GM's woes
Much has been written in other circles about GM's current unfortunate situation and the impending layoffs, but I thought I'd add my two cents.
No company has ever been able to shrink its way to profitability as far as I know. GM's current financial woes, exacerbated by carrying three retirees' benefits for every currently productive worker, are only going to get worse by making more of its workforce unproductive. GM has been steadily downsizing since the early '90's and only succeeded in alienating its remaining customers with a string of Products that Suck and abandoning some of the markets/products it was good at (full size cars) to throw a lot of money at doing things it isn't particularly good at (small cars).
I don't think Rick Wagoner should have dumped Olds- that cost $1 billion - which at least made one car, saddled with an idiotic name (Alero) that was a good product. But no matter; he should have dumped GMC instead which produces the same trucks as Chevy but requires its own marketing and brand identity.
GM is allegedly in the business of selling vehicles, and that's what it needs to get serious about doing. I cannot currently think of a single GM vehicle, save the Corvette, that is better than the competition. Why does GM turn out one after another mediocre product? Why do they still attempt to compete in the minivan market with hideous and outdated products, confusingly sold by Saturn, Chevrolet, Pontiac, and now Buick?
If I were running GM, I would take a page from the Chrysler pagebook and exploit areas in which the competition is weak. The Japanese, for all intents and purposes, have the car-as-appliance market locked up. People looking for comfort and bland durability will buy Camrys and Accords. Chrysler makes more convertibles than anyone else, thanks to the strength of the Sebring; Chrysler invented the PT cruiser; Chrysler made the minivan and kept it better; Chrysler makes affordable, roomy, AMERICAN style rear wheel drive cars.
GM does some of these things occasionally but then will also execute them poorly; witness the SSR. It's a toy/image vehicle, but costs what a luxury car should cost. It probably would have appealed wildly to people who would buy Miatas, but their masculinity is threatened by them, and at that price would have been successful to El Caminoites.
The Solstice may prove successful- but that's ONE car, and GM also doesn't need to dilute its success by throwing it at every single division. GM has NEVER built a good small car in America, and the Cobalt is too small to change anyone's mind, unlike the Neon which felt roomy. The Malibu's sole reason for existence is to be sold to Hertz and Avis; likewise the Impala/Lumina. And putting a v-8 in a FWD platform may satisfy DeVille owners, but not "sporty car" intenders.
Chevrolet should remake the Impala on a combined platform with Pontiac's next GTO and make them classy, exciting cars. The next large Buick car could share this RWD platform and represent an alternative to the cookie-cutter transportation module. It would be big and comfortable and well made.
Why can't GM make- something else distinctive? What about bringing the Cadillac BLS to America as a Buick/Pontiac? At least someone could find the most distinctive GM cars of the past and try to find something that people want to buy. The Crossover craze is not the answer.
I know what I would buy; a convertible, like the '93 cutlass, that seats four adults comfortably; a large station wagon, a Buick Grand National but not one made in Australia. A rebadged Citroen.
But shrinking further- without shedding the associated fixed costs- is not the solution.
No company has ever been able to shrink its way to profitability as far as I know. GM's current financial woes, exacerbated by carrying three retirees' benefits for every currently productive worker, are only going to get worse by making more of its workforce unproductive. GM has been steadily downsizing since the early '90's and only succeeded in alienating its remaining customers with a string of Products that Suck and abandoning some of the markets/products it was good at (full size cars) to throw a lot of money at doing things it isn't particularly good at (small cars).
I don't think Rick Wagoner should have dumped Olds- that cost $1 billion - which at least made one car, saddled with an idiotic name (Alero) that was a good product. But no matter; he should have dumped GMC instead which produces the same trucks as Chevy but requires its own marketing and brand identity.
GM is allegedly in the business of selling vehicles, and that's what it needs to get serious about doing. I cannot currently think of a single GM vehicle, save the Corvette, that is better than the competition. Why does GM turn out one after another mediocre product? Why do they still attempt to compete in the minivan market with hideous and outdated products, confusingly sold by Saturn, Chevrolet, Pontiac, and now Buick?
If I were running GM, I would take a page from the Chrysler pagebook and exploit areas in which the competition is weak. The Japanese, for all intents and purposes, have the car-as-appliance market locked up. People looking for comfort and bland durability will buy Camrys and Accords. Chrysler makes more convertibles than anyone else, thanks to the strength of the Sebring; Chrysler invented the PT cruiser; Chrysler made the minivan and kept it better; Chrysler makes affordable, roomy, AMERICAN style rear wheel drive cars.
GM does some of these things occasionally but then will also execute them poorly; witness the SSR. It's a toy/image vehicle, but costs what a luxury car should cost. It probably would have appealed wildly to people who would buy Miatas, but their masculinity is threatened by them, and at that price would have been successful to El Caminoites.
The Solstice may prove successful- but that's ONE car, and GM also doesn't need to dilute its success by throwing it at every single division. GM has NEVER built a good small car in America, and the Cobalt is too small to change anyone's mind, unlike the Neon which felt roomy. The Malibu's sole reason for existence is to be sold to Hertz and Avis; likewise the Impala/Lumina. And putting a v-8 in a FWD platform may satisfy DeVille owners, but not "sporty car" intenders.
Chevrolet should remake the Impala on a combined platform with Pontiac's next GTO and make them classy, exciting cars. The next large Buick car could share this RWD platform and represent an alternative to the cookie-cutter transportation module. It would be big and comfortable and well made.
Why can't GM make- something else distinctive? What about bringing the Cadillac BLS to America as a Buick/Pontiac? At least someone could find the most distinctive GM cars of the past and try to find something that people want to buy. The Crossover craze is not the answer.
I know what I would buy; a convertible, like the '93 cutlass, that seats four adults comfortably; a large station wagon, a Buick Grand National but not one made in Australia. A rebadged Citroen.
But shrinking further- without shedding the associated fixed costs- is not the solution.
posted by SavageATL at 12:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home