I reckon his resignation isn't far behind. He didn't really stay on to be a marketing guy and cut programs he liked. Say it ain't so.

 

I believed I got jumped on when I said Fritz was the wrong choice.

BELIEVE ME NOW?

The guy is a doofus plain and simple. In fact, not only a doofus but a dweeb. He needs to remember one thing and one thing going forward: WE'RE ALL HIS BOSS!

I wouldn't be a BIT surprised to hear that Lutz is still planning to leave at the end of this year from his post. You don't just come out and say a legend like Lutz "says alot of things, but still works for me." You just don't say that. What has Fritz accomplished? Oh wait, he was GM's finance manager which ultimately lead the company into bankruptcy. No way you can slice it, but he was the man that handled the $$$$.

Lutz is 77. He's got $$$. Sure he took a haircut on his pension from Old GM to New GM but the mans been around awhile and can easily get an advisory job with anybody. Who would

Let me ask this: Who would Fritz be left with tomorrow if Lutz decided to walk away from it all? Name me the one person that GM enthusiasts believe in other than Bob to get the job done.

I'm a firm believer that it starts with enthusiasts. We talk about cars more than anybody else - and what's the best type of advertising? Word of mouth.

 

I may sound crazy but----we should bombard the next fastlane chat or event or whatever with messages like this--FRITZ: publicly apologize to Lutz, if not the enthusiasts who obsessively follow the industry as it pertains to GM in specific...WILL BRING YOU DOWN. [by talking until we are blue and filling as much places with as much negative talk as possible, sites like these will no longer be the bastion for reason and encouragement they've been for you ASSWAD]

on a more serious note. that is not a good tone to strike towards Lutz, who brings so much fervor and good sense to the company, along with serious devotion and belief from enthusiasts crediting him with sharp turnaround in product we are witnessing now. attacking marketing is exactly the next step in bringing different parts of the company together [instead of a bunch of salaried dolts we had before] and working for the common goal of producing and marketing the best product. lutz is right on all these issues.

keeping zeta alive, and enthusiasts happy, and giving autorags and blogs more good product they like builds good word of mouth. the game changers to stimulate postiive image will still and always have been massively big mainstream successes....not zeta cars, not as their currently made [large cars]. enduring quality, enduring reliability, and enduring design is still the way to capture the hearts and minds of buyers everywhere...and then take that profit and begin to capitalize and move into different regions with that same mindset.

BUT. bringing Zeta here hurts no one. price it right. do not discount. bring the wagon and el camino. watch the sales pile on. build positive image. repair broken relationships. bring in new fans. repair relations with enthusiasts

Steps towards building faith in a GM lost to far too many. steps towards recuperating lost volume from Pontiac...

I know of at least one member that'd get on board...

 

I'm trying not to dislike Fritz as there has to be a good reason for this 'turn up'.

Holden are committed to building Cruze downunder. That would leave less capacity for potential exports. I'm not sure that there is the room for VE/
WM exports that there was before.

Small and fuel efficient is what we keep hearing about these days... even though enthusiasts (which make up a relatively small portion of overall sales) still want RWD V8s. Me especially but...

 

This can't be said enough.

 

Interesting theory. Now I really want to believe Fritz and Bob are high-fiving each other while looking at Chevy VF sketches.

Also makes me wonder how much of that 1960s Pontiac Rebel mystique was manufactured.

 

First off you have to remember..Lutz has a reputation for butting heads with other execs..notably Red Poling and Lee Iacocca.

So here is my take on Henderson...

The idea that the government fired Wagoner, and hired Henderson is quite comical. If your gonna fire Wagoner for performance, that is fine. However the reality is, for years, Henerson has been his right hand man. He is the one developing the restructuring plans, negotiating with the unions, suppliers, and so forth. His hands were just as dirty as Wagoner. Best analogy would be if Wagoner is Batman, Henderson was his Robin.

The fact that Henderson is in charge just proves the point that the government realized GM's core issue was it's fixed legacy costs, not obtuse mismanagement. I think the only reason Wagoner was fired it he stubbornly did not want to go into BK..so the government took it as a chance to make it look like they were initiating "change" and fired him.

 

Henderson seems on top of things, but the only reasonable conclusion is that he's just temporarily warming the seat.

Eventually, GM is going to have to sell themselves back to investors. To do so, they need a great spokesman for the company that the investor has confidence in, not just the guy who bean-counted them through the bankruptcy courts, with his 80-year-old hot shot buddy.

Lutz is a great spokesman for the product, but his statements tend to be more aimed at consumers than investors. This is pretty much the archetypal example right here, where the enthusiast consumer has fallen in love with a car that GM can't make any money with. Anyone looking to invest real money into the new GM is going to have higher standards than what the G8 provided.

 

It's just my opinion, but that sounds about right to me...

 

I don't think Lutz would resign over this.

I like Bob a lot. I dealt with Bob from time to time when I was in my previouus position, and he's the genuine article.

The G8 is a fine car, and desirable, as well for some folks. It is not necessarily the best idea for the economic and political climate in the immediate future, IMO. Something even better might be possible.

The taxpayer has bought in to GM for the sake of the US economy, for the US worker, for US suppliers.

I am confident that enthusiasts are watching the energy legislation very carefully. I know the leaders of vehicle manufacturers are. However you might see the legislation, one effect is going to be higher costs for fuels, and just how high is not yet settled. It will matter.

The cost of gas does have effect on what vehicles people will consider.

* People do not always make the best bottom line decisions when it pertains to gasolline price and the conclusion folks reach as to what vehicle make thhe most financial sense for their circumstances. As a for instance, trading one vehicle for another and losing more money than will be saved by doing so is very common.*

There are things which can either be called realities or strong considerations.
Importing full sized cars, built by non US workers, and shipping them half way around the globe into a market where the fuel prices might well skyrocket should give some pause for a taxpayer supported entity.

I think it makes a bit more sense to push for class dominating products with the fewest vulnerabilities in a volitile economic climate.

Will Bob quit over this? I doubt it seriously. His skin is not that thin. Trust me on that.

 

Point well taken.

 

I'll just offer a general comment about management style.

When I have been called on to manage folks, I believe that a manager should priase in public, coach in private.

Regarding talking to the media ? The media is rarely talking to you because they want to help..

 

The car mags also begged for the production of the Thunderbird and SSR ... so maybe their advice isn't all that trustworthy

Well, we know that it's impossible for every car in an automaker's stable to be profitable, so it's sometimes the question goes a bit beyond dollars and cents. GM's NAO hasn't made money in a decade, and given the huge profits trucks and SUVs are known to make, there must be a heckuva lot of unprofitable cars being sold to drag down the average ... it'd be nice if the G8 was one of them instead of something as tedious as, say, a LaCrosse. At least the G8 contributes positively to GM's image.

 

Oh so very very true.


GM's "sell it at a loss - but make up for it in volume" additude is what helped them into this mess in the first place. My thought was that Holden was not so dumb (and they dont have the excuse of a booming SUV and truck market to allow losses). If Holden had to make the Commodore profitable, then there is a chance (espicially when exchange rates were good) that the G8 made a tidy margin. With cash on the hood though, I dont know how much money it made (or lost). And while I agree with you that not every vehicle needs to make a profit - GM needs to have a business model that doesnt require selling SUVs at $10,000 profit margins.

 

This is what I was referring to when I said that all of their banter was maybe designed to test the waters for the car. GM already knows how we feel, but what about Uncle Sam and Joe Public?