Read Our Updated Viability Plan
As you probably know, today GM submitted its updated viability plan to the U.S. Treasury Department, to meet the requirements of our U.S. government loan agreements. The plan, which provides a detailed review of a variety of aspects of GM’s restructuring, is the first of two status reports required by the loan agreement signed by GM and the U.S. Treasury on December 31. We’ve worked hard with our key stakeholders in the past two months to further enhance our operating competitiveness across the globe, and to demonstrate that General Motors can be viable over the long term. We’ve already made significant progress — much of it detailed in the plan — but important work remains in front of us.
Please click here to read the press release or the plan itself and check below for video of GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner’s press briefing about the viability plan. – Christopher Barger, Director, Global Communications Technology
93 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
This should have been done 10 years ago.
Rick Wagoner needs to go, the BOD needs to go. Hire some outside blood like Ford did, otherwise the stupid decision will continue.
Pontiac ‘G’ names killed the brand
Saturnized Opels was doomed to fail-should have branded them Opels.
Buick starved for product and stupid name changes.
Chevy getting stale, boring product with poor build quality.
Plus the stupidity continues:
Changing the Cobalt to the Cruze-you guys just never learn do you? Absolutely boneheaded move.
Keeping Plants with atrocious build quality (Lordstown).
Warranty not good enough to lure back buyers-lets see 5 yr bumper to bumper.
GMDAT producing garbage like the Aveo.
I could go on but why bother, you guys just haven’t got a clue.
My favorite part of the plan is GM’s great product line and its loyality to the American people. We’re on General Motor’s side. GM’s bond holders should take 100 percent stock. Don’t hold back.
Let’s have tax credits for Bond Holders across the board to reduce debt in exchange for equity. Reducing debt and increasing cash flow is the answer, not the other way around.
The Government (both parties) needs to make America’s economy viable. Let’s see 4 % mortgages for real and not just talk. Lets see no captial gains tax and not just talk. So far their Stimulus Bill is a failure. The U.S. goverment needs to redo its financial model. The banks are run by idiots who borrow from the FED with a board full of economists who have no clue about economics.
The right way is to PRODUCE (manufacture – invent – engineer – create) America way out of the recesssion, not produce more dollar bills and deepen the deficits.
“Monetarism is Not Enough” ( we need manufacturing) – Sir Keith Joseph
“Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan
I am saddened and EXTREMELY disappointed upon reading the news that GM has cancelled plans for a Right-Hand-Drive CAMARO. I understand that GM is in the midst of a financial crisis and recession, however, the decision NOT to go ahead and bring the Camaro to Australia and the UK, is a flawed one. The Camaro has after all, been engineered here in Melbourne, Australia, by Aussie teams, working in tandem with teams in the US.
The Chevrolet brand, can in fact, co-exist alongside the Holden brand without cannibalizing sales of either companies’ line-up. The American and Australian automotive markets and trends, aren’t that different, and the demand for the Camaro would be more then great here in Australia.
If GM were wise, it would maximise its global reach with the Camaro and the Chevrolet brand, and market the Camaro relentlessly, as it may be Chevrolet’s most prized creation. In my point of view (a view shared by many), GM’s and Holden’s design teams, have created a perfectly balanced mass market product, and should treat it as such – just like the iPod or iPhone – albeit more expensive.
I, like many people in these Right-Hand-Drive countries, have been saving my pennies for this car, and have been Googling daily, news on the Camaro, in the hope that I will be cruising the streets of Melbourne in my very own Cyber Grey Metallic Camaro SS.
The fact that GM has already somewhat engineered a right-hand-drive version, should in fact, complete the job, and look at ways to get these in showrooms across Australia. If we can export and make left-hand-drive vehicles for US customers, this is the least GM can do for us. After all, it’s a win-win situation. GM sells thousands of Camaro’s and everyone is happy.
Please do not make me start up a petition website and get the word out that we have been let down. Come on GM, do the right thing!!!
Australia awaits your response..
Okay, I kind of get the thing about selling a couple of Pontiac models in Chevy dealerships, but does this also mean Buick will be expanded? If Saturn goes away, will Buick get a version of the next Astra? If so, I’d suggest a sedan and “twin top” version of the car. I’d also suggest that Chevy get a 3 door instead of a Cruze coupe for their new Delta II cars. Also is the Escelade line going to be eliminated? The GMC Denalis have made them completely redundant from the beginning. What of SAAB? I see the term “spinoff” in a few articles, so does that mean SAAB becomes independent again and merely buys stuff from GM? I’d also like to suggest that, while Saturn may be going away, their sales and service have been top notch. So why not at least keep that and apply it to the remaining parts of GM (minus the non-negotiable prices)?
I hope this works, I want GM to keep building great cars. Its good to see GM focusing on the brands (Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and in some form Pontiac) that have been with it for the long run.
What is the rational for eliminating Saturn and keeping pontiac? Also, regarding the 5-year bumber to bumber warrently, if you want to convince people you are serious about quality, this would be the way to demonstrate it.
Hello Mr Pantic
I feel your pain and too am saddened by the news. I would like everyone to have the chance to experience an American Automobile Icon such as the Chevy Camaro no matter in which country you live.
After reading your comment it had me thinking about right hand and left hand drive vehicles depending which part of the world you live in. Also, the major differences in automotive regulations for countries set by their Government.
Huge amounts of money is spent on what is basically developing two vehicles that may look the same on the outside but very different on the inside or under the body.
Why not look at this very deep World reccession that is affecting all countries and their automotive sectors as an oppurtunity instead of a problem? With the current economic issue, why would we ( all Governments and Auto industries) not want to take a look at a standardization for vehicles around the world.
I would think this would save massive amounts of money commonizing Bill of Process, Bill of Material, Engineering and developement, testing and validation, tooling, and so on.
In another posting while talking about the EV’s, conversation came up about having some standardization between Manufactures for the consumers. Great point and good idea! Is there talk between the car companies or are we all doing our own thing?
GM just celebrated 100 years of being in business. If the next 100 years is starting off with new EV’s why not think in a paradigm mentallity.
Maybe there is a clear and simple answer to my suggestion. But we all need to look at what can be done presently to make sure our economy never is hurt so severly again. I believe the World welfare ,economy and consumers can benefit from such talks. Our crisis’s we all experience everyday when we wake up to has to be an eye opener. Consumers need to be open minded. Consumers need to be prepared to accept changes.
If we continue to do the same things we’ve always done, nothing will ever change and then someday my grandchildren and yours will be reliving this all again .
If oneday I get an oppurtunity to retire from GM Mr Pantic I do hope to visit your beautiful country and maybe get to drive a Camaro on your back roads.
I AM GM
In Table 2 on page 16, I need to know the nameplates (models) in the 2012 and 2014 columns, particularly those from Cadillac and Buick. Will there be a full-sized DTS/Lucerne replacement? Or will these models be discontinued without replacement? If so, when? I’m not looking for opinions or wishful thinking from anyone outside of GM, just the facts from someone who knows.
I recently read an article in TIME that only 10 million cars will be sold in the U. S this year. This means that even with restructuring GM will still not be able to make it through the financial crisis. I have a question. What if GM shut itself down for an entire year? What if that time was used to pay down debt, rebargain with the union, and for research and development? The current auto offerings of GM are not what we the Americans really want. We want Hondas, Toyotas, and Hyundai’s. Maybe its time to put to rest all of the cars that GM makes and invent new ones that focus on the future and what Americans are truly interested in. Speaking for myself I recently made a car purchase to prepare for the inevitable surge in gas prices. My choice was between a 4 cylinder Ford Focus and a 4 cylinder Toyota Corolla. The difference was like night and day. The Focus had wind noise in the cabin, it made strange noises when shifting gears, and acted like it was difficult for it to accelerate. The Toyota was awesome when I drove it and I ended up buying that one. I was disappointed that it was the Toyota that won because I really wanted to buy an American car. It seems to me that we could be doing a better job at making small cars that have the same quality as foreign cars. Maybe a period of down time would help in addressing these issues. It’s just a thought. Thats all.
I’ve been sold on getting rid of Saturn the day it stopped being a home-grown Saab and simply became another division of rebadged entries. Oldsmobile had more going for it the day it’s coffin was sealed than did Saturn at the time.
It was not so much a mistalke or error in judgement but a missed golden opportunity for GM to have looked to Opel only for a few products and design cues, rejecting a return to the North American market with its full line intact. What fun we would have had with the Astra TwinTop. A merger of Saab into Opel, picking up Volvo along the way and marketing the result here as Pontiacs – now there’s a plan I could get behind.
Page 70, 2.4 Liter I4 with 6-speed automatic in LaCrosse? At 4000 lbs curb weight and only 177 hp(as standard in Solstice), if this car can get out of its own way it will be a miracle.
GM made some extremely bad marketing moves in the last twenty years. The Saturn Division should never have been in the first place. Cadillac’s image has been cheapened (who wants a car that says “I’m a rapper, I’m a drug dealer”?), Buick’s been cut down to basically two re-badged Opels, Pontiac’s replaced with re-badged Holdens, and GM cut themselves out of the medium-price family market by dropping Oldsmobile. Alfred Sloan laid out the correct formula almost ninety years ago, and it still would’ve served GM well if not for the ‘yuppie generation’ of GM executives who believed in overlapping brands and prices. In the ’seventies I questioned the reasoning behind offering a luxuriously appointed Chevrolet (Caprice Classic) priced only slightly less than an entry-level Cadillac Calais. Luxury Chevrolets not only undercut Cadillac, they also said, “never mind working your way up through the GM line to a Cadillac”. The reason for buying Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick was completely eliminated. Instead of sticking to “what’s good for GM is good for the country”, why haven’t you asked US, the buying public, what we want? By the way, you came very close to a winner with the Cadillac Catera, but you messed it up with all the ‘over-60 customer’ gimcracks – frankly, the marketing of that car was downright lousy! Then there’s the whole DexCool debacle. If the ghost of Alfred Sloan stalks the halls of GM, I’m sure he’s wondering what these executives have done to the mightiest company in the world.
Shut down Hummer & Saturn ASAP – they are worthless and dead.
Sell SAAB.
Why is there still both Buick & Pontiac? Pick one and kill the other.
Chevy & GMC dealerships work on the same cars so consolidate them. Cadillac should be the only separate dealership. Unfortunately Corvette gets screwed with lousy service at some dealerships.
I am tired of this money grab by GM. GM Mgmt has made a mess of GM. Too many duplicate products without any innovation. Wasting money on Hummer, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and SAAB. I have been a longtime GM fan. Maybe I will have to try a Ford or maybe even an import (GASP).
I see a couple of problems hurting all of the big 3. Being a GM fan for years and through out generations I’ve heard about the company for all of my 32 years. I am from Michigan but have no relitives that work for GM. With that said here are the problems.
1. Names don’t make the car. The quality does.
2. Commercials are not helping. They need to be straight forward. No hidden BS. GM and the rest of the big 3 hurt themselves when they made the type of commercials that promised the best deal ever, and when people went to the dealerships to get these deals there was hidden fee’s or down payments or less warranty for the price that was listed. 299 per month and then you found out that it was a lease with 6,000 down which placed the vehicle out of your reach. Once people arrived to the dealership and realized that the car they wanted was like wishing for a million dollars. The nice sales person introduced them to a car that they could afford and no one wanted. As far as the car companies were conserned they got rid of a car and the consumer was happy. Not always the case. Now they are all struggling to gain back trust and respect.
3. Tell people about your product and what you offer!!! I’ll give you an example, a friend of mine owns a 2004 sonata. Yes it does have a 10 yr 100,000 mi warranty. But when he tried to use the warranty for something that Dodge covered under it’s warranty the company said NO. Sorry. My friend told me right then that that would be his first and last NoN American car that he ever buys. They need to show this type of idea in their commercials to get the word out there. Most people that I have talked to belive that the American warranties are just a way to get people to buy American vehicles and if I’m late on my oil change, or 500 miles over the suggested miles on my oil change that my warranty will be void anyways because I didn’t go exactly by the contract. This idea needs to change!!! The idea needs to be that this is a company that cares so much about it’s consumers and it’s product that it’s willing to stand behind the entire vehicle for 5 years and 100,000 miles. Not because they know something will go wrong with the vehicle, but because they are so sure that nothing will go wrong that they will replace what ever part it is and would be embarrassed that a part with their name on it failed. Thats the idea that needs to go back to the public. Thats why Toyota has taken the lead in America!! I remember when the name Toyota was an absoultue JOKE. It was a TOY with an OTA at the end. The big 3 left people no choice but to go out an explore other options when it came to car buying. They left and liked what they found on the other side. We need to bring these people back!!! Trust, Loyalty to customers, and quality products should do the trick. But don’t be fooled, this will not happen over night. It will take some time and some good planning to get the idea of honesty and quality back in the heads of people when they think about GM and American Automobiles however, my love for them will never change.
Sorry about any mistakes
I see a couple of problems hurting all of the big 3. Being a GM fan for years and through out generations heard about the company for all of my 32 years. I am from Michigan but have no relitives that work for GM. With that said here are the problems.
1. Names don’t make the car. The quality does.
I just love all these armchair quarterbacks. Maybe you guys should let them take over the company. I hope all of you realize if GM fails your probably going to go down with them whether you work directly or indirectly for them. You know, the trickle down effect. Also, the U.S. foreign auto makers could not survive, remember they share 70% of the same parts suppliers.
I feel terrible for the people that work at Saturn and Hummer; however, they really do need to go. Saturn has never really sold that well nor have they ever had any real good designs. Hummer is self explanatory, just send this one to Saudi Arabia.
I’m sure praying we all can make it. Not just people in the Auto Industry, all of us….
I’ve offered a viable alternative that would keep all eight brands intact and save BILLION$ for GM- Eight platforms, eight brands, restrict “platform sharing” to within a brand (making unique “models” on the same platform, but with the same brand).
No need to pay off discontinued dealers; in fact, if they want to sell more than one platform, they could buy another brand franchise.
Apparently the personnel cuts at GM HQ haven’t been deep enough yet.
Nothing in the plan about GM jumping into the soon-to-be-huge market for neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV).
What about diesel-electric locomotives? What about diesel-electric hybrid buses?
You have idle production capacity. You have skilled assembly workers. You have skilled engineers. Why not make the jump?
Mr Wagoner: You’re not just an auto company ~ you’re a transportation company.
Perhaps it’s time to put Pontiac to rest if for no other reason than you named that brand after a Native American, and for years used an Indian head as the emblem.
All across the country, schools have had to change the name of their mascots from Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, Redmen, etc to accommodate present day sensitivities. Why should you be any different?
Whatever you do, don’t stop making the Vibe which is perhaps the best single brand you currently make ~ especially for today’s market.
It’s hard to say why you haven’t pushed the Vibe more ~ perhaps it’s because of the Vibe’s Toyota heritage, but the Vibe offers much, and could be a huge success with the right marketing.
GM please listen to me. Combine Saturn with Pontiac and call them Opels. Leave the G8, Vibe, VUE, Sky/Soltice (rename it GT), bring the Meriva and Corsa or Agila. OH and PLEASE bring the Inignia (maybe it show be know as the Vectra) this WILL sell cars in the US.
Hi,
I’m happy to see that GM decided to keep it’s best division (Buick) and I hope that good things will happen to Buick. With less focus on Pontiac, Maybe Buick could get nice RWD cars again in North America. Since they already exist in other markets, it shouldn’t be such a big deal!
I own a few Buick, Chrysler and Toyota and Honda products. All of them are RWD and If I could get any new RWD Buick, I’d might trade my RWD imports for a new Buick!
I wish GM good luck with this plan.
I’m extremely excited to see the Cruze offered with a 1.4L Turbo as the most fuel efficient engine… AND the LaCrosse offered with an Ecotech 2.4L.
I’m also glad to see the downsizing of the company and removal of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab.
Maybe GM gets it after alll…
“I’m extremely excited to see the Cruze offered with a 1.4L Turbo as the most fuel efficient engine…”
But Nate, where’s the turbo-diesel? And they also seem to be determined to stick with that awful name — Cruze.
I read your repoert and I am sad to say I am truly disapointed. The more I read the more I am convinced thay you guys have no idea how to run a car company. You are too willing to compromise when it comes to product develepoment. You are too busy
changing names instead of changing the way you do business. You have a habit of putting forth a decient effort in your high end vehicles and igniring the rest. Every vehicle you make with an automatic transmission should have six speeds or better. They should have the best build quality,the best interior, the best performance,the best gas milage. In othe words in every conceviable catagory in a comparson test your vehicles should come out number one. It seems to me for some odd reason you do not see the value in that. I know you are blaming your current problems on the current finacial crisis. But you have not seen the value in these ideas in several generations. If you had seen the value in this perhaps you would not be in the dire strairs you are in now. That being said it still seems that you have no clue of how to get yourself out of this mess that you helped create by not sweating the details. Although several good suggestions have been made by several people,such as extending your warrenty to cover the entire vehicle,making your vehicle the best in class in coparson tests, no compromise in product development,stopping the constant name changing,getting rid of the stupid names,and list goes on. Mabe the board of directors need to fire all of upper management and hire the people from ford. They seem to be doing a much better job across the board. I do’nt know what the answer is . But unforetantly it seems neighter do you.
Is there any chance someone will file felony charges against GM for what they did to Saab? Will Rick Wagoner have to appear in the International Court of Justice in The Hague for killing a great — but somewhat eccentric — brand?
Can anyone explain why GM bought Saab in the first place and what their business plan was? In case you missed my point above, it’s criminal what GM did to Saab.
“Mabe the board of directors need to fire all of upper management and hire the people from ford”
The real question is – when will an executive ever have to take responsibility for a bad decision that was made? I’m betting on never if you work at GM. And unless this changes, the same bad decisions will keep being made. Unfortunately, the BoD doesn’t ever seem to question the decisions or direction the company is headed. I agree completely that most of top management needs to go. Perhaps that will be a condition of the impeding bankruptcy.
And of the 10,000 salaried employee layoffs announced the other week, how many will be from the executive and management ranks? I think GM could have a bright future ahead, but it needs someone else to come in and clean house and bring in people who are actually in touch with the reality of the situation to get on the right track.
Gunter Navarro, Pontiac uses an arrowhead, not an indian head. They also seem smart enough to realize that they don’t have to cater to those incredibly few overly sensitive people out there, and thus have refused to change their name… again (Pontiac was originally called Oakland). I applaud GM and Pontiac for this, and honestly wish more people and companies would ignore those very few over sensitive people.
ed, GM isn’t going to make a new full line division. Right now they have three. Cadillac, B-P-G and Chevy, plus most of another one, Saturn and of course SAAB and Hummer which are not full line. With the decreased market, GM can really only have Cadillac and Chevy as full line, and B-P-G serving as niche vehicles that don’t really fit within C&C’s product lines.
“Pontiac uses an arrowhead, not an indian head.”
Chris R.
Looks like an Indian head to me. 1928 Pontiac Indian Head Mascot
I didn’t say they were using it now, I said they had for years used it — and they did.
I really see no need for Pontiac. It stands for nothing. To me Chevy equals Toyota full line up of cars and trucks. Buick could equal Lexus – refined conservative luxury. Cadillac could equal Mercedes or Audi – more dramatic high end luxury. I think GMC should be eliminated or just product commercial trucks and vans. So as a tax payer I advise only four divisions: Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC commercial. Please do a few things well and stop wasting our money.
I sure hope that this works out. I’m ready to see GM succeed like I know they can, and should. We believe in GM and the people running the show, and it is our sincere hope that this helps the company overcome the immediate obstacles and get back to being the great American car company that they always have been. So tired of seeing the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans take market share.
Best wishes with the new plans and we are pulling for you!
However this all shakes out, but especially if you end up with 3 or 4 “brands” of several badge-engineered or “platform shared” versions of the same things, you need to have the best possible warranty of any car company selling vehicles in the US, and you need to have strict oversight of customer service quality at the dealership level.
Saturn vehicles were never very impressive, especially after they all became rebadged captive imports, but the dealership model should be retained and improved upon.
Gunter, What was your argument again? I know you can’t possibly be complaining about something Pontiac hasn’t used in nearly a century.
I want you to succeed because it would cut my own throat if you didn’t. But, you have to STOP OUTSOURCING OUR JOBS!!!!!!! If you want to build and sell cars in other countries, then build and sell them in that country. You need to build ALL PARTS of OUR CARS in THIS COUNTRY!!!!! Your largest customer base in this country is your employees. If you keep outsourcing our jobs and getting rid of U.S. employees you lose your largest customer base. It doesn’t take an economist or financial director to figure that out. I have bought 17 new GM cars since 1981. I plan to continue to buy more, but if you outsource my job I will never buy another GM car again. You have turned your customer base away because you gave them their walking papers. They are angry when you do that and you turn them away from buying your cars.
STOP ASSEMBLING AND PRODUCING PARTS FOR U.S. GM CARS IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!!!
One other thing we all need to do is push for nationalized health care. Health care costs are killing all U.S. companies. That’s one of the biggest reasons they outsource. Most other countries have nationalized health care.
O.K., I’ll try to keep this positive.
I LOVE the look of the Ampera! I think it’s better than the Volt because the front end treatment says “hey, look at me! I really AM different.”
The bottom line is that we’re in tough times that will most likely get MUCH worse before it gets better.
If economy of scale increases efficiency and lowers cost then producing 2 versions of the “Volt” with different skins is asinine. That’s the same type of CRAP thinking that got GM in to this situation. Different divisions competing with each other with the same product is DUMB. Why divide and conquer yourself?
Perhaps GM would not be able to afford this extravagance of 2 “Volts” if the corrupt politicians weren’t forcing the gullible taxpayers to foot the bill.
Anyway, GM it’s time to come in from Lala Land and make some sense. FOCUS! Build the Volt or the Ampera (I don’t care which). Make MANY copies and sell them at a reasonable price. You’re playing with MY money now so quit screwing around with multiple versions of the very same car and stop this old, tired game!
Build ONE Voltec version for each market segment: ONE 4-door sedan, ONE coupe, ONE light pickup, ONE crossover and maybe ONE minivan. THAT’S IT! It would be nice to have 4X4 available on the crossover and light pickup.
I’ love to learn so would somebody please explain to me why GM wants BOTH the Volt and Ampera and why that makes economic sense for GM, I’d LOVE to hear it.
(Is GM embarrassed to use the Chevy brand in Europe?)
“What was your argument again? I know you can’t possibly be complaining about something Pontiac hasn’t used in nearly a century.”
Chris,
GM has used the Pontiac Indian head more recently than “nearly a century.” I can remember seeing Pontiac dealerships with both neon and steel Indian head signs as late as the 1980’s.
I don’t really have a complaint, and I don’t have any special problem with political correctness myself. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I said perhaps GM should let the Pontiac brand die because of all the schools that have been forced to retire their Indian mascots.
After all, GM needs some reason to rid itself of brands and dealers.
I have a 2007 Saturn Vue and Chevy HHR, and I’m a loyal fan of GM. But in my humble opinion it would be better for GM to file a bankruptcy protection. GM cannot be a viable company anymore unless the legacy cost will be wiped-out. People would still buy car from a bankrupt company if they are made of good quality and has good warranty.
Speaking of viability, would you car to explain to me what in the name of God “Pontiac is Car” is supposed to mean? Are you kidding me? What is wrong with you? How could you possibly thing the public would hear this and do anything other than laugh or pass out? These people who came up with “Pontiac is Car” – do you actually pay them?
There’s a reason Sony’s motto isn’t “Sony is Device” and Kitchen Aid’s motto isn’t “Kitchen Aid is Blender.” Oooooh, how enticing.
Aside from the “Pontiac is Car” fiasco (the Aztec of marketing slogans, I swear), I do hope you guys survive this. You’re building some very nice cars now.
In my opinion you should retain a Pontiac/Cadillac RWD platform series and a Chevy/Buick FWD platform series, if you can afford it. If you can’t, then just Chevy and Cadillac. Chevy builds trucks too.
Merlin,
The Diesel is right next to all of the other diesels… On the trash heap created by the EPA and CARB that basically makes automotive diesels nonexistent.
Chico,
GM has been making Hybrid bus powertrains for almost a decade.
SteveG,
I disagree with you. The G series from Pontiac makes a lot of sense (from a naming standpoint). It clearly identifies where the products are in the series. Just like BMW’s 1,3,5,7 series do. Same goes for Lexus, Infiniti etc… I think GM put that scheme on the wrong car (it belongs on Buick).
I do agree that GM needs to bring Opel over to be offered as a european car.
Buick names are old and don’t fit the Vehicle (but that wouldnt’ stop me from buying a Buick LaCrosse).
I agree Cobalt is a better name then Cruze. But at least Cruze will be fresh and not get the bad wrap to follow it that Cobalt has now.
Warranty is a HUGE issue with GM… that NEEDS to change.
Merlin Caine,
The Diesels are no where to be found because GM likes to tell its customers what they want… that and they are too lazy to certify them for US use. OK maybe they aren’t lazy but thats how it appears sometimes…..
Trevor Bainbridge,
You mean GM took Saab and GMified it? Big surprise. GM seems to have the anti-midas touch.
Jeff,
I agree with you. I think GM could probably pull from these blog sites and a few other places and turn up better people then some of the ones they seem to have. Just my opinion.
Chris R,
GM shouldn’t have 3 divisions. They should have one!!
There is really no need for PBG. GM would be fine with Chevy, Buick, Caddy and maybe Opel.
Stan,
I agree there is NO need for Pontiac right now. I disagree whole heartedly on Chevy though. I think the brand is in no way comparable to Toyota. From looks to quality….
As for GMC not sure whether to drop them or not….
The other night I had an alternative idea to the Chevy, Buick, Caddy, Corvette idea….
Why doesn’t GM drop all but one model per brand. GM has enough brands that each brand could be a model name. For example Silverado becomes Chevy, Corvette becomes its own brand, So that when it was all said and done. Saturn, Saab, Opel, Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Caddy, etc.. would all have one model. When someone says “I have a Chevy” you know they have a truck… and when they say I have a Buick you know its the “LaCrosse”… no need for model names anymore. GM has way to many brands and too many models. Even at two cars per brand they’d be fine. The trick is to make GM the brand and Saturn, Saab, Opel, Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Caddy the models…. just a thought.
Kate,
Are you seriously saying that?
I agree that outsourcing is a bad thing. But if GM stopped outsourcing the cost of their cars would go UP by a few thousand. On top of that the concept that GM’s largest customers are its Employees seems somewhat foolish especially when it appears that most GM employees can’t afford new cars (at least from what I’ve heard).
Has GM really been spinning its tires just trying to sell a large majority of its cars to its employees (often at a discount)?
GM has turned its customers away by not producing models that people want to buy. And GM employees have allowed this to happen by producing them, designing them and marketing them without even a second thought. If GM employees were concerned there would have been a lot of change a long time ago.
I don’t see that though, I see GM and its employees living in a dream world where they think their products are the best. On top of that there existed a mentality that GM HAD to be #1 in sales in the world. Simply trying to sell quantity is foolish. Especially at the cost of quality.
I can respect and understand your want for national health care but look around the world, from a medical standpoint its not that great a thing. Are you willing to give up availability of quality health care service? I’m not.
Personally I don’t want nationalized health care. I don’t think healthcare should be promised. I pay quite a bit for my healthcare coverage and I am fine with that. I even have the option to opt out and buy my own OR switch to a different plan. Why would I ever want to give up that right with a nationalized plan?
I wasn’t born entitled to health care or even a job. It is a privilege to have both. If my health care goes up I will give other things in my life up to pay it. Perhaps you should consider not buying that new GM car and put the money into your own health care?? I’m not trying to be offensive just expressing my opinion.
The Treasury used $254 billion to buy stakes in banks and AIG. (http://www.propublica.org/article/watchdog-no-hank-you-didnt-get-a-good-deal-for-the-taxpayer) Why shouldn’t they use $50 billion to help GM? GM is responsible for3 million jobs, far more than the financial sector. As you know, if one goes down, the others are afftected too. Henry Paulson and Neel Kashkari squanndered most of the first $350 billion TARP fund.
Speaking of GOP, you should stop supporting these 4 GOP Governors – Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour and, Alaska’s Sarah Palin. They said they may refuse federal funding at a time when their states are in deep economic crisis
Bobby Jindal is a second generation Indian-American. He’s also a Catholic. The funny thing is he thinks he’s Obama 2.0 . What a joke! He will try to challenge Obama in 2012.
These GOP Governors are no more than partisan retards. I strong suggest anyone from those states stop their reelection.
I read in the plan that GM plans to reduce dealers in metropolitan and suburban areas, where too many dealers exist. The plan alsao says that the amount of distribution in rural areas is just right.
I live in a rural area, Jackson, CA, and have been served (well) by Prospect Motors, who has been in Amador County for some 35 years under the Halvorson family ownership. Before that ,
the GM dealer was owned by the Sausmon family dating back to the early 1940’s.
On December 19, 2008, owner Frank Halvorson closed the dealership after GMAC Financial Services cut off his inventory credit lines as he was 16 days late on his mortgage payment to them.
The new facility opened in 2007 just as the economy was beginning to slow. Prospect Motors was the biggest fleet dealer in the US at one time. Eighty people were out of work just five days before Christmas.
I have been buying GM vehicles (from Prospect Motors) for 25 years. My business and other family members have been buying GM vehicles for over 30 years (at Prospect Motors). I find it puzzling and disappointing that GM is allowing GMAC to close dealers in rural areas when Mr Wagoner has stated that rural dealers will be spared from closures. Also, Mr LaNeve wrote to our local paper stating that GM does not finance its dealers and “we hope Frank Halvorson is able to secure financing to reopen.” The nearest GM dealer from Jackson, CA is one hour away!! We cannot afford to take time off of work to travel one hour each way for warranty service work!!!!! GM YOU NEED TO HELP YOUR DEALERS!!!!! GMAC is DOING YOU NO FAVORS!!!!!! USE SOME OF THE BAILOUT FUNDS TO HELP YOUR PRODUCTIVE RURAL DEALERS!!!!!!
GMAC is telling Mr. Halvorson they will postpone some of his facility debt if he finds two million dollars and allow him to re-open!!! COME ON!!! DO SOMETHING TO HELP HIM!! Where the hell is he supposed to find that kind of money in this climate?!!! IF YOU WANT US TO CONTINUE TO BUY GM CARS THEN USE SOME OF OUR TAXPAYER’S (and customers) MONEY TO HELP PROSPECT MOTORS!!!
I feel betrayed and let down by General Motors since the closure of Prospect Motors. The company asks him to build a new facility and then when the economy tanks, lets GMAC do the dirty work and close him down!!!
I hope you watch CBS News next week. They have done a story on Prospect Motors and then GM executives will know how angry and betrayed we here in Amador County, CA feel.
P.S. I support the bailout. I want GM around. But if Prospect Motors doesn’t re-open with Frank Halvorson as the owner, I will no longer buy GM cars. Many people here in Amador County feel the same way. HELP PROSPECT MOTORS!!!! THAT’S WHAT YOUR CUSTOMERS WANT!!!!
What is being done to generate sales? Saving jobs, protecting pensioners, shuttering dealerships, eliminating product lines are all important but if you can’t persuade a consumer to buy a car during this economy, I could make a prediction how this will end. Seems to me that prices need to be drastically cut to be successful.
I ask, respectfully: When has GM Europe ever made money? Will taking on more debt “save” Opel and Vauxhall? Will Opel and Vauxhall ever profit enough to make that extra debt worthwhile? The population of Europe is aging and shrinking. Time to get out of Europe.
GM should take Vauxhall,Opel, and Saturn and consolidate the three different divisions. they should all sell the same product under the same brand name in different markets. Opel should become the surviving moniker/brand and the cost of the different brands is dramatically slashed.
This same principle should be applied to Chevrolet and GMC, they both sell the same product lines to similar core demographics but have different brands and dealership networks. Chevrolet and GMC should merge with Chevrolet being the surviving franchise.
Hummer and SAAB should be grouped together and sold to am emerging automaker looking for a foothold in several markets. With a little investment both Hummer and SAAB can become showpeice brands.
I personally would save Pontiac as its lineup does not overlap and caters to a sportier segment than any of GM’S other brands. I would keep Pontiac at least for the midterm and consider taking the brand international if GM’s fortunes improve, if the company still didnt reach profitability the brand most likely would have to be axed.
The above suggestions would cost way less than discontinuing a brand, that would involve dealer lawsuits and hefty costs of anywhere to $2-$3 billion as seen when oldsmobile was discontinued in the late 90’s.
Selling SAAB/Hummer
Consolidating Saturn/Vauxhall/ Opel into just the Opel Brand
Merging Chevrolet/GMC into Chevrolet
7 brands will be whittled down to two brands. clearer marketing and definition can be discovered and synergies will arise. the company will be on a solid footing with a more manageable company, poised for future growth. If this plan is not followed and GM decides to close brands and severely mismanage their divestment we might not see the company survive another three years.
“The Diesel is right next to all of the other diesels… On the trash heap created by the EPA and CARB that basically makes automotive diesels nonexistent.”
David,
You mean like the VW Jetta TDI that only this weekend received one of the best car reviews I’ve ever read?
Or the Jetta TDI that just received “Best car of the year award?” VV Jetta TDI Named ‘Best Car of the Year’ in Motorweek’s Drivers’ Choice Award
“The honor was bestowed on the Jetta TDI clean diesel in ceremonies at the Chicago Auto Show.”
“These people who came up with “Pontiac is Car” – do you actually pay them?”
Tom Castle,
No doubt the same people that GM paid to come up with the names “Cruze” and “Converj.”
The first thing the U.S. Government’s new auto industry oversight committee needs to do is sit Rick Wagoner down and say, “Now, about that stupid name ‘Cruze.’ Get rid of it! We may know little about cars, but we do understand stupid names.”
Nate -
When I don’t have that job that I don’t deserve I hope you enjoy paying my health care(Medicaid) along with your own insurance. You’ll also be paying my wages too: food stamps, unemployment and welfare assistance. I’ll have to let that car I don’t deserve and won’t be able to afford go back to the bank, so in a round- about way you’ll be paying for my car too.
BTW, what type of insurance benefits do you have? I just wondered what services they cover?
GMisCARKING,
Why shouldn’t they? I’m not sure. The only reason I object is:
1) GM has shown it isn’t interested in changing (evident in the past 10 years of car production).
2) Car sales globally have dropped off….. they haven’t shown they realize they need to sell less units and focus more of their resources on a smaller group (again evident in their mentality and past 10 years of business practices).
GM needs to cut back on job… have its face smacked (proverbially) and realize that the market has changed. Adjust to the new market, get back on its feet and work its way back to what it once was (annual units sold).
Those GM jobs are 3 million jobs (people) that could be doing more effective and productive things in society. Again where were they the past 10 years when GM was making money and doing well with no concern about how it would handle a sudden market turn? Of course those people weren’t complaining but were taking every benefit and dollar they could with no regard to the future of their company.
The States you mentioned have the right to refuse federal funding. Especially when you consider the strings attached.
How would you like to go to the bank and get a loan for a car that states “This loan is only good for Chevy Corvette, Pontiac Solstice. Additionally once vehicle has been purchased it can not be resold or traded in ever.” Meanwhile you need a truck and upon shopping for other loans realize no one else is offering a loan?
Are you going to take a loan that wont’ allow you to trade in for something you do need? Or are you going to do without and figure out another way to get a truck?
That isn’t to far off from what the federal loans are. The are some somewhat comical stipulations on them.
What would you suggest for new leaders of those stated? Because I surely agree with your feelings about partisanism. But I haven’t seen many elected officials that are worth the time it takes to hear them speak.
Paul Molienelli, Jr.
I don’t think Rick knows what his tail is doing (GMAC). Unfortunately if GM’s dealers aren’t selling cars and GM can’t afford to keep them open… some of them will have the misfortune of being closed down. How do you propose GM handle that?
Lets hope GM hears what you are saying.
Bruce,
You are right. Lets face it cars ARE expensive. For many people cars cost what their annual income is. Personally though I don’t mind spending money if I get some gain. But other then newness, no maintenance for a few years and a few luxuries what does a new car offer that my current 20 year old car doesn’t? I get 30 MPG highway, I get from point A to point B, I have working A/C, an OK stereo, heat that works etc…. and I only pay about $800/year to keep the car running (excluding fuel). What reason is there for me to buy a new GM? What does GM’s new cars offer that mine don’t? Looks? newness? What are people willing to pay for newness?
It is about more then just price it is about features, value and longevity .
Axel D,
I couldn’t agree more consolidate three brands into Opel.
What intelligent emerging auto maker would buy Saab and Hummer… and why would GM sell a foothold in the very market GM can’t compete in right now to an up and coming player? I guess you want GM to go down with their ship while helping other ships out?
Pontiac can go its appeal isn’t there except maybe the G8.
GM needs only 5 brands. Opel/Chevy, Buick, Cadiallac and maybe Corvette. And even further it could be Chevy, Cadillac and Opel. That would cover ALL their vehicle bases.
This is interesting. Those on the President’s “Task Force on the Auto Industry” who own cars, own mostly foreign cars: Auto team drives imports ~ Fed task force has few new U.S. cars
We could either consider them as traitors, or as having special insight. It may seem counterintuitive, but I’m guessing that probably means they will offer good oversight.
GMisCARKING:
Let me see if I understand this – you CRITICIZE 4 state governors for wanting to refuse “bailout” funds and actually do their jobs running their states on what their states alone produce for income??? No wonder you voted for Obama. Congratulations – you’ve elected a guy with absolutely ZERO executive leadership experience at ANY political level. He never chaired a committee in the Senate and as an Illinois Congressman, he actually skipped over 90% of his committee’s meetings. Obama never proposed a significant piece of legislation in his entire career, only signing on to sponsor bills after he was reasonably sure that they were “popular” enough to be approved or that he wouldn’t take significant political damage from doing so.
Since being president, he has in a period of ONE MONTH spent north of $1 TRILLION that the country does not have in the budget. He freely admits this, with no plans to raise additional revenue in the future in order to pay for this debt. To give you some idea, he SINGLE HANDEDLY in the span of ONE MONTH raised the CUMULATIVE national debt by 15%. That’s right, he spent more money that we didn’t have in one month than any president in history, including George W. Bush who will probably go down as one of the worst sitting Presidents ever.
Given the theme of your comments, I’m surmising that you are a huge fan of Rick Wagoner and his poor fiscal policy for GM, a big fan of the UAW and their broken model of stiking and extorting money out of automakers, and the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington D.C. in general that catered to pet projects and special interests for the last 40 years rather than investing in the infrastructure of this country.
The problems facing GM and this country are real. A government bailout isn’t the answer, and neither is all of the pie-in-the-sky promises of future products. The future is built on the success of today, using dreams as a guide. If GM cannot come up with a plan to actually be competitive from a cost, design, engineering, production, and execution standpoint, then Chapter 11 bankruptcy or a Federal Bailout will just delay the inevitable. The plan that they’ve shown everybody is window dressing – nothing more. The real plan is to dramatically cut costs including labor rates, benefits, and shuttering unutilized or underutilized assets. After that, converting bondholder debt to equity is a priority, as is finding a way to legally underfund the VEBA and shut down dealers at the local level without having to pay exhorbitant settlements since the dealers are protected by stringent state laws.
GM has the product to succeed in its 2010 lineup – the revenue will be good even at a sales level of 10 million vehicles a year for the US market. The question is whether GM can get the costs in line to be able to produce profits to sink into those future vehicles. This plan doesn’t get you there.
Gunter,
Get your facts straight: the Pontiac Motor Car Division was named after the city of Pontiac, Michigan, where they were originally produced.
If you’re so sensitive to the native American’s rights, petition their city hall to change the name of the city first.
“Get your facts straight: the Pontiac Motor Car Division was named after the city of Pontiac, Michigan, where they were originally produced.”
Joe D.
That must be the reason that for decades Pontiac had a hood ornament that was the head of Chief Pontiac instead of a bas-relief of a city, right?
And also why Pontiac dealers prominently displayed steel and neon signs on their buildings and car lots showing the stylized head of an Indian, instead of the stylized skyline of a city, right?
GM advertises on Sean Hannity and Rush’s shows, I wonder what would happen to sales if the #1 and #2 nationally syndicated shows were impacted via the Fairness Doctrine?
I was glad to see that GM is still planning a viable truck division. Some of us still need pickup truck, regardless of fuel prices. Next step: let’s get a Solid Front Axle under the HD trucks. The new 2010 Super Duty and Dodge Ram redesigns will retain the heavier duty suspension design.
GMisCARKING -
I’m with you. Let them politicians do whatever they feel they need to do for “themselves”. The will soon find out where it gets them. I just feel sorry for the people of their states that have to suffer for it. Louisiana has already suffered enough. I took 2 weeks of my time and went to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina yet their own Governor refuses to help his own people. Sad, sad, sad.
I take offense to the person that said the other governors haven’t been doing what they need to for their states and that’s why they need the money. I live in Michigan. We all know we are #1 in unemployment in the nation; however, our state deficit is 8th down the list from being the worst. We have lost nearly 700,000 and all that revenue, but our Governor has kept us afloat very well with what she has had to work with. It’s OUR money; therefore, why shouldn’t we take it back to help people from living in the streets and starving to death. The town I live in here the unemployment is 24.4% with an unemployment rate of 15%; that was in January, it’s gotten worse. There are NO jobs, not even minimum wage. Businesses are folding left and right. Home foreclosures are out of control now. I have lived in my neighborhood for 22 yrs. and have never seen an empty house until 3 yrs. ago. I can’t sell my house (which is almost paid for), who will I sell it to? Where will I go? Where will my neighbors go? What will they do? So, don’t anyone tell me my Governor isn’t doing all she can do with what she has!!!!
Therefore, GMisCARKING I be right there with you caring about ALL of my fellow Americans whether they care about me or even themselves.
Love thy Neighbor???? God Help Us All.
New motto for Saab:
“Born from jets ~ killed by General Motors”
“No wonder you voted for Obama. Congratulations – you’ve elected a guy with absolutely ZERO executive leadership experience at ANY political level. He never chaired a committee in the Senate and as an Illinois Congressman, he actually skipped over 90% of his committee’s meetings. Obama never proposed a significant piece of legislation in his entire career, only signing on to sponsor bills after he was reasonably sure that they were “popular” enough to be approved or that he wouldn’t take significant political damage from doing so.”
And I’m real sure that had Mccain and that joke of a running mate-Palin gotten elected, we would be in so much better shape, right? The Republican party has become a group of clowns, who also in my opinion came dangerously close to turning the US into a theocratic, religiously governed country. Its no joke that Palin thought teaching creationism was idea for public schools. Its very dangerous to base a country’s well-being on religious fundamentalism.
Lastly, the problem we have now are decades old. It comes from a totally deregulated financial system. The largest contributors to political campaigns ( both parties) are real estate, financial, lending, and investment industry associations, which assured whoever happened to be in power at the time- whether it was Reagen, Clinton, Bush, and now probably Obama would look the other way while the financial system had a field day with our money. If you want blame, it goes all around, both parties, and those on Wall Street who didn’t use economic principle to base their decisions and instead looked only after their quarterly profits.
Nate,
Just to remind you, Corvette is part of Chevy and while mostly left to it’s own devices, is not separate from Chevy.
HotCarNut,
Well put. You hit the nail on the head mostly.
The only issue I have with using business models to run a country is the simple fact that this country is like a car. When it is new people like it, it feels new and great, but as it ages things slowly decline and break. You keep changing the oil and it keeps running until one day everything starts to not work. Then you have the choice of either fixing it or buying a new one or walking.
In much that way our country is long over due for an oil change. And at this point things appear to be on the beginning side of falling apart. Do we fix the broken country (and what will that cost) or do we come up with another plan.
If it is another plan what is that plan?
Of course the same goes for GM. Their 2010 lineup is good… My opinion is that 1/4 of their proposed models will do well….
As to Mr. Obama… he has managed to get more through Congress in a month then anyone else I know of in history (good or bad…. not sure). As President Clinton said in an interview on Fox news “If he could pass things that quick…. he can change them after the fact”. I’m not sure whether to be worried or not by that concept… I guess only time will tell.
But again all of your points are valid. Do you offer an solutions as suggestions?
Joe D, Clevland OH and Gunter Navarro,
Isn’t that in the past? How long has it been since Pontiac used the Chief emblems? Let it die there…. we are looking at a new GM not resurrecting what once was … or so I thought….
James S.
No offense but why on earth would you want a solid axel on the front of a GM truck? One of the principle selling points of GM trucks to me is their smooth ride. Of course we don’t use our truck for anything more then towing heavy trailers. But if you want heavy load capacity or for some reason feel that real trucks only have solid front axels go buy a Ford or Dodge or a GM Commercial grade truck. Please let the rest of us who like our trucks continue to buy a truck with utility use and a nice ride.
Nate,
I do not want GM to lose their competitive edge but realize market realities will probably make brand sales inevitable. Hummer as a brand is facing steep sales declines and a stale and uniform product line. all cars are gas guzzlers and designed off similar platforms. GM is in a serious cash crunch and should sell this brand immediately. This brand requires significant cash investment that GM just doesnt have.
Saab also has been a lost brand for sometime. No one knows what this brand actually stands for and their cars do not resonate well in the american market. this brand would also need heavy investment. I stand by the plans I submitted earlier.
Opel/Vauxhall/ Saturn all merge into Opel. this would cut immense costs and avoid dealer lawsuits towards GM and could remove excess capacity from their management overlap and factory overlap.
GMC/Chevrolet- merge into Chevrolet. both these brands sell the exact same automobiles under to different brand names. It doesnt make sense from a business or cost standpoint.
Holden/Daewoo/Pontiac- Merge to form Holden. All these brands also sell the exact same products in different markets. GM could import 3-4 additional holden vehicles to prop up the former pontiac brand in the U.S.
Buick- If GM keeps this brand for the time being they must invest heavily and expand the line up from three cars to 8 cars and make this a full service brand. these changes combined will save billions in cost and overlap for GM. Hopefully management will realize this and use some of the suggestions.
Alex,
I don’t think GM has that much of a competitive edge at least where current products are concerned. Certainly I question just how much of an edge they have on the future with products like the Volt…. I’m not totally convinced they are as high tech as people think. Then again I am an engineer and fairly aware of what technology is available, its real world limits and what can be done in the future.
While I see your point in selling the brand… I think GM is better off just shutting it down, taking the loss etc… After all what sane company would buy a brand like Hummer in today’s market? It would be a losing investment. The car culture has changed in the US the past few years. It will never be the same as long as GM can’t take what is popular today and future-ize it.
Saab is a lost brand for one reason: They just aren’t competitive. They are a lost brand. They offer GM bland styling and features in a car priced about 15K to high. Last weekend I looked at CTSs and the dealer happened to have a Saab dealership as well. I looked at Saabs the vehicle size was right for a lot of people… the exterior styling wasn’t bad…. but when it came to the interior it was very blan and boring. I could go out and buy a VW or Audi and end up with a nicer car for about the same money. All Saab needs to do is realize the interiors need to be a bit more stylish not look like something from 10 years ago with modern radios in them.
That said I wouldn’t be sad to see Saab go….GM should combine them with Opel and rebadge them for now. If they gave Saab an Opel Insignia, CTS or LaCrosse or even a G8 interior treatment I think it would help sales. Then again when I hear Saab I think of a snobbish car that is over priced.
I think if you are going to start combining brands it should be Opel/Vauxhall/Saturn/Holden/Pontiac. Who cares what brands they share the fact is there are way to many cars. GM has Buick and Cadillac for high end. NO need for so many low end models.
As for Buick. 8 models is a really bad idea. they need no more then 4 models excluding SUVs. There simply isn’t room for that many cars in GM’s lineup. At most GM needs 10 cars and 4 to 6 truck/SUVs.
The fact is that GM needs to cut branding costs. There are to many duplicates… I bet if duplicates were removed they would have about 26 models.
Nate,
Everyone has different solutions on how to save GM, the reality is that management of the corporation probably wont even look at any of the good ideas that are discussed here and at other blogs.
The reason I favor combinations for the time being to see how holden and opel would do in the U.S. is because its extremely costly to just shutter a brand. back in 2000 when oldsmobile was phased out it cost gm upwards of $ 3 billion dollars just to shutter that one brand. One must think of dealer lawsuits, costs of factory closures and buyouts, etc.
I think the Opel brand and styling and some of their nicer european vehicles to be imported through the Saturn dealership network here in America could reinvigorate the brand at a low cost and would be better at least in the medium term for GM to test that model instead of a costly closure or sale of the saturn brand.
The reason I suggested the combinations I did is because each of those three brands sells the exact same products but in different countries, wouldnt it be great if GM consolidated its brands into Global power-brands? absolutely. On the flip side there are many different car models that Opel Europe sells that arent curretnly available through the current saturn dealership network. that could be a huge advantage and synergy to brand combination.
The Plan set forth takes 12 mismanaged brands and turns them into five powerhouses. The reason why Buick would need to expand their line-up is because they wont have sales from GMC or other cross brands to fall back on.
It would not be expensive to take several cadillac models and re-work them under the Buick brand, this would create a full service mid-market luxury brand.
Holden and Opel do well in their respective markets and have been much more keen on fashion and styling of their automobiles than GM has been as a whole.
Brand consolidation as a first step and obviously the sale of Hummer and Saab in the medium term as well. And you would also be surprised that I believe a few suitors and maybe private equity firms have actually been interested in the Hummer Brand. I believe if Hummer and Saab were grouped together in a sale that there would be much interest on a private equity front.
Turn Saab into a futuristic stylish brand and take Hummer and replace the powertrains with Hybrid engines and you reinvigorate both brands. GM doesnt have the time or money to spend on these two out of their 12 mismanaged brands.
My ideas are obviously just that and there are more ways forward than what I had mentioned, but in terms of cost and creating a strong entity my plan goes alot further than many I have seen, it remains to be seen what GM’s actual game plan is though.
These forums are actually excellent.
“the reality is that management of the corporation probably wont even look at any of the good ideas that are discussed here and at other blogs.”
The reality: GM needs to make cars that people want to buy and that people will pay more for than what it costs GM to build them. It’s a simple business model.
It boils down to product, product, product.
Unfortunately, GM has the horrible legacy of more than three decades of poor product they must overcome.
I actually think over the past two years GM has made monumentous strides in reinvigorating their product line, of course their products are not all completely updates or relevant but over the past 2-3 years there were many important vehicle launches such as the Enclave, Lucerne, Malibu, and several new high volume vehicles across their entire line up. There is a problem however that there are still currently too many behemoth SUVs across the board at GM that are probably costing the company way more to make than they are actually making the company in volume.
There is only so fast you can move with cars as the development and design phase takes nearly 12 months and each new cars development costs can easily exceed $ 1billion dollars. so the important thing before the company keeps pouring their resources into building cars for their failing brands would be to massively consolidate as I have mentioned on these blogs several times.
The brand consolidation I had mentioned would likely only cost the company $3 billion or less in total and would create a completely reinvigorated corporation. then and only then can you begin to develop marketing strategies and new cars for the different line ups.
their resources are spread too thin amongst 12 brands and the reality is that they are running a much larger company than their U.S. Market share warrants. so until these consolidations occur and factories producing the same exact car models under different brands become whittled down, they will consistently have the same problems.
And if GM chose to shut just one brand alone it would most likely cost $ 4 billion dollars with dealer lawsuits, UAW contracts, closing of factories, etc. It is important that they try the least expensive and most beneficial steps first, then focus on product after their brand and marketing identity is found again.
I think there is much that the company needs to focus on at one time after years upon years of neglect but the one item they have steered clear of that could really lead to savings and save the company is the brand consolidation. 12 brands become 5 powerhouses, then move from there.
Alex D,
I agree on the power brand idea…. however I think duplicate cars across GM is the problem. Mayb combine Buick into Caddy and treat them as Caddy/Buick (or Buick/Caddy alphabetically).
Even combine Saab in there…. just upscale the interior or lower the price. Lets face it Saab is GM’s closest competition to VW.
To bad GM doesn’t have people like us brainstorming for them… oh wait they do they just don’t listen…. It is a shame I’ve heard some pretty pathetic things said on this thread…I can see why GM has issues right now.
As to the law suits….. to heck with it cut them lose spin them off and let the employees figure it out. If they want all the benefits and think they can do better then GM let them. It is in some regard sad to hear that GM can’t even do business because they’ve been paralyzed from the neck down by its employees. How foolish is it for employees to insist on things staying the same and forcing the company into bankruptcy? I don’t know if it were me I’d take the pay cut and save the company or bail and go elsewhere….. just my opinion I suppose.
Edvard
“And I’m real sure that had Mccain and that joke of a running mate-Palin gotten elected, we would be in so much better shape, right? The Republican party has become a group of clowns, who also in my opinion came dangerously close to turning the US into a theocratic, religiously governed country. Its no joke that Palin thought teaching creationism was idea for public schools. Its very dangerous to base a country’s well-being on religious fundamentalism. ”
I don’t think that McCain was a better choice, just a different one. That’s the problem. We only had 2 options and both of them stunk for different reasons. Obama is great public speaker who in reality is a big ticket spender with zero leadership experience and very little political credibility either in the US Congress or overseas. McCain represented a continuation of a lot of the foreign policies that have made the US a target for terrorism and an international punching bag for countries who dislike the success we enjoyed in the 20th century.
I care about seeing the US rebuilt to be sustainable economically, socially, and environmentally. I believe that companies like GM are on the right track in regards to technology, but that the US government has for years shot itself in the foot. The EPA, NTSB, CARB, IIHS, etc all regulate various aspects of automobiles making it nearly impossible to have a unified and cohesive set of regulations for all manufacturers to follow. The US government has done an incredibly poor job of negotiating trade agreements leading to open US markets for foreign manufacturers while large vehicle markets like Japan and Russia are essentially closed to importation. The US government (as well as state governments) have refused to invest appropriately in infrastructure over the last 40 years. We now lag most nuclear nations in the production of electricity from nuclear power and we also lag in % of power delivered by green or renewable sources. Instead we use coal which is the most polluting form of energy production. There has been no movement on mass public transit for regional or cross country trips (ie – high speed rail and bullit trains ala Japan and Europe). Instead our answer is to drive our individual cars everywhere dramatically increasing pollution. The government actually caused the most recent credit crisis when Bill Clinton lowered the standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend to low income individuals to try and promote home ownership. To make things worse, both Clinton and Bush then turned a blind eye to Wall Street and the financial shenanigans that were occuring in order to lend to these folks at a profit. A shadow banking system which had always existed suddenly ballooned into the trillions of dollars and got completely out of control.
My point is this: the government (and the politicians like McCain and Obama) got us into this mess and the bailout won’t get us out. In fact, it will make things worse and prolong the recession by allowing companies to teeter on the brink when they should be allowed to fail, enter bankruptcy, and either reorganize or liquidate. The US Government would have been much better off providing financing assistance to the re-organized companies. At least then, the investment would have been made in companies that would have a chance to survive and prosper, and the US Government could have actually gotten a return on the investment. The infrastructure issues facing this country are vast, and will require a public-private partnership to successfully bring the US back to the top of the class. Manufacturing, energy production, transportation, and building standards all need to be addressed. Obama’s package doesn’t do that effectively – it merely throws a lot of money on the table and hopes that it stops the bleeding.
Nate:
My suggestion would be simply this: If we’re going to invest $1 Trillion let’s do it on the infrastructure of this country with some clear-set goals in mind. The goal for all improvements should be to decrease carbon based emissions, increase ease-of-use, prepare for increased electrification, and lay the foundation for a variety of renewable energy technologies.
With that in mind, my suggestions would be:
1. Streamline the regulatory process for nuclear power plants, consolidate power into the EPA only, and set national building standards that all states must use as a minimum for energy efficiency and green building.
2. Approve several “common” designs that are expandable to make it cheaper and faster to build nuclear power plants. Currently they are all entirely custom and unique, which coupled with the regulatory approval process makes them incredibly expensive, labor intensive, and time-intensive to build and operate.
3. Overhaul the electrical grid. This has been talked about, but there really haven’t been many advances in the last 50 years. With the increasing electricity needs to fuel automobiles and transportation of all types, as well as natural gas heat in homes slowly being converted to electric heat, the grid will not be able to keep up. This investment is paramount, large, and will require a LOT of oversight to ensure that the utility companies hold up their end.
4. High Speed rail network. I live in Indianapolis, and any time I want to go to Chicago, Cincinnati, Lousiville, Nashville, Detroit, Cleveland, etc I have to drive my car. It doesn’t make sense from a cost standpoint to fly and there aren’t many trains that run for passengers. Those that do, they are generally older, slow, and mostly empty. High-speed trains travel at speeds up to 200 mph which means that I could hop on the train in Indy and be in Chicago in an hour or thereabouts. It’s nearly 3 hours to drive, and then you have to pay to park.
5. Green Federal Buildings. This is one part of the plan that Obama put out that I like and agree with. The GAO has been tasked with making Federal buildings more energy efficient, but never had the budget to do it. Now they’ve got some funds. I would take it a step farther by adding solar cells on top of turf roofing systems to improve energy efficiency and help to generate additional clean power. In areas where solar doesn’t make sense, utilize wind generation to help power the buildings. Set an example and lead the way.
These are just the first steps, and they are only first steps. This country needs to make a commitment to investing annually in the infrastructure that made us such a vibrant economy in the first place. The highway system is crumbling in places, bridges and overpasses need to be replaced, the current rail network needs a major upgrade to be able to haul more freight more efficiently and to more destinations, and remedial action needs to be taken to help minimize the environmental impact of a large number of abandoned industrial sites nationwide. These are national issues, not just state and local ones, and they are keys to building the infrastructure that supports our economic engine.
The last I checked, the UAW’s median wage was higher than the median wage of the general population in the US.
Why should people with lower wages subsidize people with higher wages? Does that make any kind of sense?
HotCarNut,
Lets be clear on something. For the most part the whole political system has become a joke. We need leaders with the technical know how to actually do things done. Not just people with their head in the clouds dreaming. We need people who know what can and can not be done with current technology. And who understand how things work as systems. Not people who are thrown into such an important task on shear publicity by the unknowing masses.
In all honest I don’t think the US has what it takes right now to rebuild… there is to much house cleaning to be done to get rid of problems. I personally think there is nothing wrong with cleaner cars. Reality is that at some point cars need to be made cleaner.
The real solution to the US auto problem is tightening up imports and the sales of foreign owned/designed cars. If the US were serious about its own industry it would mandate a requirement for all major operations for that company be in the US.
Do you really think the world needs more cars? I think the market is approaching an early saturation point. Selling cars in other countries isn’t as easy or smart as it once was.
I completely agree that we need more nuclear power plants in this country and less fossil operated ones.
Not only is coal the most polluting form of energy it is also the most environmentally destructive to obtain (especially once mines start running low and strip mining is started).
Again I agree on mass transit systems (another potential business for the General). I think a countrywide high speed train would be a great addition to the nation and would create jobs.
I agree they should have waited until companies filed bankruptcy to offer assistance. Companies need to learn to not operate in a foolish manor. What reason is there now?
As to your suggestions:
1) Be careful putting the EPA into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission territory. Unless you are familiar with the NRC you probably don’t understand the kinds of things they do and in some sense how effective they have been at keeping nuclear power safe.
1A) A national efficiency standard for buildings is a no brainer. They also need to offer assistance for people interested in bringing their buildings up to standard. One principal argument is that such things will dramatically increase the cost of buildings. But updating all buildings will make jobs and it will level that playing field on residual values of these buildings.
2) In order to standardize a few designs you would have to break through some heavily entrenched industrial giants. For safety reason they can’t all be the same, but a common design would be helpful (though several currently are that way in the US). The problems usually come with unique local regulations and geographic limitations that make each plant custom.
3) Totally agree… though I think heating homes can be done more greenly.
4) What we need are super high speed trains (300 MPH) that make an east to west or a north to south trip as quick as ACTUAL airport times (you know that time you get there early until the time you arrive at your destination). There really are no good reasons (from a technical standpoint) we can’t put in such a system. Not to mention the energy savings of not flying. The energy to power the train could be produced from various power types and trains could even be equipped with car carriers with chargers (for Volt like cars).
5) I agree. There was an example used by I think FedEx where a few million dollars was spent on solar power for their distribution warehouse. The system paid for itself in energy savings in only a few days.
The problem is even simpler then a commitment. The country has to actually want to improve and then be willing to go do it. Much of which hasn’t been that way since WWII or before. Today’s retirees are much to focused on their retirements (which last I checked aren’t worth much anyway) rather then the future of their country and children.
At some point America needs to stop counting dollars and start counting new accomplishments.
Nate:
1. In regards to the EPA, I wasn’t proposing that they take over the role of the NRC. Rather I was proposing that they be the sole governing body for clean air and emissions standards. Right now, a variety of different agencies at both the federal and state levels contribute either directly or indirectly to the standards. This makes it time consuming and expensive to figure out what the standard is, let alone meet it.
2. Exactly my argument that certain regulations need to be homogenous. The local regulations for power plants are ridiculous and lead to dramatically increased costs. That’s why a national building code should be enforced, not just for commercial and residential, but also for industrial and power generation. We’re the only country in the world that has over 100 different regulatory bodies all with differing standards, and that’s before you get to the county and town level. It’s completely inappropriate, and creates a bureacratic nightmare adding time and expense to every project.
I think we’re definitely on the same wavelength in regards to where the country needs to go. It’s just frustrating to watch a group of self-interested morons (yes, I really believe that a chimpanzee could do a better job) run the country into the ground and call it progress.
HotCarNut,
1) Is there ever anything our government does that is efficient cheap or quick (beside spend a trillion dollars) (wow saying a trillion dollars actually doesn’t sound like a sarcastic thing anymore… I guess that is because it is a real number not something unimaginably huge).
2) That is because we are the only country that seems to be able to give localities their own freedom to do as they want independent of whether it is a good idea of not. As an engineer though I find it hard to imagine that we could ever get away from local laws. They do something useful in regulate situations better and more quicker then federal authorities can. It would be tough to totally do away with them.
I’m not sure I agree with you on our leaders. I do agree that they in some regard are being foolish. But there is a sign of intelligence there. The problem seems to be the majority of people being ruled don’t seem to understand the long term out look of things and reality as it really is. Additionally I’m sure you will agree that running a country like a business (based purely on profit) is a long term way to run a country into the ground. If it weren’t for people wanting to do things nothing would get done. Factor in cost savings attitudes and all of a sudden nothing gets done.
What is your take on that?
Ouch! Just read this on Reuters. Last week Saab, this week Opel.
“Opel, the German division of General Motors, held a supervisory board meeting on Friday, during which the company decided to restructure its business. The idea is to split off Opel into a separate unit…”
Nate,
I don’t believe that a government should ever be run like a business or a for-profit entity. However, the country does need to be fiscally responsible. The national government is responsible for “the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity”. I personally take that to mean that spending should be in a couple of categories: national defense (bases, troops, R&D, weapons, support platforms, etc), general welfare (highways and other large scale infrastructure items that benefit the entire country and are too costly to be born by any given city or state alone, regulatory agencies such as the EPA and SEC, and federal crime/intelligence such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA), and good relations with other nations, especially in trade.
Notice – there are a LOT of government agencies not listed on there. Social Security needs to be addressed (we can thank FDR for that one), and Medicare and Medicaid should be addressed along with a national healthcare policy. However, those aren’t the primary jobs of the Federal Government. People tend to forget that. In the Consitution, the majority of powers rests with the states. Time they stepped up their games as well.
Name one brand from GM (excluding Saab, Opel and maybe Holden) that I as a European driver would ever consider! I hope that this crisis will make it possible for GM to at least produce one single at least fairly good car. Good luck guys, you need it!
“Name one brand from GM (excluding Saab, Opel and maybe Holden) that I as a European driver would ever consider!”
Corvette?
Johan:
Here are just a few for you:
Chevrolet – the Cruze, the Malibu, the Spark, the Orlando, the Camaro, the Corvette (only if you had taste and class), and the new Equinox
Pontiac – Vibe, Solstice GXP Coupe (Europeans love little runabouts), G8 GT – beats the BMW 5 series in everything except the snob factor
Buick – LaCrosse – think of the Opel Insignia with a nicer interior, Enclave – even Europeans have families and a few have taste too
Cadillac – CTS & CTS-V – you can smoke a BMW and drive something that Chis Bangle hasn’t Bungled.
Hummer/GMC/Chevy trucks – well, we could let you drive the big boy trucks, but quite frankly you don’t have the skills to handle a vehicle that could quite literally run through a brick wall and then tow the building away, cross deserts without breaking a sweat, or rock crawl over Stonehenge. Same reason that Chrysler doesn’t ship you many Jeep Wranglers or Dodge Rams. Europeans are a danger to themselves and others even on a Vespa. We don’t feel it would be morally responsible to give you something with real capability until you learn to drive and respect the power of the vehicle you’re driving.
I think the better question is, why should we be surprised that you would buy a bunch of brands that can’t hack it in the US market – the largest vehicle market on the planet? Why do you think that American automotive brands should cater to European tastes? After all, that’s why GM has Saab, Opel, Vauxhall, and Holden – to cater to regional tastes and preferences. The core GM brands are about catering to American consumers. Once you answer that, you can go back to sipping your espresso and reading the anti-American propaganda that gets published as “news” in Europe.
HotCarNut,
I’m not sure I totally agree with you on the roles of government. I think the government needs to also be there when companies (ie the collective people that run them) are to self interested to do what is right for the masses.
Secondly I agree with Johan. US cars do not easily fit into the European markets because of size and power options. Most of GMs top cars I don’t think would cut it in Europe for one reason or another.
I honestly don’t see how you can say we don’t ship trucks, or jeeps over there. Many roads aren’t cut out to handle them. Not to mention they have the likes of Landrovers over there anyway….
What brands can’t hack it in the US market? The ones that have never been sold here?
Lets get real for a second if anything American brands aren’t hacking it in the American market anymore. If this weren’t the case ALL THREE of the big THREE wouldn’t have underwent major product development efforts to dig their reputations out. There is a reson that Toyota, Honda, VW, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes have been doing well over here. And it isn’t because they are American. It is because they offered a product that people wanted. Something up until recently American cars weren’t doing.
I’m not sure where your semi-elitist attitude comes from but Europeans are far ahead of many americans in their cars. When it comes to trucks… Americans probably are a head.
Why should we cater to European tastes? They aren’t. US customers (not all but quite a few such as myself) want European styling.
Your argument about catering to American consumers appears to have a few holes in it. After all US products in the past few years (and in the not so distant future) are all more european looking (except maybe the Camaro).
The Reason GM has Opel, Vauchall and Holden isn’t just to cater to tastes. It is a matter of circumstance and happenstance. Coincidentally many of those brands are the same cars with different names. I have no doubt that GM bought them and over the years they converged to be mostly the same product. Now as we look at Holden and Opel we see several overlapping cars (same goes for Pontiac’s G8). Don’t you find it interesting that parts of the G8, Buick LaCrosse and Chevy Cruze were all designed in europe and not America?
Time to wake up and see the new reality of American cars (its called European styling).
“We don’t feel it would be morally responsible to give you something with real capability until you learn to drive and respect the power of the vehicle you’re driving.”
Be careful there HotCarNut. Have you ever driven on an Autobahn legally at 240 kph (149 mph)?
As much as you may be proud of GM cars, only a handful could keep up with a BMW or Daimler on the Autobahn. For the most part, European cars are engineered to handle extremes ~ from the narrow winding streets of small villages to unlimited speeds on the Autobahn that U.S. cars are simply not designed to handle, because there is no need to.
Unless you have driven in Europe, I suggest you not be so jingoistic.
Nate:
The point of my little rant at Johan was really the last paragraph. The American brands in the GM umbrella are predominantly designed for American drivers and American tastes. Period. GM has European brands to design vehicles for the European market and European tastes. I think it was extremely absurd of Johan to ask what GM has to offer outside of its European brands. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EUROPEAN BRANDS!!!
Land Rover – How many Europeans can actually afford a Land Rover? Jeeps and 4×4 pickups are affordable by most of the population, and the Hummers aren’t too far above that and significantly cheaper than a Land Rover. They are also produced in significantly higher volumes than Land Rovers will ever be.
Now, as to the tastes of American drivers, I will absolutely agree that we are trending toward European design influence. Hopefully, we’ll trend toward Opel, Alfa Romeo, etc and stay away from Bangle’s BMW designs and Mercedes’ piss-poor design language (tangent – that’s really the best they could come up with for the C-class front end??? What happened to the GLK design? Talk about character lines that enduce seizures…..).
BTW – In full disclosure, I drive a MINI Cooper S and a GMC Acadia SLT. One’s European and the other is American. Both are great at what they do.
Nigel:
I can honestly say I’ve never driven 149 mph on the autobahn. That being said, outside of BMW, Mercedes, and a few select others, how many of the average European cars can do that? Most of the Opel lineup can’t do it stock. Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, Alfa Romeo (owned by Fiat), and Vauxhall have a couple of vehicles between them that are capable, but the bulk of them can’t and don’t hit 150 mph. It’s the same story in the US market – there are a group of sedans that certainly are made for excessive speed (Cadillac CTS, STS, V-Series, Lincoln MKS, Taurus SHO, Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger w/ HEMI, SRT8 versions of both). At the same time, there is also a group of cars made to fit in on small roads and tight spaces. The B & C-segments live here too, and a lot of manufacturers sell into it. Honda has the Civic and Fit, Chevy has the Aveo and Cobalt (soon to be replaced by the Spark and Cruze), Ford has the Focus and the Fiesta, Chrysler has the PT Cruiser, Dodge Caliber, Jeep Compass and Jeep Patriot, MINI has the Cooper & Clubman, Smart ForTwo, BMW 1 & 3-series, Pontiac Vibe, G3, and G5, Saturn Astra (same as your Opel Astra), Mazda 3, Mercedes C-class, Toyota has the Matrix, Corolla, Yaris, Scion XB, and XD, Audi has the A3 and A4, the list goes on.
My point is this: The best vehicles applicable to a given marketplace are what sells. Over the last 15 years both the Japanese as well as European makers have done well in the US market. They did that be only selling the products in the US that appealed to the US demographic. My beef with Johan’s post is that GM did the same thing in Europe, only they did it by purchasing European brands that had a historical presence. GM then gave those brands the global resources of GM to design and build cars that appealed to the European market. Most enthusiasts (myself included) gripe that the manufacturers don’t bring over some of their Euro-market vehicles. That doesn’t mean that they don’t produce those vehicles though, which is what Johan was implying.
Quite frankly, I probably shouldn’t have ranted like I did, but comments like his really piss me off. In my professional life, I deal with Europeans regularly (British, French, Italian, and Polish). I can honestly say that while most are very good people, there is a very continental attitude that whatever is European is best and that the US produces inferior crap. Johan’s comment was very much implying the same things while he conveniently excluded the GM brands that were specifically tailored to meet his needs.
HotCarNut,
I still disagree with you why does GM only need American Brand sin America. I think American brands have been behind the marketing curve for a while compared to other Euro offerings. GM really can’t afford all these brands (it should be obvious based on your response to the Pontiac and other blog posts here).
How many people europe really need Jeeps and 4X4 pickups?
I would buy an Opel any day of the week if I could actually buy one here. But GM has yet to import them and make them pass US laws without first changing the brand name on them (again foolish in my opinion). A Euro brand name will bring in people who wouldn’t normally buy GM. As long as people don’t hold it against Opel that they are owned by GM.
I have driven a few Euro cars.. some impress others don’t. I don’t want to buy a non GM… though if GM keeps it up eventually I’ll have no choice.
BTW I think your idea on AWD Pontiacs is great.. though I’d be happy to replace Pontiac AND Chevy with Opel. I think a nice mid to upper scale small car with AWD would be just what I’m looking for.
HotCarNut,
What do you do for a living? Just curious. It sounds like you work for GM.
Nate,
I’m an accountant by trade, and I work for a global real estate company (publicly traded). My interest in the auto industry is a labor of love.
As for importing Opels, GM does, they just don’t badge them as Opels. The Saturn Astra, Saturn Sky, Saturn Vue, and Saturn Aura are all Opels. In fact, the Outlook is the only non-Opel in the lineup. The new Insignia hasn’t been brought over yet, and won’t be brought as a Saturn since Saturn’s getting the boot. It rides on the Epsilon II platform, which also underpins the soon-to-be-released 2010 Buick LaCrosse.
I disagree about Opel replacing Chevrolet in the US. I agree that the Opel lineup is outstanding and fresh, but Chevrolet is a bedrock in the US. Doing that big of a brand switch (eliminating your household name in the process) would kill sales and seriously piss off the average American buyer. Of course, most of them would probably be pissed if they knew that their “Great American Brand” was named after a French national….
I chose to go the RWD/AWD route with Pontiac for a couple of reasons:
1. It is a huge differentiator within the marketplace and GM’s other brands which is key for a niche product.
2. It helps ensure that Holden and Cadillac’s RWD platforms will continue to get investment. It’s really incremental volume to help spread the cost of the platforms over, but is in a different pricepoint from Cadillac and Holden isn’t sold in the US market – therefore there is no overlap.
3. It keeps Pontiac from stepping on Buick’s toes as Buick is being positioned as the step up from Chevrolet into near-luxury FWD models. Buick and Pontiac are sold in the same dealership and shouldn’t compete with each other. Pontiac’s best shot at survival is keeping in line with its heritage: a performance oriented step-up from Chevrolet.
HotCarNut,
How long have you worked in the accounting industry?
I guess its good that people don’t know that Chevrolet is a french family name.
As to replacing Chevy… here’s my view. In order to win back all the import buyers I think GM needs a new brand name that isn’t associated with GM (and doesn’t wear the GM chiclet). I think a lot of people (including me) won’t buy a Chevy just because its a Chevy. GM needs to get a bunch of lost customers back.
I was unaware the Aura was an Opel…. seems to me like America just needs a new brand name to make everyone say “what is that” and make them take a second look.
I really hope the Insignia comes over. I think GM needs a small G6 sized car that has the features of the Insignia including AWD.
I totally agree with the AWD… it is ONE market GM has never hit before. And is one they need to.
But what about Opel replacing Pontiac and Saturn? Why not? Opel could be a luxury AND sporty brand depending on what you want.
I think Buick and Opel or Buick and Pontiac need to share a G6 sized high feature luxury car.
Though I suppose I’m not worrying about brand heritage because I think it is largely dead and car makers need to worry about making good cars and not heritage. If they make good cars the Heritage will follow them because they will generate a fan base.
Sadly, GM has a long road to hoe. These problems that they face began largely in the seventies and have snowballed into the mess that they are having problems overcoming now. Brand identities have always been problematic for them but did not affect the bottom line as much when, overall they had such a large market share. Now everyone in GM’s past and present is to blame. Everyone from labor all the way to the upper management. They spent years digging this hole and ignoring the red flags that were waving wildly in front of them. It will be very interesting to see how the next twelve months unfold for them.
“Sadly, GM has a long road to hoe.”
The correct phrase is: “A long row to hoe.” The expression comes from chopping cotton which was planted in rows and which people weeded with a hoe. On a hot day when one looked ahead at a particularly long row, the hoer might say, “Man, what a long row to hoe!”
I hope GM is not out there hoeing up any roads.
Zoomn,
If I had to make a prediction on the next twelve months. It would be this. GM will ax All but Chevy and Cadillac in the US… they will end up with about 6 car models, 4 Crossover models, 2 SUVs and 4 truck models total. The Volt will be around, the Cruze, The Malibu, Corvette, CTS, Sky (renamed a Cadillac), and an Opel Insignia badged as a Cadillac….. If you look at it these cars are their real sucess and the core of the new GM. I suppose they could offer the G8 and Camaro as well but I have my doubts on them in this market.
Nate:
I’ve been in accounting since 2003. Before that I was a consultant and analyst in the electrical industry.
Saturn was meant to be exactly what you talked about – a fresh brand not associated with GM in the minds of customers. In fact, to this day most customers don’t know that Saturn is a GM brand. The problem isn’t the brand name – it’s GM’s marketing (or lack thereof). GM tends to market vehicles, not brand image. They spend north of $350M on the marketing for the launch of the Malibu. However, they didn’t spend anywhere near that on the ENTIRE Saturn brand – a brand which had the freshest top-to-bottom product lineup (mostly straight from Europe’s Opel brand) of any of GM’s brands.
This brings me back to another point – Saturn already has Opel’s lineup (or a good chunk of it). What good would it do to invest over $1 Billion to re-brand Saturn as Opel? You’d be better off just using the money to build brand awareness in Saturn rather than having to spend $1 Billion for the name change and then another $1 Billion in marketing for Opel in the US.
Moving Pontiac to a FWD lineup is a disaster. Period. It would compete with Chevy on the low end, Saturn (if still around), Saab (if still around), and Buick all directly. Every product would overlap which is the antithesis of what you want for a niche brand. Niche brands are built on 3 things: unique product, brand image, and lack of competition in that niche. As a FWD lineup brand, Pontiac wouldn’t be a niche it would be a leach off of the other GM brands. As a RWD/AWD near-luxury brand, it would be in a niche all by itself.
HotCarNutt,
I’m not sure what the cost is to rebrand each car a saturn vs rebrand the dealers…. Honestly I see no need to its all about the advertising. Simply start announcing the New and Improved Opels only sold at the Saturn dealers (or only at the Saturn, PBG dealers).
No matter what GM spends on the marketing… if they are making new advertisements it doesn’t matter whether the logos are Opel or Saturn they cost the same. The real issue is putting up new signs at the dealers and uniforms etc… All the Saturn literature, and TV ads, and Radio Ads, Internet ads, magazine ads are all new anyway for each model car… so I don’t see the cost to be a big deal.. they are already spending it.
Now spending the money to reengineer plastics to take a square logo instead of a roundish logo seems more costly… anything plastic requires a new mold and last I checked they cost a lot of money. Again the rest like Owner’s manual isn’t a big deal…
So where is the cost going to come from?
Pontiac is already FWD.. the reason for that is because of development costs and the fact that most people don’t care about FWD vs RWD…. and RWD probably costs more and has the added disadvantage of needing a drive shaft tunnel which from an engineering point of view is a pain to work around.
You are 100% correct overlapping Niche brands are no good. Which is why I say ditch Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, and Saab and bring Opel in with a bunch of unique cars. Consisting of: Astra, Sky, New Aura/G6, Insiginia and G8 and the Turbo X from Saab.. that covers everything. With very little overlap with Chevy (who could continue producing the Cruze/Cobalt, Malibu and Corvette).
Cadillac should get all the RWD cars… and I guess Opel needs a few AWDs.. I’d love to see an AWD Astra and G6….
Again I say Opel, Cadillac, Corvette and GM Trucks be the new brand strategy from now on. Or Chevy, Opel, Cadillac…. even simpler…
Of course Cadillac needs small G6 sized RWD car with optional AWD… to complete with other small cars out there….
GM is in a tailspin regardless of our suggestions for reorganization or rebranding it seems as though even their european divisions of vauxhall and opel could be for sale or spun off from the company which severely hurts the future U.S. strategy of buick as an importer of re-badged Opels here in the U.S.
The massive selling of their brands will allow the import manufacturers of the chinese and indian market to become drastically more successful as well as gain an important foothold of the U.S. market, expand their dealerships, remake their line ups, and enhance their brands.
could you imagine an emerging automaker like tata motors getting their hand on SAAB for a song and dance, most likely could be had for less than $500 million. get factories, and international presence as well as access to the U.S. market in addition to their recently purchased Jaguar and Land Rover brands from Ford. sounds like the making of a new top dog in the automotive industry. they are launching relevant and inexpensive cars and have the access to massive capital. TATA can spend the time and money to take tarnished SAAB and actually fix it into a viable automaker, and could produce vehicles through their factories for the brand at a far lower cost.
Hummer also can be had for less than $500 million as GM has been asking that price but recieving little to no attention for the brand. if that line-up becomes completely hybridized and adds to their line up and core strength of military-esque vehicles and styles it can still have a market and thrive. if the same automaker purchased both Saab and Hummer, they could actually be successful with co-branding dealerships here in the U.S.
So essentially if a private equity can acquire Saturn,Saab, and Hummer for around $1-$2 billion it would be a massive bargain if they additionally had the funds to reinvigorate the business lines of those companies. these brands might be at a competitive disadvantage currently but with some tweaks and shifts of production an emerging automaker can begin using those dealership networks and brands to create a new wave of import competition for american automakers. clearly GM isnt thinking long term about their viability if they are SELLING these brands instead of SHUTTING DOWN those lines and dealerships. whoever ends up with those brands or combination of those brands will be able to increase their marketshare,reach, and viability of those brand names.
Good Luck, GM.