Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Motown - or "No Mo' Town?" « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1104
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just heard a report on the Marketplace podcast (which is aired on WDET here at 6p, normally) where they had a short bit on the big three that basically lays the blame squarely at managements' feet.

Take a listen or read the transcript - I think he makes some really great points. After all, health care costs aren't killing GM because Toyota can sell Camry's a thousand dollars cheaper - GM can't build a Camry at any price.

"Now those executives in Michigan face a choice: Motown or "No Mo' Town." With its near 10 percent jobless rate and super-high taxes, Detroit is running a going-out-of-business sale. This has been an open secret since the 1970s. And you don't need to hear it through the grapevine. Just ask a kid."

http://marketplace.publicradio .org/display/web/2008/08/14/bu chholz/
Top of pageBottom of page

Detmsp
Member
Username: Detmsp

Post Number: 6
Registered: 08-2008
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 2:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GM can't build a camry? well according to edmunds, for GM to build a camry, they'd have to take the malibu and make it crappier: http://www.edmunds.com/insidel ine/do/Drives/Comparos/article Id=124091

don't trust the edmunds editors? well how about the everyday joe's they had test the cars: http://www.edmunds.com/advice/ buying/articles/123972/article .html
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 8224
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hmm, JD Power & Associates seems to agree. In order for Chevy to make a Camry, they'd have to build a shittier car than what they currently offer.

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/C hevrolet/Malibu/2008/Sedan/rat ings

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/T oyota/Camry/2008/Sedan/ratings
Top of pageBottom of page

Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome

Post Number: 1642
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

removed for blockheadedness

(Message edited by gnome on August 15, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Registeredguest
Member
Username: Registeredguest

Post Number: 402
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some good points raised above ^^^.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1108
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gnome, first let me say I respect a lot of things you do and have done. We both are working for a better city, and the attack isn't appreciated or called for.

Here's the thing. If General Motors didn't need to give thousands of dollars in incentives to sell cars, they could of kept going on doing what they're doing. Or, in fact, keep their number of units up or market share.

Let's look at some numbers. After all, I'm really sick of the American worker being blamed for a marketing problem.

Camry in 2008 - just over 40k units sold in July.
http://images.thetruthaboutcar s.com/2008/08/camry-july-08.jp g

Malibu - just over 16k units sold in July.
http://images.thetruthaboutcar s.com/2008/08/malibu-july-08.j pg

The Accord - again in the 40k range.
http://images.thetruthaboutcar s.com/2008/08/accord-july-08.j pg

The Camry is still outselling the Malibu over 2 to 1. That's a marketing problem, not a health care problem. Those link provided are great, and having driven those cars I agree they're good cars, but in general, they're still not resonating with the buying public nationally.

I think the focus of the big 3 has been in the wrong areas. Sure, some cost cutting is/was probably in order - but in this segment, with the SUV on the way out, General Motors (and other Big 3) have left a ton of money on the table.

Just imagine if GM were it's previous dominant self, and pushing out say 70-80k Malibus a month? We'd be in a lot better shape locally.

(Message edited by digitalvision on August 15, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome

Post Number: 1646
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry Digital, I think I spouted off when I should have kept my trap shut.

GM's problems are with management, always have been. Even when GM had 50% of the market, they couldn't do much right in terms of looking looong term at product or costs.

Back a couple of years ago, we got 10 day sales figures. Published in the paper and broadcast over the airwaves ... a billboard kept a running total of car production near the interchange of 94 and 75. More more more.

Management seemed crazed by 10 day sale figures. Heads roled over 10 day sales figures. Rebates were a marketing answer to keep pumping up those 10 day sales figures. Rebates, the meth of automotive marketing, got everyone hooked. Car companies and consumers. Your could watch 10 day sale numbers and know when a rebate campaign came to an end.

"oh we've gone sober and given up those rebates" two weeks later you get a rush of zero percent financing, or some Big Cash Back Savings. The meth rebate habit is on a PIC line to the car maker's soul.

One story that just kills me is the Fiero. A neat little car, that was made up in Pontiac in a newly rehabbed plant on Bladwin Road. They had a team manufacturing approuch with the car. Groups of 7 or 10 guys would build a whole car, then move on to the next one. They have competition on which team made the most cars, the best quality, the fastes time ... every day they had a contest for the teams.

Sale soared. The Fiero was supposed to be an experiment in how to design and build a car and it was never intended to sell more than 100K units. Then it hit the market and it was hotter than hot.

Sales kept going higher and quality suffered because the teams got swamped and older - proven - production techniques were used. Production soared, sales soared, quality fell. The underpowered 4 banger, didn't have the performance for the sports car image it carried.

Originally a "Secretary's Car" cute, cheap, easy to own and drive was promoted as the poor man's 'vette. Hot, flashy, urban and aware.

Bad move. Men bought it expecting heat and they got a hampster cage with bad breaks. Sales fell and fell and fell until they leveled off at 40 K a year.

A stunning failure. An experiment gone wrong. A bad investment. They closed the Plant.

Meanwhile, the ever popular Mazda Miata is a raging success a stylish, if under powered, second car. It's fun looking, kicky great in the summer and it brings a smile to whomever drives it.

It hase never sold more than 40K a year. It is a stunning success.

That's GM's problem. They can't see long-term. They still see in 10 day cycles.

Again, sorry for the comments, I'll take them down.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.