CTS sales in the 50,000+ unit range? What has happened to the 3-series marketshare in the last 10 years- we never hear those numbers. Who would disagree that those figures would be MOST REFRESHING to learn?

Cannot this possibly be considered one of many 'absolutely positives'? Or is it all just 'bla bla bla / wordsmithing'?

Nevermind; already know the 'answer'; there is only The Big Picture That Is General Motors, Where Everything Is Absolutely f@#ked and Nothing Good Can Ever Shine Forth From The Blinding Darkness That Is Marketshare Now Shutup About The Individual Examples Of Progress And Goodness And Get Down With The Sickness.

f@#kin' A, Manny.

Ok, profit have been bad for years. Without profits, no products. Do I need to spell out the correlation any further than that?

GM produces more models at less volume today in NA than 25 years ago. Does that help to explain things better without using that silly word market share?

I do hate to use that silly investor catchword profits and dollars - It does detract from the product. In GMs case literally and it shows.

Edited May 10, 2006 by evok

[CARBIZ]

Turbo, my opinons are my opinions. They are no less valid than your own. I will not stoop to personal attacks about your flaws.

In fact, if anything I was a Chrysler fan until I bought my '91 Caprice. I do not consider myself an expert, but rather a well-informed layperson.

And unlike you, I suspect, I get to talk to real people every day. In fact, your beloved Civic is getting a lot of resistance from Civic buyers, particularly the older ones. I've already had several people complain of the looks and the price. And I would stack the Cobalt up against the Corolla any day of the week - mechanical trunk release and all!

As to the market share issue, I would like to point out an obvious point that is being missed here: 40% of 11 million is about the same as 25% of 17 million. I would agree that there are fewer vehicles out there that hit the 400k mark, which Ford and GM routinely hit in the '60s and '70s with their successful models, but then Detroit was only battling itself then - not Japan Inc, the media, disgruntled shareholders and the UAW.

Balthazar raises a very good point about market share. Again, the media is fanning the flames even when they are just embers. The average idiot on the street could care less about market share, but with the media spreading doom and gloom from every paper, what is an Average Joe to think?

I believe more and more people are turning away from the mass media because it has nothing new to say on most topics, let alone the car business.

[balthazar]

I don't think there's anyone here that would/could deny bright spots or reasons to hope...

We must be reading from two, parallel C&G universes. In mine, Spock has a goatee.

...until they can produce consistent, excellent product over their entire range (or some large portion)...

What is your definition of "some large portion", enzl? A third? 51%? 66.667%? What? I'm curious.

And would you care to reexamine "entire", by chance??

[evok]

What is your definition of "some large portion", enzl? A third? 51%? 66.667%? What? I'm curious.

And would you care to reexamine "entire", by chance??

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/entire

Main Entry: 1en·tire

Pronunciation: in-'tIr, 'en-"

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French entir, from Latin integer, literally, untouched, from in- + tangere to touch -- more at TANGENT

1 : having no element or part left out : WHOLE <was alone the entire day>

2 : complete in degree : TOTAL <their entire devotion to their family>

3 a : consisting of one piece b : HOMOGENEOUS, UNMIXED c : INTACT <strove to keep the collection entire>

4 : not castrated

5 : having the margin continuous or free from indentations <an entire leaf>

[Mr.Krinkle]

so, only complete and utter perfection is tolerable. you must run a tight ship then, of course entire and some large portion are not quite the same.

go to your dictionary and look up some large portion. lets see what that entry is listed as

carbiz used the word disgruntled. that seems to have the clearest resonance around here so far.

im reminded of an expression, the more things change the more the stay, well you know the rest of that one.

if im reading this correctly, and ithink i am, yourre using 20 year old interviews to back up claims of things that are happening today. thats not very productive.

lets just hope they dont let the spaniards back in the pantry.

[balthazar]

Thanks evok- but I didn't ask for the definition of 'entire'.

What I did want to know was if enzl was sure that's what he felt was either/or neccessary or possible from GM.

But say; while we're here, what's your definition of "some large portion"... or are you from the Entire Camp?

[evok]

Thanks evok- but I didn't ask for the definition of 'entire'.

What I did want to know was if enzl was sure that's what he felt was either/or neccessary or possible from GM.

But say; while we're here, what's your definition of "some large portion"... or are you from the Entire Camp?

Well I am in the entire camp but I am realistic. When I read enzl's "some large portion", I read his words as being reasonable that GM might have to pick their battles, or certain models will be imported from DAT, dedicated TO FLEET or something for whatever reason does not equal entire.

Toyota, Honda, VW, BMW, MB, Nissan are pretty good at getting some large portion correct, globally. And I might add that Hyundai and Kia seem to be getting it right also.

Opel ain't that shabby either.

Edited May 10, 2006 by evok

[evok]

so, only complete and utter perfection is tolerable.  you must run a tight ship then,  of course entire and some large portion are not quite the same.

HUH - This make no sense in the context of this discussion.

go to your dictionary and look up some large portion. lets see what that entry is listed as

HUH - A portion dedicated to the middle market would be a start! Again I do not understand where you are going with this thought.

carbiz used the word disgruntled. that seems to have the clearest resonance around here so far.

That is not a bad word in summing up the publics attitute toward GM. But irrelevant better describes about 85% of GM's current fleet by volume. That is unless you have access to GMS, 0% or some other incentive. And btw - a large portion of GM's US sales are at GMS.

im reminded of an expression, the more things change the more the stay, well you know the rest of that one.

So true - GM has not offered the public what they want in a long time.

if im reading this correctly, and ithink i am, yourre using 20 year old interviews to back up claims of things that are happening today. thats not very productive.

The articles point out the people might have changed but the excuses are are the same.

[enzl]

evok has done a masterful job defending my statements, which I believe were reasonable and truthful....

But, if we're going into the semantics of my argument, I just want to state that the day GM has the same proportion of excellent product in its lineup as BMW, Toyota or Nissan, I promise I'll stop the criticism of GM completely.

Do I desire excellence in every product?....Of course, I'm an enthusiast...Do other carmakers fail to produce excellence across the board? Absolutely. But we shouldn't be looking to other companies failures and hate, rather, we should be looking at the shining examples of single minded excellence in the industry (BMW & Honda come to mind first) and see what it is they are doing right...

A little soul searching is in order as an organization and, in the balance, is the very survival of GM. If this doesn't cause discomfort amongst those that attack myself and evok for our difference of opinion, than perhaps we're wasting our time in providing our point of view.

If I didn't care, I wouldn't waste my time...As I've said before, my personal stake is higher than almost everyone's here...If I don't have the right to respectfully disagree, than that's on you guys. If you'd like my opinion, great. If you disagree, that's fine too...but don't use semantics to difuse what was and is a fair and accurate portrayal of GM's current situation.

[CARBIZ]

Okay, while others rush to their dictionaries, I want to make one last point here about market rationalization. North America has been an anomoly on the world stage for about 60 years. While Europe was pretty much bombed into the Dark Ages 60 years ago and then endured years of rationing, Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial foundations on being frugal and smart.

America went another way: bigger is better. Why go for large when you can go for garish? Witness the excesses of the '50s and '60s. So, Toyopet learned to make small cars. VW learned to make small cars. The Big Three did not.

The trouble is, GM and Ford do know how to make small cars. They make them over in Europe. GM and Ford enjoy a strong market position over there where Toyota is having a harder time making inroads. I wonder why that is?

Could it be because GM knows how to make what Europeans want - small, fun to drive vehicles that are great on gas? While on this side of the pond, where it is written into the Constitution, or something like that, that Thou Shalt Drive Big Gas Swizzling Trucks, GM and Ford never figured out how to build small, fun to drive cars and trucks. They never had to.

Now, in the new reality of emerging China and India, we are facing world wide gasoline shortages of a real nature. $5 a gallon gas will be a reality soon.

GM needs to stop treating Americans as stupid and start bringing the real Opels and Vauxhalls here. I understand they propose to do that with Saturn. Good. Just don't "Americanize" them.

The truck bubble of the last 10 years lulled the Big 2 into complacency once again. It isn't entirely their fault. If Wagoner etc. had spent a fortune on the Cavalier in 1995, Wall Street would have been all over it for blowing money on an unprofitable vehicle when truck sales were soaring.

GM already has the vehicles it needs. They are in Germany and Brazil. Just get them over here. QUICK.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Okay, while others rush to their dictionaries, I want to make one last point here about market rationalization.  North America has been an anomoly on the world stage for about 60 years.  While Europe was pretty much bombed into the Dark Ages 60 years ago and then endured years of rationing, Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial foundations on being frugal and smart.

  America went another way:  bigger is better.  Why go for large when you can go for garish?  Witness the excesses of the '50s and '60s.  So, Toyopet learned to make small cars.  VW learned to make small cars.  The Big Three did not.

  The trouble is, GM and Ford do know how to make small cars.  They make them over in Europe.  GM and Ford enjoy a strong market position over there where Toyota is having a harder time making inroads.  I wonder why that is?

  Could it be because GM knows how to make what Europeans want - small, fun to drive vehicles that are great on gas?  While on this side of the pond, where it is written into the Constitution, or something like that, that Thou Shalt Drive Big Gas Swizzling Trucks, GM and Ford never figured out how to build small, fun to drive cars and trucks.  They never had to.

  Now, in the new reality of emerging China and India, we are facing world wide gasoline shortages of a real nature.  $5 a gallon gas will be a reality soon.

  GM needs to stop treating Americans as stupid and start bringing the real Opels and Vauxhalls here.  I understand they propose to do that with Saturn.  Good.  Just don't "Americanize" them.

  The truck bubble of the last 10 years lulled the Big 2 into complacency once again.  It isn't entirely their fault.  If Wagoner etc. had spent a fortune on the Cavalier in 1995, Wall Street would have been all over it for blowing money on an unprofitable vehicle when truck sales were soaring.

  GM already has the vehicles it needs.  They are in Germany and Brazil.  Just get them over here.            QUICK.

But it could be argued that the large cars aren't that great either, but I agree with alot of your post. The Astra should have been brought here years ago for example. GM does need better product. The only cars they got right recently have all been low volume cars like the Sky and Corvette.

[Mr.Krinkle]

i cant stand it when someone quotes every line and has a reply for every single line of a post, or an opinion, or something i may have wrote.

i have no time for that, largely, and i dont even read it for the most part, just for future reference.

i could do likewise but id be here forever and does little to advance the conversation.

please try to follow better without having a retort for every syllable. and i may suggest reading comprehension addjustment because the first thing you quoted makes complete sense in the context and is why i stopped reading this time.

just for your benefit, no one wanted the definition of 'entire' it was 'some large portion' that needed clarification. i think you can put the other pieces together from there.

what does market share mean anyway. besides being the easiest way to gauge a companies saturation it provides little insight to anything else.