[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Looks like operating 8 brands in 1 market is a bad idea. Though I think it was 10 for a while:

Buick
Cadilac
Chevrolet
Daewoo
GMC
Hummer
Oldsmobile
Pontiac
Saab
Saturn

I'm not sure where Isuzu fit in, I think GM was a 50% shareholder at the time. So call it 10.5 brands in north america in the late 90's / early 2000's.

Globally you are missing Vauxhall, Opel, Holden. Daewoo was killed off as a U.S. brand before GM bought in.

JVs, Isuzu, Suzuki, Subaru, Wooling (sic), SAIC,

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Not to mention that competing with yourself is a bad idea. If you have multiple cars that fill the same spot and have the same buyers, thats a problem.

Not that you lose sale, but you increase costs without actually gaining any sales. Just as bad for profits as losing sales.
- X

P.S. - GM, I would totally buy this if you made it a GMC.



No joke. DOOOO EEIIIITTT!

X, GM ruled when it really only competed with itself. We had 4 small block V8s, 3 big block V8s. In a regional economy, it worked great.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I can see what U are saying but still have to disagree on overall necessity of Saturn in the first place. In 1990, even.. GM, Ford, and Chrysler controlled the market so much so (see Chart below) that they simply had to put force and cash into reworking existing brands rather than try and tout new ones. Saturn, for instance, wasn't purchased by consumers because the thought they were buying an American nameplate.. but quite possibly just the opposite. Many people to this day that I speak to still thought Saturn was a Japanese maker.

If GM had of taken that money it invested in Saturn.. a "from the ground up" operation.. and invested it in Chevy, Olds, or Pontiac.. or all three.. they could have snagged back buyers who were looking at Foreign nameplates. In 1985... 1985.. GM spent $3.5 BILLION on just the Spring Hill Plant alone. Also keep in mind $3.5 Billion 25 years ago would be $7.3 Billion today. If GM took $7 billion today and spent it on Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, and inadvertently thru Chevy for GMC... a Malibu would be the equivlent to an Acura TL... a Buick Lacrosse would be on the same level as Lexus's LS460.. a CTS would be equivalent to a Benz CLS.

The Saturn play was to be able to create a company with separate engineering, manufacturing and retail that could complete more directly with the import brands. At the time it was a good idea, but it was starved for product from the onset. The L series was failure, even though it outsold the far superior Aura 2 to 1.

At the time, it was probably a rationale idea. Looking back, not so much.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

U could throw in Suzuki and part of Subaru as well. GM owned about 20% in Subie and even more in Suzuki.

And I agree with what U are saying. The real issue is not so much that GM has as many brands... but that we have so many name/companies taking a slice of the U.S. market in general.

have to say.. GM as a WHOLE.. with all brands.. including Hummer is just FINE. We are not talking about the financials here.. as in my honest opinion it is not the 8 Brands that have cause the issues within GM's situation... but the Overhead of both Labor, plant waste, and Financial downturns from GMAC.

One can argue for DAYS about the need for Killing a brand.. here... and merging a brand... there... but truth is If GM should get rid of it's 8 brands... then America as a whole needs to get rid of at least 20-30 more of the brands that currently occupies the selling atmosphere. Many have no clue that in the U.S. we currently have 50 Brands on sale... 50!!!

Acura, Hyundai, Morgan, Aston Martin, Infiniti, Nissan, Audi, Isuzu, Bentley, Jaguar, Panoz, BMW, Jeep, Pontiac, Buick, Kia, Porsche, Cadillac, Lamborghini, Rolls-Royce, Chevrolet, Land Rover, Saab, Lexus, Saleen, Chrysler, Lincoln, Saturn, Dodge, Lotus, Scion, Maserati, smart, Ferrari, Maybach, Subaru, Ford, Mazda, Suzuki, Tesla, GMC, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Mercury, Honda, MINI, Volkswagen, HUMMER, Mitsubishi, and Volvo

See??? I told U...

LMFAO at the idea that any 1 company could have a 20% market share with 42 other brands competing with it.. let alone next month's 22%. I often LAUGH at the lunacy when certain forum members talk about GM's Market share in the 60's.. hell even in the 90's. They fail EVERYTIME to mention that in the 60s... it was pretty GM, Ford, Chrysler, and a coupla Foreign makes from Toyota, Benz, and VW.


Bottom line is that if GM didn't need cash to bolster it's bank book... Hummer would probably not be 4 sale... It is actually very successful as a brand... very profitable and required very little money to implement. Even R&D is minimal since it is completely based on existing platforms and engines. A Merger of the brand with GMC would be the proper course.

Yeah, not quite true. It was a good business when the H2 sold 30,000 units or so. The replacement was big bucks, carryover content not withstanding. Tooling up a new H2 of an existing architecture is far from cheap and the R&D required is significant due to the extreme capapbility of that vehicle. If the price of gas and the heat from the environmentalists stayed low........maybe. But gas spiked last year and the greenies rally around the H2 so volumes plummeted. A lot of money divided across very few sales does not a good business case make.