Last I checked, Toyota is grwing quite well with just Scion, Toyota, and Lexus. GM could do the same.

I say keep Pontiac over Buick and Saturn because it has the best image. Aside from the GN, Buick makes me think the polar opposite of cool and sporty..and that is something that will take years of marketing to fix...or amajor cash dump like the did to Cadillac. I would hate to see GM dump money into a new Buick lineup like they did for Old's only to kill it just as they finnished.

 

The current number of nameplates COULD make sense if EVERY division didn't think it had to be a full line manufacturer...

I.E. if saturn ONLY sold small cars. If Pontiac ONLY sold sporty cars (no minivans and SUVs), if Cadillac ONLY sold Luxury cars and trucks (no entry level luxury), If GMC ONLY sold heavy duty (3/4 ton+) trucks, and if Buick ONLY sold entry level luxury cars. This would eliminate a lot of the overlap and GM wouldn't have to undergo the painfully expensive cost of shutting down dealerships. Of course Chevy would remain the high volume and volume performance division.

And just think, the cars could ALL be good without competing with each other, brand identity would increase, and there would be money for more platforms...

I know I would rather have a Camaro than the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th versions of the Trailblazer.

 

Lots of intresting angles coming up. Like I said at the begining, I'm starting off with the extreme, and working down to what's practical, so I'm aware this idea would never fly, so I'll take it down one level using Werm's idea as a jump off point.

Instead of completely eliminating some divisions, what about taking the super division experiment of the late 70s & 80s, and the "brand management" of the 90s in a different direction.

Instead of having a new bureaucratic level to run multiple divisions, or make the same sheet metal for multiple divisions (which is the reason I feel those ideas failed), combine the division from the top guy down to the dealership (some dealers are already combining franchises), then drop or combine the repetitious vehicles and division executive or management titles.

For instance, in a Chevrolet-Saturn division, there would be a single chain of command, and it would be run as a single division. Saturn nameplate would be on the smaller cars while the Chevrolet nameplate was on the larger models and historic sports cars.

Ion lineup would be discontinued while Colbalt would be rechristened a Saturn. Malibu would be renamed and also become a Saturn. Both would mercifully lose the Chevy "spear". Cars Impala sized & larger, as well as Corvette & Camaro would remain Chevrolet. Of course, Chevy would also get Chevrolet trucks.

Both divisional "names" keep their identity, yet in reality, it's a single division. Single marketing staff, single vehicle lineup, single advertizing budget, no expense of having multiple vehicles designed on the same chassis, and no overlap.

With Buick-Pontiac, for example, Buick would take the upper cars, while Pontiac would take the more performance oriented.

Buick would have a Park Avenue, LeSebre, and Riviera, while Pontiac would have the Grand Prix, the GTO (could be nothing more than a a more powerful hardtop, less content version of a folding top, equipted to the gills, AWD Riviera), and GMC. However, GMC would become more luxurious as some of Buicks SUVs are. This would give it more clear difference than it currently has with Chevy.

Again, one management hiarchy instead of 3, and again, no overlapping models

Cadillac would continue as the top luxury brand. However, they would drop the position the current DTS takes (already have a Park Avenue or LeSabre for this market) and move it to the top level Cadillac. Cadillac would continue with the Escalade.

Hummer is a very unique brand, and should have it's own executive hiarchy. However, it should be limited to stand alone dealers or Cadillac dealers. At that price level, I think they can afford it.

So instead of 6 divisions of marketing, sales, and dealers, we have 3 with Hummer as a quasi-independent division sold through Cadillac.

This would avoid the massive amount of money GM spent completly killing off Oldsmobile. Also, though I think it's grossly underestimating the buying public to think that the GMC buyer isn't aware that his truck is a Chevrolet with a different grille... (especially when he sees dozens, if not hundreds of Chevys that look like his GMC) this still keeps the GMC name alive but gives it a clearer distinction from Chevrolet and again, avoids overlap. Drop the dealers in the bottom 10% of customer service or demonstrate consistantly poor customer service (that would take care of "Just Cause" in the event of lawsuits).

Not a perfect idea, and it would cost a bundle in for separation & early retirement packages as management and excess personnel are taken out of the company. But I suspect that the overall health of the company would improve.

Not only would there be massively fewer personnel overseeing a certain number of cars & trucks, there would be even more profit per car and each model would sell in far greater numbers since repetitious cars would be removed.

Best of all, historic divisions & nameplates would continue in the specific markets the public & enthusiasts are used to them being in.

 

Interesting points from everyone! Here's a few from me:

The only reason GMC really exists is so non-Chevy dealers can sell trucks and SUV's. If you restructured GM w/o GMC, you have to accomplish this somehow. Everyone knows trucks and SUVs = $$$.

At the dealer I worked, the owner told us GM was wanting to do something similar to this in the late 90's. We were a Chevy only dealer and the plan that was being thrown around at that time was Chevy dealers had to start selling at least Olds maybe even Buick. The dealers of course balked on this idea altogether.

It is really sad that a company as big as GM can't compete with smaller companies because of money. I understand the reasons why, but it really is sad.

 

In some ways, I agree with Guion on combining the dealership base...

If you go back to my above post and assume that all the redundant models would be eliminated (as I meant the post to be interpreted) then you would only have one problem...For example, say Saturn only made small cars - People would say "We need a bigger car, we like saturns, but we have no where to go." Well, If I combined Saturn dealerships with Chevy dealerships, it kinda answers that question.

Now, if you canned the Cobalt and had a Small Saturn Ion that could be designed to be a class leader (with the money that would have been used to develop and market Cobalt peing pumped into the car - for both development and content) we could easily have a top notch car and a low price. It's even more appealing when you consider that it doesn't have to be artifically "Different" to avoid competing with other GM cars and it can be styled to "kick ***". Also, because the redundant models are eliminated, the "corporate identity" blandness isn't as necessary to distinguish models.

 

Why? Why do you want to condense it to three? What do you gain?

Buick has a worse image in your (and my) opinion, but not to theose people who are 60+ and spend a lot of money on new cars.

In the end, there is a place for every division they have if done right.

The lone exception is probably Saturn... I've been a Saturn defender in the past, based pretty much solely on preserving that customer relationship they have built and growing it with new product... looks like that is happening, but I don't knwo that the customer base is growing with the line up... so I am starting to bend a bit on the Saturn thing...

Other than that, no brand "contraction" really make a lot of sense in the long run.

Heck, 3 years ago, you could have made an arguement for combining Cadillac and Buick.... good thing that didn't happen, eh?

 

That IMO, is a great idea

They would save a huge amount of $$$ investing in one specific car (ala spending it on one small sporty car instead of using it on the Ion AND Cobalt) and this would totally align itself with GM's not wanting divisions to compete with each other.

I also agree with the others about keeping GMC around. Chevy trucks can be in Chevy dealers while GMC trucks can be sold through other dealerships.

 

You can go around and around with this, but here is my little take.
I say dump Buick, or fold it into Chevrolet. Add a full-size car to the Chevy line up like the overseas Caprice Royale that will take care of Park Avenue and then some, plus a whole new police market will open up. And then add something mid-size like the LeSabre to the Chevy lineup or dress up a model of Impala for the old folks and you pretty much have Buick covered.
Take Saturn and turn it into Opel. Build the same cars that Opel builds in Europe over here in Tenn. where the Saturn plant is.

Leave Cadillac, Pontiac, Hummer on the same track.

Saab?......umm.....build and sell in Europe.

Holden?........bring it to the USA? The idea has been thrown around.......but how will Holden be accepted here? Holden if it were to come here could be the Lexus of GM models..... what do you think? Performance, Style & some Luxury.

 

Geez Guion, you're a stirrer.

while you're at it, take an international view.

Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Saab; then the semi-orphans, Subaru, Suzuki and Fiat...

Vauxhall is essentially a Britain-only sales and marketing operation shifting rebadged Opels and, lately, a handful of Holdens. It is a badge with poor brand perception, which is on the improve thanks to some clever work on the ground in Britain.

Opel? Where do you start? Loses money like a heroin addict loses weight, but they're expensive to engineer and marketing is where the enormous problems are. Sells the Astra at Golf prices in Europe and it flops. The same car in Australia has become a star player in Holden's line-up, just because it's viewed here as a prestigious small car, not another Golf also-ran.
Vectra? too expensive, even for our tastes...
Zafira is terrific use of platform engineering and works very well.

Holden, you all know about, but Saab?

It's on the road to becoming another Buick/Pontiac/Oldsmobile, to be sold as badge-engineered Holdens and Subarus. And, given the quality of its past design, engineering and build quality, that might not be a bad thing...

 

GMC has to stay. You are forgeting that GMC sells Hevy Duty tucks, dump trucks, vans ECT .... They sell trucks in the 3500 and above.. They stop just short of Big rigs. Put Hummer and GMC together.

 

My Firebird's already gone and now your talkin about taking Pontiac from me alotogether?! Die

Now that thats outta the way ..

Ii way agree with everyone else if your gonna drop it down to three divisions Keep Chevy, Pontiac, and Caddilac, because those are the names with the most followers you will **** less loyalists off if for no other reason.

 

This was tried and it failed.

Remember Geo?

Same premise, really....

 

GM will continue to badge-engineer until there is enough negative press and awareness to affect sales. And nothing seems to be stopping consumers from buying SUVs. I doubt dealers mind too often--why wouldn't a Saturn or GMC dealer want another sure-selling SUV on their lot?

The problem is not that GM has too many brands. The troubled brands need makeovers and fresh, quality products. It wasn't long ago that Cadillac was as stale as Buick; why can't the same transformation take place for them? GM admits to skimping on the new Ion, what if they bring up to the standards they're striving towards with Cobalt quality?

Toyota itself just launched a new brand; the import luxury brands are creations for our continent (and soon, possibly others)--they are not afraid of giving customers too many options. They also have overlap in their lineups. Customers know this, but buy into a brand because of what they're being told it represents and the image they feel it will portray of themselves.

GM's many brands are assests with well-established histories and reputations. They just need to keep good, fresh products in the pipeline and the rest will take care of itself. By most reports, this is what they are taking steps to accomplish.

 

Same premise with one glaring exception.

Geo was an entirely new name with no history or reputation behind it. Saturn, on the other hand, has a reputation that is valuable enough to make GM ready to pump alot of money into it, despite relatively poor sales.

Saturn and Chevy's small cars have product and market overlap. Since Saturn is known for producing small economical cars, and Chevrolet is known for producing value ladened family cars (along with the assorted performance model), combining the 2 IMO would make sense.

Besides, a Saturn Colbalt would probally be more successful than the Saturn Ion, carry Saturn's reputation for being a genuine alternative to buying an import, and wouldn't have the "Cheap American car" image a low cost Chevy does (see: Cavalier, Citation, and for you older guys, Nova).

 

An interesting angle... try to fold Saturn's existing customer relations into Chevy. Something Geo never possesed.

Some issues:

-Would rolling Saturn into Chevy (even though you keep the name) cheapen the appeal of Saturn to current customers?

-How would pricing work? Would the Saturn models retain the no haggle pricing, while the rest of Chevrolet is negotiable?

-Would the volume of business that Chevrolet dealer see, and then with the potential added traffic of Saturn, hamper the ability of the dealership to maintain that customer friendly Saturn atmosphere?

-Assuming that Saturn is rolling into Chevy , that would mean the Saturn dealers would have to be shut down and phased out. All the actual dealer relationships would be lost, and the Chevy dealers, who never worked the "Saturn Way" may not be able to pick up where the old Satrun dealerships left off??