Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Aveo gets 34 highway and carries 4 people. The Smartfor2 carries 2 people and gets 40 highway. Smart does not sound so smart anymore. BUT the Aveo should be getting more MPG. The Honda Fit gets 33 highway and the Toyota Yaris gets 36.
One huge reason the Aveo does not get the mileage cars like it used to is due to all the extra doo dads and safety items required to day. 5 star safety ratings take lots of steel and all those air bags add quite a bit of weight.
I'm sure others have read this but I just read on Inside Line that if Chrysler merged with GM, the Ram, the minivans, and a few Jeeps would be all that would be produced. I kinda figured as much although I did also think that the LX sedans had a chance.
As for your example, is rwd with a big honking V8 selling? You got 3 fwd sedans with v6 engines, shouldn't the resource be better utilize on only ONE of them?
GM builds the best full size trucks. If they can beat toyota in NA, why not improve on it's small trucks and beat them in the world market?
dump Saab (ditto)
dump Hummer (already in the works?)
kill GMC
change Buick just to include a G8 GT badged as a Grand National and a new Lucerne (can Lucerne have a better name pleeease?) based on a Cadillac platform, tuned for comfort
leverage Daewoo Asia and Opel to the hilt and use them to fill the Pontiac line, kill EVERYTHING Pontiac today except the Solstice - give it a lineup of fun, small to midsize, genuinely fuel-efficient cars, including a 4-seat 2-door sport coupe using the new 1.4 turbo and a shortened Corvette platform using more conventional materials to keep price down.
Chevy takes on an extra trim level or two in the truck line to cover the lost GMCs, and takes on the Vibe which should have been a Chevy in the first place (not especially sporty as Pontiacs are supposed to be, and cheapish in its lowest trims). I will echo the calls to kill this stupid Cruz name in favor of just keeping Cobalt, and to reintroduce a super-cheap Aveo trim to keep entry price extra low for those that need transport, not perks.
Cadillac: this is the only brand where I think GM has managed really well since 2000, and I like the existing plans for its future, with the exception of the Escalade - it needs to go, it's ridiculous, and too vulnerable to gas price spikes as this year proves all too well. What's more, it cheapens the Cadillac brand by its existence. I do think they could do a good job of selling the "BLS" in America and grabbing some more buyers, and they could use a high-quality compact to complete the lineup.
Will GM get the chance to do any of this? Probably not. So while my response above addresses the spirit of the original question posed, I think more realistically what I would do is hide the company cash somewhere convenient and take the North American divisions straight to bankruptcy court. I can appreciate that it might have a big impact on sales in the short term, but they would eventually reorganize and the resulting company would be sooo much more competitive on a global scale.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM makes some cash and has one less needless brand to worry about, and maybe Chinese Buicks still get sold in the States in future. Win win? If GM expanded the Cadillac line to include the BLS and a new Deville worthy of the (new) Cadillac name, they wouldn't lose any money just eliminating Buick from the NA market anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Wouldn't they have to buyout all the Buick dealers?
I think GM would be better off financially to drop most of the Buick models, and make the 1 left a "dog" so that Buick dealers willingly quit the business. But that's a moot point as GM is quickly bleeding to death.
Looking at their latest Red Tag Sale prices, I don't see those as helping their sales at all. It's the same old small discounts off MSRP, and an MSRP that's higher than last year (!). Sales are going to be down 40% for a while, and they're going to be losing $2B+/month.
Now, picture GM selling Saturn to say Fiat, and Buick to SAIC. Fiat turns Saturn into a winner by selling Fiats as Americanized Saturns, and 10 years from now, SAIC brings Buick back to the US. In the short term GM may have benefitted from a cash infusion, but long term, it may bite them in the rear. A better idea may be to kill them, as you can always bring them backif the situation calls for it, but the BEST idea is to just build cars for those brands that people want.
Sell 'em, make some cash so desperately needed in the short term, reduce your overhead at the same time, and in the case of Buick, maybe give it a future brighter than the one it has now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I did see that a current market estimate on teh Jeep name is around $2 billion (vs. $5 billion a year ago). If Jepp is worth that little, what the heck is Saturn wort? Saab? They would barely cover a month of financial bleeding.....
Question is would GM continue down Chryslers method of closing dealers? Just starve them for product. Keep sending a few vehicles (Jeep, minivans, rams) until the weakest fold (~75%?) and then merge the remaining with the other GM dealers. GM has really done the same thing with Buick by cutting the product to only 3 models but GM paid thru the nose in assisting dealership consolidation, unlike Cererbus.
If a buyer could be found with some money to plug into aggressive advertising, Saturn would probably demonstrate previously unrealized sales potential....but GM is spread too thin to ever have any hope of doing this while also supporting its many other brands.
As for Buick, you are right on. The only potential buyer to whom it would be worth something is SAIC in China.
Saab? Well, Saab and Volvo both seem to be entering that last swirl before they go down the drain altogether. Volvo sales were off like 50% or something last month, or for the year? I forget which, but both the Swedish brands are in trouble.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
OK, but what if you were to combine the 2? Under a merger scenario, give all Saturn dealers a Jeep franchise (what is there, 500 nationwide), and give the stronger Dodge & Chrysler dealers (and stand alone Jeep dealers) a Saturn franchise. Let's say you end up with 1200-1500 dealers, and they and they alone have exclusivity to sell these 2 brands, you have a solid, but not overstretched dealer network.
Now, you streamline the 2 brands by ridding Jeep of car based small CUV's like the Patriot or Compass, and make the Outlook the next Grand Cherokee or Grand Wagoneer. saturn can keep the Vue, as this seems to be very popular. Now you have ONE very solid dealer network, with a FULL LINE of cars and utility vehicles for them to sell.
This is similar to what I was thinking, and along with Lemko's thoughts on the Impala/Caprice/Bel Air/Biscayne (as well as the knowledge of the taillamps & trim). There was also mention of bringing the GN name back to Buick but since the GN was named for the NASCAR and local races, it really doesn't work. However if Buick is kept and it is felt a performance coupe is wanted / needed, I say GS (GSX) is the way to go. With Poncho, I wouldn't go with Sunfire - honestly haven't thought of names but I wouldn't do Sunfire. But if they are going BMW-hunting it may not be a bad idea to keep the alpha-numeric naming. This is a sticky. I didn't know V8s came in the Colorado, whose name I would change too as well as do a total redesign. And why GM decided to narrow / shrink the rails / engine compartment to not fit the 6-cyl is beyond me.
No matter what the scenario, I think the marketing has to follow what the message is behind the brands / vehicle lineup. If they screw it up as they have in the past (most memorable was the Neo-GTO / Monaro) then the buying public once again may be turned off. They need to define the market for the vehicle and go after that main market, and then determine if any niches or sub-markets would also like the vehicle, then make a buzz about it in those circles too. I'd try to tap Wangers and other past sales / marketing persons for direction. I would also try to hold the line if possible on the dealership practices. I know dealers for the most part are their own agents, but they've help kill more than one model and repeat customers by their practices and pricing mark-ups.
Lastly I would work on having complete models at introduction, no more of that "coming in a year, the drivetrain that should have been ready when the vehicle debuted will be installed". Or having the better interior fabric that should have been in place when the car intro'd coming two years later. I can see having the sporty version of the vehicle be delayed for a year or two so that the bread-n-butter model(s) grab hold. But to intro what essentially are vehicles lacking in equipment, also-rans if you will, right out the gate is inexcusable. It shows you are not ready to play the game. Falling back on the "wait till next year" doesn't cut it as next year your customer is already driving someone's else product. If your launch needs to be delayed for a week or two to ensure the product is right (quality, equipment, offerings), then so be it. It may hurt you a little up front due to dealers crying and a week of potentially lost sales, but in the long term it will work out as you will sell more models due to the total package being available up front, instead of playing catch-up. Perceived quality and readiness (or lack there of) can be more powerful than actual quality sometimes and a sub-par product is a death knell.
"Killing car brands a rocky road
Even struggling brands are vital to legions of dealers and they don't usually go down lightly."
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: November 4, 2008: 8:40 AM ET
"The phase-out of GM's Oldsmobile brand from 2000 through 2004 illustrates the complexities of withdrawing a brand."
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As General Motors struggles to sell cars, one repeated bit of advice is that it needs to shed some brands -- especially if it joins forces with Chrysler. But there's one big roadblock in the way -- the dealers who sell those cars.
'It's very difficult,' said Tom Libby, an auto market analyst with J.D. Power and Associates "and very time consuming,"
Libby formerly worked for Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) His job was to help open new dealerships and work to close underperforming ones.
There is only one way to get an auto dealer to close up shop, he said: 'It almost always involves the manufacturer paying the dealer to close his doors,' a tricky business of asking dealers to give up their businesses.
'All states have some form of protection for car dealers,' said Matthew Moloshok, a New Jersey lawyer who is former head of the American Bar Association's Franchise and Dealership Committee.
State laws often restrict the terms under which a manufacturer can refuse to renew a dealer's contract and the terms under which they can allow nearby dealerships to open. Anything seen as 'coercion' is also usually prohibited. Laws also prevent manufacturers from favoring one dealer, for instance by selling vehicles at a lower price to one dealer than to another.
Car dealers need those laws to protect themselves from capricious actions by carmakers, Moloshok said. Unlike clothing retailers, for instance, who may sell products under a variety of brands or who could easily switch from one supplier to another, a car dealer is married to that brand.
Further complicating the matter: No single approach works, because laws vary from state to state, according to Libby. And dealership franchise laws are usually much stronger than laws that apply to other types of franchisees, said John Frith of Urban Science, which consults automakers on dealership location strategy.
'Dealers typically have more money so they have a little bit more influence with the legislature than the local Subway,' he said.
Not your father's phase-out
GM's experience with phasing out its Oldsmobile brand in the early 2000's shows how hard it can be to get dealers to close or change their line of business to match a manufacturer's strategy. And moving to another GM brand wasn't always possible because of competition from nearby dealers.
'I had good friends who were Oldsmobile dealers that are just out of the car business,' said Reed Trickett of Nashville, Tenn., a former Olds dealer.
Oldsmobile sales made up just 1.6% of America's market share in 2000, a sharp drop from 6.5% a decade and a half earlier when it had been one of America's top-selling car brands, according to market trackers at Autodata. At the time, GM (GM, Fortune 500) said it jut couldn't find a way to make Oldsmobile profitable again.
After he was presented with a buy-out offer from GM, Trickett said he called lawyers and seriously considered suing. He ultimately decided to take a cash pay-out GM offered, using the money to expand his adjoining Honda dealership.
Of the 2,800 Oldsmobile dealerships in operation in 2000, most accepted GM's proffered buy-out packages. Amounts varied depending on the dealer's sales volume in prior years and what percentage of those sales came from Oldsmobile.
But dozens of other dealers did fight for more money from GM, according to lawyers who represented them.
'We ended up with 19 lawsuits in 17 different states, I think that was the final number,' according to Florida attorney Richard Sox who said at least 100 dealers hired his firm to fight GM for more money.
Each of those states had its own set of laws under which the suits were filed, argued and, in most cases, negotiated to settlement, he aid.
After that, GM simply started negotiating higher-priced settlements without waiting for a legal filing. One case is still not resolved, Sox said.
GM would not comment on the amounts but, according to media reports from that time, packages varied widely from tens of thousands to more than a million.
And GM did assist many dealers by helping them shift to other brands, said company spokeswoman Susan Garontakos. GM would not say how many dealers sued or negotiated while threatening to sue.
Shrunken but not dead
At least GM's approach in the Oldsmobile case -- an outright killing of the brand - gave dealers a fighting chance, said Sox.
'The worst-case scenario for the dealers is what's happening now with some of the line-makes,' he said, using another term for brands.
Instead of just dropping them, manufacturers are simply shrinking the line-ups of some brands and combining them in one-stop dealerships with other brands. This is what GM is doing now with its Pontiac, Buick and GMC line-ups.
Besides reducing the number of dealerships, "brand channeling" is supposed to allow each brand to more tightly focus on a core vehicle type while still allowing the dealer to sell a full line-up of cars, trucks and SUVs.
But according to Sox, 'They're strangling these line-makes so they're not viable.'
Buick now has just three vehicles in its line. For a Buick dealer, GM's invitation to work out a business deal with a nearby Pontiac dealer is pretty hard to resist.
GM spokeswoman Garontakos took issue with Sox's view of the process. She called the plan good business for all involved and not an intimidation tactic.
Besides, said Frish of Urban Science, dealerships represent their brands to consumers, for better or worse. No carmaker wants to deliberately starve any on-going dealers.
'It's just not good to have dealers going out of business,' he said, 'The brand's value is tarnished in the marketplace.' "
This article makes it clear that it's far easier to offer solutions regarding what GM, Ford and Chrysler should do than to implement them, particularly in light of their current cash squeeze.
In other news, Auto execs, UAW to meet with Pelosi. (Yahoo)
"Two people familiar with plans for the meeting said the top executives of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, along with the union's president, will meet with Pelosi to talk about the impact of the credit crisis and the industry's access to government funding.
She'll meet in Washington with Bob Nardelli of Chrysler, Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, the people familiar with the meeting plans said.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting is private.
Pelosi has called for Congress to enact a stimulus program to shore up the sinking economy during its lame-duck session."
Before you do that, offer an incentive program to dealers to switch brands, or close up. Make it clear that this is a one-time deal that will not last forever.
I know GM has already been offering dealers incentives to consolidate, has it also been offering them incentives just to close?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm not a lawyer but, nippononly, if you were a dealer being strangled, wouldn't you start a class action suit, or at least join one, against the auto company for, at a minimum, violating the spirit of the law?
The Detroit Three and the unions have no doubt made big mistakes over the years, but at this point there are no easy solutions to their problems, only difficult and painful ones. It's really too bad, and it impacts many, many people. I don't hold myself out as an expert on this matter, by any means, but my sense of things is that an additional $25 billion (for a total of $50 billion) would be insufficient, given their current and collective cash burn rate.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How about this variant? Say GM has decided that the only two brands it wants left are Chevy and Caddy. So for each other brand, start phasing out brand-unique vehicles. EVERY vehicle sold by Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Buick, etc. is an exact copy rebadge of a Chevy vehicle! No more separate taillights or grills! Same options lists as Chevy!
For example, in 2 years Pontiac has only a G6 that is *exactly* the same as the Malibu, with Pontiac badges. No brand identity, but it's still a Pontiac! And a couple of other cars/SUVs similarly. So if you're a Pontiac dealer you can still sell Pontiacs! But GM really has only Chevy and Caddy, and the other brands just sell Chevies with new badges. And then offer these dealers incentives to switch to Chevy! So the advantage is:
Each franchisee still gets products to sell.
GM only has to focus on great design and products for Chevy and Caddy. Other brands get new badges and nothing else. GM consolidates brand HQs into the Chevy division, since they're only rebadges of Chevies. GM can provide some minimal advertising for the other brands - in fact, use the same commercial and put the alternate brand name on it! (rebadged commercial!). GM can now focus and saves a ton of money. GM also doesn't get sued by Pontiac, Saturn, and Buick dealers as they still get products to sell. GM doesn't have to pay those dealers to close shop, they can hang around if they want to.
Each franchisee knows that while they get products indefinitely, their line is done, strategically. They have incentives to move on. They can take six months or 3 years, but eventually there will be few dealers left of the other brands and those brands can die a slow death.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM only has to focus on great design and products for Chevy and Caddy. Other brands get new badges and nothing else. GM consolidates brand HQs into the Chevy division, since they're only rebadges of Chevies.
Take that idea a little farther.
A town about 20 miles from me has a Chevy dealer and a Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealer about one mile apart. There are probably hundreds of other towns, suburbs with similar dealer proximities. Would not Chevy dealers bring lawsuits on GM for violating some kind of exclusivity arrangements for "territory" infringement? Aren't dealers given a territory in which to operate?
I will use the bailout money to buy out workers that can not be part of the new company so they will have enough funds to re-train, including supplier companies that are affected by the massive changes I propose. The U.A.W. would go away under my plan as well as guaranteed pension costs and health care for retired since B.O. will fix health care in the U.S. while I rebuild the Auto Industry and Chevy and Cadillac would emerge when the smoke cleared as the twin divisions.
I do not expect any bonus to be paid until every cent of the loans from the Government are paid and profits EXCEED the industry benchmarks.
Market share would drop as production is reduced to dry up all of the excess capacity in the new/used market. After 3 years, no old platforms would exist as they are know today. Minimum efficiency specifications for both divisions would be 20 MPG City fuel economy and average would be 35 MPG COMBINED target 2011.
Chevy
Corvette
Camaro
Malibu
Caravan
Jeep - 4 variants
Tahoe
WOW (my pet economy car beating Civic price and Economy)
Cadillac
Alpha (3-Series Fighter with Economy, Mid-Level and High Performance)
Alpha CUV - Eldorado is the name for the alpha's
CTS - Would be changed to Electra
SRX - Changed to Park Avenue
DTS - Changed to DeVille
Escalade
Regards,
OW
I guess you could say that GM is already "rebadging" cars, as there is a company in Austrailia that will sell a kit to "convert" your G8 to a Holden Commodore for $4,000. All it is is a body kit that bolts on. This tells me that the easiest way is to just built quality cars that appeal to everybody.
The Malibu, G6, and Aura all sit on the same platform, just as the Toyota Camry, Highlander, Venza, Avalon, and their Lexus variants do. I'd be willing to bet that that is where the biggest savings comes from, in that all these cars can be built on the same assembly line using the same basic structural architecture. I believe that if the G6 were as good as the Malibu, and the Aura were sold at more than just 500 dealerships, they could sell close to, if not more than, 1 million of these 3 per year total. But the G6 can't hold a candle to the Malibu, and the Aura is "hidden" at the few Saturn dealers that exist, so I guess they'll have to settle with half that amount, with 2/3-3/4 of those sale being Malibus. THAT'S where bad planning comes in.
Therefore, I would not want to run GM. I am not sure the manager can say, that they produce the best product they could possibly create. They're not. I would do some house cleaning if I were in there, that can be good or bad. lol
I would get rid of a few models/brands. Keep my most quality cars, and use them as examples, start from there.
I do wish them luck, I think they'll pull out of this, but they still need to consider their quality.
GM also said it has suspended talks to acquire Chrysler. While it didn't specifically name the automaker, GM said it was setting aside considerations for a "strategic acquisition."
GM reports $2.5B 3Q loss, says it's running out of money, suspends Chrysler takeover talks (Yahoo)
If we can bail out AIG and all these dishonest CEO's and those loansharks that did nothing but screw up our financies in the US and world wide, why not GM, FORD and CHRYSLER? It's about timewe look out for our own countries intrest and not these Korean , China, and European made vehicles. I am sick at heart to think of the families that will be in really bad shape if we don't help these companies. There is more at stake than just making cars. Our total econnmy is pretty much based on the making of vehicles. Perhaps you two might want to rethink your heartless words.
farout
farout
Regards,
OW
Dr. Obama will operate and Dr. Nancy will assist.
BTW, even I could not have screwed up GM more than it is today. I'm not that greedy or blind! :shades:
Regards,
OW
If they can find a model they think works for lending the money to create a company that will eventually turn profitable I'd be OK with government action. Right now i don't see it. The federal government is plenty big. I don't need to see them building cars as well.
Dumping $50B into an industry that is so inefficient without drastic change is insanity.
The merger seems dead now but there is some talk of an acquisition...
DETROIT -(Dow Jones)- General Motors Corp. (GM) warned Friday that it risks running out of cash in the first half of next year without government intervention or a reversal of weakening market conditions.
The largest U.S. auto maker also indicated that merger talks with No. 2 Chrysler LLC had ended and it was focused on boosting its precarious liquidity position through an extra $5 billion in cuts and savings.
The warning is the starkest to date by GM as global auto makers struggle to align with collapsing sales in Europe and North America and softening emerging- market conditions.
Without government intervention, a significant increase in auto sales or " substantial" proceeds from asset sales, GM said its liquidity will reach minimum levels required by the end of 2008 after burning through $6.9 billion in the September quarter.
Rick Wagoner, chairman and chief executive, continued to shrug off speculation that the company may file for bankruptcy protection, telling CNBC it hoped Congress would act to support the industry during its lame-duck session.
He said cash-burn during the fourth quarter would fall to levels seen in the first half of 2008.
The prospect of a demand-led recovery look slim, focusing attention on industrywide efforts to secure government support on both sides of the Atlantic.
The plan to merge GM and Chrysler had reportedly hit a stumbling block owing to the lack of financing. The end of any merger talks leaves the companies with one less option to deal with the current crisis.
Chrysler Chief Executive Bob Nardelli in a statement Friday declined to confirm that merger talks had taken place. He said he continues to focus on returning Chrysler to profitability.
"We are significantly challenged by today's economic environment and by the automotive industry's unprecedented downturn," Nardelli said in the statement Friday. "As an independent company, we will continue to explore multiple strategic alliances or partnerships as we investigate growth opportunities around the world that would aid in our return to profitability."
Regards,
OW
They had all the chance in the world to became competitive. The missed the boat in the first fuel crisis and they missed the boat once again with their big SUV.
Its sad for the workers but in all honesty they are responsible for a big part of this mess too. Once again dont take me wrong , its also the lack of vision of the industry.
Can we let them do the same with public's money ?? For you to decide !!
GM and Chrysler build so many P.O.S for so many years that it is not a surprise to see them going away. Build something that the peoples want, that is reliable, a a good price and you'll make money.
Toyota was a small outfit not long ago, they worked hard, they are imaginative, they can forecast pretty well what the market will ask for and they deliver a very decent product. Nothing that the big 3 cant do ....
With my idea the Pontiac dealer next to the Chevy dealer is selling Pontiac badged cars. He can choose not to switch to Chevy, since there's a Chevy dealer next door. If you go to the Chevy dealer you see a Malibu. If you go to the next door Pontiac dealer you see the same exact car, it just says Pontiac G6 on it! GM basically rebadges exact vehicles and then all dealers get product, yet GM only has to support two "real" brands, as the cost of new badges is minimal. It's not like a slightly reworked Acadia is all that different than a Traverse, or an Enclave, etc. So everybody gets the Traverse, but the GMC dealer sells it as an Acadia. I don't see why it violates any agreements about competition, since many of the existing rebadges are still minimally different anyway. Just don't make them different at all, except the badges!
Of course none of this matters given today's financial announcements unless GM gets government bailout money soon, since that appears to be their only hope. Let's hope this really leads to some RADICAL, not evolutionary, restructuring.
But why would you want an S-Class fighter since those European cars are like call girls that are so unsatisfying anyway? :P :P :P :P
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
You realize of course that this is what GM ACTUALLY DID with a number of models for a long time, and as you can see it didn't save them enough money to avoid the abyss they have now fallen into. In particular, it ignores the cost of separate marketing materials, advertising, etc etc for these other brands. And if your point here is to chase those other-brand dealers out of business, well GM dealers have demonstrated many times over that they will be perfectly content to sell rebadged product until the cows come home. So the plan may not work.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That could work. It was proven in recent election where voters were conned into voting for a guy with no credentials. There is the old saying of a Sucker born every minute which was proved with Obama. There are still enough fools who would believe Elmer Gantry, Jim Baker and his wife and a Pontiac/GMC dealer about a rebadged Malibu being an upscale Pontiac
This is a much more radical idea. Call it the "Orphaned Divisions Plan".
Key points:
1. Consolidate all of the divisional headquarters of the Saab, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, Buick (hereafter referred to as the "Orphan Brands") under Chevy and get rid of 99% of those divisional staff. So you eliminate those costs.
2. Take GMs 10 or 15 best vehicles, and KILL all the others. Chevy and Caddy split them up according to which vehicle fits which make - this is now like Toyota and Lexus. Decide which of the Chevy vehicles can be renamed to provide product to the Orphan Brands. Perhaps Pontiac gets 5 vehicles, perhaps Buick gets 4 vehicles, etc. Caddy's vehicles are exclusive to Caddy only.
3. Get rid of separate marketing materials for the Orphan Brands. See that Chevy brochure for the Traverse? Take the source file, replace the Chevrolet emblem and word "Chevrolet" in the brochure with "GMC" and "Acadia". No other differences in the brochure. So you eliminate separate marketing budgets, etc.
4. Only one set of commercials for Chevys, then take the same commercial and replace "Chevy Traverse" with "GMC Acadia". Repeat for all other Orphan Brand vehicles. Guess what? Pontiac, Buick, Saab, and Saturn are now also the Heartbeat of America and are as good as Mom, Apple Pie, and Hot Dogs! Virtually no extra costs.
5. FOCUS on making and designing new QUALITY vehicles for Chevy and Caddy. No more junk. Keep the number of models under control. Rebadge some of the Chevys to keep some product going to the Orphan Brands.
You basically kill all of the various taillights, body panels, and interiors on similar vehicles and save those costs. You kill the corporate divisional HQ's of Saab, GMC, Buick, Pontiac, and Saturn and save those costs. GM may have had identical rebadges in the past but they never did it like this extensively.
And while we're ranting, get some new upper management and FOCUS on product. You think a $40K plug in hybrid or a retro V8 muscle car are going to have enough volume to save GM? Get some management who can make smart strategic decisions. Why isn't GM making a small car as good as the Mazda 3, as reliable as the Honda Civic, or as fun to drive as the Mini Cooper? They need to focus on excellent, high volume vehicles, as nobody is going to support the world's largest car company on a plugin at $40K or a V8 muscle car!
Chevrolet and Cadillac are gold plated and must be retained as brands. Pontiac, Buick, Saturn are expendable as brands. But, what about legal entanglements with Saturn, Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers? Apparently, GM cannot just kill a brand without serious legal implications. Is there a way that Obama can intervene and neutralize dealers of Saturn, Pontiac, GMC, Buick?