2 Problems I see with the new GM
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
2 Problems I see with the new GM
General Motors Corperation is now the General Motors Company.
GM has now managed to shed burdens that it has had over the past 20-30 years which has been dragging it down. It's shed excessive union costs and outdated work rules. It has shed massive debt that it racked up over the years. It has cut a large number of it's factories and shed excess production capacity. It's even overcome it's inability to get loans from private lenders (who no doubt knew better) and recieved loans backed by the US government.
GM has shed excess white collar workers, and streamlined it's management. It has in place a system that will get better cars out quicker, and the government's "Cash For Clunkers" program has given a jolt to sales, and the public is discovering that GM car's don't fall apart any quicker than Toyotas.
GM has everything they could ask for to turn the company around.
So why are they still making the same mistakes that got them in trouble in the first place.
Problem 1:
Anyone older than 35 clearly remembers commercials about Chevrolet, or Buick, or any of the other GM division. You never heard of "GM" unless it involved a strike or the opening page of the October "new car issue" of a car magazine before they went division by division of their new car lineup. Starting in the late 1970s that changed. By the mid1980s, there was no real division identity at GM. It was all GM. That was carried over to the "cookie cutter" cars GM was making by then.
That GM problem continues today. Back in the 60s and 70s, the press and car guys knew the heads of their car divisions, but knowledge of "GM" management started and ended with the current head designer. Nowadays, you see nothing but Fritz Henderson, and the folks actually heading the car divisions are nothing more than sideshows.... if they are even known or paid attention to at all. Even Bob Lutz, love him and all, has completely overshadowed any division General Manager. This same issue bleeds into the divisions themselves.
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
Problem 2:
GM is generall a risk adverse company, but they have still been able to throw some bombshells into the marketplace when it hasn't cost them much to do so, or when they have had to, or both. GM imported Opels and sold them in Buick shoiwrooms. GM also was the 1st to downsize it's automobiles... 2 years before everyone else, even though everyone had the same start (the fuel crisis of the early 70s). It may not seem so today, but the 3rd gen Camaro was revolutionary in handling development. But outside of the new Camaro, you see none of that GM today.
In many ways, the current Camaro represents what GM used to be, should have been to avoid it's stigma of dull cars, and needs to be if it expects to survive in the future. The Camaro was approved quickly without going through a approval process designed to kill new models instead of figuring out how to market them. It was developed quickly instead of having a GM bureaucrat at each step going over each item, most of which was gone over before or was pointless to begin with. It also made it to market with a stunning design that dominated most cars from GM prior to the early 70s.
Finally, and most importantly, GM isn't taking the Camaro and selling it in every division it can, whether it fits the lineup or not (Chevy Cruize as a Buick?). Or just as bad, selling the right vehicle in the wrong division (Holden Ute as a G8 instead of an El Camino?).
I am a performance enthusiast. I personally hae owned nothing but RWD vehicles. But I'm not jaded so much that I think everyone wants performance RWD cars. If GM feels that the targeted buyer of a Cadillac DTS either prefers FWD or doesn't care which wheels are doing the driving, then FWD it is. But GM also has to understand that they must expand in both sales and acceptence to be taken seriously. FWD & AWD Acuras are nice cars and sell in good volume, but it's RWD BMWs and Mercedes Benz that are taken seriously. Like Chrysler of the 1980s, most likely, sooner or later GM will be back on it's feet. Let's not forget that Chrysler wound up with an image of frumpy cars by the start of the 1990s after a decade of good quality volume "safe" playing vehicles. It took nearly another decade of radical styling to erase that.
GM needs to aim to hit each new vehicle over the fence inorder to change public opinion about them, not just have good cars like the current Malibu. Each new vehicle must have a showstopping quality much like the Camaro. That means taking some chances with styling, and that also means adding $10 more quality and charging $10.50 for it instead of looking at ways to trim a dollar of cost and charge the same price.
But more than anything, GM has to get back to the formula it abandoned starting in the 70s. GM has always utilized standardized underpinnings for their different brands of cars. But GM all but eliminated that reminder by slipping into the background, and letting each division be it's own salesman and marketer. Pontiac's "wide-track" was barely anything more than a myth. But it separated Pontiac from Chevrolet. A person who bought a Buick, meant to buy a Buick and not an Oldsmobile or a Cadillac.
Meanwhile, that person who bought a new '73 Cadillac Coupe DeVille either didn't know or didn't care that he basically paid double for barely more than a fancier Chevrolet Belair Sedan.
He didn't buy a General Motors B-platform car.
He bought a Cadillac.
That's where GM needs to go.
GM has now managed to shed burdens that it has had over the past 20-30 years which has been dragging it down. It's shed excessive union costs and outdated work rules. It has shed massive debt that it racked up over the years. It has cut a large number of it's factories and shed excess production capacity. It's even overcome it's inability to get loans from private lenders (who no doubt knew better) and recieved loans backed by the US government.
GM has shed excess white collar workers, and streamlined it's management. It has in place a system that will get better cars out quicker, and the government's "Cash For Clunkers" program has given a jolt to sales, and the public is discovering that GM car's don't fall apart any quicker than Toyotas.
GM has everything they could ask for to turn the company around.
So why are they still making the same mistakes that got them in trouble in the first place.
Problem 1:
Anyone older than 35 clearly remembers commercials about Chevrolet, or Buick, or any of the other GM division. You never heard of "GM" unless it involved a strike or the opening page of the October "new car issue" of a car magazine before they went division by division of their new car lineup. Starting in the late 1970s that changed. By the mid1980s, there was no real division identity at GM. It was all GM. That was carried over to the "cookie cutter" cars GM was making by then.
That GM problem continues today. Back in the 60s and 70s, the press and car guys knew the heads of their car divisions, but knowledge of "GM" management started and ended with the current head designer. Nowadays, you see nothing but Fritz Henderson, and the folks actually heading the car divisions are nothing more than sideshows.... if they are even known or paid attention to at all. Even Bob Lutz, love him and all, has completely overshadowed any division General Manager. This same issue bleeds into the divisions themselves.
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
Problem 2:
GM is generall a risk adverse company, but they have still been able to throw some bombshells into the marketplace when it hasn't cost them much to do so, or when they have had to, or both. GM imported Opels and sold them in Buick shoiwrooms. GM also was the 1st to downsize it's automobiles... 2 years before everyone else, even though everyone had the same start (the fuel crisis of the early 70s). It may not seem so today, but the 3rd gen Camaro was revolutionary in handling development. But outside of the new Camaro, you see none of that GM today.
In many ways, the current Camaro represents what GM used to be, should have been to avoid it's stigma of dull cars, and needs to be if it expects to survive in the future. The Camaro was approved quickly without going through a approval process designed to kill new models instead of figuring out how to market them. It was developed quickly instead of having a GM bureaucrat at each step going over each item, most of which was gone over before or was pointless to begin with. It also made it to market with a stunning design that dominated most cars from GM prior to the early 70s.
Finally, and most importantly, GM isn't taking the Camaro and selling it in every division it can, whether it fits the lineup or not (Chevy Cruize as a Buick?). Or just as bad, selling the right vehicle in the wrong division (Holden Ute as a G8 instead of an El Camino?).
I am a performance enthusiast. I personally hae owned nothing but RWD vehicles. But I'm not jaded so much that I think everyone wants performance RWD cars. If GM feels that the targeted buyer of a Cadillac DTS either prefers FWD or doesn't care which wheels are doing the driving, then FWD it is. But GM also has to understand that they must expand in both sales and acceptence to be taken seriously. FWD & AWD Acuras are nice cars and sell in good volume, but it's RWD BMWs and Mercedes Benz that are taken seriously. Like Chrysler of the 1980s, most likely, sooner or later GM will be back on it's feet. Let's not forget that Chrysler wound up with an image of frumpy cars by the start of the 1990s after a decade of good quality volume "safe" playing vehicles. It took nearly another decade of radical styling to erase that.
GM needs to aim to hit each new vehicle over the fence inorder to change public opinion about them, not just have good cars like the current Malibu. Each new vehicle must have a showstopping quality much like the Camaro. That means taking some chances with styling, and that also means adding $10 more quality and charging $10.50 for it instead of looking at ways to trim a dollar of cost and charge the same price.
But more than anything, GM has to get back to the formula it abandoned starting in the 70s. GM has always utilized standardized underpinnings for their different brands of cars. But GM all but eliminated that reminder by slipping into the background, and letting each division be it's own salesman and marketer. Pontiac's "wide-track" was barely anything more than a myth. But it separated Pontiac from Chevrolet. A person who bought a Buick, meant to buy a Buick and not an Oldsmobile or a Cadillac.
Meanwhile, that person who bought a new '73 Cadillac Coupe DeVille either didn't know or didn't care that he basically paid double for barely more than a fancier Chevrolet Belair Sedan.
He didn't buy a General Motors B-platform car.
He bought a Cadillac.
That's where GM needs to go.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
What is the point of the GM name? Its like a 5th brand that doesn't exist.....
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,040
From: New Haven, CT
Problem 1:
Anyone older than 35 clearly remembers commercials about Chevrolet, or Buick, or any of the other GM division. You never heard of "GM" unless it involved a strike or the opening page of the October "new car issue" of a car magazine before they went division by division of their new car lineup. Starting in the late 1970s that changed. By the mid1980s, there was no real division identity at GM. It was all GM. That was carried over to the "cookie cutter" cars GM was making by then.
That GM problem continues today. Back in the 60s and 70s, the press and car guys knew the heads of their car divisions, but knowledge of "GM" management started and ended with the current head designer. Nowadays, you see nothing but Fritz Henderson, and the folks actually heading the car divisions are nothing more than sideshows.... if they are even known or paid attention to at all. Even Bob Lutz, love him and all, has completely overshadowed any division General Manager. This same issue bleeds into the divisions themselves.
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
Anyone older than 35 clearly remembers commercials about Chevrolet, or Buick, or any of the other GM division. You never heard of "GM" unless it involved a strike or the opening page of the October "new car issue" of a car magazine before they went division by division of their new car lineup. Starting in the late 1970s that changed. By the mid1980s, there was no real division identity at GM. It was all GM. That was carried over to the "cookie cutter" cars GM was making by then.
That GM problem continues today. Back in the 60s and 70s, the press and car guys knew the heads of their car divisions, but knowledge of "GM" management started and ended with the current head designer. Nowadays, you see nothing but Fritz Henderson, and the folks actually heading the car divisions are nothing more than sideshows.... if they are even known or paid attention to at all. Even Bob Lutz, love him and all, has completely overshadowed any division General Manager. This same issue bleeds into the divisions themselves.
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
Rarely did you hear about 'GM' as a whole, unless you were watching CNBC and they talked about the stock. Now GM is all over the place! There are still people that don't know Lexus & Scion = Toyota, that Mercury = Ford. Yet everyone knows the GM companies. GM itself has diluted the brands of their own company.
I remember reading a product review for DeWalt tools: "This DeWalt drill is great! Much better than my Black & Decker, and now I don't get made fun of for having a B&D." Guess what, Bob Vila? DeWalt and Black & Decker are part of the same company! This just shows that each company has a brand image, an identity. GM now has less of that for Chevy, GMC, etc.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
I just read an article where Bob Lutz said "we don't go to market as GM.", so at least he gets it.
The problem that Old GM faced was all the negative financial news and the fact their stock price was going down the drain. They diverted advertising dollars away from the products and instead were trying to sell the company itself.
(That still doesn't excuse that retarded GM.com ad campaign from a few years ago that had Saabs and Buicks and Hummers in the same advertisement. But at least they killed that fairly quickly.)
IMO, New GM should at least study changing their name to Chevrolet Motors. If they lose control of Opel, Chevy will become their main brand in most world markets.
The problem that Old GM faced was all the negative financial news and the fact their stock price was going down the drain. They diverted advertising dollars away from the products and instead were trying to sell the company itself.
(That still doesn't excuse that retarded GM.com ad campaign from a few years ago that had Saabs and Buicks and Hummers in the same advertisement. But at least they killed that fairly quickly.)
IMO, New GM should at least study changing their name to Chevrolet Motors. If they lose control of Opel, Chevy will become their main brand in most world markets.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
For somebody who believes that marketing is overrated...
GM could win over customers if they deliver quality, attractive and competitive product. If they can do that with each of their divisions then they can make up for the deficits in brand marketing, IMO.
As far as I am aware,
GM needs to get lead with product. At the present, people don't regard GM as offering 'cutting edge' vehicles or even 'fun' vehicles. That's more the core problem, in my view. If GM can hit a few home runs, then the marketing will just fall into place... behind the product itself.
GM could win over customers if they deliver quality, attractive and competitive product. If they can do that with each of their divisions then they can make up for the deficits in brand marketing, IMO.
As far as I am aware,
- Cadillac are still competing against BMW, Merc, etc...
- Buick is a Lexus competitor...
- Chevrolet is the affordable brand with vehicles for all...
- GMC is a premium truck brand...
GM needs to get lead with product. At the present, people don't regard GM as offering 'cutting edge' vehicles or even 'fun' vehicles. That's more the core problem, in my view. If GM can hit a few home runs, then the marketing will just fall into place... behind the product itself.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Listen guys - just listen. "Old GM" is the same as "New GM" just without the union costs - that is IT. Bankruptcy did nothing but rid GM of the old UAW agreements that they agreed to when they were drunk on power.
The UAW held out until the treasury got involved and guess what? Treasury said "agree to this and if it doesn't work out, we got you." That's all bankruptcy did. Oh, that and fired Wagoner which I agree with.
Lutz is too old to be a CEO so he came back on his terms - he runs the show. And by and large, Lutz runs the show without the fancy title. He wouldn't have it any other way.
What scares me is what GM is doing now with new product. They are a company that you and I own (and one that I recently went back to work for) that's building NEW $48 million facilities when they have dozens of empty plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.
The UAW held out until the treasury got involved and guess what? Treasury said "agree to this and if it doesn't work out, we got you." That's all bankruptcy did. Oh, that and fired Wagoner which I agree with.
Lutz is too old to be a CEO so he came back on his terms - he runs the show. And by and large, Lutz runs the show without the fancy title. He wouldn't have it any other way.
What scares me is what GM is doing now with new product. They are a company that you and I own (and one that I recently went back to work for) that's building NEW $48 million facilities when they have dozens of empty plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
One of the reasons why I liked Chevrolet Motor Company as the name for new GM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 610
From: Akron, OH.
What scares me is what GM is doing now with new product. They are a company that you and I own (and one that I recently went back to work for) that's building NEW $48 million facilities when they have dozens of empty
plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.[/QUOTE]
I agree with some of your ideas but I don't think new GM owns any of the old empty plants. So building the new plant might have had better economic and political sense. I don't know that they might have gotten the same incentives to expand in a current facility.
plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.[/QUOTE]
I agree with some of your ideas but I don't think new GM owns any of the old empty plants. So building the new plant might have had better economic and political sense. I don't know that they might have gotten the same incentives to expand in a current facility.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I think its an over-simplification to assume that there's a brand recognition problem with maintaining GM as the company name. There are many, many major corporations that have "brands" that consumers recognize more than the corporate name themselves. However, I'll bet that most consumers know that GM sells the brands Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. (That certainly wasn't the case for brands like Saturn and Saab.)
And Guy, please, please, please stop calling it the Chevy "Cruize". It's "Cruze". 5-letters. Just like Camry and Civic. Get it?
And Guy, please, please, please stop calling it the Chevy "Cruize". It's "Cruze". 5-letters. Just like Camry and Civic. Get it?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
It stands for General Motors Truck Company. I'm pretty sure the Grabowski Motors Company deal is a "Backronym."
GM bought the Rapid Motor Company (a commercial truck company) from the Grabowski brothers and renamed it General Motors Truck Company. GM bought it in 1909 and didn't rename Rapid to GMC until 1912.
GM bought the Rapid Motor Company (a commercial truck company) from the Grabowski brothers and renamed it General Motors Truck Company. GM bought it in 1909 and didn't rename Rapid to GMC until 1912.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Honestly, do you just make **** up?