Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow
Name or otherwise, the car simply wasn't selling. I wasn't talking about whether people like it; that doesn't matter. What matters is whether people buy it. I don't think the Pontiac stigma (I had no idea that there is one) would turn someone off from buying a car that they want. I suppose that people could be weird that way, though.
I implied no such thing. I was merely stating, in response to the implication that the practice was responsible for GM's problem, that Ford wasn't destroyed by that practice despite doing it far worse than GM.
|
Seriously? You're not aware of the Pontiac stigma? This place really is becoming a little fanboy bubble. This really isn't rocket science. Mainstream branding outsells niche branding. End of story. It is what it is. What sold more, the G5 or the Cobalt? The G6 or the Malibu (disregard fleet sales)? Even better - Camaro or Firebird? Chevy models always have higher volume than Pontiac. More visibility, more dealers = more sales. It really is that simple.
And Ford was damaged just as much as GM was by the practice of producing obsolete cars. You think they're doing well right now? They're not performing much better than GM, and they're alive because of credit taken out early, not because selling antiquated vehicles isn't bad. It is. They have turned things around and they should be well positioned, but that doesn't mean selling outdated cars didn't hurt them. Nonsense.