[sgarnett]

The Senate, UAW, et al, just gave up (ie failed) on reaching a compromise a few minutes ago.

I don't know how GM will come out after bankruptcy (they just hired the bankruptcy lawyer), but the stock market futures are looking ugly tonight. It actually held up well through some dismal recent employment numbers, but I suspect tomorrow is gonna be ugly. Rebuilding my retirement is going to mean austerity and no new cars for a very long time, and I suspect that will be true for many others. That can't be good for any automaker.

I'll admit I wasn't convinced that bridge loans to March could solve the problems for GM, so I don't claim to know what the right answer was. Nevertheless, this is going to be a big kick in the teeth for the economy.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Dec 12 2008, 04:07 AM

[killer_bluebird]

I'm surprise no one has said anything about the though that GM, Ford and Chrysler have also put their products in peril by diluting their brands. (if I missed a post mentioning this feel free to ignore my ramblings) I mean does GM needs to sell cars under the GMC, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Hummer, Buick, Saturn and SAAB Brands, especially when a lot of the cars are the same they just have different styling or options. I do understand that there is a sense of history attached to the names but I think they should consolidate brands. Why do I have to choose between a Saturn Outlook, Chevrolet Equinox, Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, and Cadillac SRX. It is not enough that a Brand has to compete with the other car companies offerings but do they really need to compete with other brands withing their own company? I mean if you offered only the Solstice and not the Sky you would be reducing costs by reducing having to tool, manufacture and stock parts for each of the 2 brands (personally I like the sky better but you get the idea). I mean when you look at Honda they have 2 brands Honda (economy, sporty and Mid-Scale) and Acura for (Upscale Luxury and sporty luxury) then you have Toyota/Lexus similarly. GM could be Saturn (economy), Chevrolet (Mid-scale and performance) and Cadillac (Luxury and Sporty Luxury). Ford maybe would look like Ford Brand (Economy, Mid-scale and performance), Lincoln (Upscale Luxury), Jaguar (Upscale Performance). I don't know but I think doing this makes a lot of sense as they can market their products better, increase quality (less money dedicated on variations for the different brands and spent increasing quality, fit and finish), and better use of manufacturing facilities by reducing the complexity of building different brands of vehicles based on the same underlying platform. That coupled with new labor agreements can move this companies into profitability in my opinion.


Edit by trackbird: Acura is Honda's upscale line (not Mazdas).

This post has been edited by trackbird: Dec 23 2008, 01:03 PM

[BigEnos]

I'm surprise no one has said anything about the though that GM, Ford and Chrysler have also put their products in peril by diluting their brands. (if I missed a post mentioning this feel free to ignore my ramblings) I mean does GM needs to sell cars under the GMC, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Hummer, Buick, Saturn and SAAB Brands, especially when a lot of the cars are the same they just have different styling or options. I do understand that there is a sense of history attached to the names but I think they should consolidate brands. Why do I have to choose between a Saturn Outlook, Chevrolet Equinox, Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, and Cadillac SRX. It is not enough that a Brand has to compete with the other car companies offerings but do they really need to compete with other brands withing their own company? I mean if you offered only the Solstice and not the Sky you would be reducing costs by reducing having to tool, manufacture and stock parts for each of the 2 brands (personally I like the sky better but you get the idea). I mean when you look at Honda they have 2 brands Honda (economy, sporty and Mid-Scale) and Acura for (Upscale Luxury and sporty luxury) then you have Toyota/Lexus similarly. GM could be Saturn (economy), Chevrolet (Mid-scale and performance) and Cadillac (Luxury and Sporty Luxury). Ford maybe would look like Ford Brand (Economy, Mid-scale and performance), Lincoln (Upscale Luxury), Jaguar (Upscale Performance). I don't know but I think doing this makes a lot of sense as they can market their products better, increase quality (less money dedicated on variations for the different brands and spent increasing quality, fit and finish), and better use of manufacturing facilities by reducing the complexity of building different brands of vehicles based on the same underlying platform. That coupled with new labor agreements can move this companies into profitability in my opinion.


Edit by trackbird: Acura is Honda's upscale line (not Mazdas).

At one time, GM had like 40-50% of the US market and they used all of those brands to cover the demographic. Obviously that's not a reality now that they are in the low 20% range of the US market. GM needs to cut models, dealers, and plants to be profitable. The unions make it tough to cut production capacity, and every division wants its piece of the pie, and who wants to close down a dealership?

One of the main problems with GM having so many different models and divisions is marketing. It's difficult to properly launch 4 different models when, like you said, they are essentially the same vehicle. Most people don't even know what a current Saturn looks like, which is a shame because I think they are some of the best looking cars GM is making now.