All he's basically done is cut, layoff, close, restructure, eliminate, spin off, recall, whine, complain, and lose. You can't keep reducing while the competition continues to build. Bottom line, the guy is a disaster. Time to go.

 

So, you would rather have him not cut, retain unneeded workers, keep open unutilized manufacturing capacity, not restructure and keep on a ton of no longer needed positions as well as not create new needed positions, keep the unneeded, again, keep the unneeded (you seem to say the same thing 6 different ways to make it look like more issues than it really is), not recall vehicles and leave faulty product on the street (I think that's worse for the comsumer and GM's image than recalling is).....

You keep saying you want criticism, both good and bad....... a lot of people, myself included (have you even considered researching the 9/11 influence on all this? You just blew it off like it is a non-factor!), have brought up a lot of points and counterpoints, and you almost never address them directly... you just spout off more of your rehearsed "anti-Wags" stuff.

You might as well just put "$66B to $15B; Wags must go!" in your sig and just use that as an automated response to everything.

 

I think this tells us the most shareholders have a positive outlook for GM.

Kerkorian bid falls short

 

If GM instituted effective marketing, we would need those workers. Of course, defects should be recalled. I hear your opinion of the case against Wags. Agree enough said for the time being.

 

He has to downsize the work force of face greater layoffs later. Wait for a year and see what happens. They are finally doing the right things. The next thing they need to do is cut management and streamline the product development pipeline. They will then be able to bring product to market faster. That and the changes they are making/already made is really the only way out for GM.

 

Regardling that capacity...... in today's REAL world..... with the manufacturers from all over the globe.... what do you REALLY think that optimum market share for GM can be? 30%? 35%? More?

I doubt we'll see anyone grab a 30+% market share in the U.S. again... there's just too many players in the game now.

Because of this, I think it is wise of GM to scale back their overall production capacity, rather than paying for it to be idle.

 

At the risk of sounding pretentious, Return to Greatness has us back at 30% within six months. People want to see GM win, they are simply in need of a sense of leadership, direction, and something to believe in. New products coming look strong. Combined with effective marketing to improve image and we're in.

 

Well, I'll agree that 30% may be attainable... going beyond that is unrealstic today, at least in my eyes.

But..... within 6 months? How long does it last? That seems awful abitious to jump 6% market share in just 6 months and be able to maintain it consistantly over the long haul.

I think your goal is decent, but the time frame seems unrealistic to me. As for the goal........ didn't GM Execs have "30%" lapel pins a few years ago? Seems like they are already on the same page as you with the goal at least.

 

When I met with Bill Lovejoy in 2002 in his Ren Cen office, I mentioned to him that if GM didn't change their marketing he should exchange the "29" lapel pins for "25". I told him new products wouldn't matter, as GM's image was that poor. He didn't listen, what happened?

 

Marketing is an interesting subject....... I agree GM needs some works here.

I think Cadillac should be the roll model for everyone else. Cadillac has done the most amazing turn around in modern automotive history. New product, and the "Breakthrough" campaign are big reasons why.

Pontiac, on the other hand, has had what? 3-4 marketing schemes over the last few years..... "Pontiac.....Action" right now... not long ago was "Fuel For The Soul"... I forget the others.

Buick, they've had some "Dusie's" ... the "Buick: It's All Good" was the most ridiculous thing I've seen. Especially when you consider Buick's products and the target audience for them. The current "Dream Up" makes little sense to me when they use Aersomith's "Dream On " as the theme song , though I think the commericials are visually more exciting to watch. The Tiger Woods affiliation is overrated, IMO. I thought the Harley Earl theme was very cool, but I doubt many people understood what it was about and who Mr. Earl was... so most of the effect was lost on the general public...

I will agree, GM marketing needs to step up like Cadillac. I give Mark LeNeve a lot of credit here, though you seemed to want to take that away from him earlier... I find that interesting , and a bit hypocritical, since you want to hold Mr. Wagoner responsible for the performance of GM since he took over, and even when he was in a high position prior to taking over... but you want to deflect prasie from Mr. LeNeve when things got done with him at the helm of Cadillac.

 

There is no way in hell they can get back to 30% in 6 months. No matter what your plan is.

 

Disagree.

 

Actually it's YOU who doesn't seem to understand reality.

Wanting to poke the sleeping bear with a stick?

Just how much support did you get at that stockholder's meeting anyway? I see Rick's still there, with as much support as ever. And you are still here hawking this snakeoil as a cure-all for everything but the common cold.

As far as reading comics, I don't need to go anywhere else to do it but here. Every thing you seem to post plays you out as some type of Superman out to save the world from bad Lex Luther-Wagoner. Yet you seem to be so blinded by your obsession to even comprehend how you are looking in all this.

I've given you the benefit of doubt as far as your proposals, been polite, and have given you constructive feedback. So has other people here. Yet you are still tooting your old tired horn. Rick Wagoner ISN'T going anywhere for quite awhile. No matter how many late night infomercial testimonal snippits you get from this vast army from all over the world.

What amazes me is how you seem to have pretty much zilch understanding of the auto industry or how it runs beyond the sales lot, which saddens me because I think you would do better with your ideas if you would take time to learn or ask questions about it. Marketing alone isn't going to fix GM. GM needs better products. Equinox, STS, G6 are part of those better producs. Anything Buick currently has beyond the LeCrosse isn't. It's that simple.

I'm stunned by how you have next to no experience selling outside of your area, yet you feel that GM doesn't need to focus on new products. Sure, Buicks may sell well in Michigan. So do Grand Prixs. But you aren't going to even get someone interested in a Lexus on to a Buick lot out here in the west. Cadillac, yes. Buick? People avoid it like the plague. If it wasn't for GMC being part of most Buick dealerships, no one would set foot in showroom with a Buick in it. Chevy also does fine out here.


I see you are the master of the hard sell. You are already hawking your book and TV appearences even before either happen. You are selling your plan as something that will get GM back to 30% of it's market in 6 months. But once again, there isn't a thing in your plan that adresses anything other than sales methods. GM's sales have dropped because SUV sales have dropped. GM hasn't spent keeping up with the competition regarding cars.

You come across as all about money and vengence here. Nothing more than a Captain Ahab after his Moby Dick that injured him somewhere in the past.

Forget who was responsible for the sale of Olds, Delphi, Defense Electronics, American Axle, EDS, Hughes, Detroit Diesel, Light Armored Vehicles, Electromotive, or Warren Real Estate. Never mind that other people put it together. Never mind that other people were running the company. Never mind that the General Motors Board of Directors has to sign off on (and vote for) the sale of any company assets of that magnatude. Rick Wagoner was on the payroll, so it was HIS fault. I don't think so.

Look, I'm sorry he didn't jump when you said jump, or perhaps saw through you. But the man has a job to do, so lets see if he can do it. I may not agree with his plans, or his priorities, but I'm fair enough to give him a chance.

I don't agree with you, and I've been pretty polite in stating that point. I have also offered constructive criticism, and pointed out how you are coming across to others who aren't starstrucked at someone wanting to stick it to big bad GM. But when I have someone who seems to think nothing of running around in a cape and tights telling me that I don't understand reality and should go and read a comic book, that's like having a big bullseye on your back.

If you want to take another swipe at me, then throw the dice and take your chances.

 

Wags was in charge when those assets were disposed. Check your facts. Who is responsible if not the man in charge. There was a steady strasm of stockholders approaching me after the meeting and over 400 people have registered at GeneralWatch.com. I have hundreds of emails from knowlegeable individuals across the country who support my efforts and agree with most, if not all , of The Plan.
How long have you been on Wagoner's staff?
I have no desire to argue with you, just your impaired perception of the worst chairman in GM history.

 

Anyone who forgets that Roger Smith virturally bankrupted GM 15 years ago to the point GM didn't have money for new product, probally is operating from a pathetically flawed view.

Also, I'm not impressed by your testimonals, who sent e-mails, or who registered at your website. Your position didn't fly with other stockholders. No one voted for your proposal to fire Wagoner. No one seconed it. Wagoner's got his chance to prove himself. Thank you, play again next year.
Game over.


As for the history of Rick,
Rick became financial officer in 1992.
He was responsible for maintaining budgets and financial control meaning reports, accounting, records, and disclosures for investors, government agencies, etc. There is no policy making ability beyond this.
That puts Rick out of the loop for anything that happened up to 1994.

He moved to vice president of North American operations in 1994.
His responsibility was over all NA manufacturing plants, quality of vehicles produced, etc. He also had his fingers in product in so far as marketing and sales. As North American operations president, he still didn't have authority to sell companies, or create death and destruction to GM. He did have purchasing authority, so that covers the OEM guys, so maybe that counts. That covers up to 1998.

He became chief operating officer in 1998.
Now, we are at the point where he finally has some say. As COO, he is responsible for the overall operations of GM's worldwide operations. That's all GM's manufacturing facilities, strategic planning, all the day to day stuff. This includes marketing.

He became CEO in 2000. and Chairman in 2002.
He becmes responsible for the company & becomes the head of the board in 2002. This is where direction is, decisions on what to sell or buy are made. As chairman of the board, he was voted in by and works with 11 other people to make major decisions regarding the company's direction. He also is the head guy regarding product approval, but again he is one vote of many.

If you want to pin anything on him since 2000, then go ahead. But you also have to conceede that he also did some pretty amazing things for GM's profitability during this time as well. But prior to that, you are really reaching.