And some of us don't even know what the words mean.

Edit: I got help from my very wise gf, and now I'm educated.

 

One other thing to remember about anecdotal evidence is that people who have problems with a car speak more often, and more vociferously, about them than people who do not have any problems. My car had two initial quality issues, but after 3 months, the car has been dead reliable for over four years. (Pause while I find some wood to knock on...)

For some reason, when people see my car, they first think that it must constantly break down, and the next thing they think is that it must get horrible gas mileage. They then get in their Pathfinders / 4 Runners and guzzle on down the road in blissful ignorance. When I tell them of my lack of problems, it is viewed as an anomaly. GM needs to get the word out more effectively. The commercials with cars drifting across the screen aren't gonna help. The new stuff with the GM employees seems to be a step in the right direction.

 

Yes. its the same reason online polls aren't scientific, the respondents are self-selecting. So the only conclusions you can legitimately draw are about the respondents to that poll. Can't apply anecdotal or self-selecting evidence to a broader population. That's what random samples are for.

 

It's not just perception; it's reputation. And that is built on having a long history of quality products. Even if GM is dead even with Toyota and Honda today, they weren't five or ten years ago, and that's the timeframe when reputations are made. If you were in the market for a five or ten year old beater, what car do you think is going to be more dependable, more reliable, and exhibit better quality: a Corolla or a Cavalier? Undoubtably, a Corolla (I've driven plenty of examples of both). That's why Corolla's resale values remain strong and the marque has a golden reputation: because people can see for themselves that they are quality products.

So even if GM is even with Toyota today, it's going to take five to ten years before real world experience starts to reflect that fact. And because perception always lags reality (especially in the automotive world), it's going to be years beyond that before the general public recognizes the parity. Perceptions aren't changed overnight, and they are not changed by an advertising campaign spouting statistics. People need to see first-hand evidence. This is the uphill battle GM is facing.

 

Exactly. And I'd like to know if there's ever been any significant market share gained by being "almost as good", or "ranked near the top", or any number of other things that GM claims to be. Many other automakers took advantage of a weakness in the market - quality, durability, and relability - and built empires. Now it's up to GM to find some other weakness in the market to exploit, and it ain't gonna be on the quality front, because damn near everyone is quite good in that area nowadays. Improved quality is simply a way for GM to slow the decline, not reverse it.

 

God Bless ya, Chris........I'm leaving you in my will for ALL THREE SHARES of my GM stock!!!!! You put it perfectly!

Bob.....you are correct in that perception is reality in the general public domain.......no one at GM would argue that point..........well, mebbe one, but I'm throwing him out a window tomorrow........anyway......the whole point of this post (that I didn't post, by the way) was to show that perception should not be reality in terms of an enthusiast website. It's called setting the record straight.

It has become 'fashionable' on this site over the past two years to bash the hell out of GM........interestingly, that's starting to change ....perhaps due to 'facts'.....overriding 'perception.'

We have a long row to hoe, no question about it.......But I sent that note out to my Camaro Emailout list to set the record straight.....and to try to change 'perceptions.'........

 

or because 2 years ago GM was heading down a different path than recently.

ie: recently there has been more and more "talk" about up-and-comming products where as 2 years ago GM's future lineup to the average joe schmo looked bleak.


right now its pretty well known even to the harshest critics on this board that GM has something hopefully good brewing, which is certainly more than we knew 2 years ago.

i do believe that there are too many self-masturbating people on this board who either try to make people think they know something they don't or they really know what the deal is but they get off on the fact that people come to them for answers, and no this is not directed at anyone in particular. i believe this helps foster people to be harsher on GM or GM's dealings.


glad to see GM might be turning around a little bit, but there still is a long long long way to go in every department, especially marketing.

 

GM was crap not too many years ago... they've gotten much better, but still not good enough to actually start regaining their lost ground. I hope they can do so, but knowing GM, I'm not going to be betting on it.

 

I would 100 percent agree that GM has looked awful the past few years, most of it was deserved. And the harsh criticism here by even die hard GM fans reflected this.

I see that the quality has gone up in GM's cars recently, but the designs as of right now still are behind in my opinion. I still do not see many GM cars that I would want to rush out and test drive, aside from Cadillac which is doing great. They took a chance styling wise and it paid off big time. The rest of GM is asleep in terms of styling.

Hopefully this will change soon with the Solstice, Sky and Aura cars, and the new trucks to be coming out. The trucks better be spot on, or the competition will take more market share. Hopefully the new trucks are not only superior interior wise, but totally different looking styling wise. If they look like a freshened up current model, it will not be well received.

The media is bashing GM because they still have not produced that "gotta have" vehicle. When this happens, I bet the media will respond to GM much more positively. The media is still waiting for GM to make a splash.. So far it has only been a drizzle.

 

Interestingly enough, Toyota has, with only a few exceptions, never produced a "gotta have" type vehicle. But they still do great. This is proof, IMO, that demonstrating to your customers that they never have to feel nervous about the long-term durability of their product or about your car company giving you the shaft after the sale... that means a lot on its own to people.

GM seems to be heading in that direction, but I think that's one of those things that is going to take 10+ years of PROVEN change before most people are going to start feeling comfortable throwing money in that direction.

 

Members of the media have seen the GMT900s and have been VERY impressed. They couldn't take any pictures or make detailed descriptions but they did say all the SUVs were lower than they are now and they have a good stance.

 

The GMT800s already sat lower for the most part than the competition's counterparts. I remember when I have my Silverado every single 02+ Dodge Ram out there made me feel like I was in a compact truck.

 

Sounds good for their new lineup of trucks!


GM needs a gotta have vehicle unlike Toyota, because Toyota does not have a perceived quality problem. A big hit vehicle will do a lot for GM's image. I doubt it will take 10 years to rebuild GM's reputation. They can do it in much shorter time if they make all the right moves. Toyota has no image problem. They can stay conservative with their styling. But even playing it safe may not be good in the long run. Look at Honda for example. Their market share decline is in my opinion from playing it too safe. Toyota brings just enough design change to keep them earning big. Honda is way to bland styling wise. Their reputation of quality alone can keep the sales up.

Nissans success was all about their styling. They did not need excellent reliability ratings to make a huge turnaround. They just made aggressively styled vehicles that people loved. They did have a bulletproof drivetrain, but their fit and finish was lacking. Excellent and bold styled cars can make a big change, even more so than a change in a company's quality image. GM can make big gains I think without long drawn out image change. Styling is more important I think first, then the quality will be seen over time.

 

At some point, the media is going to have to stop being blamed for everything - whether they deserve it or not. "That's not fair" isn't going to build a better product or more share.

 

Its all gotta start somewhere