There are more and more companies competing for the same pie. It gets cut into smaller pieces as that happens. Marketshare goes down.
Not necessarily so. If a product is truly great, emerging competitors will have great difficulty in getting piece of action. Apple's Ipod comes to mind in holding onto large share of market in spite of number of competing offerings. Maybe GM's greatness of the far past had eroded to mediocrity that allowed new players with better product to take away share.
Maybe GM could have a catchy phrase and emphasize why GM cars should be favored,
GM might hire Mr Iacoca. He had some strong ads back in 80's that put his company on the line. Didn't he say something like, If you can find a better car than ours, then buy it.
Would GM be willing to put out that challenge to the US buyer? Would they want to encourage GM loyalists who never tried a Honda or Toyota or Hyundai to go look at and drive? Of course there is the danger that a lot of these folks would be honest with themselves and say,
"Hey, this Accord is really better than an Impala. Why did I have blind loyalty to a company. What do I owe to GM, or to any company for that matter. Don't I want the best product for my hard-earned money?"
And, on the other hand, the "Challenge" ad could get other loyalists (Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, etc) who may have never seriously considered a GM to tryout a new Saturn, Enclave, CTS, etc.
As far as jobs created/lost, I think that is muddy water. While it is true that Foreign investment is up and American investment is down, the Big 3 still employ more in America that the others do.
But, what have been the trends? US branded car companies have been downsizing US labor force while foreign brands have been building new plants and hiring US workers.
How soon will we have American brands built in China and imported into US? GM, as well as other car mfrs, have ventures/partnerships in China. Hasn't Chrysler announced they will build small cars in China and import to U.S.
I suppose GM loyalists will buy any GM brand regardless of where it is built, including China. It has happened before. People who bought American made and branded things from Sylvania, Magnavox, RCA, Zenith, etc continued to buy these brands even though they were no longer made in the U.S.
imidazol97: That's a fallacy in my evaluation of ad science also. The Honda ads appeal to youths' values which is usually "me"-oriented.
No doubt you hated GM adverstising efforts through the late 1970s, then...
You had a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. My parents had a 1976 Delta 88 Royale. Oldsmobile's tagline for its ads that year was, "Can we build one for you?"
Sounds pretty "me" oriented...and typical of GM's advertising efforts through the late 1970s. Nothing wrong with that - it worked in at least two cases, and, from I can divine from your posts, and what I remember of my parents' experience with their Olds, GM had at least two satisfied customers that year.
imidazol97: They show pictues of cute Hondas that will make a teener say "Wheee, I'd look good driving one of those." Nothing about the merits of or engineering of said vehicle.
What? The most recent Honda ad - which I saw on television last night - touts the fact that the company's fleet of vehicles has the highest average mileage among all the major companies. That sounds as though Honda is pushing one "merit" of its vehicles.
imidazol97: There are more and more companies competing for the same pie. It gets cut into smaller pieces as that happens. Marketshare goes down.
That would be true if sales were holding steady while the market expands.
But Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac are all well down in total sales from their peak years in the late 1970s. And in those years they didn't sell many cars to rental companies. Oldsmobile, of course, is gone - when it used to sell 1.1 million cars annually in the late 1970s.
GMC is well up, and Chevy is steady, based on truck and SUV sales taking up the slack for declines in sales of passenger cars.
GM no doubt wishes that its market share loss is because sales had merely held steady while the market grew.
Toyota said Tuesday that it has found in a handful of its much-hyped new Tundra pickups a defect that caused the engines to fail.
Toyota has reports of camshafts breaking in the 5.7-liter V-8 engines of about 20 Tundras so far. The flaw was due to a manufacturing defect by a subcontractor. All of the engines are being replaced.
Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong said he doesn't know how many engines were made and installed before the flaw was detected. But he said the problem was found early. It was fixed at the subcontractor's factory in February, the same month Tundra was launched amid a $100 million ad blitz.
The company has not issued a recall. "We're still investigating it. We don't believe it was that many," Kwong said. A cursory check of investigations underway by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration didn't include one for Tundra engines, which it typically would begin if the defect involved safety.
The issue amounts to a rare embarrassment for Toyota. While problems aren't unusual in new models, Tundra is one of the automaker's most important launches in years as it attempts to break Detroit's lock on the full-size pickup market.
"I'm sure there are people agonizing over this in Toyota," said Jeffrey Liker, a University of Michigan professor and author of Toyota Talent. "Toyota prides itself on zero defects."
That isnt an answer and that slogan is for ONE Chevy product, not the whole brand. The point of the Silverado ads is supposed to be that the Silverado is America's truck. I'm sure Ford would disagree with that, but Chevy designed a good truck that can sell on many merits, not just the fact that its from an American brand. If you dont like the Silverado ads, get the Sierra.
So that's 62vette and gagrice, so far today, to post the article on the Tundra's defective camshafts. I wonder how many more we will see...
:-P
I am beginning to wish Toyota had stayed out of the full-size truck market. The next Sequoia (based on the new Tundra) is going to be a mistake for Toyota, IMO. They should leave that market segment to the Suburban. Expedition is also going to fail to meet sales goals, I think. There are just too few people that are going to want full-size truck-based SUVs in the years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
First of all GM's share loss was gradual, it didnt happen overnight. It took decades of solid product from the Japanese to get to where they are today. You are acting as if as soon as the first Hondas hit the shore Americans abandoned GM wholesale and Honda jumped to 10% share. Secondly, it's impossible to hold on to the same share when the number of quality competitors increases.
The iPod has a huge share of the market but many people feel its not the best product, it just has the best name recognition and biggest ad budget. Speaking of electronics, the computer industry is a perfect example of a fragmented market with heavy competition. No PC maker has 50% of the market like GM had 40 years ago. In fact, I dont think any PC maker has as much share as GM has right now. Whichever company leads a new industry is bound to have dominating marketshare for a while. I would imagine when cars were new Ford had 90% share of the market but that didnt last once serious competitors arrived to split up the marketplace.
If you are suggesting that allowing GM models to be compared to imports could be risky because ignorant GM loyalists may realize what they have been missing I think you should note that Chevy and Saturn will be bringing Camrys and Accords into their showrooms for direct comparisons to the Aura and 2008 Malibu. They will allow consumers to drive the Japanese cars back to back with the GM models. If that isnt showing that GM believes their products can stand up to close comparison with the imports than I dont know what does.
1487: First of all GM's share loss was gradual, it didnt happen overnight.
Which makes GM's continuing failure to beat the Japanese all the more inexcusable, as the company has had more than enough time to react, and is only now getting its house into order.
Respected analysts, business leaders and automotive enthusiasts have been voicing concerns over GM's inability to meet the foreign competition for decades.
Some loss of market share was inevitable, but GM should never have allowed itself to get into this precarious position.
1487: Secondly, it's impossible to hold on to the same share when the number of quality competitors increases.
Which I have admitted, but please note that total SALES have also gone down for most of GM's brands. That is the real problem.
GM's high share in the old days was due to two factors:
1. Fewer brands and models existed so by DEFAULT more of the cars sold were going to be american 2. Quality and fuel efficiency aside, more people bought American cars as a default choice and had a dim view of imports.
Its really that simple. We all know GM had a larger slice of a smaller pie in the 70s and 80s but that large slice was directly related to how many brands and vehicles were available. The basic tired argument repeated here (and everywhere) is that "GM's share is greatly reduced and that is all the proof you need that their products stink". That sounds good, but it ignores the fact that GM's 1970s share isnt attaintable by ANYONE today. It's just not possible. We read countless articles about how great Toyota's growth has been and how they have all but put the Big 3 out of business and today Toyota has about 16% US share which is close to Ford's share. That is 16%, not 36% or 46%. Toyota has been selling excellent vehicles in the US for 50 years. That is 50 years of beating GM in efficiency, quality, reliability, etc. and they have 16% share. So many people here contend (falsely) that GM could've maintained its huge share with "excellent" products but Toyota's excellent products have only gotten it 16% share after decades of growth and Honda is far lower. My point is, no amount of product excellence can get an automaker 40%+ share in this competitive market. Just look at Europe for an example.
I dunno; supposedly GM expects their dealers to foot the bill for renting/buying the Camrys and Accords for comparison, and I would imagine most dealers already have one or more of those over in the used car lot. Not quite as ballsy as having corporate buy the competitors itself.
"Which makes GM's continuing failure to beat the Japanese all the more inexcusable, as the company has had more than enough time to react, and is only now getting its house into order.
Respected analysts, business leaders and automotive enthusiasts have been voicing concerns over GM's inability to meet the foreign competition for decades. "
Totally false. GM was doing well financially and marketshare-wise as recently as the early 2000s. When SUVs were at their peak GM's situation was pretty good but the bottom fell out quickly when the prices doubled in 2 years or whatever. GM was in serious trouble in the early 90s and almost went bankrupt but they made cuts and were making billions by the end of the decade.
As for time to react, GM cannot force Toyota and Honda to stop introducing new products and building new plants. Those companies have their own plans for expansion and profitability and thus far little the Big 3 have done has been able to slow them down. Toyota, NIssan and Honda have not expanded sales through magic, they have expanded them by adding models (mostly trucks/SUVs) and brands. When you make competent products and expand into new arenas you take marketshare. One reason GM has lost so much share is because they now face import competition in every single segment of the market where in the past that competiton was primarily limited to small and midsize cars. In 1985 there were ZERO Japanese luxury brands. By 1990 there were three. Guess what, Cadillac's share of the luxury market was probably much higher in 1985 than 1995. Same applies to BMW and MB.
In terms of "beating" the Japanese, GM is actually doing that if we talk sales and marketshare. Since (according to you) GM has been completely at sleep at the wheel I would contend that Toyota's success has more to do with the ineptness of the GM (and Ford) than Toyota's greatness. I have long contended that most of Toyota's products are mediocre in terms of design, handling and feature content so perhaps there is something to this notion that Toyota has done well because GM was basically giving sales away.
why would GM want to buy Camrys and Accords? Kind of counterproductive. AS for using used cars, GM dealers cant use 2004 CAmrys and Accords with 75k miles for comparisons to their brand new products. Lets give them some credit here. I thought this was clear but they intend to compare NEW camrys and Accords to new Auras/Malibus. I think Saturn's program will go beyond the Aura.
Can we just stop with the excuses? Someone said GM should have the guts to compare their products to competitors, I said this is happening, and now you are saying it doesnt count because the cars will be rented and not purchased.
"The iPod has a huge share of the market but many people feel its not the best product, it just has the best name recognition and biggest ad budget."
Not from my experience. My first mp3 player was not an iPod. I then got to see an iPod in action. It's by far the best product out there.
Now the PC is another story. Apple is the Beta of the computer industry - better product but outmarketed.
Right now Apple has very good ads out for comparing a Mac to a PC but I don't think there's a big chunk of marketshare to be carved out at this point.
Brings us back to the how do you advertise and what product do you use to back it up. The Mellencamp Silverados ads were OK but they should have been used for maybe two weeks. They got tired fast. And they may have killed the actual record release for Mellencamp.
While realizing they are ads for the Silverado specifically the voiceover clearly says "Chevy" all the time. I expect people to associate that ad with Chevy for better or for worse.
That said it is still largely the vehicle itslef that must sell itself.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"Can we just stop with the excuses? Someone said GM should have the guts to compare their products to competitors, I said this is happening, and now you are saying it doesnt count because the cars will be rented and not purchased."
Bumpy will excuse me but I believe his point was that GM is not having the guts to compare head to head - they are telling their dealers to do it on the dealers' nickel.
I still think it's a good idea but if GM wants to grab recognition for guts they had best put their money - not their dealers' money - where their mouth is.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I've seen little evidence that the Silverado's ad campaign has damaged its credibility in the market. The truck has gotten great reviews, won a few awards and sold at a decent pace. I dont really care for country music and I barely know who Mellancamp is, but the truck is well done. If cars sold based on ads the Camry and Accord wouldnt be #1 and #2 in the midsize market. I thought the first altima had great advertising but it was never a serious threat to Camry or Accord in spite of the Lexus mocking ads.
to be honest I find that the Silverado ads are an obsession amongst import fans who hate the idea of using anything remotely patriotic in ads and conveniently are critical of anyting done by Chevy/GM. I dont think the general public is too offended or concerned with the ads. I suspect most people who arent looking for a pickup barely pay attention to them.
iPods - aren't they the gizmos that die when their batteries die? :shades:
Do you guys really pay that much attention to the car ads? I never notice them unless I'm shopping. Except I did You-Tube the GM Superbowl ad. Thought it was idiotic and thought less of GM for ok'ing it.
Yes - when the batteries die. Those are the ones! Technically the battery can be replaced but at that point you might as well buy another which I imagine is Apple's idea.
They are a heck of a lot more logically thought out for trying to find individual albums, songs, etc.
Actually I don't pay that much attention to the ads and if the Silverado one had only been around a couple of weeks I would have thought it a great ad.
The truck itself seems to be great from all I've heard. I'm not in that market so I don't look at it a lot.
Ads tend to only get my notice when they are either particularly amusing or particularly annoying. Hearing that bit of music over and over and over has moved it into the annoying category. Doesn't mean a thing about the truck.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
1487: Totally false. GM was doing well financially and marketshare-wise as recently as the early 2000s.When SUVs were at their peak GM's situation was pretty good but the bottom fell out quickly when the prices doubled in 2 years or whatever. GM was in serious trouble in the early 90s and almost went bankrupt but they made cuts and were making billions by the end of the decade.
First, the fact that GM was making cuts and facing bankruptcy in the early 1990s supports what I said - that the warning signs have been present for DECADES. This process has been occurring since the 1980s, interrupted by minor upticks in sales.
Second, the sales of SUVs MASKED the seriousness of GM's problems. GM made money on SUVs, but when gasoline prices rose, its main source of profits evaporated. Not good...and industry observers had been voicing these concerns for years.
It wasn't making money on passenger cars, and its sales in that market were eroding.
Several of its brands were showing serious signs of weakness as early as the late 1980s. Oldsmobile alone dropped by over 300,000 sales between 1986 and 1988.
Throughout the 1990s, Oldsmobile was dying, and Buick and Cadillac were already struggling.
1487: As for time to react, GM cannot force Toyota and Honda to stop introducing new products and building new plants.
But it could manufacture products that either match or beat the products offered by those companies. It still hasn't in the subcompact segment (Civic, Cobalt, etc.), and has only recently fielded a worthy competitor in the family-sedan segment (Aura) and small SUV segment (new Vue).
The problem isn't that Toyota and Honda introduced new products. The problem is that GM failed to match - or even beat - them.
GM had an established dealer network and a large customer base. It could have introduced a small car as good as the Civic in, say, 1986, or a small SUV as good as the RAV-4 in 2000. Or it could have developed the Olds Intrigue instead of smothering it in its crib.
Any of these moves would have better positioned GM to compete over the long haul. Its failure to take these, and similar, actions is why GM is in trouble, not because Toyota and Honda introduced new vehicles and opened new plants.
1487: One reason GM has lost so much share is because they now face import competition in every single segment of the market where in the past that competiton was primarily limited to small and midsize cars. In 1985 there were ZERO Japanese luxury brands. By 1990 there were three.
And GM had plenty of warning about this, so that excuse won't wash.
We didn't wake up one morning and discover that Toyota had secretly designed a new car called "Lexus" and set up a nationwide dealer network to sell and service it.
1487 Guess what, Cadillac's share of the luxury market was probably much higher in 1985 than 1995. Same applies to BMW and MB.
As you've said, and I've agreed, market share is not the best measurement. Look at total sales. I'll bet that BMW and MB sales are much higher today than they were in 1985.
1487: Since (according to you) GM has been completely at sleep at the wheel I would contend that Toyota's success has more to do with the ineptness of the GM (and Ford) than Toyota's greatness. I have long contended that most of Toyota's products are mediocre in terms of design, handling and feature content so perhaps there is something to this notion that Toyota has done well because GM was basically giving sales away.
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, as I don't like Toyotas all that much. If GM management had been on the ball, Toyota wouldn't be where it is today. Note that Ford did pretty well against the Japanese in the 1980s with the aero-Thunderbird, a continually improved Escort and the original Taurus/Sable.
Just relax and take you meds, and you'll be fine. All I am trying to do is to be helpful, as in telling things as they are, and all you seem to be able to do is defensive by attacking the carrier of the news. It may be good to absorb some of the bad with the good news, and thus sort out the reality.
As for Bold Moves, this could mean anything. Could be an ad for laxitives. And people are comparing cars and their manufacturer. The Fusion, when compared is winning some, and losing some. At the time of purchase, ALL things must be considered. Is the Fusion a Bold Move on your part in that the resale could be lower? Does the person have good memories of time spent at the dealership both in the repair shop, and during the last purchase? And what really is the Bold Move? I see nothing really new, except a crossover car. The FordFivehundred becomes the Taurus -- wow, a bold move there. No, take that back, a stupid move. If people prefer the Fusion over the Accord and Camry, where are the sales to back that up? A popular rental car? Loren
>Can we just stop with the excuses? Someone said GM should have the guts to compare their products to competitors, I said this is happening, and now you are saying it doesnt count because the cars will be rented and not purchased.
In many posts I've pointed out how the GM-haters will always find something that GM's not doing the right way to suit them and their favored auto.
You're right on point with many of your statements here. Especially true is the larger number of auto companies successfully getting a piece of the whole pie. Each slice will be smaller. Someone tried to make it that the GMs should be selling as many as they used to when there were three companies.NOT.
Every good ad should be all about how it will be better for the customer in some way. Of course it is all about "me" in ads. "Me" is the customer, the boss, and the one holding the cash in hand. The " Can we build one for you" is a very good ad. Show the merits of the car is good, as long as it relates to how it works best for me.
The ad where the Fit swallows the SUV is very funny..... and perhaps true one day in the future. It is eating a few as you read this message, and is getting larger (in sales). Funny looking, little thing that it is, I suppose it is well timed for the gas prices. Loren
GM should go ahead and buy a couple-each for each dealership. With the current resale values being as they are with Japan makes, they have little to lose.
you are full of revisionist history and half truths.
"and has only recently fielded a worthy competitor in the family-sedan segment (Aura) and small SUV segment (new Vue). "
See the good thing about being a GM basher is that you can say ANYTHING and report it as fact even if its miles from the truth. GM has had numerous competitive midsize sedans before the Aura including the Intrigue, Alero, Aurora, GP, Impala (both generations), Regal, Grand Am, G6 and CTS. YOu have to compare those cars to the cars that were out at THAT TIME not in 2007. In their day those cars were competitive, especially in terms of styling and hp. GM's car offerings got much better in the late 90s which is almost a decade ago. The Vue has been a big hit for Saturn and kept the brand alive for the last five years. Where do you get off ignoring the first generation Vue? It has been a success.
GM's biggest problems that you claim were masked have nothing to do with design, engineering or product. GM's biggest liability is its UAW contracts and legacy costs, its that simple. You can talk abotu decades of GM decline and decades of GM (supposedly) being unable to design any competent car, but the bottom line is GM cannot easily shake its legacy costs and it most definitely cannot go non-union like its foreign counterparts. Since you (and others) have all the "simple" answers on how GM could've maintaine 50% share in spite of facing far more brands and products in the US market, I want you to explain to us how GM should correct its labor/legacy cost imbalance and get on equal footing with Toyota and Honda. Let me guess, fire all the UAW workers? Sounds easy enough. How about cuttng off all benefits for retirees? Yeah, that'll work too. Great PR move as well. There are no easy answers and anyone who pretends there are is either naive or just being disingenuous.
"Note that Ford did pretty well against the Japanese in the 1980s with the aero-Thunderbird, a continually improved Escort and the original Taurus/Sable. "
I dont know what you are basing that assertion on but in 2007 Ford is in worse shape than GM and has lost just as much share (proportionally) if not more than GM. Ford and Chrysler have less credibility amongst import owners than GM right now.
"And GM had plenty of warning about this, so that excuse won't wash.
We didn't wake up one morning and discover that Toyota had secretly designed a new car called "Lexus" and set up a nationwide dealer network to sell and service it. "
You just dont get it. Toyota isnt stupid, they had a plan for Lexus and it was smartly executed. Where do you get off suggesting GM should've been able to nip Lexus in the bud since they had "advanced warning"? You cant be serious. MB and BMW had advance warning as well and they are both playing catch-up to Lexus 18 years later. Lexus wasnt even aiming at Cadillac when it came out, it was a MB clone with cheaper cars and better quality and service. Lexus aimed for a specific target and hit the bullseye. There was nothing GM could've done about it and at that time traditional American luxury cars were not in direct competition with European imports. AS time moved on people began to lose interest in American luxury and everyone wanted Euro-themed luxury with an emphasis on sportiness. Cadillac missed the trend initially and they stumbled for a while although they are back on track now. You are talking about Cadillac as if its a lost cause when in fact Cadillac is about 5 years into a resurgence and they passed MB in sales for the #2 slot about 2 years back. They are #4 now but all 3 brands that are ahead of cadillac have larger lineups, especially MB.
"or a small SUV as good as the RAV-4 in 2000"
The Vue was a 2001 model I believe. It was every bit as good as the Rav4 at that time.
"Throughout the 1990s, Oldsmobile was dying, and Buick and Cadillac were already struggling."
Olds was killed and this was most likely inevitable because GM had too many brands for its marketshare in 2000. Cadillac isnt struggling anymore and Buick has suffered because the market for those types of cars has dwindled with the expansion of SUVs. Think about it, how many large non-luxury sedans are there today? I can name about 4 which isnt many compared to 20 years ago. Its not just that Buicks arent selling, smooth riding family cars meant for long hwy trips arent selling. Check the sales of the Avalon for reference. The 300/Charger seem to be the exception in this segment. Also remember that GMC has had some of its best years ever in recent years and this illustrates how people's preferences changed. Large sedans became seen as cars for old men and Buick struggled, SUVs became the new station wagons and GMC flourished.
I dont have a problem with the truth or people telling it like it is. I do have a problem with the repetitious posts that criticize anything and everything done by a domestic manufacturer and the "see no evil" attitude towards Honda. I just dont see what you get out of this forum since you have little positive to say about GM's products or plans. As far as I can tell the Accord is the end all and be all to automotive excellence and you arent satisfied with much of what GM has to offer. We all got that now.
The Fusion had sold well thus far. Its sales have been increasing since it hit the market and considering Ford didnt even have a true midsize car until fall 2005 I would saw the Fusion's success is noteworthy. Its certainly outselling the critically acclaimed Mazda6 and the rental darling Sonata. I am talking about Ford's ads you are wasting time insulting their products since you dont like them. I love it when people like you use the "I dont see anything new" excuse whenever there is decent product. I'm not a uge Edge or Fusion fan, but they are competitive products and both are doing well. Your argument is that because they arent reinventing the wheel they dont deserve any consideration. Somehow I doubt you'll be saying that when the 2008 Accord comes out even though it wont break any new ground in the segment.
"Does the person have good memories of time spent at the dealership both in the repair shop, and during the last purchase?"
You have any evidence that recent Fords such as the Fusion are unreliable? Didnt think you did. The Import FanBoy Bible aka CR has given the Fusion good marks for reliability thus far.
BTW, if people's only concern was resale we'd all be driving BMWS, MBs and Lexus models. Speaking of resale (the all time favorite topic of every import lover) I noticed that my relative's 2002 Camry is worth about $2200 more (trade in, the difference is smaller in private market) than my 2002 domestic piece of crap if we had the same mileage. Sounds pretty bad until you figure that my car had a lower sticker price and I got a nice discount and probably paid $2000-$3000 less than she did. By my calculations her car held about 30% of its value and my car held about 25% but the actual difference in real money is negligible. This doesnt even take into account that I had a lower interest rate and monthly payment.
imidazol97: Each slice will be smaller. Someone tried to make it that the GMs should be selling as many as they used to when there were three companies.NOT.
There is no reason that, in an expanding market, GM could not have held on to its sales, even as its market share declined.
an expanding market gives everyone a chance to grow, not just GM. Why would GM be the only one benefiting from an expanding US market? The Market has grown and Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc. have grown right along with it.
In terms of total sales GM is close to its record, but now a lot of those sales come from outside the US where GM plays on more equal footing. I find it interesting that Europe is seen as more demanding in terms of cars and GM has hte 2nd best selling car over there. I believe GM has a solid 10-12% share in Europe which is good considering how many companies compete there. GM's competitors have similar burdens (or lack thereof) in Europe, Australia and China and GM does OK in those markets. In the US market where GM is at a serious cost disadvantage it has been slowly losing share and struggling to make money while competitors are able to make money on compact cars costing $16k. Coincidence?
Gee did I say that? Let's review here..... nope, I believe you just said Honda and Accord are the end all and be all to automotive excellence. I bet you are confusing what you are reading here with some voice in your head. That can be taken care of with meds.
I never said the Fusion is unreliable. Actually, it will take another year to get a good picture of the quality. I appears that the initial quality is pretty good. Another well built car from Mexico. So far, it appears that VW is the only one suffering with the Mexico products. As far as the Fusion being new, well it is to a degree. More of a stretched Mazda6, which is OK. So, what's up next? What's new at Ford? If you have seen one crossdresser car, you've seen them all. *that's a joke*. :shades:
May be time to exit the sub - $20K car line and concentrate on those above that dollar amount. There are sooooo many cars in the lower price range which can be made on the cheap from Chery to Hyundai lines, combined with the cars from Japan makes, which are noted as being best of breed, it is one tough market to win in. The costs - the headwind. GM may do best with cars seen as an American evolution, as in local styled - unique, shall we say a return to class leading looks. Seems like the CTS should make something for bottom line. It is a car, not an SUV, yet it sells for a pretty good hunk of change. As for the labor problems, GM may have no other option some day other than bankruptcy, if major compromise is not worked out with labor and the USA does not move to a national health care plan. I agree, it is a terrible box to be in for GM with both labor/retirement issues, and tremendous debt. It may not be a level playing field now, but it is the only field to play on. Loren
I'd like to see what the actual number of players in the market is now compared with a quarter century ago.
Honda, Toyota and Nissan (at the time Datsun) were all firmly in the market. No, they did not have the sales they do now and I would think that's part of the question.
While Hyundai, Kia and others were not around you could still buy a Fiat in this country without much trouble. (The trouble would come AFTER you bought the Fiat.) American Motors was still in the game. You could still buy a Renault. You could buy a brand new MG. People will likely think of others.
Now these folks went out of the business in the US because they weren't marketing well, could not produce competitive cars or any number of reasons. Such reasons are still in play today.
I'm thinking the news is not how many people are looking for a piece of the pie as how the sizes of the pieces they are getting have changed.
Bringing it back to GM, some divisions are doing better (GMC) while others are not (death of Oldsmobile, current Pontiac). A few well targeted cars could set them right and what's coming out in the new GM models certainly indicates they've gotten the message.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Alfa Romero would come back to USA, if they had enough dealership agreements.
Is Mitsubishi going to hold on in USA? Wonder what their dealership headcount is these days compared to a few years ago?
Pontiac is going all Holden, plus a Solstice?
Saw one of those Enclaves on the lot. Sporty looking SUV. This type of SUV makes a pretty good replacement for the wagons of days-gone-bye. Aside of the arguments for the mini-van advantages, the smaller SUV and crossdresser cars look like something good for the family travel machine. I am still thinking a name like Lassen would be better, but who cares if Enclave works. Wonder if that name, Lassen, has been used yet? Maybe on a particular style of truck? Loren
I didn't mention Alfa and should have. They put out some nice stuff.
I wonder about Mitsubishi. They have some decent product and should be a player but I live in a county with half a million people and no Mitsubishi dealers. We had one. They went with Scion. We had another. It lies deserted. This is in the northeast! What happens if you have one break down in Kansas?
I like the look of the Enclave and actually I rather like the name. There is a part of me that thinks after this minivan to get something like that and if I need a bigger vehicle for a trip to just rent.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
In my area the Mitsubishi dealers have come and gone over time. Now it is gone, period. The last dealership had that temporary look about it, and it was sold once before leaving for good. I am in California, and would have to travel some 140 miles to find a dealership now. Now that may work for luxury auto dealerships, but you expect more lower class car dealerships selling a Japan make in CA. It is not looking good. I owned a Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi and it was a good handling, beautiful and fun car. Reliability was so-so. Not the best, but far from the worst, I guess. Would have kept it longer than I did, but the parts seemed too high in price. It was like the cost of the vehicle was low, but they made it up in parts. Other Japan makes, I think have lower parts pricing, as does the domestics. Anyone know if Volvo parts actually cost more than German car parts -- just curious, as they seem highly prised, cost wise that is. Loren
GM has had numerous competitive midsize sedans before the Aura
Let's look at some of them individually
Alero, Aurora,
These two belong together. Why? They're Oldsmobile. Competitive? Somewhat, when first introduced. Their reward for initially being competitive? GM killed the entire brand.
Impala (both generations)
Not competitive at all. Sales were boosted by fleet sales of police package versions, especially the later generation. Now being replaced by a new, rear-drive platform (Finally, as it's been around a while).
Grand Am, G6
One is successor to the other. The Grand Am started off decently enough, as a reasonably (though not highly) competitive vehicle. Then it sat for a decade without major redesign.
As mentioned, this is an Achilles heel for GM: they design a good, competitive car, and let it sit for a LONG time. In the meantime, the competition releases a new model 3-5 years down the line, competing with a 5 year old design from GM. 3 more years down the line, and the competition's newly redesigned model is competing with a 6-8 year old GM design. Ford and Chrysler have had the same problem; non-domestic nameplates have always had faster product cycles, leaving the domestics with outdated product to compete with new designs.
I want you to explain to us how GM should correct its labor/legacy cost imbalance and get on equal footing with Toyota and Honda.
Make a correction in their executive pay and retirement packages, stop giving bonuses to executives while cutting UAW benefits due to poor corporate performance (and if the corporation is performing so poorly, why do these executives deserve bonuses, hmm?). Many of today's problems can be partially attributed to the American corporate "culture" that consistently rewards high level executives for poor performance.
By the way, you pointed out that GM is doing well in Europe (Ford is as well). Keep in mind that the cars sold to Europeans are different than the ones we CURRENTLY get here (Euro Focus and Astra as two quick examples). BOth brands "Euro-izing" their American lineups (Fusion is pretty Euro, and Saturn is getting Opels now) may help with sales in the States, but the question becomes, what took so freaking long?
"BOth brands "Euro-izing" their American lineups (Fusion is pretty Euro, and Saturn is getting Opels now) may help with sales in the States, but the question becomes, what took so freaking long?"
I knew I liked you.....
The classic example of this sort of thing was when they introduced the Cavalier in 1982. It was not best in class by any means, but it was competitive. They then sat on it for over twenty frikkin' years!
I really do believe I see a change in philosophy but it will have to hold a number of years.
As many of the GM faithful have pointed out Honda didn't get its market share overnight. GM won't get a lot back overnight either.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Honda, Toyota and Nissan (at the time Datsun) were all firmly in the market. No, they did not have the sales they do now and I would think that's part of the question.
Well, I'm not sure about a quarter century ago, but I remember reading an article years ago, that mentioned the top ten selling cars of 1985. I looked up production totals in my old car book. Here they are:
Escort: 407,073 Cavalier: 383,752 Celebrity: 354,922 Tempo: 339,087 Cutlass Ciera: 303,113 Caprice/Impala: 264,793 Century: 261,235 Delta 88: 241,765 Cutlass Supreme: 223,752 Nissan Sentra: (my book only lists production cars, but I remember it being mentioned as the lone import in that list)
In addition to the Sentra, I'd imagine that some of the stronger selling Japanese imports were the Corolla, Camry, Accord, Civic, and Stanza. And actually, now that I've added up those production totals, I'm surprised that some of those models didn't break into the top ten. After all, 223,752 doesn't seem like THAT hard of a number to top. But then again, by 1985, big cars were in again, much to GM's dismay, as they were just beginning their second wave of downsizing.
Not surprising. I was a kid in the 80ies, but the imports really didn't get a reputation for quality till about the mid 80ies. People really trusted the domestics. In fact there were a lot of downsides still to owning an import then(like were to get it serviced outside dealer).
Ford in thoose days had great styling. The tempo and Tarus had that rounded aerodynamic look that would be the future. In fact only today are cars becoming a tad more boxy like they were in the 60ies\70ies.
As for gm why on earth would they downsize the whole fleet at once? Wouldn't a smarter move be to downsize some models and see if they sell?
"The classic example of this sort of thing was when they introduced the Cavalier in 1982. It was not best in class by any means, but it was competitive. They then sat on it for over twenty frikkin' years!"
The Cavilier did get redesigned on the exterior in that 20 year window that you are talking about but yeah the platform was like 22 years old by 2004 since the Cobalt came out for the 2005 model year. Was there even a 2004 model year Cavilier or did the Cobalt come out early in 04 as an 05 model?
"I wonder about Mitsubishi. They have some decent product and should be a player but I live in a county with half a million people and no Mitsubishi dealers. We had one. They went with Scion. We had another. It lies deserted. This is in the northeast! What happens if you have one break down in Kansas?"
Mitsubishi was going strong for awhiile there in the late 90's. Than the 2000 Eclipse redeign was a flop as was the 2004 Galant but Mitsu seems to have a hit on their hands with the new Lancer because I already see a few Lancers where I live in Cebtral New Jersey. Thew 0/0/0 finanicial program by Mitsu in America nearly killed the company automotive operations in 2003.
Mitsubishi;s dealer network has never been good to start with though so its just not a recent issue that popped up just now lack of dealer network has alays been a problem of Mitsu. In Central NJ I have one Mitsu dealer thats close to me and the other two cloest to me are like 1 hour and 1 hour and 20 minutes respoectively.
First of all, I would like you to show me where a Chevy ad proclaims that the sole reason you should buy a Chevy is because its American.
The primary theme of "An American Revolution" is that Chevy cars are American and a Revolution. I never said it is the sole reason, but it is certainly the predominant theme.
Secondly, I am still waiting for you to explain why Chevy should ax its ad campaign if its the largest brand in the market and will be no worse than the 2nd largest brand in 2007. You show me CHevy sales are down 5.8% but dont show me where they rank in brand sales thus far in 2007.
You talked about how successful Chevy has been. I pointed out that the Chevy brand sales are down 5.8% for the year. I don't call that successful when Toyota is gaining market share. Perhaps your definition of success is different than mine. Your quote above even admits that they may go from the largest brand in 2006 to the second largest brand in 2007. I suppose you'd call a slip to the #3 brand even more successful.
You say GM's lower marketshare is "proof" that GM shoulnt mention "American" in any ads but you fail to mention that Chevy is one the GM brands that isnt struggling.
See above. Dropping market share isn't struggling? That's funny.
Chevy is the brand that keeps GM afloat and allows the other brands to exists. What part of that point dont you get?
I'll let that statement speak for itself. You seem to be implying because Chevy is big it is successful. I'm looking at the downward trend and saying that this is a problem. Isn't that what got GM into its current problems over the last 30 years -- declining market share? By your definition this is success.
I don't know about that. Perhaps in snow country, where the Japanese cars did rust all too soon, this is true. But in the drier country, the car had already caught on. The Datsun 510 and Z cars were selling well, had a good reputation for reliability and good gas mileage. By the time of the oil embargo, Japan cars were set to go higher for sales. American makes of course still had a stronger hold in comparison to today, but you could see things changing. In the later 60's through the 80's brands like BMW, with what today may seem strange looking cars, started to show on the streets of California. Volvo was one of those cars to buy if you wanted the toughest car.
The big three and the last of the AMC cars, did have some popular models, and as a whole did well for sales. Reliability of those cars depended on the models in some ways. You would have an Impala or Cutlass which was pretty good, then something thrown together like a Monza / Starfire in the mid - seventies. Style was ever so good in the late sixties, with GM leading the way, along with some hits from Chrysler like the Challenger, and the AMX by AMC, and of course the Ford with the Mustang.
One of the more interesting things to happen was the demise of styling by Datsun, say around the time of the name change here in the states, when they used their name of Nissan. The 510 was a nice and clean little sedan, as a poorman's BMW, The original Z was the working class sports car, and very slick in design. The Z got larger and the price tag did as well. They had a popular little truck, which seems all but forgotten along the way. Even the quality got to be questionable at one point. Where did they go wrong? Today it appears Nissan is back on track.
Next up is GM. Back on track? Could be, as they are coming up with at least some new stuff, with more in the pipeline. The New Impala may be a catalyst, just like the CTS was to Cadillac, if it is drop dead gorgeous, drives well, and can get the gas mileage in the RWD configuration. The New Malibu looks to be something which will sell. It doesn't seem to be something to be the cause for much buzz in the auto world though, like a New Impala, styled with some flare would be. Camaro should stir some emotion. There is one of the words missing. Emotion is word. Does the car say something, even when simply sitting there? The interior improvements are darn good. The New Malibu's best look may be the interior, which from photos is closer to perfect. Hard to tell until you sit inside the car, but it looks very promising. The exterior looks good, but then again a lot of the Japanese and other brands look good in one way or another. What I am looking for in a GM is a knock-out punch great looking car, like they did say with the '69 Camaro, the '68 Malibu, or going back to almost any year of style, say the '41 Cadillac, when GM was out-styling the competition. Think of the original Toronado, all those hot Rivieras over the years, that's what we're talking about! Look at style efforts for the less expensive, and smaller models back when, such as the Nova.
As far as the mid-sixty boxy car look, please-please, never again. It did not last too long. Or did it. Seems like car get swoopy and rounded, only to return to the box. Make sense, as you can only do so much, I guess. I personally like say the MGA over the style of the MGB. Some of those Ford cars looked OK, like the Fairlane, with the stacked headlamps, but I still like rounded. And that is just opinion. Loren
People really trusted the domestics. In fact there were a lot of downsides still to owning an import then(like were to get it serviced outside dealer).
You think it was bad in the 1980s? Back in the early '60s my Dad took his 1962 Volkswagen Bug to a local mechanic. The mechanics didn't have metric tools, so they ground down the bolt heads and nuts so the standard tools would fit. Needless to say, they pretty much ruined his car. Dad soon replaced it with a 1961 Chevrolet Biscayne.
It seems like the import of choice, around here at least (Maryland suburbs of DC) was Datsun/Nissan. Seems like those little B210's were everywhere, and the 510 was pretty common, too. And the 260/280Z seemed pretty popular. From other brands, it seems like the Corolla was popular, and I remember the Fiesta (okay, that one was a Ford, but still an import) seemed a common sight for awhile. Oh, and the VW Bug. How could I forget that one? Seemed like they were everywhere. And Rabbits? Well they just multiplied like, well, you know! There was a VW plant in PA, and a distribution hub about 5-10 minutes from my house, so that might have helped to populate the area with Rabbits.
I have an aunt and uncle who had two Datsun wagons in the '70's. One was a 510 and I think the other was a 210 or 310? Anyway, back then, the rest of the family thought they were weird! They're divorced now. Last time I saw my aunt, she had an early 90's Park Ave, and I think my uncle has mid 90's Grand Am. I guess that must be rare, crossing over from an import BACK to GM! :P
Ironically, Subarus seemed to be popular imports around me in the 1970s. This could be due to a classmate's father who had a foreign car dealership not far away. Not only did they sell Subarus, but MG, Triumph, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The guy did very good business, but he blew all his money in racing. The place is about to become a very large funeral home.
Comments
Not necessarily so. If a product is truly great, emerging competitors will have great difficulty in getting piece of action. Apple's Ipod comes to mind in holding onto large share of market in spite of number of competing offerings. Maybe GM's greatness of the far past had eroded to mediocrity that allowed new players with better product to take away share.
GM might hire Mr Iacoca. He had some strong ads back in 80's that put his company on the line. Didn't he say something like, If you can find a better car than ours, then buy it.
Would GM be willing to put out that challenge to the US buyer? Would they want to encourage GM loyalists who never tried a Honda or Toyota or Hyundai to go look at and drive? Of course there is the danger that a lot of these folks would be honest with themselves and say,
"Hey, this Accord is really better than an Impala. Why did I have blind loyalty to a company. What do I owe to GM, or to any company for that matter. Don't I want the best product for my hard-earned money?"
And, on the other hand, the "Challenge" ad could get other loyalists (Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, etc) who may have never seriously considered a GM to tryout a new Saturn, Enclave, CTS, etc.
But, what have been the trends? US branded car companies have been downsizing US labor force while foreign brands have been building new plants and hiring US workers.
How soon will we have American brands built in China and imported into US? GM, as well as other car mfrs, have ventures/partnerships in China. Hasn't Chrysler announced they will build small cars in China and import to U.S.
I suppose GM loyalists will buy any GM brand regardless of where it is built, including China. It has happened before. People who bought American made and branded things from Sylvania, Magnavox, RCA, Zenith, etc continued to buy these brands even though they were no longer made in the U.S.
No doubt you hated GM adverstising efforts through the late 1970s, then...
You had a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. My parents had a 1976 Delta 88 Royale. Oldsmobile's tagline for its ads that year was, "Can we build one for you?"
Sounds pretty "me" oriented...and typical of GM's advertising efforts through the late 1970s. Nothing wrong with that - it worked in at least two cases, and, from I can divine from your posts, and what I remember of my parents' experience with their Olds, GM had at least two satisfied customers that year.
imidazol97: They show pictues of cute Hondas that will make a teener say "Wheee, I'd look good driving one of those." Nothing about the merits of or engineering of said vehicle.
What? The most recent Honda ad - which I saw on television last night - touts the fact that the company's fleet of vehicles has the highest average mileage among all the major companies. That sounds as though Honda is pushing one "merit" of its vehicles.
That would be true if sales were holding steady while the market expands.
But Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac are all well down in total sales from their peak years in the late 1970s. And in those years they didn't sell many cars to rental companies. Oldsmobile, of course, is gone - when it used to sell 1.1 million cars annually in the late 1970s.
GMC is well up, and Chevy is steady, based on truck and SUV sales taking up the slack for declines in sales of passenger cars.
GM no doubt wishes that its market share loss is because sales had merely held steady while the market grew.
Tundra pickups a defect that caused the engines to fail.
Toyota has reports of camshafts breaking in the 5.7-liter V-8 engines of
about 20 Tundras so far. The flaw was due to a manufacturing defect by a
subcontractor. All of the engines are being replaced.
Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong said he doesn't know how many engines were made
and installed before the flaw was detected. But he said the problem was
found early. It was fixed at the subcontractor's factory in February, the
same month Tundra was launched amid a $100 million ad blitz.
The company has not issued a recall. "We're still investigating it. We
don't believe it was that many," Kwong said. A cursory check of
investigations underway by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration didn't include one for Tundra engines, which it typically
would begin if the defect involved safety.
The issue amounts to a rare embarrassment for Toyota. While problems aren't
unusual in new models, Tundra is one of the automaker's most important
launches in years as it attempts to break Detroit's lock on the full-size
pickup market.
"I'm sure there are people agonizing over this in Toyota," said Jeffrey
Liker, a University of Michigan professor and author of Toyota Talent.
"Toyota prides itself on zero defects."
That isnt an answer and that slogan is for ONE Chevy product, not the whole brand. The point of the Silverado ads is supposed to be that the Silverado is America's truck. I'm sure Ford would disagree with that, but Chevy designed a good truck that can sell on many merits, not just the fact that its from an American brand. If you dont like the Silverado ads, get the Sierra.
:-P
I am beginning to wish Toyota had stayed out of the full-size truck market. The next Sequoia (based on the new Tundra) is going to be a mistake for Toyota, IMO. They should leave that market segment to the Suburban. Expedition is also going to fail to meet sales goals, I think. There are just too few people that are going to want full-size truck-based SUVs in the years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The iPod has a huge share of the market but many people feel its not the best product, it just has the best name recognition and biggest ad budget. Speaking of electronics, the computer industry is a perfect example of a fragmented market with heavy competition. No PC maker has 50% of the market like GM had 40 years ago. In fact, I dont think any PC maker has as much share as GM has right now. Whichever company leads a new industry is bound to have dominating marketshare for a while. I would imagine when cars were new Ford had 90% share of the market but that didnt last once serious competitors arrived to split up the marketplace.
Which makes GM's continuing failure to beat the Japanese all the more inexcusable, as the company has had more than enough time to react, and is only now getting its house into order.
Respected analysts, business leaders and automotive enthusiasts have been voicing concerns over GM's inability to meet the foreign competition for decades.
Some loss of market share was inevitable, but GM should never have allowed itself to get into this precarious position.
1487: Secondly, it's impossible to hold on to the same share when the number of quality competitors increases.
Which I have admitted, but please note that total SALES have also gone down for most of GM's brands. That is the real problem.
1. Fewer brands and models existed so by DEFAULT more of the cars sold were going to be american
2. Quality and fuel efficiency aside, more people bought American cars as a default choice and had a dim view of imports.
Its really that simple. We all know GM had a larger slice of a smaller pie in the 70s and 80s but that large slice was directly related to how many brands and vehicles were available. The basic tired argument repeated here (and everywhere) is that "GM's share is greatly reduced and that is all the proof you need that their products stink". That sounds good, but it ignores the fact that GM's 1970s share isnt attaintable by ANYONE today. It's just not possible. We read countless articles about how great Toyota's growth has been and how they have all but put the Big 3 out of business and today Toyota has about 16% US share which is close to Ford's share. That is 16%, not 36% or 46%. Toyota has been selling excellent vehicles in the US for 50 years. That is 50 years of beating GM in efficiency, quality, reliability, etc. and they have 16% share. So many people here contend (falsely) that GM could've maintained its huge share with "excellent" products but Toyota's excellent products have only gotten it 16% share after decades of growth and Honda is far lower. My point is, no amount of product excellence can get an automaker 40%+ share in this competitive market. Just look at Europe for an example.
Respected analysts, business leaders and automotive enthusiasts have been voicing concerns over GM's inability to meet the foreign competition for decades. "
Totally false. GM was doing well financially and marketshare-wise as recently as the early 2000s. When SUVs were at their peak GM's situation was pretty good but the bottom fell out quickly when the prices doubled in 2 years or whatever. GM was in serious trouble in the early 90s and almost went bankrupt but they made cuts and were making billions by the end of the decade.
As for time to react, GM cannot force Toyota and Honda to stop introducing new products and building new plants. Those companies have their own plans for expansion and profitability and thus far little the Big 3 have done has been able to slow them down. Toyota, NIssan and Honda have not expanded sales through magic, they have expanded them by adding models (mostly trucks/SUVs) and brands. When you make competent products and expand into new arenas you take marketshare. One reason GM has lost so much share is because they now face import competition in every single segment of the market where in the past that competiton was primarily limited to small and midsize cars. In 1985 there were ZERO Japanese luxury brands. By 1990 there were three. Guess what, Cadillac's share of the luxury market was probably much higher in 1985 than 1995. Same applies to BMW and MB.
In terms of "beating" the Japanese, GM is actually doing that if we talk sales and marketshare. Since (according to you) GM has been completely at sleep at the wheel I would contend that Toyota's success has more to do with the ineptness of the GM (and Ford) than Toyota's greatness. I have long contended that most of Toyota's products are mediocre in terms of design, handling and feature content so perhaps there is something to this notion that Toyota has done well because GM was basically giving sales away.
Can we just stop with the excuses? Someone said GM should have the guts to compare their products to competitors, I said this is happening, and now you are saying it doesnt count because the cars will be rented and not purchased.
Not from my experience. My first mp3 player was not an iPod. I then got to see an iPod in action. It's by far the best product out there.
Now the PC is another story. Apple is the Beta of the computer industry - better product but outmarketed.
Right now Apple has very good ads out for comparing a Mac to a PC but I don't think there's a big chunk of marketshare to be carved out at this point.
Brings us back to the how do you advertise and what product do you use to back it up. The Mellencamp Silverados ads were OK but they should have been used for maybe two weeks. They got tired fast. And they may have killed the actual record release for Mellencamp.
While realizing they are ads for the Silverado specifically the voiceover clearly says "Chevy" all the time. I expect people to associate that ad with Chevy for better or for worse.
That said it is still largely the vehicle itslef that must sell itself.
Bumpy will excuse me but I believe his point was that GM is not having the guts to compare head to head - they are telling their dealers to do it on the dealers' nickel.
I still think it's a good idea but if GM wants to grab recognition for guts they had best put their money - not their dealers' money - where their mouth is.
to be honest I find that the Silverado ads are an obsession amongst import fans who hate the idea of using anything remotely patriotic in ads and conveniently are critical of anyting done by Chevy/GM. I dont think the general public is too offended or concerned with the ads. I suspect most people who arent looking for a pickup barely pay attention to them.
Do you guys really pay that much attention to the car ads? I never notice them unless I'm shopping. Except I did You-Tube the GM Superbowl ad. Thought it was idiotic and thought less of GM for ok'ing it.
They are a heck of a lot more logically thought out for trying to find individual albums, songs, etc.
Actually I don't pay that much attention to the ads and if the Silverado one had only been around a couple of weeks I would have thought it a great ad.
The truck itself seems to be great from all I've heard. I'm not in that market so I don't look at it a lot.
Ads tend to only get my notice when they are either particularly amusing or particularly annoying. Hearing that bit of music over and over and over has moved it into the annoying category. Doesn't mean a thing about the truck.
First, the fact that GM was making cuts and facing bankruptcy in the early 1990s supports what I said - that the warning signs have been present for DECADES. This process has been occurring since the 1980s, interrupted by minor upticks in sales.
Second, the sales of SUVs MASKED the seriousness of GM's problems. GM made money on SUVs, but when gasoline prices rose, its main source of profits evaporated. Not good...and industry observers had been voicing these concerns for years.
It wasn't making money on passenger cars, and its sales in that market were eroding.
Several of its brands were showing serious signs of weakness as early as the late 1980s. Oldsmobile alone dropped by over 300,000 sales between 1986 and 1988.
Throughout the 1990s, Oldsmobile was dying, and Buick and Cadillac were already struggling.
1487: As for time to react, GM cannot force Toyota and Honda to stop introducing new products and building new plants.
But it could manufacture products that either match or beat the products offered by those companies. It still hasn't in the subcompact segment (Civic, Cobalt, etc.), and has only recently fielded a worthy competitor in the family-sedan segment (Aura) and small SUV segment (new Vue).
The problem isn't that Toyota and Honda introduced new products. The problem is that GM failed to match - or even beat - them.
GM had an established dealer network and a large customer base. It could have introduced a small car as good as the Civic in, say, 1986, or a small SUV as good as the RAV-4 in 2000. Or it could have developed the Olds Intrigue instead of smothering it in its crib.
Any of these moves would have better positioned GM to compete over the long haul. Its failure to take these, and similar, actions is why GM is in trouble, not because Toyota and Honda introduced new vehicles and opened new plants.
1487: One reason GM has lost so much share is because they now face import competition in every single segment of the market where in the past that competiton was primarily limited to small and midsize cars. In 1985 there were ZERO Japanese luxury brands. By 1990 there were three.
And GM had plenty of warning about this, so that excuse won't wash.
We didn't wake up one morning and discover that Toyota had secretly designed a new car called "Lexus" and set up a nationwide dealer network to sell and service it.
1487 Guess what, Cadillac's share of the luxury market was probably much higher in 1985 than 1995. Same applies to BMW and MB.
As you've said, and I've agreed, market share is not the best measurement. Look at total sales. I'll bet that BMW and MB sales are much higher today than they were in 1985.
1487: Since (according to you) GM has been completely at sleep at the wheel I would contend that Toyota's success has more to do with the ineptness of the GM (and Ford) than Toyota's greatness. I have long contended that most of Toyota's products are mediocre in terms of design, handling and feature content so perhaps there is something to this notion that Toyota has done well because GM was basically giving sales away.
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, as I don't like Toyotas all that much. If GM management had been on the ball, Toyota wouldn't be where it is today. Note that Ford did pretty well against the Japanese in the 1980s with the aero-Thunderbird, a continually improved Escort and the original Taurus/Sable.
Just further proves how low GM had sunk.
Just trying to be helpful, Loren
As for Bold Moves, this could mean anything. Could be an ad for laxitives. And people are comparing cars and their manufacturer. The Fusion, when compared is winning some, and losing some. At the time of purchase, ALL things must be considered. Is the Fusion a Bold Move on your part in that the resale could be lower? Does the person have good memories of time spent at the dealership both in the repair shop, and during the last purchase? And what really is the Bold Move? I see nothing really new, except a crossover car. The FordFivehundred becomes the Taurus -- wow, a bold move there. No, take that back, a stupid move. If people prefer the Fusion over the Accord and Camry, where are the sales to back that up? A popular rental car?
Loren
In many posts I've pointed out how the GM-haters will always find something that GM's not doing the right way to suit them and their favored auto.
You're right on point with many of your statements here. Especially true is the larger number of auto companies successfully getting a piece of the whole pie. Each slice will be smaller. Someone tried to make it that the GMs should be selling as many as they used to when there were three companies.NOT.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The ad where the Fit swallows the SUV is very funny..... and perhaps true one day in the future. It is eating a few as you read this message, and is getting larger (in sales). Funny looking, little thing that it is, I suppose it is well timed for the gas prices.
Loren
Loren
:surprise:
Is there an award for Forums Post of the Year? Because there should be.
"and has only recently fielded a worthy competitor in the family-sedan segment (Aura) and small SUV segment (new Vue). "
See the good thing about being a GM basher is that you can say ANYTHING and report it as fact even if its miles from the truth. GM has had numerous competitive midsize sedans before the Aura including the Intrigue, Alero, Aurora, GP, Impala (both generations), Regal, Grand Am, G6 and CTS. YOu have to compare those cars to the cars that were out at THAT TIME not in 2007. In their day those cars were competitive, especially in terms of styling and hp. GM's car offerings got much better in the late 90s which is almost a decade ago. The Vue has been a big hit for Saturn and kept the brand alive for the last five years. Where do you get off ignoring the first generation Vue? It has been a success.
GM's biggest problems that you claim were masked have nothing to do with design, engineering or product. GM's biggest liability is its UAW contracts and legacy costs, its that simple. You can talk abotu decades of GM decline and decades of GM (supposedly) being unable to design any competent car, but the bottom line is GM cannot easily shake its legacy costs and it most definitely cannot go non-union like its foreign counterparts. Since you (and others) have all the "simple" answers on how GM could've maintaine 50% share in spite of facing far more brands and products in the US market, I want you to explain to us how GM should correct its labor/legacy cost imbalance and get on equal footing with Toyota and Honda. Let me guess, fire all the UAW workers? Sounds easy enough. How about cuttng off all benefits for retirees? Yeah, that'll work too. Great PR move as well. There are no easy answers and anyone who pretends there are is either naive or just being disingenuous.
"Note that Ford did pretty well against the Japanese in the 1980s with the aero-Thunderbird, a continually improved Escort and the original Taurus/Sable. "
I dont know what you are basing that assertion on but in 2007 Ford is in worse shape than GM and has lost just as much share (proportionally) if not more than GM. Ford and Chrysler have less credibility amongst import owners than GM right now.
"And GM had plenty of warning about this, so that excuse won't wash.
We didn't wake up one morning and discover that Toyota had secretly designed a new car called "Lexus" and set up a nationwide dealer network to sell and service it. "
You just dont get it. Toyota isnt stupid, they had a plan for Lexus and it was smartly executed. Where do you get off suggesting GM should've been able to nip Lexus in the bud since they had "advanced warning"? You cant be serious. MB and BMW had advance warning as well and they are both playing catch-up to Lexus 18 years later. Lexus wasnt even aiming at Cadillac when it came out, it was a MB clone with cheaper cars and better quality and service. Lexus aimed for a specific target and hit the bullseye. There was nothing GM could've done about it and at that time traditional American luxury cars were not in direct competition with European imports. AS time moved on people began to lose interest in American luxury and everyone wanted Euro-themed luxury with an emphasis on sportiness. Cadillac missed the trend initially and they stumbled for a while although they are back on track now. You are talking about Cadillac as if its a lost cause when in fact Cadillac is about 5 years into a resurgence and they passed MB in sales for the #2 slot about 2 years back. They are #4 now but all 3 brands that are ahead of cadillac have larger lineups, especially MB.
"or a small SUV as good as the RAV-4 in 2000"
The Vue was a 2001 model I believe. It was every bit as good as the Rav4 at that time.
"Throughout the 1990s, Oldsmobile was dying, and Buick and Cadillac were already struggling."
Olds was killed and this was most likely inevitable because GM had too many brands for its marketshare in 2000. Cadillac isnt struggling anymore and Buick has suffered because the market for those types of cars has dwindled with the expansion of SUVs. Think about it, how many large non-luxury sedans are there today? I can name about 4 which isnt many compared to 20 years ago. Its not just that Buicks arent selling, smooth riding family cars meant for long hwy trips arent selling. Check the sales of the Avalon for reference. The 300/Charger seem to be the exception in this segment. Also remember that GMC has had some of its best years ever in recent years and this illustrates how people's preferences changed. Large sedans became seen as cars for old men and Buick struggled, SUVs became the new station wagons and GMC flourished.
The Fusion had sold well thus far. Its sales have been increasing since it hit the market and considering Ford didnt even have a true midsize car until fall 2005 I would saw the Fusion's success is noteworthy. Its certainly outselling the critically acclaimed Mazda6 and the rental darling Sonata. I am talking about Ford's ads you are wasting time insulting their products since you dont like them. I love it when people like you use the "I dont see anything new" excuse whenever there is decent product. I'm not a uge Edge or Fusion fan, but they are competitive products and both are doing well. Your argument is that because they arent reinventing the wheel they dont deserve any consideration. Somehow I doubt you'll be saying that when the 2008 Accord comes out even though it wont break any new ground in the segment.
"Does the person have good memories of time spent at the dealership both in the repair shop, and during the last purchase?"
You have any evidence that recent Fords such as the Fusion are unreliable? Didnt think you did. The Import FanBoy Bible aka CR has given the Fusion good marks for reliability thus far.
BTW, if people's only concern was resale we'd all be driving BMWS, MBs and Lexus models. Speaking of resale (the all time favorite topic of every import lover) I noticed that my relative's 2002 Camry is worth about $2200 more (trade in, the difference is smaller in private market) than my 2002 domestic piece of crap if we had the same mileage. Sounds pretty bad until you figure that my car had a lower sticker price and I got a nice discount and probably paid $2000-$3000 less than she did. By my calculations her car held about 30% of its value and my car held about 25% but the actual difference in real money is negligible. This doesnt even take into account that I had a lower interest rate and monthly payment.
There is no reason that, in an expanding market, GM could not have held on to its sales, even as its market share declined.
In terms of total sales GM is close to its record, but now a lot of those sales come from outside the US where GM plays on more equal footing. I find it interesting that Europe is seen as more demanding in terms of cars and GM has hte 2nd best selling car over there. I believe GM has a solid 10-12% share in Europe which is good considering how many companies compete there. GM's competitors have similar burdens (or lack thereof) in Europe, Australia and China and GM does OK in those markets. In the US market where GM is at a serious cost disadvantage it has been slowly losing share and struggling to make money while competitors are able to make money on compact cars costing $16k. Coincidence?
I never said the Fusion is unreliable. Actually, it will take another year to get a good picture of the quality. I appears that the initial quality is pretty good. Another well built car from Mexico. So far, it appears that VW is the only one suffering with the Mexico products. As far as the Fusion being new, well it is to a degree. More of a stretched Mazda6, which is OK. So, what's up next? What's new at Ford? If you have seen one crossdresser car, you've seen them all. *that's a joke*. :shades:
Just trying to be helpful, Loren
Loren
Honda, Toyota and Nissan (at the time Datsun) were all firmly in the market. No, they did not have the sales they do now and I would think that's part of the question.
While Hyundai, Kia and others were not around you could still buy a Fiat in this country without much trouble. (The trouble would come AFTER you bought the Fiat.) American Motors was still in the game. You could still buy a Renault. You could buy a brand new MG. People will likely think of others.
Now these folks went out of the business in the US because they weren't marketing well, could not produce competitive cars or any number of reasons. Such reasons are still in play today.
I'm thinking the news is not how many people are looking for a piece of the pie as how the sizes of the pieces they are getting have changed.
Bringing it back to GM, some divisions are doing better (GMC) while others are not (death of Oldsmobile, current Pontiac). A few well targeted cars could set them right and what's coming out in the new GM models certainly indicates they've gotten the message.
Is Mitsubishi going to hold on in USA? Wonder what their dealership headcount is these days compared to a few years ago?
Pontiac is going all Holden, plus a Solstice?
Saw one of those Enclaves on the lot. Sporty looking SUV. This type of SUV makes a pretty good replacement for the wagons of days-gone-bye. Aside of the arguments for the mini-van advantages, the smaller SUV and crossdresser cars look like something good for the family travel machine.
I am still thinking a name like Lassen would be better, but who cares if Enclave works. Wonder if that name, Lassen, has been used yet? Maybe on a particular style of truck?
Loren
I wonder about Mitsubishi. They have some decent product and should be a player but I live in a county with half a million people and no Mitsubishi dealers. We had one. They went with Scion. We had another. It lies deserted. This is in the northeast! What happens if you have one break down in Kansas?
I like the look of the Enclave and actually I rather like the name. There is a part of me that thinks after this minivan to get something like that and if I need a bigger vehicle for a trip to just rent.
Loren
Let's look at some of them individually
Alero, Aurora,
These two belong together. Why? They're Oldsmobile. Competitive? Somewhat, when first introduced. Their reward for initially being competitive? GM killed the entire brand.
Impala (both generations)
Not competitive at all. Sales were boosted by fleet sales of police package versions, especially the later generation. Now being replaced by a new, rear-drive platform (Finally, as it's been around a while).
Grand Am, G6
One is successor to the other. The Grand Am started off decently enough, as a reasonably (though not highly) competitive vehicle. Then it sat for a decade without major redesign.
As mentioned, this is an Achilles heel for GM: they design a good, competitive car, and let it sit for a LONG time. In the meantime, the competition releases a new model 3-5 years down the line, competing with a 5 year old design from GM. 3 more years down the line, and the competition's newly redesigned model is competing with a 6-8 year old GM design. Ford and Chrysler have had the same problem; non-domestic nameplates have always had faster product cycles, leaving the domestics with outdated product to compete with new designs.
I want you to explain to us how GM should correct its labor/legacy cost imbalance and get on equal footing with Toyota and Honda.
Make a correction in their executive pay and retirement packages, stop giving bonuses to executives while cutting UAW benefits due to poor corporate performance (and if the corporation is performing so poorly, why do these executives deserve bonuses, hmm?). Many of today's problems can be partially attributed to the American corporate "culture" that consistently rewards high level executives for poor performance.
By the way, you pointed out that GM is doing well in Europe (Ford is as well). Keep in mind that the cars sold to Europeans are different than the ones we CURRENTLY get here (Euro Focus and Astra as two quick examples). BOth brands "Euro-izing" their American lineups (Fusion is pretty Euro, and Saturn is getting Opels now) may help with sales in the States, but the question becomes, what took so freaking long?
I knew I liked you.....
The classic example of this sort of thing was when they introduced the Cavalier in 1982. It was not best in class by any means, but it was competitive. They then sat on it for over twenty frikkin' years!
I really do believe I see a change in philosophy but it will have to hold a number of years.
As many of the GM faithful have pointed out Honda didn't get its market share overnight. GM won't get a lot back overnight either.
Well, I'm not sure about a quarter century ago, but I remember reading an article years ago, that mentioned the top ten selling cars of 1985. I looked up production totals in my old car book. Here they are:
Escort: 407,073
Cavalier: 383,752
Celebrity: 354,922
Tempo: 339,087
Cutlass Ciera: 303,113
Caprice/Impala: 264,793
Century: 261,235
Delta 88: 241,765
Cutlass Supreme: 223,752
Nissan Sentra: (my book only lists production cars, but I remember it being mentioned as the lone import in that list)
In addition to the Sentra, I'd imagine that some of the stronger selling Japanese imports were the Corolla, Camry, Accord, Civic, and Stanza. And actually, now that I've added up those production totals, I'm surprised that some of those models didn't break into the top ten. After all, 223,752 doesn't seem like THAT hard of a number to top. But then again, by 1985, big cars were in again, much to GM's dismay, as they were just beginning their second wave of downsizing.
Ford in thoose days had great styling. The tempo and Tarus had that rounded aerodynamic look that would be the future. In fact only today are cars becoming a tad more boxy like they were in the 60ies\70ies.
As for gm why on earth would they downsize the whole fleet at once? Wouldn't a smarter move be to downsize some models and see if they sell?
The Cavilier did get redesigned on the exterior in that 20 year window that you are talking about but yeah the platform was like 22 years old by 2004 since the Cobalt came out for the 2005 model year. Was there even a 2004 model year Cavilier or did the Cobalt come out early in 04 as an 05 model?
Mitsubishi was going strong for awhiile there in the late 90's. Than the 2000 Eclipse redeign was a flop as was the 2004 Galant but Mitsu seems to have a hit on their hands with the new Lancer because I already see a few Lancers where I live in Cebtral New Jersey. Thew 0/0/0 finanicial program by Mitsu in America nearly killed the company automotive operations in 2003.
Mitsubishi;s dealer network has never been good to start with though so its just not a recent issue that popped up just now lack of dealer network has alays been a problem of Mitsu. In Central NJ I have one Mitsu dealer thats close to me and the other two cloest to me are like 1 hour and 1 hour and 20 minutes respoectively.
The primary theme of "An American Revolution" is that Chevy cars are American and a Revolution. I never said it is the sole reason, but it is certainly the predominant theme.
Secondly, I am still waiting for you to explain why Chevy should ax its ad campaign if its the largest brand in the market and will be no worse than the 2nd largest brand in 2007. You show me CHevy sales are down 5.8% but dont show me where they rank in brand sales thus far in 2007.
You talked about how successful Chevy has been. I pointed out that the Chevy brand sales are down 5.8% for the year. I don't call that successful when Toyota is gaining market share. Perhaps your definition of success is different than mine. Your quote above even admits that they may go from the largest brand in 2006 to the second largest brand in 2007. I suppose you'd call a slip to the #3 brand even more successful.
You say GM's lower marketshare is "proof" that GM shoulnt mention "American" in any ads but you fail to mention that Chevy is one the GM brands that isnt struggling.
See above. Dropping market share isn't struggling? That's funny.
Chevy is the brand that keeps GM afloat and allows the other brands to exists. What part of that point dont you get?
I'll let that statement speak for itself. You seem to be implying because Chevy is big it is successful. I'm looking at the downward trend and saying that this is a problem. Isn't that what got GM into its current problems over the last 30 years -- declining market share? By your definition this is success.
The big three and the last of the AMC cars, did have some popular models, and as a whole did well for sales. Reliability of those cars depended on the models in some ways. You would have an Impala or Cutlass which was pretty good, then something thrown together like a Monza / Starfire in the mid - seventies. Style was ever so good in the late sixties, with GM leading the way, along with some hits from Chrysler like the Challenger, and the AMX by AMC, and of course the Ford with the Mustang.
One of the more interesting things to happen was the demise of styling by Datsun, say around the time of the name change here in the states, when they used their name of Nissan. The 510 was a nice and clean little sedan, as a poorman's BMW, The original Z was the working class sports car, and very slick in design. The Z got larger and the price tag did as well. They had a popular little truck, which seems all but forgotten along the way. Even the quality got to be questionable at one point. Where did they go wrong? Today it appears Nissan is back on track.
Next up is GM. Back on track? Could be, as they are coming up with at least some new stuff, with more in the pipeline. The New Impala may be a catalyst, just like the CTS was to Cadillac, if it is drop dead gorgeous, drives well, and can get the gas mileage in the RWD configuration. The New Malibu looks to be something which will sell. It doesn't seem to be something to be the cause for much buzz in the auto world though, like a New Impala, styled with some flare would be.
Camaro should stir some emotion. There is one of the words missing. Emotion is word. Does the car say something, even when simply sitting there? The interior improvements are darn good. The New Malibu's best look may be the interior, which from photos is closer to perfect. Hard to tell until you sit inside the car, but it looks very promising. The exterior looks good, but then again a lot of the Japanese and other brands look good in one way or another. What I am looking for in a GM is a knock-out punch great looking car, like they did say with the '69 Camaro, the '68 Malibu, or going back to almost any year of style, say the '41 Cadillac, when GM was out-styling the competition. Think of the original Toronado, all those hot Rivieras over the years, that's what we're talking about! Look at style efforts for the less expensive, and smaller models back when, such as the Nova.
As far as the mid-sixty boxy car look, please-please, never again. It did not last too long. Or did it. Seems like car get swoopy and rounded, only to return to the box. Make sense, as you can only do so much, I guess. I personally like say the MGA over the style of the MGB. Some of those Ford cars looked OK, like the Fairlane, with the stacked headlamps, but I still like rounded. And that is just opinion.
Loren
You think it was bad in the 1980s? Back in the early '60s my Dad took his 1962 Volkswagen Bug to a local mechanic. The mechanics didn't have metric tools, so they ground down the bolt heads and nuts so the standard tools would fit. Needless to say, they pretty much ruined his car. Dad soon replaced it with a 1961 Chevrolet Biscayne.
I'm not surprised by those 85 sales numbers. It was a few years later when the Accord slipped into the rankings that it started being news.
Parts - my buddy had a 1972 Datsun 510. Inability to get parts is what did it in. It was a great little car.
Mt mom was into imports early. Had a 72 Corolla and later an 80 510. I liked them both but I REALLY liked the Datsun.
I have an aunt and uncle who had two Datsun wagons in the '70's. One was a 510 and I think the other was a 210 or 310? Anyway, back then, the rest of the family thought they were weird! They're divorced now. Last time I saw my aunt, she had an early 90's Park Ave, and I think my uncle has mid 90's Grand Am. I guess that must be rare, crossing over from an import BACK to GM! :P