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: imidazol97 (Feb 24, 2009 5:07 am) Hey, Grandpop didn't get to be old by being stupid! An example of negative is the continual posting of negatives in Edmunds about them. One poster even described people shopping a Buick showroom as toothless. Hey! I still have most of my teeth! The product line at Buick has shifted and that was a mistake. The leSabre was a price point car and they lost lots of customers who didn't perceive a simpler Cadillac as a replacement. The LaCrosse didn't replace LeSabre as they had hoped. I think of the LaCrosse as more of a replacement for the Century/Regal. Some of this is financial in reason, so it's easy for me to critique after the fact. The Enclave is a luxury vehicle that is great, if you want an SUV, but it's ridiculed by some because it says Buick on it! The Enclave is a darn nice vehicle. The Buick name on it means it's also a dependable vehicle. Negatives never give up so that's why I would have had an all out image advertising program. Accord used that technique very well through the years. In 1989 they showed their Accord driving past gas pumps because the image was that it was economical as an econobox; however I bought a 6 cyl car that got just as good gas mileage or better that was roomier and probably drove better and I know it rode better than the Accord I test drove. Heck, my 1988 Buick Park Avenue also gets excellent fuel economy on a V-6 as does my girlfriend's LaCrosse. Honda has been able to nurse that image to a willing American population who believes what they see if it's seen often enough. If only the American population could see the excellent image we have of Buick. Instead, we've got a bunch of immature people with perpetuating the image of a Buick as an "old person's car."
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Feb 24, 2009 6:32 am) No, not a "bunch", but the market as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently GM has an insurmountable challenge and a stable of brands that have lost their identity, Toyota is more successful with three brands than GM is with their 12 different brands, a clear sign of the times that change and consolidation is inevitable, below listed are the American/international brands owned by GM as well as a strategy to consolidate and help the company to survive in a rapidly changing business market. Below suggestions for merging entire brands into one entity, and reinvigorating certain brands under an international moniker could stave off bankruptcy and give gm the jolt it needs to become relevant in the auto market once again. Daewoo/Holden/Pontiac merge into Holden Brand (3 Brands become 1 brand) These three brands currently sell similar products. Take three regional players and merge them together under the strongest brand which is Holden. This would introduce a new player to the U.S. market and give the former Pontiac brand more vehicles and a new purpose. The internationalization of the auto market requires that these type of brand-mergers become a reality. GMC and Chevrolet merge into Chevrolet Brand (2 brands become 1 brand) most GMC and Chevrolet Vehicles overlap and are essentially rebadged copies, make it easier and consolidate into the stronger Chevrolet Brand. Hummer and Saab sold either jointly or separately to a private equity firm or other automaker. (2 brands divested) Hummer and Saab both require huge sums of investment in their product lines, it makes the most sense to sell these two brands either together or separately at market value. Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn merge to form Opel (3 brands become 1 brand) All of these brands essentially sell similar products. Take these three regional brands and form a strong international player under the Opel brand name. Saturn as a brand in the U.S. has no relevance but the opel logo and insignia could reinvigorate the entire company and product line. * Possible that Buick as a brand could also be dissolved as they only sell three different vehicles and do not have a strong presence in their operating market. I could see this brand being totally phased out by 2020, the other GM brands would more than make up for the loss in product/branding. This would also allow GM to focus on the core Cadillac/Chevrolet brands and their newly minted international brands of Holden and Opel Goals: Reduce duplicative brand management Reduce duplicative factories producing the same cars under different brand names. Create strong global players in the automotive business, no more regional brands for GM Realize economies of scale from consolidation of brand management, advertising, dealership networks. The above mentioned steps seek to consolidate the GM brand network and dealer network into a more nimble organization. These mergers of core brands eliminate costly dealer-lawsuits from shuttering a brand, while being able to invest in our core surviving brands. The steps outlined above are far overdue and could be the jolt GM needs in order to reinvigorate their core business. The above outlined plan takes 10 brands and marketing strategies and whittles them down to 3 global brands. The surviving names will be able to receive more attention and investment from GM and will be able to produce more relevant products. By merging brands and product lines the cost to GM can be drastically slashed since most brands carry similar products under different brand names. The surviving corporate brands would be Buick,Chevrolet, Holden, Opel, and Cadillac, a drastic and necessary shift in response to market realities. I believe the plan put forth is the best way forward for GM and allows it to realize its many core strengths and keep their most prestigious brands. By cutting the brand and dealership network and merging divisions significant synergies and cost savings can be formed it also allows GM to better respond to market shifts and changes in consumer tastes. This way forward plan seems as though the least harsh and one that could provide the quickest results to the company. This brand consolidation will streamline the entire company allow GM to get rid of non-core factories and duplicative management for its stable of 12 brands and allow the company to better focus on core brands. Toyota does with three brands, what GM attempts to do with 12. GM needs to keep 4 to 5 core brands and then heavily invest in creating a full line up for each of their strength brands. 2-4 good cars per brand does not do well anymore. This is not the 1950’s and GM’s dated brand strategy must go. There will be immediate and long terms savings goals from factory/management consolidation of these many brands. Since a lot of the brand consolidation mentioned revolves around brands that each sell the same products under different brand name banners the consolidation should be common sense and is long overdue. In addition to those mentioned steps GM must go through its line up and cut underperformers from production, do you really need 5 types of GMC Yukon’s to choose from? A faster switch to flex fuel automobiles and hybrid power trains will lift the company and boost sales, but GM must also cut most of its behemoth SUVs from the lineup to focus on fuel efficient crossovers. The changes we have experienced with gas prices and the automotive market are here to stay, it is time GM realized that. I believe if all of the consolidation steps above are taken and GM invests in those core brands and introduces new products while streamlining factories and duplicative management that they will ultimately become a stronger corporation than even Toyota is today. |
|
|
Replying to: wjtinatl (Feb 23, 2009 8:56 pm) Without all of the features that GM puts on their cars, like the leather, heated seats, moonroof, XM, remote start(love that!!). But, in my opinion, GM forget something..... They forgot to make a decent engine. I still think something is wrong with my car. I came from an newer Accord though so my opinion is from that. My 08 G6 car would not be much more than a rental car. I had a loaner when I was waiting my new car, the loaner was a G6, "base" model. It was so boring, and cheap feeling. The 06 Accord SE with cloth, had so much more pizazz than this base model GM. At least, the Accord had a nice engine with refinement. I am not saying perfect, but a powerful 4cyl. Then, at that point, one doesn't need all the features, rather they have a car with a good engine, and that is exciting. Sorta, like a VW, or Subaru, you can get a base, and have that zippy engine. Now, my G6 has a 4cyl, its decent, but at times I really hate it, because its just not smooth at all. Unpredictable. Its all the features that sorta sugar coats the underlying problem one thing.... refinement.. That seems to be something GM has really battled with. I love my G6, but man, are they truly serious that the engine is the best they can do? I miss my Accord. When I can drive my 08 Jetta, It puts a smile of my face. I wish GM all the luck, they certainly can do it, but it will take time. I am also mad that my re-sale value is so low, I am completely stuck! Way to go! But, longer for me to make an educated decision on another car. Either the new Acura TSX, or Honda Product. Will I lease or purchase a new GM car after my G6? Chances are slim.. ..For now. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Feb 23, 2009 10:34 am) It's not snobby and it really give people a reality check. |
|
|
Replying to: carnaught (Feb 24, 2009 7:16 am) The simple fact is that car companies, like people, EARN their reputations. And they aren't changed overnight by a bunch of hand waving, a flashy advertising campaign or bashing consumers or Consumer Reports. They are changed by several years of consistently top-notch models. This takes time and effort, and, quite frankly, GM, with its multiple divisions and often clueless management, has displayed a very bad case of corporate ADD in this regard. GM builds some vehicles - Corvette, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe, CTS, Malibu - that can run with the best in their respective classes. The problem is that those vehicles are drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Take the Malibu. It competes well with the Accord and Camry. It looks better than either one of them. But it sits in the showroom with the Aveo, which virtually defines "bottom-feeder" and is hopelessly outclassed by the Honda Fit, and the Cobalt, which is mediocrity personified in glass, steel, rubber and plastic. Even worse, it shares space with the Impala, which is outclassed by virtally all class rivals, looks larger than the Malibu, but usually ends up being LESS expensive because of discounts. So which is the "better" car? Is it the Malibu...it looks smaller, and historically the Malibu nameplate has slotted below the Impala nameplate. But it's also more expensive, and looks more "up to date" both inside and out. This sort of muddled message confuses customers, prevents both the Malibu and the Impala from breaking through the today's clutter of many makes and models, and blurs the identity of Chevrolet as a whole. Is Chevrolet the maker of competitive, attractive modern vehicles that offer American styling and nameplates (Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban, Traverse, Corvette, Malibu)? Or is it the seller of bargain-basement models that offer a low price and not much else (Aveo, Cobalt, Impala, Equinox, Colorado, Trailblazer)? One can say the same thing about the CTS, Enclave and G8 in relation to their divisional siblings...not to mention Cadillac, Buick and Pontiac as brands.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Feb 24, 2009 12:32 pm) Good Example: Cadillac / Audi /Hyundai / Corvette |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Feb 23, 2009 5:54 pm) http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/buick/enclave/101035082/cto.html?setzip=02809&vd- p=off http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/lexus/rx350/100975629/cto.html?setzip=02809&vdp=- off Enclave: True Cost to Own Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-yr Total Depreciation $8,113 $3,920 $3,448 $3,056 $2,744 $21,281 Financing $2,262 $1,825 $1,355 $850 $308 $6,600 Insurance $1,645 $1,703 $1,762 $1,824 $1,851 $8,785 Taxes & Fees $2,695 $36 $36 $36 $36 $2,839 Fuel $2,524 $2,600 $2,678 $2,758 $2,841 $13,401 Maintenance $214 $556 $349 $1,481 $630 $3,230 Repairs $0 $0 $0 $297 $454 $751 Yearly Totals $17,453 $10,640 $9,628 $10,302 $8,864 $56,887 RX: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-yr Total Depreciation $1,924 $4,690 $4,127 $3,657 $3,282 $17,680 Financing $2,346 $1,892 $1,405 $882 $320 $6,845 Insurance $1,997 $2,067 $2,139 $2,214 $2,247 $10,664 Taxes & Fees $2,640 $36 $36 $36 $36 $2,784 Fuel $2,653 $2,733 $2,815 $2,899 $2,986 $14,086 Maintenance $332 $642 $367 $1,139 $1,600 $4,080 Repairs $0 $0 $0 $397 $607 $1,004 Yearly Totals $11,892 $12,060 $10,889 $11,224 $11,078 $57,143 What's amazing is that while the Enclave suffers from a $4,000 deficit in resale, it more than makes it up in fuel, ins, maint., and repair costs. $300 and change difference in ownewrship costs. Basically, A WASH!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Feb 24, 2009 2:42 pm) We have to note where the Lexus sits on this aforementioned chart. It doesn't get any better. Look, someone is going to get the world's worst RX and someone else will buy the world's best Enclave, and their stories will totally contradict these charts. But that's what a large database is for. To defeat anecdotal evidence. If I were head of GM, I'd pin this chart to the office wall of every high level EXEC in the company.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Feb 24, 2009 3:15 pm) That difference would be 1.34 problems for your Enclave vs. 0.94 problems for the RX. In discrete math that means 1 problem for Enclave vs 1 problem for RX. In the old days, there might have been a larger multiple difference between the number of problems reported by such a JD Powers report. But as JDP and CR have commented the differences in such numbers have shrunk in recent years. For me it would come down to the dealer and how they are with problems. The Buick dealer with which I've been familiar through lots of years would take good care of me and any problems. I've had no contact with the Lexus store other than seeing advertising and browsing their showroom and used lot a few years back. |
|
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
