May 2016: General Motors Co.

[Suaviloquent]

I got my fleet percentage my Motley Fool, go look up their recent article.

 

And Ford is also having its own record retail sales.

 

Most importantly the kinds of vehicles they are getting retail sales records are crossovers and SUVs.

 

But regardless, enough about Ford. This is a GM thread. There's a tendency to compare the two too much here. 

[El Kabong]

DETROIT -- General Motors, which has seen its U.S. market share fall faster than any other automaker through the first five months of the year, is hitting back with multiple June promotions and marketing plays for its core Chevrolet brand.

In a message sent to Chevy dealers Wednesday, Chevy U.S. chief Brian Sweeney acknowledged that May “did not deliver the result we planned for.” GM’s 18 percent slide, which it blamed on a planned pullback in rental sales and lost production stemming from the April earthquake in Japan, knocked its May market share to within half a point of rival Ford, and cut into retail share for GM and the Chevy brand.

Read more...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160602/RETAIL01/160609959/gm-boosts-chevy-incentives-after-may-jolt?cciid=email-autonews-blast

So an explanation is given for the decline, of which just about every manufacturer had, and you still feel the need to troll that fact? It's even confirmed in the very snippet of info you copy and pasted.

Just seems a little redundant and trollish.

The downvotes aren't just about me not caring to provide links for fleet percentages. It's more a generalized childishness.

And yes, GM is rolling out incentives for two transitional models, two fuel-sippers, and the Impala.

Yeesh

Umm, no it's not. You can't just throw out whitewashed numbers, like that is the be all end all to one specific car, and then act like you are not at fault for NOT providing at least a little evidence to back up your claim. Your explanation is what comes off as childish as a result.

You misunderstand me. I read this article and commented on it elsewhere yesterday. I am not alone in my assessment of it. I respond to childishness with the level of respect it deserves, so I'm quite content to make my broad statement, know it's correct, and let the peanut gallery cry some more.

The facts are there to read: the Cruze and Malibu are doing model switchovers, the small cars are toast with these gas prices. Only the Impala is a disappointment to me, but it's an SUV world.

In the meantime, GM has taken a bold sales strategy and although it's still fairly early on, so far it has proven a very important point: American buyers far and away prefer their product to any other Detroit brand. Simple as that

[surreal1272]

DETROIT -- General Motors, which has seen its U.S. market share fall faster than any other automaker through the first five months of the year, is hitting back with multiple June promotions and marketing plays for its core Chevrolet brand.

In a message sent to Chevy dealers Wednesday, Chevy U.S. chief Brian Sweeney acknowledged that May “did not deliver the result we planned for.” GM’s 18 percent slide, which it blamed on a planned pullback in rental sales and lost production stemming from the April earthquake in Japan, knocked its May market share to within half a point of rival Ford, and cut into retail share for GM and the Chevy brand.

Read more...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160602/RETAIL01/160609959/gm-boosts-chevy-incentives-after-may-jolt?cciid=email-autonews-blast

So an explanation is given for the decline, of which just about every manufacturer had, and you still feel the need to troll that fact? It's even confirmed in the very snippet of info you copy and pasted.

Just seems a little redundant and trollish.

The downvotes aren't just about me not caring to provide links for fleet percentages. It's more a generalized childishness.

And yes, GM is rolling out incentives for two transitional models, two fuel-sippers, and the Impala.

Yeesh

Umm, no it's not. You can't just throw out whitewashed numbers, like that is the be all end all to one specific car, and then act like you are not at fault for NOT providing at least a little evidence to back up your claim. Your explanation is what comes off as childish as a result.

You misunderstand me. I read this article and commented on it elsewhere yesterday. I am not alone in my assessment of it. I respond to childishness with the level of respect it deserves, so I'm quite content to make my broad statement, know it's correct, and let the peanut gallery cry some more.

The facts are there to read: the Cruze and Malibu are doing model switchovers, the small cars are toast with these gas prices. Only the Impala is a disappointment to me, but it's an SUV world.

In the meantime, GM has taken a bold sales strategy and although it's still fairly early on, so far it has proven a very important point: American buyers far and away prefer their product to any other Detroit brand. Simple as that

Whatever you say Bong. It's not like any other evidence will matter to you anyway. It's the same tactic a certain quitter used.

[surreal1272]

DETROIT -- General Motors, which has seen its U.S. market share fall faster than any other automaker through the first five months of the year, is hitting back with multiple June promotions and marketing plays for its core Chevrolet brand.

In a message sent to Chevy dealers Wednesday, Chevy U.S. chief Brian Sweeney acknowledged that May “did not deliver the result we planned for.” GM’s 18 percent slide, which it blamed on a planned pullback in rental sales and lost production stemming from the April earthquake in Japan, knocked its May market share to within half a point of rival Ford, and cut into retail share for GM and the Chevy brand.

Read more...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160602/RETAIL01/160609959/gm-boosts-chevy-incentives-after-may-jolt?cciid=email-autonews-blast

So an explanation is given for the decline, of which just about every manufacturer had, and you still feel the need to troll that fact? It's even confirmed in the very snippet of info you copy and pasted.

Just seems a little redundant and trollish.

The downvotes aren't just about me not caring to provide links for fleet percentages. It's more a generalized childishness.

And yes, GM is rolling out incentives for two transitional models, two fuel-sippers, and the Impala.

Yeesh

Umm, no it's not. You can't just throw out whitewashed numbers, like that is the be all end all to one specific car, and then act like you are not at fault for NOT providing at least a little evidence to back up your claim. Your explanation is what comes off as childish as a result.

 

 

Thanks for your approval of my post.

It was the opposite of approval, but like Bong and the quitter, I don't expect you one brand fans to see it any other way. I'm sure you are on the Ford sales thread though addressing the sales increase due to a fleet increase right? You sure made an extra effort to point it out over the years when GM was doing the same thing right? I mean, your objective reasoning should let you see that is all I'm saying.

I'm seriously asking.

[El Kabong]

Nonsense. Unlike old whutzisname I just laugh at the collective ear-stopping and eye-covering. Ignoring reality is just setting yourself up for failure.

Besides... the articles and sales numbers back me up 100%. GM is on a roll with the buying public to the extent that they can cut back fleet and maintain their sales position. What's not to like about that?

[Suaviloquent]

GM's been winning the sales wars for decades now. Now I don't want to point out the obvious, but no one will pretend that Ford does anything outlandish or complicated to beat GM in profits.

 

And GM is not 1 Detroit brand. It is 4. All of with a lot of products to continually maintain, develop and market, which increases the complexity of their business. It costs GM more to bring more vehicles to market. So if you're continue the fallacy of your sales argument, consider that revenues between GM and Ford are much closer than their difference is sales units.

 

You talk about selling less and making more money - so many people say that's right for the Camaro. Ford does it on the grandest of scales. Who has the bolder strategy now?

[surreal1272]

Nonsense. Unlike old whutzisname I just laugh at the collective ear-stopping and eye-covering. Ignoring reality is just setting yourself up for failure.

Besides... the articles and sales numbers back me up 100%. GM is on a roll with the buying public to the extent that they can cut back fleet and maintain their sales position. What's not to like about that?

. He claimed laughter as well so let me repeat this for you and then I'm done.

Exactly the same tactic.

Edited June 3, 2016 by surreal1272

[El Kabong]

Bye bye. Sorry you feel that way. But facts is facts.

Edited June 3, 2016 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

Nonsense. Unlike old whutzisname I just laugh at the collective ear-stopping and eye-covering. Ignoring reality is just setting yourself up for failure.

Besides... the articles and sales numbers back me up 100%. GM is on a roll with the buying public to the extent that they can cut back fleet and maintain their sales position. What's not to like about that?

They did not maintain their sales position. They lost 18%. 

[El Kabong]

Don't recall hearing that anyone passed them.

[Suaviloquent]

Whatever man, GM will eventually get to a point where they better explain to their shareholders how they have in their opinion the best product, much better coverage of many more luxury segments, have a dedicated brand of trucks and crossovers for the top end, have many more model lines, have many more retail sales, and yet continually get beaten - no dumped on, by lowly Ford that just has far fewer models, barely a luxury brand, has taken up some of the fleet business that GM has ceded - which is supposed to hurt profits.

[surreal1272]

Whatever man, GM will eventually get to a point where they better explain to their shareholders how they have in their opinion the best product, much better coverage of many more luxury segments, have a dedicated brand of trucks and crossovers for the top end, have many more model lines, have many more retail sales, and yet continually get beaten - no dumped on, by lowly Ford that just has far fewer models, barely a luxury brand, has taken up some of the fleet business that GM has ceded - which is supposed to hurt profits.

That's been my point too. Yes, it is great that they have reduced their reliance on rental sales and such and focused on retail more. However, if you think an 18% drop is not a big deal, then you are just delusional and should remove yourself from the conversation entirely.

[ccap41]

I didn't realize Wings changed his screen name..and jumped ship..

 

How was this not a bulletin somewhere?

[Suaviloquent]

I think there's about as much sales analysis as can be done already in this thread. Look to Q2 results for a complete picture.

[surreal1272]

I didn't realize Wings changed his screen name..and jumped ship..

 

How was this not a bulletin somewhere?

It was on the TPS reports. Did you not get those? You see, we are using the TPS reports now so if you could just go ahead and do that in the future, that'd be great mmmkay.

[ccap41]

 

Whatever man, GM will eventually get to a point where they better explain to their shareholders how they have in their opinion the best product, much better coverage of many more luxury segments, have a dedicated brand of trucks and crossovers for the top end, have many more model lines, have many more retail sales, and yet continually get beaten - no dumped on, by lowly Ford that just has far fewer models, barely a luxury brand, has taken up some of the fleet business that GM has ceded - which is supposed to hurt profits.

That's been my point too. Yes, it is great that they have reduced their reliance on rental sales and such and focused on retail more. However, if you think an 18% drop is not a big deal, then you are just delusional and should remove yourself from the conversation entirely.

 

I think this is similar to what we were talking about the other day. One fanboy saying it's okay to not make a sale as they lose money on the vehicle. HA. 

 

18% drop at the average vehicle sale of about $35,000 at their current year to date sales of 1,183,705 vehicles would be roughly 213,067 vehicles at 35k per = $7,457,345,000 of revenue being missed. 

(That's 18% of their current year to date sales.)

 

That's a lot of missing revenue. 

 

I didn't realize Wings changed his screen name..and jumped ship..

 

How was this not a bulletin somewhere?

It was on the TPS reports. Did you not get those? You see, we are using the TPS reports now so if you could just go ahead and do that in the future, that'd be great mmmkay.

 

Hahaha 

 

Yeah I'm just a little late to get my TPS reports finished.. I guess I'll have to come in Saturday to finish them..

[smk4565]

Auto makers have a huge amount of fixed costs.   A big drop in volume can be very damaging, that is what hurt them all in 2008 and 2009.  A company like GM probably needs to produce 6-7 million vehicles just to make payroll and keep the lights on.   All that factory capacity costs a lot of money, when it isn't utilized, that is when a company loses money.  Dropping 18% in on month no big deal, especially coming off a record sales year.  But if they are down 18% all year, then maybe there is cause for alarm.

[regfootball]

read elsewhere that GM basically is bringing out the big incentives now this month.  See, market share matters.

[ocnblu]

20% off MSRP is the current incentive for 2016 Sparks, Sonics and Impalas, for example.  Very good.

[regfootball]

Sonic is a great deal right now. So is Impala. Spark is unheard of pricing. 10, 11 grand. Spare car!