GM's excess baggage - Buick, Pontiac, Saab, Hummer

Fortune

formatting link

..Multiple brands mean multiple expenditures for marketing, advertising and distribution. Still suffering from negative cash flow, GM simply has too many mouths to feed.

GM should keep Chevrolet where it is - the volume brand that is the heartbeat of America. Maintain Cadillac at the top of the market and expand its product offerings with derivatives of the popular CTS. And continue to use Saturn, with its dedicated dealer channel and loyal buyers, as the brand for import intenders.

Plenty of excess baggage remains. Here are my recommendations:

It is past time to perform euthanasia on Buick. Successive waves of new models haven't moved the needle on sales and it is unlikely that the new Enclave crossover will make a big difference. For nostalgia buffs, the Buick brand can soldier on in China, where it is uniquely beloved.

Pontiac should get the same treatment, though without the Asian escape hatch. Its boy-racer image is dated and GM's one-time excitement division has deteriorated into a regional blue-collar brand. In a world that increasingly is going green, there is little upside for its testosterone-laced pavement rippers.

Whatever noble intentions GM had for Hummer, they have been permanently damaged by the greenhouse gas debate. Hummer should be sold to whomever winds up with Jeep after Chrysler is broken up. More Jeeps fall off the truck on the way to the dealer than Hummer sells in a week.

Turn GMC into a commercial truck brand. As gasoline becomes more expensive, there won't be enough traffic in personal-use trucks for GMC to share with Chevy. There are lots of opportunities with huskier trucks that a player with GM's scale could exploit in the business-to- business market.

Say goodbye to Saab. With its perpetually tiny volume and high-cost European manufacturing base, Saab has defied GM's efforts for nearly two decades to make it consistently profitable. The success of Japanese sport-luxury brands Infiniti and Acura has made Saab irrelevant.

Reply to
Nomen Nescio
Loading thread data ...

Yeah, and the world is flat, and pretty much limited to the north American continent...

Reply to
Nel

This article/link was already posted here earlier (at least to the GM group)

Agree with the Buick and Saab dumping, maybe Hummer, but not Pontiac.

And even still, dump>Fortune

formatting link

-GV

Reply to
GlassVial

GM doesn't have a clue. But neither does that writer.

They continue to take brands with a loyal following and screw them up. Caddy has a core following - but instead of catering to it, GM continues to build Caddies that are not what the core caddy buyer wants. They did the same thing with Saab - a car with a loyal, almost cultish following. What do they do? They buy it and proceed to alienate the core buyers by pumping in lots of GM parts in lieu of Saab parts. Then, while speaking in the other direction, they re-label the POS Trailblazer as a Saab and rename a Subaru "Saab".

While talking about establishing unique vehicles/brands, they continue to homogenize and lose core audiences. In the meantime, anyone who joins management and wants them to move past their moronic 1970's management and production model is quickly forced out.

And the article writer says "keep Chevy". It may have a nice ring to it with some buyers, but it always has the worst reliability record of all the GM brands.

All very amusing.

They

Reply to
still me

I mostly like your logic and comment. GM has two big problems that is killing it. One is upper management or think tanks that trys to set their product designs and course (and poorly too at times) and the other is general labor costs that drives them to use more "common" parts built by cheapest third party bidder and build several model/brands on same line. There is no easy fix here and they may have to go bankrupt before they figure it all out from top to bottom. Also, I agree that this all started in the 70's to save money and boost profit but rather than putting those increased profit into research and developement it went to bonuses, acuasiitions that later failed and bigger payouts for stock holders. They are reaping today what they sowed years ago.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

Reply to
SnoMan

Exactly. When buyers started to ask for smaller cars, their reaction was to just keep jamming larger cars down their throats. Good strategy.

And it continues today. Just at few couple ago, the CEO stood up and complained that raising CAFE standards was unfair because they (GM) manufactured more trucks and gas guzzling vehicles than Toyota and they would be unfairly affected... then later in the same speech he noted that their sales were way down because people were not buying large, gas guzzling vehicles with energy prices up so high.

(Knocking on his head) Hellooooooo... is anyone in there ?

Reply to
still me

Reply to
Mike Hunter

They like SUV's for a few reason, first the biggers one are exemptment form current CAFE. Next they have a somewhat lower emission standard and different crash requirements. Last they used to be their highest profit items so they pushed them hard. Thise created a Market for makers like Toyota to thrive on the car side of things and now that Toyota is going into full sized trucks, Detriots last unchalleged market it being "invaded" too. The mentality still seems to be that they know what you need because you do not and they are in a twist now because this concept is not selling well anymore. The sad part is that there was a time that you could by a simply 4x4 or P/U for work needes as I have a few times over the years but last time I bought one in

2000 I had a hard time findind just a simple HD truck that did not have tons of options and a extened or crew cab. Today it would be a even harder task. Plus GM which likes to play the "Chevy Tuff" card with its trucks makes them cheaper every year. In 2000 when Silverados cam out they put a bumber on them that belonged on a lawn mower more than a truck and they took it further in 07 because that big massive looking bumber on the newset Chevy trucks is chromed plastic from frame rails out in front of the wheels on each side in front. PLASTIC!!!!. My 2000 is a 3500 and based on the old sytle 88 thru 99 trucks that still had a full front bumper. Not sure what I am going to do when it is time to replace it because nobody seems to know how to build a real P/U anymore as they are basically truck styled bodies on cars like riding chassis with car like interiors.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

Reply to
SnoMan

Perhaps wait for the Indians or Chinese to bring in simple rugged low priced trucks for the US work truck market. It is such an obvious move that it will probably happen.

Isuzu could bring itself back from the US graveyard by being the importer/distributor of such a thing. They are really in the medium duty truck and diesel engine business anyway, so it isn't a far move to make the modern equivalent of an 1990 F150/250/350 lineup.

Reply to
John Horner

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it! Check this if you haven't already seen it.

formatting link
Alternatively, you could grit your teeth and drive a Tata pickup all day. No thanks.

Seeing you mentioned Isuzu, a low spec single cab Rodeo wuold be a much nicer office than eother of the others. Personally I'd probably go for the TDI but the V6 is ok too. Cheers

Reply to
hippo

What are Infiniti and Acura ?

Unknown in Europe for one.

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

I think it makes pretty good sense. I'd make too exceptions. There's no pricing reason to fold Buick into Cadillac, since Cadillac already has cars that are cheaper than a Jag X-type, for instance. The best reason to save Buick would be to sell Buicks in China. They had a really good distributor there a long time ago, and the people still like them. The second thing nobody talks about is GMC. They don't add anything at all to GM. They don't actually have any products (just Chevrolets). Nobody ever talks about that being a waste. Okay by me.

Ultimately, I'm a Sloan man. I think the reason GM got in the shape they're in is price overlap. They should never have badge engineerined a bunch of stuff that sold for the same price across brands. If they hadn't screwed that up they could have had as many brands as they wanted to.

The inital poster said Pontiac should be closed down. I am always surprised that people think there's something wrong with Pontiac's position in the market. I think their performance has been miraculous. The products were dull, out of date and awful looking for a long long time, and with no trucks and no SUV until about a year ago, and no minivan now, it's still a really big division. If GM wanted to sell some products, they'd give Pontiac some. Pontiac dealers can sell stuff.

Reply to
Joe

Infiniti = posh Nissan Acura = posh Honda Lexus = posh Toyota (even though it wasn't mentioned)

In some cases the cars for these brands are in Europe, but under their "normal" brand names. Wikipedia says that Infiniti arrives in the UK in

2008. Looking in Wiki reminded me of another "luxury" brand we only had in North America: Sterling = posh sounding Rover (It was a Honda design with Lucas electrics. Not many sold. Few here understand Lucas electrics.)
Reply to
Walt Kienzle

There is the medium duty commercial line. I don't know if they are profitable or not. Or are they re-badged Isuzu?

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

Ironically, Rover is a posh name for Austin/Morris. Rover were posh ministerial cars the olden days. Couldn't quite get my head around the Rover Mini Metro.

Reply to
johannes

I was basing my post on the US market only. If GM would get off their collective ass and bring out that HOT looking new "China Buick" that we've seen pics of, then maybe, just maybe, Buick could be salvaged. But they won't, and it can't (again, in the US).

GMC for the mid-to-heavy duty market is OK by me.

And I was just using (that model) Jag as an example, it's low-priced luxury in a luxury division (plus I can't stand Ford, sorry). IMO there's no reason for there to be a Buick "low priced luxury" brand (in the US) at all, it can be rolled into Caddy, and Caddy can have their low-priced luxury CARS instead of having to worry about an entire brand which (again, in the US) is not standing well on its own.

Again, unless GM wants to do some major Buick freshening, that brand in the US is about as dead as Harley Earl (who's probably spinning in his grave knowing what sad shape GM's got Buick in right now)

I think Pontiac is one division they're actually running fairly well, IMO.

-GV

Reply to
GlassVial

I couldn't agree more. I'm a car buff and when I look at the GM products with similar vehicles of different names, but mainly trim differences, it confuses me and actually turns me off. Look at Toyota. A lovely line up of vehicles covering a wide section of the vehicle market. You just decide your vehicle type, then select the trim level.

The very long time GM dealer near me must agree. He suddenly shut down his Chev dealership and it is now being remodeled for something? Since the owner has opened a variety of other dealerships over the last few years, I'm wondering what he will place here? His Auto group has dealerships for: Chrysler, Hyundai, Kia, Lexus, Toyota and Volvo. He certainly isn't getting out of the car business!

I'm guessing Hyundai because there isn't one of them in this area. He has four Hyundai dealerships in other areas. This owner is an extremely successful businessman, who got his start with a GM dealership, eventually had several GM dealerships, but he just shut down his last one.

Reply to
who

Edwin,

Nope, those are real GM trucks. The MD/HD line is a lot smaller than it used to be (remember the GMC Astro, not the van but the tractor? Used to drive one of those about 30 years ago and it was a great tractor. Also has the distinction of being the first tractor to have the Allison automatic transmission), and GMC also gives the dealers other than Chevrolet an entrance into the truck market (notice how many Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers there are around, especially in metro areas?.

One thing everyone keeps overlooking is the costs of shutting down a brand. It cost GM over a billion dollars just in dealer buyout costs to shut down Oldsmobile, and that figure is artifically low because a lot of the dealers were not bought out but shifted to Buick or Pontiac (one example is Avery Greene in Vallejo, CA - this dealer had been with Olds since the 20s {BTW, he and his dealership led the west coast caravan to the 100th Olds anniversary in Lansing in August, 1997 that I was part of} - was shifted to a Buick/GMC franchise.)

If GM kills either Pontiac or Buick, we're probably looking at twice this number (or more). And in this figure I'm not including the internal costs (how much did GM lose on each Olds they sold after the "Olds is going away" announcement?). You can bet the bean counters at the Tubes have got these numbers all calculated out, and if it made economic sense Rick would do it in a heartbeat.

Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA

"Edw>

Reply to
William H. Bowen

I can agree it costs a lot to shut down a line if they have existing contracts. One has to ponder what would happen if the "merge" a line, but I'm sure there'd be lawsuits anyway from dealers.

However, I don't agree that GM will do anything that makes economic, business, or managerial sense. They've shown their ability repeatedly since the 70's, over and over again, and again recently, to be unable to make any good decisions.

Reply to
still me

Now here's a good thread for this!

Auto exec compensation:

formatting link

Reply to
still me

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.