Some of what is in here is good. Some scares the crap out of me. I get having a non car guy run the company. However I think they need a strong car guy like Lutz under him to balance it out. I don't think Reuss is the answer there because he does not seem to have the personality. I always get scared when an executive is more worried about marketing than product. Even with great marketing, if you sell crap product, people will only be fooled once.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...=ITP_pageone_0

 

I can see where you might be worried. Didn't GM go down this path before with a bunch of consumer clinics and the end result was a blandmobile fest?

 

I think his unique perspective will be an important synergy to the otherwise stale culture. Sure he is a bit green with respect to cars but doing the same thing as before (another GM lifer) will only get you into the same place as before.

 

sounds like Lutz echoed your thoughts.

Others say the greater need is making cars the public wants. "Perfect marketing won't fix a bad car," cautions Robert Lutz, who as GM's product-development chief until May was behind almost all of its cars coming out now.

The only thing now is GM DOES have good product now.

 

There are plenty of quotes around Akerson that are terrifying...
There is truth to that, despite people caring (and many car makers touting how their vehicles get "best in class mpg"). At the end of the day, the majority of people care more about other things than best MPG, but how can you convey things other than crash safety stars and mpg numbers in a commercial?
Is that GMNA or GM Global? That could get SCARY in a hurry!

I'm hopeful, but hesitant. He needs people like Lutz and Reuss around to make sure he doesn't "Beige-ify" GM by trying to make generic cheap consumer products.

 

My 2 cents.

First off, Akerson is trained as an engineer, not a marketing guy. So he understands the importance of engineering in a product.

Secondly, being consumer driven means producing what the consumer wants, which isn't at all bad.

And third, GM hasn't had an engineering or "car guy" run the company since Robert Stempel, and he had an extremly short run as CEO. To run a company that big, you need someone who has a clear view of consumer wants and exceptional management skills and needs. Alan Mually, even though an engineer, has a extremely clear view of what he wants to do and how to reach the consumer.

There's a couple of areas about Mr Akerson that give me pause. However, Ed Whitacre also gave many people pause, yet he was the absolute perfect CEO for GM at the time he was CEO.

On one hand, I have a bit of fath in the guy as a former Navy guy as myself. But also, look at some of his moves at GM so far. He was instramental in cancelling Henderson's plan to sell Opel, shelved a vehicle that didn't fare well in consumer clinics, he correctly shot down the continuing GM view of separtating the North American market from the rest of the world (while Ford has made gains in globalization and GM was initially copying it).

But what's the most important of all is that Akerson is showing a very strong, Whitacre-like willingness to learn and an openess to reverse any decision or idea he has when shown why it's wrong.

Finally, comparisons with the focus on marketing from General Motors of the 1990s and early this decade isn't valid, and here's why.

1. The marketing guys from last decade all not only came from other industries, and were trained in marketing, but also attempted to force what worked in their other fields into GM.

2. The marketing guys back then had no real grasp of how important product was, and had no intention of learning.

3. Finally, They believed in "Buickman's" view of the auto industry: Like with laundry soaps, you could put different labels on the same thing, create different marketing, and don't have to spend the money on product. Akerson is entirely different in that he also seems to have a grasp on the importance of product.

I think he'll do well.

 

Oh good Lord, I bet I know exactly what kind of "engineer" he is. The kind I used to come across every now and again when I was an auto OEM design engineer. They're the type that forget every technical thing they ever learned the minute they graduated college and never want to deal with it again. And no amount of training in the world can fix it.

And those engineers always designed the worst sh*t that I always seemed to have to fix or tell them what they needed to do.

In either case, you need to understand ALL aspects of a business. I agree you need great market-driven type of products, but you can't throw the technical aspects either, otherwise you end up pushing a sub-par quality and sub-par designed car out into the market.

Marketing and Engineering compliment each other, not overtake one another.

 

you said the "B" word..BAN HIM!!

 

I don't think that is what he means. You have to listen to what your customers wants and needs are.

 

hows this..

Let the car guys make the cars the people want..and let marketing do thier job?? Sound good?

 

I haven't heard the name Buickman in a long time, made me laugh. That is all.