[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Your argument is more than a little amusing.
First, GM has done nothing but live in the distant (i.e. 1950's) past, since that is all they can point to in order to prove they're a good car company. Way back then, you're right -- they were good at brand management. Way back then, they had HUGE market shares. They made interetsing (if bloated) cars.
But they got fat and lazy. The 1970's was catastrophic to GM -- the fuel crisis gutted the market for their bloated gas guzzling barges while the Japanese ad Volkswagen stole the small car market right out from under their fumbling noses.
The 1980's brought us such brand management winners as the Cadillac Cimarron (a Cavalier with leather and chrome, but then again a Pontiac t2000 was the same thing too). They seized a great idea in the Fiero, only to fumble it away. They created a revolutionary (for Detroit, at least; against the japanese and Europeans it was barely competent) small car in Saturn; then allowed the other divisions to jealously steam funding from it so Saturn languished. But the rest of their stable in the 1980's -- a mish mash of lookalike, drivealike, feel-alike Buicks, Chevys, Olds' and Pontiac's -- was terrible, just terrible. The Japanese gained market share, and the European cars took over the yuppie market.
Faced with this, what does GM do? It doesn't change! It puts all its eggs in the SUV basket, forfeiting the small car market to the Japanese and Ford (which came out with the brilliant Focus while GM's Cavalier/Sunfire atrocity creaks on until at least 2004). It's current brand management wizardry consists of a Chevy Impala that is an embarrassment to the glorious Impalas of yore; a Monte Carlo that is ugly, ill conceived, and ill marketed; Pontiacs that seem to believe that plasticky body cladding is synonymous with "sporty" and will woo Beemer drivers (hah!); poor quality interiors in the face of the new standard from VW, honda, etc. The result? Thier market share is in the mid 20's, an all time low.
Right now, they seem to have Saab on a promising track (with Bob Lutz' backing, which is definitely encouraging), although they are apparently now abandoning the hatchback that became one of the pillars of Saab's identity (i.e., versatility), thinking that people who want to carry stuff will buy a wagon (!), even as the market for 5-door hatches is heating up (Protege mp5, C-class coupe, Focus 5 door, Lexus IS300 hatch). What do they think they're going to do, turn Saab into GM's version of Ford-owned Volvo? Eesh. Thankfully, the 9x and 9-3x concepts suggest otherwise.
Second, it is amusing that you cite the 1920-1970 era as what GM can do. That is distant, distant past, my friend. Don't buy into the GM hype. The car industry has changed drastically since then. What has GM done lately? Nothing of interest (again, except for the always good Corvette and Cadillac's recent renaissance), except fumble away its market share on bland, overlapping and totally uninteresting models that, time in and time out, lose out to better engineered, more reliable and durable, better driving foreign (and domestic) rivals. I could go on and on, but the market speaks for itself. GM cars are widely regarded as lower class, cheap alternatives to better made foreign cars. That's a fact.
GM seems to be turning a corner, though. Interesting concepts, revitalized design enthusiasm thanks to Bob Lutz, and hoipefully the trashing of brand management and bean-counter driven design. This bodes well, but GM has toild us it's "turning the corner" a million times before. With GM, I'll believe it when I see it.
posted by 208.200.18...
, Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:53:53, Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:14:22, Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:02:34
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
