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: nippononly (Nov 10, 2008 5:25 pm) Totally disagree. Wagoner made much of the sandwich, as he was president of GM North American Operations starting in 1994 and became GM CEO in 2000.. He presided over the SUV boom. The G6 was going to be a savior and was mediocre. The Cobalt was going to replace the tarnished Cavalier and was mediocre. Hummer was expanded. He didn't focus on high quality small cars; he kept expanding SUVs. There was no high-fuel-cost contingency plan. Lutz thought that hybrids were a joke until the Prius became wildly successful. GM could have led this technology with all of their profits in the late '90s and early 2000's. They decided to work on a retro HHR years after the PT Cruiser was successful. They decided to resurrect the Camaro years after the Mustang was successful. Meanwhile they pumped their dollars into inane advertising campaigns: "An American Revolution"; "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet", "Born from Jets", "A Different Kind of Car Company". By the time they got religion the church bus was already arriving at the bingo parlor, and they weren't on it. Even with a bloated structure and way too many divisions, they dabbled in more car companies. They lost billions on Fiat. They decided to acquire Saab. When it was apparent that the emperor had no clothes (i.e., competitive product for a changing market) they started heavy marketing of nearly useless E85 capabilities and of a plug-in hybrid that was 4-5 years from production. All vaporware to cover up the lack of competitive products. They offered the whole country discount pricing which killed their own residuals. Rick did a fairly decent job on the cost/operations side, cutting costs, and he made some efforts to put out new good products, particularly the CTS and the Malibu. But the large, strategic decisions - no leadership or vision at all. Put Steve Jobs in charge and you would see some bold decision making. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) Steve Jobs might be the elixir, but "engineering" car guys would be better. Just started reading a book written in 2003, "The End of Detroit", by Micheline Maynard. She points out (as of 2003) that top executives at Detroit Big 3 have been from finance and accounting parts of their corporations. She contrasts this with Toyota and Honda having guys from "engineering" parts of their companies being the top executives. Intuitively, it would seem that engineers would always have mindset of innovating and improving product whereas finance might not. Honda/Toyota product offerings are rarely off the mark contrasted to the Big 3. Just as new Obama administration being transititioned, wonder if a transfusion of some of Honda and Toyota top executives and some engineering managers into GM could save it. Obama, and any incoming President, will keep staff and workers that are "career" types and are party neutral. But, Obama and his leadership team will define new strategies and goals for the career workers to execute. Similarly, could Honda and Toyota donated top executives and other management change GM strategy and culture to turn it around but retaining core work force engineers and assembly. Would think that Honda/Toyota want to grow/prosper in the U.S., but also would not want to see the demise of GM. A bailout of GM by U.S. should require a restructuring starting with the replacement of top management. Of course, flys in the ointment, even with Honda/Toyota transfusion are unions and agreements to supply vehicles to dealers. Too many GM dealers around the U.S. and ridiculous rules that GM agreed to in allowing unions to dicatate "HOW' to run the business/day-to-day operations. That would have to be scuttled somehow. Might have been a possibility with a Republican Congress. But, with Democrats in control, there is no way they will allow any dimunition of union power or rescinding of their agreements. Now, it is interesting that some Dems in last few months wanted mortgage companies to rewrite terms of mortgages to be more favorable to homeowners. But, would the Dems do anything to neutralize the stiffling effect of union agreements with automakers.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Nov 11, 2008 7:28 am) VERY interesting. Makes you wonder what the bigger evil is in this country, lawyers or accountants. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm) While I might have a slight difference of choice on the selection of Steve Jobs (though I can understand the choice), everything else hits each and every nail on its head. Just because things were "inherited" doesn't mean the status quo was to be kept. |
|
|
|
EXACTLY mirrors the Titanic, IMO. The ship was too big to turn, the iceberg was just waiting out there. They managed to get the turn started once they had two co-captains that worked well together and could incorporate a single vision into day-to-day operations (Lutz on the product side and Wagoner on the finance/marketing side), but by then the iceberg was too close......I won't finish the story, we all know what happened next......
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 11, 2008 11:32 am) Barring government intervention that likely has to come before Obama is even sworn in GM either needs to reorganize under chapter 11 or they are going to get their pieces picked up after chapter 7. |
|
|
The bean counters over ran good business sense... Harley Earl if alive would give Mr. Wagoner a good swift kick to the seat of the pants, for his stupidity. Lutz hasn't a clue either and would be better off being shown the door... I know grade school kids that could run GM better than these two clowns. GM failed to focus on innovation and foresight... Let it not be forgotten that it was Detriot automakers that attacked anyone who dare be innovative. Preston Tucker learned this when he dared try to introduce a car that had seatbelts and safety glass. Delorean and Wangers had to get crafty to slip things by GM CEO's that made people want to buy cars. Once they caught on it was too late to curb the sales of Pontiac. GM CEO's finially brought Pontiac back under control in the early 80's. However, Pontiac engineers always found new was to slip one by old Chevy controlled GM. Buick has also suffered from GM's lack of attention to allow it to be innovative. If GM wants to succeed it needs to drop it's bad habits that began in the late 70's. Chevy: should focus on the low cost vehicles. But retain it's Corvette, Camaro, Cobalt SS, Trucks, SUV's, mini vans and full size vans. But they should get this Volt to sales as quickly as possible like by spring! The soon to be realsed Pontiac G8 ST would have been better released as the new El Camino SS... Again GM not thinking wisely as always GMC: should only offer work inspired vehicles no frills. Forget about the sound deading material, carpet interiors, etc... It's a work vehicle it's supposed to get muddy inside and out and yet easy to clean with a garden hose. I miss the days when I could hose out the interior floorboard of the old 74 GMC truck... Buick: should be focusing on the scale just below that of Cadillac. The Riveria, LaCrosse, Enclave, and Regal Pontiac: No Mini vans, SUV's or crossovers. It should focus on what made the brand great by focusing on sporty yet refined. The Solstice, G8, GTO, Firebird, G6 sport (tuner inspired car), and the Vibe. Saturn: should be sold Hummer: should be sold Saab: should be sold Opel & Holden: Should be retained. That would be a good start but I believe GM needs to work on getting most of the average low cost vehicles into Hybrid, alaternative or electric powered types. If 50% of their vehicles sold was in those areas it would leave plenty of room for such vehicles like a Corvette and/or Trucks which by use don't lend themselves to using alternative sources of power like an average car.
|
|
|
Replying to: _jc_1 (Nov 23, 2008 7:59 am) Like the Titanic analogy mentioned previously, the ship has already struck the iceberg (the economic downturn). The testimony to Congress by the CEO was analogous to the spot in the movie where the designer of the ship realizes that if multiple compartments flood, water can flow over the baffles one by one and sink the whole ship. Sort of an "oh crap!" moment. How many sales will be lost (in an already bad situation) because of the current publicity about GM? If I were planning to buy a GM vehicle right now I would have major hesitation. The water is flowing in faster into the ship all the time, and the bow may be starting to lift.
|
|
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
