[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main Other Cars Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Cadillac was already well below peak by 2014 Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email] (#32) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:16:27 In Reply to: Cadillac was already well below peak by 2014, A1-turbo, Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:02:14 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
You just can't compare what happened in the '70s to anything Cadillac did before or recently. In the '70s Cadillac was still trading on a very good name they built for themselves between the '40s and '60s, and totally sold out in the '70s. When people in the '70s could buy cars that used to cost twice as much as other cars for slightly more than other cars it was a no-brainer - Cadillac sold a lot of cheap Cadillacs. Ferrari would sell a lot of $50,000 Ferraris, too. Cadillac milked that volume vs. profit model for 20-some-odd years before GM finally started to go after the "modern" higher end market with actually good cars like the CTS and SRX and XLR. Starting then they had to rebuild the entire brand essentially from scratch, all the good will from the JFK era was long gone. But they are aiming for 1968 Cadillac - when an El Dorado cost far more than a 911 - not 1978. Cadillac will never get back to sales like they had in the '70s. It's just not possible in the market they're targeting.
Now, don't get me wrong - Buick had same that good will from the '40s-'60s that they sold out in the '70s, just like Cadillac. I think the difference is that while Cadillac has renewed focus on the luxury market, Buick exists solely to sell GM cars in China. There is nothing about their product lineup that differentiates it from Chevy in any meaningful way - the cars aren't safer, nicer, faster, better looking, or even more or less expensive. They could wear Chevy badges and nobody would know the difference.
Domestically Buick has no target audience, no discernible unique factor. Do we even know if they have a business plan? I can't see a point for it to exist. Buick is to GM what Mercury was to Ford - a brand that once meant something that ended up sandwiched between a mainstream and a luxury brand, with no secret sauce of its own. Ford killed Mercury because they couldn't figure out what to do with it. GM hasn't killed Buick only because it's an inroad to China.
posted by 12.195.130...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.