This tells me that the big plan is to prune out a ton of Cadillac dealers, then sprinkle in some nice, brand new facilties wher a lot of the holes were left...

I theory, that's a nice idea, and I'm glad this is even possible considering the way things are currently going with the number of Cadillac dealers, but...

1) How many dealers are going to be willing to invest a TON of money into a state-of-the-art, brand new, luxury facility, that will service JUST (presumably) Cadillac, especially in the industry's current state of affairs, without a current customer base to at least help move things along? Add to the fact that this is basically what was required for someone to gain a HUMMER dealership, and seeing where THAT has left THOSE investors/dealers..... I don't know how I see this panning out well.

2) By the time this all happens (read: YEARS) it will be WAY too late for a LARGE percentage of former Cadillac customers, even if they were from a different local Cadillac dealership..... (obvious) Which means even more risk on the part of the person that takes the chance on building this Cadillac Super Store.


Again, *IN THEORY* I can understand and agree with the idea, but sometimes a good theory does not equal good reality.

In short, if it were me calling the shots, I would have probably closed some of the extremely poor performing Cadillac dealerships, then looked at physical map coverage (don't make ridiculous drive times to the nearest Cadillac store for any large group of people), demographics (where the Cadillac buyers already are), customer staisfaction ratings, etc to determine a portion of the Cadillac dealerships that are currently on the chopping block and then rather than stripping the franchise from them.... set a plan in motion to get them to build new facilties (if the owner chose to do this to keep the franchise) in a transitional phase as they move from the old building/location to the new.

I know that is oversimplified, but it at least seams reasonable to me.

 

Scott,

I can certainly understand and appreciate your position on this matter...an extremely delicate matter. Without question, there are a slew of Big 3 franchises in less-than-ideal locations. Without question, there are some dealers that DESERVED to have their franchises yanked. Hell, the store I started at (Olds/Pontiac) has never recovered from losing Olds...and now they're toast. They haven't even had a new Pontiac in stock since the summer...at this point, even if they had an active franchise, they remain an embarrassment to GM, sadly...

But then, I look at other dealers that WANT to keep their franchises, and are trying. Right down the street from my old dealership, there is a stand-alone Buick franchise that you'd think is toast...and you'd be right. I know what he's doing...he's swapping cars in from other dealers to keep new stock, because GM has cut him off. Every new car on his lot (all THREE, currently) have a different "SHIP TO" dealer on the window sticker...hence I know he's screwed, even though he hasn't said it publicly. His own employees (one of which I just sold a Jeep to for her daughter) don't even fully know what's happening, apparently. I met the dealer principal last week when I delivered the Jeep to his employee. We talked for awhile about Buick...where its been, where its going. He personally owns a nice little collection of Buicks...'87 GN, '91 Reatta Convertible with 8,000 miles, and a white diamond '97 or '98 Riviera.

Here is a guy that WANTS to sell Buicks...like he and his father before him have done for 60 years. But because Buick's focus was so out of whack for so long, and he was starved of QUALITY product, of course his sales tanked. In his case, how could GM expect him to meet any sort of strong sales requirement in this economy, with such an awful product lineup? His facility is in a good location, if not quite in a "Primary Shopping Area" (5 miles away from the next town's Automile, but still in a nice spot with heavy traffic), and was updated in '00 or so...it looks great, with a nice lot. No embarrassment here.

And for that loyalty, sticking with GM through the hard times, now that Buick HAS good product for him to sell, how does GM return the favor? We know the answer to that one...

 

no I really can't. It's not in my nature. There are plenty of people out there who will tell you, you have the best power trains around and rightfully so. Or some other nicety that is probably true. But all that back patting alone isn't going to keep things going in the right direction. Too continue to improve you have to have someone identifying your weaknesses and how to constantly fix them. You may not like to hear it because it comes off as constant complaining, but in the end if you don't listen and fix these things you will fail. And guess what you have failed and now whether I wanted to pay for it or not I am a part owner in GM along with every other taxpayer out there. Believe me I gave my 2 cents before your company had completely and utterly failed and so I certainly will now. Sure you can say us outsiders don't know as much and aren't in the industry so we can't understand, and I'd agree a lot of people don't. But I can say a magic 8 ball could do better and I would be right. Your company has failed, there is no possible way you can do worse then complete failure/bankruptcy. At worst case flipping a coin to make decisions could only have equaled the same level of failure and through probability it could have only done the same or better. Sadly it's mathematically impossible for it to do worse.
I am blunt and have never stopped myself from saying when things are wrong no matter how much it wasn't in my best interest. At my last job at AG Edwards they had just hired a new #2 guy who was literally in charge of half the company. Of course a mere mortal like myself would never be allowed access to give any input to such a smart important person. I mean he had to be they were paying him millions and putting him in charge of half the company.
One day that #2 guy was in the company gym. I cornered him in the locker room and told him things that were being managed and done wrong and needed to change. Now he was of course in total shock some peon was lecturing him and I'm sure he didn't listen because in his mind he knew better then a mere mortal.
Well guess what, AG Edwards failed not long after and Wachovia bought it's worthless shell. That #2 probably isn't there anymore, but I'm still here.
Like there I've been on this board for a decade and never shied away from giving my 2 cents. Of course like any forum it's not like us mere mortals actually get taken seriously. After all we are just negative complainers who can't say anything nice.
We guess what, GM failed not long after I complained. Tons of your people aren't there anymore, but I'm still here.


As for the dealership guy who was complaining, you said he was in a small town, which I can imagine means there's not enough profit in replacing him with a new fancy dealership, so in his case all you managed to do was **** off a bunch of locals and lose business. Being country folk I'm sure they were just fine with the coffee and donuts and don't need the back 9 the snotty rich city folks require. In fact I bet the only reason they were there is because they were loyal to their friend/owner/banker/deacon not because they were very loyal caddy fans.

Now on the other hand if he was in a major large city and he sold 25 cars a year and the dealer down the street sold 500 then sure we are absolutely going to see why the difference and if he is somehow not living up to customer expectations or experience like the dealership next door sure closing him down is going to be an option.

Again it looks like I haven't said anything nice
But the day I don’t say anything is the day I’ve given up all hope for GM.

 

I don't mean to this to sound like a slam - but you slam people with regularity --

So - -here's your chance.

Be specific -- and be prepared to defend what you're proposing.

Tell us how you would fix the Dealership issue. I want specifics. I want you to address franchise laws. I want you to address licensing.

Yes -- GM went Bankrupt -- so did Chrysler -- and Ford would have had it not been for someone's foresight to mortgage the very staplers on each desk.

It's very easy to point the finger -- the REAL question is: Do you really know what you're talking about.

I came into this thread to try and give perspective -- and once again you remind me that perhaps it's not worth my time.

 

I have nothing to form my opinion other than personal experience.

GM had too many dealers and some did very little to adjust to new business realities. Cutting those dealers loose was all but impossible. If all dealers were doing an effective job of burnishing the brands they represented, none of this would happen.

There have to be standards which are even handed or the lawsuits will never cease. Good old boy generated decisions just aren't going to stand up to business review, nor to a judge.

Bad as the present situation is, there is a window of opportunity to do some thing which present customers and potential customers demand. Not ask for... DEMAND. Where perception issues play an important part? Then change in the retail and sales points simply have to be done.
As long as someone has been warned, the decisions should happen. If you can't help keep the boat afloat, don't be shocked if you are cut loose like an anchor.

Most customers do not perceive that a dealer is not the manufacturer, and all customers question the manufacturer or salute the manufacturer for their choice on who sells and services their product.

I was as involved as anyone in hearing customers regarding product, and dealer experiences.

I would be willing to bbe wwilling to offer 99% assurance the folks who lost their franchises heard pleadings from GM to make changes that would benefit the dealer and GM. Numerous pleadings.

Axing someone without coaching and counseling would be wrong, but continuing to do business with someone who insists on excuses and voicing reasons they can't get on board is the same as tolerating half-assed efforts. Customers don't want half-assed. If you focus on product, you have to also focus on how it's presented, and serviced.

In an instance where 1,025 units are moved in an area and you are the guy moving only 25, the realities are the realities. Nice as you may be, you are not the person for the job. If you weren't warned, that's one thing. If you were, the game is up.

Equally, if you were a dealer that moved big numbers but consistantly had customer satisfaction numbers in the toilet, that's not a tolerable situation either. Change or get out.

GM has been addressing quality of the vehicle experience for some time.

Improving the retail experience IS something GM has been after for YEARS.
The window has opened to put teeth into the mouth that's been making the requests for change.

Half-assed is not going to do it anymore. Not on GM's part or on it's dealers part.

As far as little positive about GM being said here? That's the culture of this part of the forum.

It can get a bit old for people who bust their *** to make GM a success. Some folks here are not buyers and may never be players in the sense of a new vehicle delivery potential player.

Some are.

It's part of my belief that preaching to the choir and reaching out to possible customers is part of what I should do.

If I ever decide it's a pointless excercise I'll certainly go where there's a potential difference to be made.

 

What costs are associated w/ having a dealer as borne by GM ?

In other words, is there some fixed dollar amount that GM spends per dealer for signage, advertising , etc ?


The reason I ask that as an outsider I could never understand how closing a dealer would save any money for the parent corp.

And, in my area, there was 1 Dodge dealer on our side of town - that was it. AFAIK, he was quite successful in moving metal - now, that lot is a used car lot only as he lost his franchise. That decision makes no sense to me.

I agree w/ the thought that geography - how many dealers of that brand are in the area - should be reviewed, and sales numbers as well. If there is an area that is saturated , then the highest selling dealer in theory is the one to keep, although other factors such as customer satisfaction should come in to play.

However, it also seems like that the more of your dealers there are, the more opportunities there are for sales.

Obviously, I am missing something - I would love to know more.

Britt

 

I tend to agree with GM's decision to reduce the number of Cadillac dealers. Several years ago, my local Chevrolet dealer sold the franchise to the Cadillac dealer in town. (Said former Chevy dealer is now Honda, FWIW.) The "new" dealership became a Chevrolet-Cadillac dealer. Now while I have always had a positive experience with the service center at the Chevy-Caddy dealer and took all five of my Chevies there for service, I never bought a car from them. Shopped for one on two occasions, once for my son and once for my mom. We ended up buying a Chevy for my son at a dealer 20 miles away. It wasn't because the other dealer had a bigger and newer facility, it was inventory selection (and the fact that I managed to find that "one at this price" last year's model on the lot). However I did take my son's car back to them for service. My service experience has been impeccable. I even had them replace the engine in my 67 Camaro when the GM crate motor I had in it went south. They always had good hours including weekends, washed my car for free (something the old Chevy dealer never offered), and the service dept staff always remembered me by name. (Heck with five Chevies, they saw me a lot, even if it was just regular service.) Then when the whole "hit-list" began, they dropped their weekend service. (It ends up it was because most of their best mechanics left.) Then later when I went with my mom to shop for a new car, I noticed the inventory was a little light. Very few if any base model vehicles, mostly loaded vehicles, and most of their "performance" vehicles had steep "market adjustments". (This was the same dealership where the sales staff had once told me, "our manager will never sell a vehicle for more than MSRP".) The showroom was outdated, the service dept waiting lounge was in the corner of the showroom near the front door, they didn't even have a body shop. If it wasn't for the great relationship I had with the service staff, I would have taken my business elsewhere. If I was a Cadillac man I probably would have been disappointed with the atmosphere. Even the Lexus dealership I visited with my mom was more luxurious and they were in a temporary "older" facility while their new multistory climate controlled showroom was being built. (Ends up that older facility was a former Cadillac dealership.)

The point being, I agree that Cadillac needs to up the ante if they want to compete with the other luxury brands. Offer things like loaner cars instead of free-rides in a minivan, concierge service, plush waiting rooms, etc. It may not be much, but luxury car buyers look for the extras. My neighbor takes her Lexus to a dealer 20-miles away for service rather than the Lexus dealer less than 5-miles away. Reason? They drive the loaner car out to her house (always a new model Lexus SUV or sedan) and pick up her SUV for service. Its little things like that that entice luxury buyers. You're not just selling cars, your selling service as well. Some dealerships seem to forget that.

 

First, GM would require less people on their side to interface with fewer dealers.

Less of a lot of stuff. Less service techs to train... less tools to buy...

AND, hopefully, will allow individual dealers greater volume through higher sales.

So, in many ways it makes sense.



However, GM has become famous for decision by consensus by a lot of people who are more worried about not standing out than they are about doing the truly right thing.

Do I have any confidence that this is going to be executed properly?

Very, very little.



After being away for a while, I think I see it more clearly now. People like me ran completely against what they wanted out of themselves, and their suppliers and even their customers.

GM wanted mediocrity, and got it. It wasn't a decision process that went:

"Hey, let's go out there and really SUCK today."

It went more like:

"Well, there's a decision to be made. One or two people in the room know what the right thing to do is, but they'll be safer if they keep their traps shut and just go along and get along."



So, that's why I don't have much confidence. GM's culture cannot be trusted to do the right thing when the right thing runs against the consensus of the mass of mediocrity.

That's how you get a Colorado that's every bit as expensive as a full size... instead of the S-10 sized truck that would be lighting the world on fire right now.

That's how an Impala languishes for 10 years with no real revisions...

That's how you can offer GM a few million dollars... and because there's some risk... manageable risk at that... they do precisely nothing.

That's how you can tell GM point blank that their interior fit and finish needs work... show them what needs to be done... and they do nothing.

That's how you get a commercial art major as a design release engineer for seat systems in luxury cars. Not because by some fluke she is outstanding, but because she's inoffensive, and doesn't know enough to challenge the system when things are wrong.


I could go on for hours...

I won't...

Won't make a damn bit of difference if I do. Horribly frustrating for me on the outside looking in... can't imagine what it was like being there all the time... now I know why the best and brightest largely got out of GM like the place was on fire...

Because it was on fire... it just burnt down slowly and inoffensively...

 

Here's the thing, my first post didn't say i was totally for or against closing dealerships.
And later I was only given info on one particular dealership and I gave my input on what I would do there and in general.
To give you a real answer would take a book and then you'd have a book as a response and well lets face it, it wouldn't get me anywhere because I'm not a GM exec and you have better things to do I'm sure.

Very generally..
After I got done looking at a map and getting a feel for saturation and sales and after I got a feel for customer surveys I'd use the power of the internet to get yet another feel for how each dealership is doing. I have a GM dealership in my town and so do most other people on this board. Since you don't live in each town there's only so much broad statistics can tell you vs what a local can tell you and there might be factors your not thinking of like country people not living beyond their means. (of course less dealerships means higher prices)
I've always said the internet should be used more then is done now.
Then on top of that, there's city vs country, coasts vs midwest and tons more variables that would take a book to go in to.
After all sides as I generally stated yes some dealers would be consolidated, but I'd arrive there with slightly more info and each one might be decided with more options and alternativs.

But the dealership issue is after the fact. Let's be honest I've been critiquing long before.
Ironically on a few occasions my ideas have paralleled what GM came up with later.
I said there needed to be a 4 door GTO type car before I even knew the holden/g8 existed. Ironically of the GTO and G8 the G8 is the one most on here agree was done more right.
I said GM needs to get on TV and call out honda/toyota by name directly comparing things like MPG and other measurable statistics until stupid consumers get it. Ironically, now howie long is doing just that.
I said GM needs to have dedicated people on these forums. Not just like you do but actual paid employees to get and receive feedback on these forums. Every other vendor/sponsor in the automotive world has figured this out. Just look at ls1tech's sponsor, yet none of the big 3 have figured out to do the 1 on 1 response so maybe people GM can get some outside fresh ideas and we can get some more insight to seemingly stupid decisions.
Someday when one of the big 3 does this I want credit for this idea, and if toyota does it first expect me to slam you.
I said GM shouldn't be destroying model brands way back when they pissed off everyone in 02 with the fbody, then the grand prix, and on the flip side don't brand a car with a good name if the car doesn't fit because you ruin the badge.
Semi related i said any ute sport/el camino whatever will be a low volume seller, so unless it's profitable for a low 1 or 2 year run don't bring it back, even though that goes against what the majority say on here.
I said it's not the amount of brands GM has that's too many, but the amount of cars total. A thinned out pontiac>Cadillac with extra station wagons.
I've said the people that do the caddy interiors need to do the cheaper cars.
It doesn't cost anymore to make an ugly plastic button as it does a aesthetically pleasing one.
On that note options that don't actually cost you much to make but have a huge option package cost need to stop being so expensive on the lower brands.
I've said I don't want to see a $14,995 chevy commercial with the small print that says $23,895 as shown. Yeah I get options mark up makes you money.
I also get on the coasts a 50K truck isn't much. In the midwest it's literally half a house that I mortgaged for 15 years. You really expect me to pay half a house for something most people drive 3 years?
I said most cars need to go with plastic/composite panels because they don't dent or rust, even while on here people thought/think metal panels are a requirement on anything higher then the aveo.
I said all cars pretty much need all the electronic goodies, nav screen, Bluetooth, usb hook up, aux in, etc etc, which still hasn't happened. Those things are cheap to add and young kids these day expect them in that aveo.
I said GM needs to think about an s10 like vehicle before some of the other cars they are spending money on.
I said GM needs to consolidate the engines and options.
5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 DOD/AFM, VVT, DI, flex fuel 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9 and more
Of these only 2 v8's and 2 v6's need to really be there. And they need to combine all these different things for either the best mpg or best power or combination of both.
I've said GM has the best powertrain people of the 3 and has for 20 years.
I'd start listening to them and fire a few accountants and exec's for certain things.
I've said GM's lawyers and lobbyists really need to do everything to stop the government from making your engineers fight with one hand behind your back. Although now since they bailed you out that fight got real hard.
I've said some of the quality things need to be engineered so they literally can't happen. (i sent you a pic i took of a 5thgen with the wipers on backwards and said if the idiot can't put them on the right side they need to be made to physically not fit on the wrong side)
I've said things need to get lighter before it was played out joke it has become.
I've said the belt line/chop top isn't the way to go.
I've said excuses on why that won't work are not acceptable. (see engineers and lobbyists)
I've said retro is getting played out and be the first one to have a modern entry sports car.
I made this list after working all week being tired at 10:30 at night, just typing straight through as fast as I could. I imagine given a million dollar salary I could expand and refine it, but to do that here would just be a waste of time.
So I apologize in advance for not giving the detail I was asked for.
I'm going to bed.

 

1) For the most part, my techs have to drive offsite for their training sessions...I know because they're always on my *** to give them a car to drive to their various sessions. It doesn't cost Chrysler any less now to have 30 techs in a class versus 50...does it? We pay for the techs to attend the class.

2) We buy all of our own tools from the manufacturer when we need to...nothing is given to us. They don't save money there, either.

3) The only thing I agree with is that indeed, less dealers SHOULD mean more profit per dealer, something we sorely need. I am pulling in more sales from the north and south of me now that the dealers above and below are gone. HOWEVER...those dealers were gone before Chrysler weeded those areas out. They were unprofitable, and let the franchises go.

What needs to be avoided is TAKING AWAY franchises from good, profitable dealers, merely because they may not be in the most ideal location, or have a sparkling clean, brand new building. But this is what GM wants. And its a shame. How can you ask a dealer to build a new building right now, in an ideal location, when sales are in the toilet? When you've been losing market share and customers for YEARS???

You can't...and you shouldn't. The only dealer Chrysler closed within 100 miles of me was an embarrassment...a stand-alone Chrysler dealer that sold mostly used cars out of an awful looking building. THOSE are the kinds of dealers that need to go away.

Not the stand-alone Cadillac store with a nice, but older building in the heart of a metro area. Not the stand-alone Buick store with a nice, newer building that's been trying for years to get ahead, but was starved of product.

Some dealers needed to go to let those of us that remain survive and prosper. But some decisions are purely asinine...and this Caddy thing is one of them...with all due respect to Scott and 1fastdog. I feel for both of them...because they're both stuck right in the middle of all of GM's issues right now.

I'll still be here, like most of the rest of us, because I remain enamored with the product GM puts on the market. Despite making a living with Chrysler (which I believe will continue, much to the surprise of many), other than my Dodge Ram I believe I will always have GM products in my driveway...new or old. But for those of us that are not so loyal...say the person that has an '05 CTS that isn't loyal to any one brand, that now wants a new car...is he going to drive 2+ hours to another Caddy store?

He'd have to be damn loyal...and too many people today simply are not. So GM loses a sale to him, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people like him as they continue to gut the dealer body...

 

One more thing...

I imagine a lot of people reading my posts would assume I am biased towards the dealer end of things, because I am one. Not really. I can see both sides of this story, big time. GM wants all nice, new shiny dealerships that look as nice as their Honda and Toyota and BMW counterparts. Image matters, and I don't blame them. You have to look the part, and walk the walk, to compete with the best.

At the same time, in this economy, its nearly impossible most of the time to ask dealers that have stuck by GM for all these years, through DECLINING MARKET SHARE (much of which wasn't the dealer's fault), to pony up all-new buildings in perfect locations. And when you yank their franchises away, you create ire from your customer base.

I'd rather have strong dealers in less than ideal locations, working hard to sell GM's vastly improved products, than alienate customers and loyal dealers and yank franchises away...to only give franchises to others 3-5 years down the road when the market improves, and someone else is willing to pony up the money.

 

I guess it really depends on the state.
In my local area, within 30 mins, there are six Chevy dealers. Three of them are owned by the same dealer network. And all but one has a modern, good looking, well placed store.
So who's to say that one is worth more then the other?
And in that area, ther are only two, maybe three Toyota dealers, two Honda dealers, and three Nissian dealers.
In a state like Mass, you will need more then one or two Caddy dealers.
They should be around large areas, and maybe that is what will happen.

 

1FastDog -- your remarks and observations are always spot-on.

Aaron - a thought:

"....Whenever things sound easy, it turns out there's one part (or more) that you didn't hear or understand....."

Your first paragraph talks about studying areas.

We (the auto industry) know where people buy every car or truck -- where they live -- that they paid - -what they financed -- and in most cases, what they make. (there's even more we know....) Moreover, we know what each dealer sells -- we know the average transaction price -- and we know how each dealer reacts in relation to others...it's called an 'in-sell/out-sell' report.

For instance -- Let's take three dealers -

Dealer A sells 500 new cars and trucks a year..

Dealer B sells 500 new cars and trucks a year...

Dealer C sells 500 new cars and trucks a year.

All appears fine --

.....but let's look at the market.

Dealer A may not be penetrating HIS market -- he may be selling 500 cars and trucks - and only have 12 percent of the market -- Dealer C may be selling all of his cars and trucks into Dealer B's area --

Now - it would take me a whole night to write about this - but suffice to say that we DO know more than everyone likes to think - about the operations of those dealers who were given a letter......yes, there were some errors -- and there were over 50 dealers who were given a reprieve -- with little time under chapter 11, there were mistakes -- but if you believe that everyone the group at Chrysler/Ford/GM that works in the Dealer Organization Department is stupid or lazy, you're very seriously mistaken.

You list a whole lot of "I said this" and "I said that" -- and frankly I don't have the time to go back and look at your posts for the past several years...but I do know that there is the safety of being a Monday Morning Quarterback......

(what line of work are you in, by the way?)

Yes - it's easy to say "what a bunch of morons" - -except that you'd be wrong......yes, bad decisions - but it's easy to say that without all of the information.

My original point was along the lines of "please say something nice now and then" -- no - you don't have to - and I suspect you won't --

As to the foreign manufacturers having people out on the internet - they haven't as a rule - but I can assure you that I continue to meet with customers as I travel around the country - and I listen - and I learn -- and I try to educate.......

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

Over the years I've learned that if as a group, people on this (or any enthuisast) site ran a real business, let alone a car business, that career would be run into the ground in a matter of days if not hours. Reason is that as a group, we live in a bubble and as the term "enthusiast" hints, we think through enthusiasm instead of common sense and business sense. We live in a bubble surounded by lots of other enthiusiasts, and we wind up with a twisted view of what the norm (or reality) actually is.

My contrabution to that delusion is my adherence to RWD vehicles and the need for them. I also feel that the Camaro (and Mustang) should be Cobalt sized, RWD sports cars and I have no qualms about high powered V6s under the hood as top power. I'd also be wrong on many levels compared to the actual buying public. First, by a huge margin people prefer coupes bigger than I would sell. Look at Camaro now and Mustang before that. Despite it's relatively low numbers, even the Challenger is one of the top selling sports coupes in the country. Then there's the fact that there are people who are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for an optional V8 engine. Not tons of people, but a small band who simply don't care about dishing out another $8,000 to $10,000 just to have a V8 engine instead of a V6. I'd be losing out on making the business wads of money.


Don't think for a minute that any company does something without numbers to back it up. And it's delusional to think that you are smarter at something than the guys who do it for a living every day. Whether the subject is vehicle weight or coming up with data on what dealers to close. You (or I) may not agree with some things, but at the same time we don't know what they had to deal with or what the parameters and guidelines or cost structure was involved. Even Chrysler of the 1990s, arguably the most random a car company has ever been ran had some strict cost structures that had to be met before cars like the Viper, Prowler, and PT Cruiser saw the light of day.

GM's past problems is that they over studies things instead of getting around to acting on them. You can bet your life that someone in GM crunched numbers to come up with dealers to close. The REAL issue in this, however, is was the right importance given to the right numbers. I can tell you from personal experience (currently I help manage a business that normally grosses roughly half a million dollar per per month and is part of a global corperation) that sometimes the wrong importance is given to the right numbers and eventually, someone figures it out an changes things around. Anyone who has never had to deal with P&Ls reports, AvT figures, and the breakdown of CS scores isn't going to understand why certain decisions were made when their perception is nothing but positive, or they feel that anything can be done if you try (oblivious that those people already did... based on what they had to work with, and what cost it was limited to and why it was limited to that cost).


No company is going to purposely create a situation where it's going to sell less product unless they are going to make more money or bigger profit margins doing so. That's business fact. Any again, you can bet your life that someone came up with a matrix in an attempt to figure out what dealers to close. However, like every other newly created formula, it often has to be revisited to fix unforseen circumstances. A situation where 4 dealers are closed in an area leaving no dealer within a hundred miles is one of those situations you can bet will be reexamined. The small local dealer that got top customer satisfaction scores but was barely breaking even and selling only a dozen or 2 cars per month most likely won't be.

If GM and Chrysler would save no money closing dealers, don't you think they would keep them open? Afterall, the more outlets selling your product, the better. There's reasons why dealerships are being winnowed down just like there's a reason why you don't have a gazillion Toyota & Honda, let alone Lexus and Infiniti dealers trying to sell you a new car.

Again, just my 2 cents worth.

 

Everyone knows how dedicated Scott is. At least they should.

He is in his position by choice, and keeps his position by talent.

He loves the Chevrolet heritage and he exmeplifies the sort of person Jim Perkins called on with his "PROUD" pins.

He has not been around GM as a result of being a "Get along to go along" type.

Any notion that contrary opinions or little voices that interject themselves in meetings are summarily executed at GM is horse manure of the first order.

I wouldn't presume to bang my own drum. I will say that anyone that knows me well also knows I have an opinion. Any that know me truly well know I pick the hills I might "die on" carefully. You have to. If you aren't on the field, you can't contribute to the game.

It irks me to no end when folks surmise that GM is all about mediocrity.
There are yes men in any organization. But GM does allow dissenting voices. The point is, you best be right when you disagree. The right answer deserves rational backing and reasons in spades. That isn't a harsh fact reserved for GM only. That is how it works anywhere where the stakes are high.

Back on topic...

I'm not able to look at the facts regarding some of these dealer closures.

I will suggest some thoughts on what I can speak, which are generalities.

Any policy decisions will only withstand scrutiny if the application of those policies are equal for everyone.

A situation where a policy might leave a void due to the fact the parameters of the policy determine the closure of all of the dealers because all of the dealers meet the criteria which call for termination could occur is a possibility.

This is a dilemma. Nonetheless, bending the rules in one sector will lead to endless lawsuits from those who will alledge unfairness and demand a "break" as well. Hard choices are just that...HARD.

Can areas be left dealerless? Probably. However, such a situation might inspire someone to come in a resolve that.

You can end up in rock and a hard place juncture. I can also open a bright window in the long run.

Sometimes righting a long standing mistake will put you into such a place.

You still need to go with the long term possibilities. Someone will see the opportunity and agree to take on the vision of how it will work and fill a void that exists.