http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml

 

A friend of mine, who worked for GM for 18 years (until they forced him to retire because he has MS), really opened my eyes about internal GM workings.

He used to laugh so hard when he would read that GM was "restructuring." He would say that all that restructure means, in GM speak, is that all the same players just get moved around. They all still work there............ they just get different titles.

I agree with what autoextremist says. With the onslaught of product from an increasing amount of players............. it is wishful thinking that you are going to maintain a proportionately larger share of the market. It isn't going to happen. The laws of averages just are not there.

On that end, at least Ford has come to the realization that marketshare doesn't mean much, without profitability. However, look at how the stock market has reacted. They want big market share........... and big profitability............ and they want it yesterday.

 

I respect your opinion, but I disagree:

Why should GM downscale to become a profitable 20%-marketshare company? Great product is the best cure-all for any automaker. It's been proven time and time again. Look at Nissan's recent success. Before that it was VW. Currently, it's DCX--well, sorta . If GM follows through and produces a few "complete", no-compromise vehicles, there is no reason that GM can't be a profitable 30% marketshare company.

The problem isn't the marketing (don't get me wrong, GM can certainly do better here). The problem isn't the super-huge incentives (whether you lower the sticker or you rebate the cash, the transaction price stays the same). The problem isn't Lutz, Wagoner, or anybody else. The problem is that GM vehicles don't do anything SIGNIFICANTLY better than anybody else. Their mainstream (read: bland) styling doesn't inspire anybody to trot down to their local GM dealership and say "hand me the keys to one of those bad boys; I gotta try that thing on for size". Their vehicle's featuresets (performance, mileage, styling, etc) are too similar (or even lackluster) to their competitors.

Quite simply: For GM to succeed, GM needs to LEAD again. It needs to be
bold & daring, take a few chances and push a few boundaries. GM needs a few of it's executives to champion it's products and to fight through it's well-legacied bureacuracy (read: beancounters) to deliver more complete and competitive vehicles to the marketplace. For me, the evidence has already been shown that GM's got such vehicles in the pipeline. What they look like by the time they hit the streets will be very telling for me.

 

Good points. I don't know if I'd forsake Pontiac, Buick and Saturn, but a real effort to focus each of GM's divisions is in order. This is what I thought was to be on the way. A reduction in redundant minivans, SUVs, and the like, conceding that each division does not need to be a full product line. It seems that if every division (Chevy aside) had 3-4 really strong entries, it would allow for proper marketing support and profitablity.

Btw, what is the current head count for redundant model cuts?

 

Profitability will lead to market share. You cant gain or even maintain market share while bleeding cash.

 

But it does them no good at all to produce the best car on the road if nobody knows about it...

That could be due to lack of advertising, lack of interest, or even due to the majority of uneducated consumers still thinking that Honda and Toyota are the only carmakers producing anything with quality. Regardless of the reason for the misinformation, it falls squarely on GM's back to PROVE that their stuff is the best thing going (Ford too). It's not fair, but nobody said anything in life or business was guaranteed to be fair.

 

Hey but we have the new silver "GM" badge!



Good read

 

Problem is though, that GM will have a hard time trying to lead when it has so many makes and models competing for resources (both marketing and development). Even if GM does "Lead" they won't have enough marketing dollars to get the word out.

 

I read an article in Automobile magazine with the guy who bought Detroit Diesel from GM and turned it into a moneymaker.
He said GM should focus on making less cars. It makes sense cause right now it seems to be focused on volume, move as many cars as you can by any means. If they axed a few, had larger budgets for the leftover ones I think they could pull through. If GM keeps up the good work my next vehicle will be a GM car.
From looking at 2002 and up it looks like somebody is trying to do something useful and help GM out of its current "reputation" but somebody in upper management vetoes the request. I can see that they're making drastic improvement, they're on their way back to the top they just need to pull a few more strings to get there.
"If you build it, they will come"

 

GM told us they were going to cut back the number of cars Pontiac has, then they still go ahead with the Torrent (Torrent, Equinox, VUE) and a Pontiac Cobalt (Cobalt, Pontiac Cobalt, ION). Instead of investing the R&D in those why not just make a better Equinox and filter the remaning money into Pontiacs current lineup?

 

Agreed. Too many cars, too many messages = confused consumers.

There is only one Camry. And that is all there needs to be.

I'm really wondering what the point of Buick and Saab are these days--and, arguably, Saturn (except for the upcoming Sky and Aura).

Why can't there be three simple steps: Chevrolet for value, Pontiac for aspirational (don't laugh--give us a non-boring GTO and a 4-door RWD car, and there you go), Cadillac for world-leading luxury and performance?

 

Why not have Chevy, Saturn, Caddy, Hummer?
Yeah, GM has a lot of divisions, and when they used to be almost indenpendant of each other, thats great. But now they need to downsize, and it needed to be done 10-15 years ago.

 

This is some of the worst drivel to come out of DeLorezo's keyboard in a long time. This is some of the worst opinion that I have read since the imfamous "20 Point Plan" Return to Greatness and the NY Times Editorial by Tom Freeman wishing GM bankrupt or Dan Neils LA Times article calling for Wagoners firing.

All the articles show is how ill informed their authors are and how out of touch with reality their opinions can be.

DeLorenzo is so full of himself I can't believe he actually believes the crap he writes.

Case in point.

"GM controls 25 percent of the U.S. market - unfortunately, the company's operations are geared to be profitable at 35 percent."

Both number are false and blantant LIES.

 

I think it should be Chevy, Saturn, Pontiac & Cadillac. The rest are not needed. The problem is, it is not realistic for a company that is bleeding cash to pay big money to shut down brands. If they approach things right, they can accomplish the same thing while saving money. My approach would be don't allow stand alone stores for Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Hummer, etc. Combine them in dealerships with other brands. Buy back dealerships as they come up for sale and then shut them down to reduce your dealer base. Eliminate product overlap in underperforming divisions. Then, and only then, do you consider phasing brands out. Without stand alone dealerships of the brands you plan to eliminate you wouldn't be completely buying out dealerships but only one of their product lines. I would think that would reduce the costs of phasing out the brand. What do I know, though.

 

Lots of interesting points in the article, and I'm usually nodding my head like a bobble doll when I read DeLorenzo's "rants". But there were a couple of things I disagree with.

First of all, I agree with him regarding GM's structure. GM seemed to strike the right balence, and at least admitted the problem when they said they would combine Buick, Pontiac, and GMC into one entity. To me, that was a bit of genious, but moreso common sense.

Also, agree with him that GM's structure is seriously outdated. Seems GM's downsizing falls disproportionately on the factory guys. Sure, there's more than they need for what's being produced, but GM's management structure needs quite a bit of chainsaw wielding as well.

But I think that DeLorenzo is leaning too much & putting too much stock in advertizing. I don't have the figures in front of me, but how much did Chrysler spend to launch the 300? The Magnum? The Charger? I'd bet a Pepsi it wasn't anywhere near what he's complaining is too low a figure for the new Impala.

I believe he comes from the ad end of the industry, and like Buickman's belief that fixing the salesman side of GM will cure everything (...well, maybe not so much like Buickman ), his emphasis is on ads and promotions. If these new GM vehicles are as everyone says, then just like the 300 the buzz it generates will be more than enough to see them everywhere.

However, GM does have a pretty bizzare view of advertizing. If a car is selling very well, GM spends to advertize it. If it isn't, GM tendancy seems to be not spending a dime.

I have alot of faith in what GM has coming to market. I've heard so much about them from so many excited people that I have no doubt about them. GM's biggest problem is that they need these products alot sooner than later. The 36 months of products that the press saw still runs up to model year 2009.

Though these vehicles mean that GM is going to have rather spectactular auto show seasons for the next 3 years, it isn't helping them now... or next year.