Here those signs say "Dead End" Maybe it's an old west thing? And also, what is that big pile in front of your neighbors house? Looks rather stinky from here.

 

Maybe they'll do like they did with FIAT, and sell it to a member of the board...

oh wait maybe I wasn't supposed to say that.

Also talks of selling off GMAC

Sounds to me like they are planning to take it down to the core (read unprofitable) part of the company, and do something drastic.

 

ok, just actually read the whole first post again. So it sounds liek they are saying they will NOT sell off Hummer and Saab. However they also said a lot of other things that while not 100% false, very misleading.

I look at it as saying they are not selling them today.

 

I think they are saying when you share platforms, powertrains, manufacturing facilities etc., there is really nothing you can separate out to sell. Kill? Maybe. Sell? Highly unlikely.

Selling 51% of GMAC to free it from the "junk" bond rating is a good thing and will have a minimal impact on profit.

 

kill off hummer? Yeah right. It had like 90% growth last year. Selling it off to seperate from the less profitable sections..... with a parts share agreement, wouldn't count it out.

Selling off the majority of GMAC protects it from Bankruptcy if it comes down to that.

 

I love the H3, My wife wants one. ANd we can actually afford it. She loves her 2000 4x4 Blazer, but is not too fond of the Trailblazer. But she lovse the bold styling of the Hummers.

And at 29k starting (basically loaded). The add-ons are things for offroading or coolness factor we would never want or need so your looking 30-32k with some slight options which is in the neighborhood of a Trailblazer.

Love them. They are also marketing the hell out of them. Jeep, lookout. We might hold out for a small LS engine if they'll offer it in the next couple of years, have to see. THe Blazer even though a 2000 only has 60k and is barely broken in, LOL. (wants a V8...)

 

(removed)

 

Buickman, I thought you were kindly asked by JasonD to never post here again? Your self promotion here is in clear violation of that.

 

Buickman
Banned

Finally, he ruins to many threads. About damn time.

 

It isn't about the number of brands, nameplates, or divisions, it is about branding and association of the products to the buyer. I think that is where GM has had a difficult time in hitting the mark. Killing Olds is probably less expensive than rebranding itand losing money while GM also loses a generation of buyers. Probably the least costly option was to kill it and maybe 50 years fropm now re-introduce it as a new identity. The brand is worth more, in my opinion, as potential than it was as reality.

The trick is to not lose control in the first place. GM should study the computer manufacturers marketing tactics as they closely mirror the automotive industry except that everything happens much faster.

Profits involve many factors and I'm sure the loss of production is a cost factor probably as much as the lack of profitability when the division was active. I guess my question is what will GM do to replace the unprofitable sales with profitable sales.

In todays economy I suspect it is far easier to produce an additional $200.00 per unit of profitable revenue through specialty items rather than try to phase in and phase out entire lines. There will always be "loss leaders" but the goal of that is to increase profitable sales while not actually incurring hard costs out. It can be done, in my opinion, far faster and for less cost than GM would expect if the thought process were allowed to leave the box for a month or two.

 

I read something that there was a high percentage of Old's owners that were trading their cars in for Honda's in the 80's. More than the world changed...I think OLD's image changed. Even with arguably the best cars in the company in the late 90's, they still could not make headway.

 

I agree, however my Dad claimed years ago that Chevrolet was the "value" division of GM, that Pontiac was an upscale Chevrolet, that Oldsmobiles were aimed at male drivers that could not afford the top of the line Cadillac, and that Buick was aimed at the female drivers that could not afford a Cadillac.

Mt Dad's perception was an "old" perception, even at that time and he passed in 1982 so I'm going back more than a few years, but I do understand what he was saying based upon a very broad general history. Perhaps that is why the old 442's were so popular in a limited market?

I do think that clarity of branding and then the product design to represent a clear branding image is an area that needs massive improvement for GM and if they finally get that right in terms of an ongoing process, like an ongoing strategic branding plan, that their sales and profits will improve more so than if they continue on the path they appear to he headed.

 

I agree with most of your points except this one.

With Computer Manufacturers, the technological advances come weekly.

They also cost a couple hundred to manufacture.

So, more people can afford to buy them more frequently.

in other words, the Automotive industry is a completely different animal. It reacts different it works different, etc. I think part of that is due to the fact that the car is the 2nd biggest purchase people make after a house.

Unless GM can Figure out how to bring us a good quality sub 10,000 dollar car that people would actually want, then there is no way this comparo would work. Even then, it would need tons of competition in the same segment.