Mahogany row: We need a strong CMO to lead this company's marketing. Somebody who isn't afraid to shake things up, get rid of the old ways and make us great. Hey about about that hotshot at Hyundai America whose done great things for them? He thinks outside the box and isn't afraid to take risks. GET HIM NOW.
2 years later:
Mahogany row: What is that guy thinking? Doesn't he understand we have a process on how to do things? He bypassed all the committees, boards, 360 reviews. That's not how we do things at GM. We have a tradition on how to operate that slows us down so we don't make mistakes and everyone gets to CYA. He should know we are risk averse and don't want to make waves. FIRE HIM NOW.
Sounds like you've worked in a few bureaucracies! It takes the new, young people awhile to figure out image and buzz versus reality - a rude awakening.
I've worked in a 500 person company, a 100 person company and currently work in a 5 person company. Believe it or not, it's the same slow, plodding culture at all of them.
We're told to think outside the box but when we do, we get slapped for going outside the lines.
Doesn't sound good, and it's hard to figure out who's to blame. On the one hand, you hire a guy into a high profile role and of course he expects to be able to take charge, which might include using outside agencies he's most comfortable/happy with. You might assume that the GM entrenched bureaucracy isn't used to radical changes. On the other hand, perhaps this guy was like a loose cannon and didn't properly communicate to others. Perhaps it's more of a 50/50, with two valid sides to the story.
Nevertheless, it can't be good for GM, and as the article says, GMs market share in the US continues to decline.
Wasn't a poster recently talking about what a good year GM was having? Perhaps compared to the last couple of years - but not good compared to the rest of the market.
I think part of the problem is that business schools don't do a good job teaching risk management. It's either reduced to simplistic mathematics (even if the calculations are complex) which led to all of the Wall Street problems, or it defaults to risk aversion.
Wasn't a poster recently talking about what a good year GM was having? Perhaps compared to the last couple of years - but not good compared to the rest of the market.
GM's not even having a good year compared to last year, per the report I saw this morning. The only 1 of the D3 that's still growing is Chrysler group.
If GM is having any sort of financial success it's because they've been freed of income taxes.
How are car sales in this country going to do when the unsustainable government stimuli run out? How about on Jan 2 when everyone is going to be back to paying the +2% to Social Security, and government purchases of vehicles declines when the $100B in cuts hit the federal budget?
So I really think GM had better hold on their cash, stop the bonuses, and any dividends, and stop investing in ventures like Peugeot!
That's good, isn't it? For years posters have complained about fleet sales on GM's part. So lowering them is a step forward.
Did fleets buy other company's vehicles? Did they stop certain kinds of purchases of GM vehicles? I believe I read in another discussion Edmunds that Toyota was selling a higher fleet quantity. Is that a factor?
Seems like a lot of the last generation Avalons went to fleets. Shame, because it's about the only Toyota-branded product I'd seriously consider. The new one is hideous with its big mouth bass grille.
It is good to lower the % of fleet sales, but the bad news is that retail sales were also down slightly.
Toyota's numbers aren't out yet and they may not state fleet sales when they do, we'll see.
What's happening now is that we're comparing GM sales to last year, when the Japanese imports had short supply. GM enjoyed it then, but that increase in sales was temporary as supply has been restored, so we're back to equilibrium now.
So it's not necessarily a bad month. I bet they're up compared to 2 years ago, for instance.
What's happening now is that we're comparing GM sales to last year, when the Japanese imports had short supply. GM enjoyed it then, but that increase in sales was temporary as supply has been restored, so we're back to equilibrium now.
I believe Chrysler also saw benefit last year when Japanese imports were affected. But their sales are up double-digits over last year! So that theory may not be so valid. And I believe VW also just released sales numbers saying they have seen sales go up considerably; again - a company that enjoyed sales last year when the Japanese were down.
With GM and Ford still promoting how well their new products are doing, this leaves unsaid that there must be some real dogs left in their lineup.
The issue then is: does GM and Ford have the resources to carry the number of models they do, as they do not refresh the sales-dogs in their lineups quickly enough.
As I've said before GM doesn't need a new Buick that sells 40,000 or eevn 75,000 units annually. They don't need a new Caddy BTX (alpha-soup of the day). Ford isn't going to survive on a Lincoln ABC selling 25,000 units. GM and Ford each need a new bread-and-butter model, something that sells 400K a year. Make so many of the darn things, that the development-costs can be spread out and keep the vehicle dirt-cheap.
The Pentastar was such a huge improvement for Chrysler, I think that alone explains their increases.
I imagine that phasing out all those other V-6 engines and going with just the Pentastar has saved Chrysler a LOT of money. So far, I think the Pentastar has replaced the 2.7 DOHC, 3.5/4.0 SOHC, 3.3/3.8 pushrod, and I believe it'll soon be replacing the 3.7 in the trucks.
Exactly. Now, I can see the need for varying amounts of horsepower, torque curves, etc depending on the application. But, it seems to me that, if needed, they could just accomplish that by offering one engine in several different states of tune. Or, if necessary, alter the bore or stroke a bit, but at least keep it in the same engine family.
In contrast, the 2.7, 3.5/4.0, 3.3/3.8, and 3.7 were all completely different engines and very little, if anything, was interchangable.
Seems like a lot of the last generation Avalons went to fleets. The new one is hideous with its big mouth bass grille.
Strongly agree. A number of foreign brand cars are using this "fish" theme grille. Hideous, bizarre are good terms to describe them.
GM has done a very good job in design/styling in recent years of their cars and suvs. Foreign brands gone nuts with ugly front ends, such as many Lexi, Acura beaks, Mazda.
Sure, way back, they were just like GM and Chrysler; pumping out lemon after lemon after :lemon: . Paying UAW workers and their management too much, while incurring huge warranty bills.
However, Ford improved. They saw the 17M pot was going to shrink, and did something about it. They were pro-active in surviving, and even reactive. GM and Chrysler were neither. They just stuck their heads in the sand and when they were about to go extinct they begged for money and bailouts.
Ford did a lot better. They made stupid decisions in the past, but selling at a loss is better than being driven into extinction for not selling (GM with Hummer, Saab, and others). I saw Ford as a company that actually tried to improve, and made an effort. I didn't see any real effort from GM or Chrysler on either front.
Did they really think 17M vehicle sales was sustainable?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Ford has taken a risk on Euro styling and turbos and so far it has paid off. The question down the road will be if the Turbos hold up or become maintenance problems I think. Euro styling may stay popular, or may become tired in a few years, time will tell. I hope it all works out for Ford because I think they deserve it after the risks they took to avoid BK (maybe a bit motivated by keeping the Ford family in control despite owning only a small share of the overall company stock through their unique super shares).
It wouldn't be the first time a small Cadillac played that role. The 1976-79 Seville was Cadillac's most expensive offering outside the Seventy-Five limousines. The Seville STS sort of played that role in the 1990s.
I'm awaiting the LTS which I believe will be Cadillac's flagship. Would've loved to have seen the Sixteen make production! Now THAT would've been a flagship car!
I really don't care for that Lexus front end. It makes me think simultaneously of a 1961 Plymouth, the Predator, and a Mazda. it's not the kind of front end that belongs on a luxury car. Lexus' problem is that it has no defining look. You can tell a car is a Mercedes, BMW, or Cadillac even if the badges are covered. Lexus aped Mercedes styling then tried to go off on its own styling direction, so far, unsucessfully IMO.
Lexus is working to make the 61 Plymouth grille (sorry, "spindle grille") its signature. When you're so devoid of character, anything works. Makes "art and science" look downright revolutionary.
Looks like the outgoing Malibu can be a really good value. Check out this 2012 at Fitzmall. V-6, leather, sunroof, pretty well-loaded. MSRP of almost $31K, but its internet price is only around $24,500.
With all its shortcomings, the 2013 really doesn't seem like a very good value to me. As for the wheelbase getting shrunk, doesn't the car now ride the same wheelbase/platform as the Regal?
I think the new Malibu has MBA written all over it. Shrink it because the new Impala is coming, pay no attention to the Cruze on the other end, price it with more popular competitive models just because its similar in specs, use a half [non-permissible content removed] e-assist that makes the trunk pretty worthless for minimal mileage gain - but you can call it green and you can keep producing that mediocre 2.4L 4 banger even though a much improved 2.5L is out. More attention on advertising and marketing hype than the marketplace realities.
Seems to me that the market share for Impala is limited (like Taurus) and while you may get a better margin on it, it is likely better to just dump one of the nameplates and put your resources into a killer mid sizer to go against the bigger market segment vehicles like Camry, Altima and Fusion. Instead you have what appears to be a nice Impala with limited sales potential and a perennial mediocre product in the much more popular market segment. Impala should have been the mass market product instead of Malibu because I think the latter nameplate is now associated with an "also ran". If they want to play in the Taurus and 300 segment they could have brought back the Caprice name plate.
For those who dawg GM about having a little US money involved, here's some AIG stock offered by the Treasury. If you felt that bailing out the financials was better than saving GM and jobs for the working class, here's your chance at the public offering.
Does that $24.5k V6 include the coffee/chocolate two-tone interior? Always liked those.
Dunno...the website calls it cocoa/cashmere. Could be the same thing, I guess? I think I know what you're talking about though and yeah, it was petty attractive.
Comments
Mahogany row: We need a strong CMO to lead this company's marketing. Somebody who isn't afraid to shake things up, get rid of the old ways and make us great. Hey about about that hotshot at Hyundai America whose done great things for them? He thinks outside the box and isn't afraid to take risks. GET HIM NOW.
2 years later:
Mahogany row: What is that guy thinking? Doesn't he understand we have a process on how to do things? He bypassed all the committees, boards, 360 reviews. That's not how we do things at GM. We have a tradition on how to operate that slows us down so we don't make mistakes and everyone gets to CYA. He should know we are risk averse and don't want to make waves. FIRE HIM NOW.
We're told to think outside the box but when we do, we get slapped for going outside the lines.
Gasp! From reading some posts, I thought GM was the only company with their feet in heavy clay!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For 2011.
Sad, but basically true. (GM Authority)
Nevertheless, it can't be good for GM, and as the article says, GMs market share in the US continues to decline.
Wasn't a poster recently talking about what a good year GM was having? Perhaps compared to the last couple of years - but not good compared to the rest of the market.
GM's sales dropped 6 percent last month, with deliveries to retail customers off 3% and total fleet shipments down 15%
GM's not even having a good year compared to last year, per the report I saw this morning. The only 1 of the D3 that's still growing is Chrysler group.
If GM is having any sort of financial success it's because they've been freed of income taxes.
How are car sales in this country going to do when the unsustainable government stimuli run out? How about on Jan 2 when everyone is going to be back to paying the +2% to Social Security, and government purchases of vehicles declines when the $100B in cuts hit the federal budget?
So I really think GM had better hold on their cash, stop the bonuses, and any dividends, and stop investing in ventures like Peugeot!
Launching the Eco only at first and the tight back seat are turning buyers off.
That's good, isn't it? For years posters have complained about fleet sales on GM's part.
Did fleets buy other company's vehicles? Did they stop certain kinds of purchases of GM vehicles? I believe I read in another discussion Edmunds that Toyota was selling a higher fleet quantity. Is that a factor?
Inquiring minds want to know.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota's numbers aren't out yet and they may not state fleet sales when they do, we'll see.
What's happening now is that we're comparing GM sales to last year, when the Japanese imports had short supply. GM enjoyed it then, but that increase in sales was temporary as supply has been restored, so we're back to equilibrium now.
So it's not necessarily a bad month. I bet they're up compared to 2 years ago, for instance.
I believe Chrysler also saw benefit last year when Japanese imports were affected. But their sales are up double-digits over last year! So that theory may not be so valid. And I believe VW also just released sales numbers saying they have seen sales go up considerably; again - a company that enjoyed sales last year when the Japanese were down.
With GM and Ford still promoting how well their new products are doing, this leaves unsaid that there must be some real dogs left in their lineup.
The issue then is: does GM and Ford have the resources to carry the number of models they do, as they do not refresh the sales-dogs in their lineups quickly enough.
As I've said before GM doesn't need a new Buick that sells 40,000 or eevn 75,000 units annually. They don't need a new Caddy BTX (alpha-soup of the day). Ford isn't going to survive on a Lincoln ABC selling 25,000 units. GM and Ford each need a new bread-and-butter model, something that sells 400K a year. Make so many of the darn things, that the development-costs can be spread out and keep the vehicle dirt-cheap.
Volt is beating the Leaf FWIW:
Volt - 1,849
Leaf - 395
I imagine that phasing out all those other V-6 engines and going with just the Pentastar has saved Chrysler a LOT of money. So far, I think the Pentastar has replaced the 2.7 DOHC, 3.5/4.0 SOHC, 3.3/3.8 pushrod, and I believe it'll soon be replacing the 3.7 in the trucks.
Dad's 200 Convertible is plenty fast.
Exactly. Now, I can see the need for varying amounts of horsepower, torque curves, etc depending on the application. But, it seems to me that, if needed, they could just accomplish that by offering one engine in several different states of tune. Or, if necessary, alter the bore or stroke a bit, but at least keep it in the same engine family.
In contrast, the 2.7, 3.5/4.0, 3.3/3.8, and 3.7 were all completely different engines and very little, if anything, was interchangable.
Some of those old V6s weren't even good. I bet Chrysler's APEAL and reliability scores jump in the next couple of years.
Strongly agree. A number of foreign brand cars are using this "fish" theme grille. Hideous, bizarre are good terms to describe them.
GM has done a very good job in design/styling in recent years of their cars and suvs. Foreign brands gone nuts with ugly front ends, such as many Lexi, Acura beaks, Mazda.
Acura toned down the beak and sales are up a bunch recently.
Thankfully Mazda has a new styling theme, too. The 3 was toned down and the CX5 actually looks nice.
Exhibit A--the new 2013 Lexus LS. It will take a while before I warm up to it.
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1207_2013_lexus_ls_first_look/
Actually, from some angles like this one, I don't think it looks too bad. However, looking up at it from down low, such asin this shot, I think it's pretty awkward looking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSRA8kVh9SI&feature=player_embedded
Back to GM, does Cadillac need a flagship? It's odd that the small CTS-V has to play that role, no?
Sure, way back, they were just like GM and Chrysler; pumping out lemon after lemon after :lemon: . Paying UAW workers and their management too much, while incurring huge warranty bills.
However, Ford improved. They saw the 17M pot was going to shrink, and did something about it. They were pro-active in surviving, and even reactive. GM and Chrysler were neither. They just stuck their heads in the sand and when they were about to go extinct they begged for money and bailouts.
Ford did a lot better. They made stupid decisions in the past, but selling at a loss is better than being driven into extinction for not selling (GM with Hummer, Saab, and others). I saw Ford as a company that actually tried to improve, and made an effort. I didn't see any real effort from GM or Chrysler on either front.
Did they really think 17M vehicle sales was sustainable?
Ironically GM had DI turbos also, but just didn't know how to market them.
17M was not sustainable but I doubt Ford (or anyone) saw it dropping in to the 10s.
Here's the new Mazda6 wagon:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/02/first-official-mazda6-wagon-pic-revealed-as-p- lant-comes-online/
It kinda has a Jag shooting brake look to it from the profile.
New face is much improved. I hurried to buy a 2008 Miata because I didn't like the grin on the 2009+ models.
I'm awaiting the LTS which I believe will be Cadillac's flagship. Would've loved to have seen the Sixteen make production! Now THAT would've been a flagship car!
I really don't care for that Lexus front end. It makes me think simultaneously of a 1961 Plymouth, the Predator, and a Mazda. it's not the kind of front end that belongs on a luxury car. Lexus' problem is that it has no defining look. You can tell a car is a Mercedes, BMW, or Cadillac even if the badges are covered. Lexus aped Mercedes styling then tried to go off on its own styling direction, so far, unsucessfully IMO.
GM has their feet in quicksand for years! Where 'ya been?
Regards,
OW
ILX 1,410; hybrid 110
Buick Verano sold 4235 if you want to squeeze that in.
IS 2,296 +7.9%
TSX 1,980 -7.3%; wagon 316 +37.5%
Regal 1,784 -49.4%
A3 651 +49.3%
1series 379 -42.9%
But...the Verano has cannibalized the Regal.
3series 7,653 -11.4%
G 6,078 +88.8%; coupe 1,287 +1.3%
Cclass 5,663 +24.4% (includes coupe)
CTS 4,743 +6.6%
LaCrosse 4,001 -33%
ES 3,759 +42.9%
A4 3,449 +51.7%
TL 2,358 -7.7%
MKX 1,724 -10%
CTS is still strong even against fresh competition.
5series 5,700 +32%
Eclass 5,089 -.5%
XTS 1,739
A6 1,691 +66.8%
GS 1,662 +452.3%
MKS 878 -19.7%
M 652 -6.5%
RL 40 -38.1%
XTS had a strong launch.
7series 1,696 +158.9%
Sclass 852 -3.9%
LS 536 -7.2%
A8 401 -10.9%
Equus 362
Cadillac is MIA in this segment. STS used to try, I guess.
RX 7,357 +45.7%
RDX 2,664 +162.4%
X3 2,311 +4.7%
Q5 2,090 10%
GLK 1,880 +15.5%
EX 215 -61.6%
If you put the SRX here it would still be in 2nd.
SRX 4,911 +18.8%
Enclave 4,360 -29%
MDX 4,288 +35.1%
X5 2,283 -31.4%
JX 1,999
Mclass 1,790 -35.6%
Q7 891 +12.8%
GX 813 +6.1%
FX 498 -23%
Caddy more than holds it own.
X6 259 -55.4%
ZDX 85 -9.7%
The spindle leads 3 classes.
I was hoping e-assist was going to work for GM.
cnn/money article
Not to mention the back seat is smaller than the Cruze. Just get a Cruze Eco or wait for the Cruse diesel!
Here's a 2013 with leather, sunroof, and nav, for $28,450, a discount from the $31,120 MSRP
If you want leather and the sunroof, but just want the 4-cyl, the 2012 can be had for around $23,500.
With all its shortcomings, the 2013 really doesn't seem like a very good value to me. As for the wheelbase getting shrunk, doesn't the car now ride the same wheelbase/platform as the Regal?
Seems to me that the market share for Impala is limited (like Taurus) and while you may get a better margin on it, it is likely better to just dump one of the nameplates and put your resources into a killer mid sizer to go against the bigger market segment vehicles like Camry, Altima and Fusion. Instead you have what appears to be a nice Impala with limited sales potential and a perennial mediocre product in the much more popular market segment. Impala should have been the mass market product instead of Malibu because I think the latter nameplate is now associated with an "also ran". If they want to play in the Taurus and 300 segment they could have brought back the Caprice name plate.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48489746
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Does that $24.5k V6 include the coffee/chocolate two-tone interior? Always liked those.
Loaded competitors run $30 grand.
Dunno...the website calls it cocoa/cashmere. Could be the same thing, I guess? I think I know what you're talking about though and yeah, it was petty attractive.
July 2012 YTD
Mercedes = 159,384
BMW = 147,801
Lexus = 126,367
Acura = 85,761
Audi = 76,865
Cadillac = 76,229
Regards,
OW
July 2012
Kia Optima Sales - 13,317
Chevy Malibu Sales - 12,345
Whadya know! :P
Regards,
OW