Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views What if you were in charge of GM?
874 messages, Last post on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: fezo (Nov 05, 2008 9:27 am) If a buyer could be found with some money to plug into aggressive advertising, Saturn would probably demonstrate previously unrealized sales potential....but GM is spread too thin to ever have any hope of doing this while also supporting its many other brands. As for Buick, you are right on. The only potential buyer to whom it would be worth something is SAIC in China. Saab? Well, Saab and Volvo both seem to be entering that last swirl before they go down the drain altogether. Volvo sales were off like 50% or something last month, or for the year? I forget which, but both the Swedish brands are in trouble. |
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Nov 05, 2008 9:27 am) OK, but what if you were to combine the 2? Under a merger scenario, give all Saturn dealers a Jeep franchise (what is there, 500 nationwide), and give the stronger Dodge & Chrysler dealers (and stand alone Jeep dealers) a Saturn franchise. Let's say you end up with 1200-1500 dealers, and they and they alone have exclusivity to sell these 2 brands, you have a solid, but not overstretched dealer network. Now, you streamline the 2 brands by ridding Jeep of car based small CUV's like the Patriot or Compass, and make the Outlook the next Grand Cherokee or Grand Wagoneer. saturn can keep the Vue, as this seems to be very popular. Now you have ONE very solid dealer network, with a FULL LINE of cars and utility vehicles for them to sell. |
|
|
Replying to: georgecavalier (Nov 02, 2008 7:34 am) This is similar to what I was thinking, and along with Lemko's thoughts on the Impala/Caprice/Bel Air/Biscayne (as well as the knowledge of the taillamps & trim). There was also mention of bringing the GN name back to Buick but since the GN was named for the NASCAR and local races, it really doesn't work. However if Buick is kept and it is felt a performance coupe is wanted / needed, I say GS (GSX) is the way to go. With Poncho, I wouldn't go with Sunfire - honestly haven't thought of names but I wouldn't do Sunfire. But if they are going BMW-hunting it may not be a bad idea to keep the alpha-numeric naming. This is a sticky. I didn't know V8s came in the Colorado, whose name I would change too as well as do a total redesign. And why GM decided to narrow / shrink the rails / engine compartment to not fit the 6-cyl is beyond me. No matter what the scenario, I think the marketing has to follow what the message is behind the brands / vehicle lineup. If they screw it up as they have in the past (most memorable was the Neo-GTO / Monaro) then the buying public once again may be turned off. They need to define the market for the vehicle and go after that main market, and then determine if any niches or sub-markets would also like the vehicle, then make a buzz about it in those circles too. I'd try to tap Wangers and other past sales / marketing persons for direction. I would also try to hold the line if possible on the dealership practices. I know dealers for the most part are their own agents, but they've help kill more than one model and repeat customers by their practices and pricing mark-ups. Lastly I would work on having complete models at introduction, no more of that "coming in a year, the drivetrain that should have been ready when the vehicle debuted will be installed". Or having the better interior fabric that should have been in place when the car intro'd coming two years later. I can see having the sporty version of the vehicle be delayed for a year or two so that the bread-n-butter model(s) grab hold. But to intro what essentially are vehicles lacking in equipment, also-rans if you will, right out the gate is inexcusable. It shows you are not ready to play the game. Falling back on the "wait till next year" doesn't cut it as next year your customer is already driving someone's else product. If your launch needs to be delayed for a week or two to ensure the product is right (quality, equipment, offerings), then so be it. It may hurt you a little up front due to dealers crying and a week of potentially lost sales, but in the long term it will work out as you will sell more models due to the total package being available up front, instead of playing catch-up. Perceived quality and readiness (or lack there of) can be more powerful than actual quality sometimes and a sub-par product is a death knell.
|
|
|
|
|
Several of the suggestions in this discussion were to eliminate or consolidate brands. The following article, which appeared in today's Detroit Free Press, explains why that's more difficult, complicated and expensive than it would appear. It helps one to understand why some of the weaker, money losing brands continue to exist. Read on... "Killing car brands a rocky road Even struggling brands are vital to legions of dealers and they don't usually go down lightly." By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: November 4, 2008: 8:40 AM ET "The phase-out of GM's Oldsmobile brand from 2000 through 2004 illustrates the complexities of withdrawing a brand." "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As General Motors struggles to sell cars, one repeated bit of advice is that it needs to shed some brands -- especially if it joins forces with Chrysler. But there's one big roadblock in the way -- the dealers who sell those cars. 'It's very difficult,' said Tom Libby, an auto market analyst with J.D. Power and Associates "and very time consuming," Libby formerly worked for Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) His job was to help open new dealerships and work to close underperforming ones. There is only one way to get an auto dealer to close up shop, he said: 'It almost always involves the manufacturer paying the dealer to close his doors,' a tricky business of asking dealers to give up their businesses. 'All states have some form of protection for car dealers,' said Matthew Moloshok, a New Jersey lawyer who is former head of the American Bar Association's Franchise and Dealership Committee. State laws often restrict the terms under which a manufacturer can refuse to renew a dealer's contract and the terms under which they can allow nearby dealerships to open. Anything seen as 'coercion' is also usually prohibited. Laws also prevent manufacturers from favoring one dealer, for instance by selling vehicles at a lower price to one dealer than to another. Car dealers need those laws to protect themselves from capricious actions by carmakers, Moloshok said. Unlike clothing retailers, for instance, who may sell products under a variety of brands or who could easily switch from one supplier to another, a car dealer is married to that brand. Further complicating the matter: No single approach works, because laws vary from state to state, according to Libby. And dealership franchise laws are usually much stronger than laws that apply to other types of franchisees, said John Frith of Urban Science, which consults automakers on dealership location strategy. 'Dealers typically have more money so they have a little bit more influence with the legislature than the local Subway,' he said. Not your father's phase-out GM's experience with phasing out its Oldsmobile brand in the early 2000's shows how hard it can be to get dealers to close or change their line of business to match a manufacturer's strategy. And moving to another GM brand wasn't always possible because of competition from nearby dealers. 'I had good friends who were Oldsmobile dealers that are just out of the car business,' said Reed Trickett of Nashville, Tenn., a former Olds dealer. Oldsmobile sales made up just 1.6% of America's market share in 2000, a sharp drop from 6.5% a decade and a half earlier when it had been one of America's top-selling car brands, according to market trackers at Autodata. At the time, GM (GM, Fortune 500) said it jut couldn't find a way to make Oldsmobile profitable again. After he was presented with a buy-out offer from GM, Trickett said he called lawyers and seriously considered suing. He ultimately decided to take a cash pay-out GM offered, using the money to expand his adjoining Honda dealership. Of the 2,800 Oldsmobile dealerships in operation in 2000, most accepted GM's proffered buy-out packages. Amounts varied depending on the dealer's sales volume in prior years and what percentage of those sales came from Oldsmobile. But dozens of other dealers did fight for more money from GM, according to lawyers who represented them. 'We ended up with 19 lawsuits in 17 different states, I think that was the final number,' according to Florida attorney Richard Sox who said at least 100 dealers hired his firm to fight GM for more money. Each of those states had its own set of laws under which the suits were filed, argued and, in most cases, negotiated to settlement, he aid. After that, GM simply started negotiating higher-priced settlements without waiting for a legal filing. One case is still not resolved, Sox said. GM would not comment on the amounts but, according to media reports from that time, packages varied widely from tens of thousands to more than a million. And GM did assist many dealers by helping them shift to other brands, said company spokeswoman Susan Garontakos. GM would not say how many dealers sued or negotiated while threatening to sue. Shrunken but not dead At least GM's approach in the Oldsmobile case -- an outright killing of the brand - gave dealers a fighting chance, said Sox. 'The worst-case scenario for the dealers is what's happening now with some of the line-makes,' he said, using another term for brands. Instead of just dropping them, manufacturers are simply shrinking the line-ups of some brands and combining them in one-stop dealerships with other brands. This is what GM is doing now with its Pontiac, Buick and GMC line-ups. Besides reducing the number of dealerships, "brand channeling" is supposed to allow each brand to more tightly focus on a core vehicle type while still allowing the dealer to sell a full line-up of cars, trucks and SUVs. But according to Sox, 'They're strangling these line-makes so they're not viable.' Buick now has just three vehicles in its line. For a Buick dealer, GM's invitation to work out a business deal with a nearby Pontiac dealer is pretty hard to resist. GM spokeswoman Garontakos took issue with Sox's view of the process. She called the plan good business for all involved and not an intimidation tactic. Besides, said Frish of Urban Science, dealerships represent their brands to consumers, for better or worse. No carmaker wants to deliberately starve any on-going dealers. 'It's just not good to have dealers going out of business,' he said, 'The brand's value is tarnished in the marketplace.' " This article makes it clear that it's far easier to offer solutions regarding what GM, Ford and Chrysler should do than to implement them, particularly in light of their current cash squeeze.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 11:08 am) In other news, Auto execs, UAW to meet with Pelosi. (Yahoo) "Two people familiar with plans for the meeting said the top executives of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, along with the union's president, will meet with Pelosi to talk about the impact of the credit crisis and the industry's access to government funding. She'll meet in Washington with Bob Nardelli of Chrysler, Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, the people familiar with the meeting plans said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting is private. Pelosi has called for Congress to enact a stimulus program to shore up the sinking economy during its lame-duck session." |
|
|
|
|
give the brand one model only, make it an old model, don't update it. How long do you think the dealer will hang in there before giving up? That would be easy to do with Buick. Pontiac too - just eliminate everything not shared with Chevy (AFTER you move the Vibe to the Chevy line). Even GMC. Before you do that, offer an incentive program to dealers to switch brands, or close up. Make it clear that this is a one-time deal that will not last forever. I know GM has already been offering dealers incentives to consolidate, has it also been offering them incentives just to close?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 1:05 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jae5 (Nov 06, 2008 11:02 am)
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking exactly the same thing, cooterbfd. I'm not a lawyer but, nippononly, if you were a dealer being strangled, wouldn't you start a class action suit, or at least join one, against the auto company for, at a minimum, violating the spirit of the law? The Detroit Three and the unions have no doubt made big mistakes over the years, but at this point there are no easy solutions to their problems, only difficult and painful ones. It's really too bad, and it impacts many, many people. I don't hold myself out as an expert on this matter, by any means, but my sense of things is that an additional $25 billion (for a total of $50 billion) would be insufficient, given their current and collective cash burn rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 2:14 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What if you were in charge of GM?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
