Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GM brandfs use to be complete different and use diffent things they developed. But aht went away as a cost cuttig plan long ago has they satrted loosing market share. Saturn was a attempt to actually get inot teh car markets agin after they became a truck and SUV seller really. They pretty much lose the car war in the mid 70's and have gone downhill since.Even now most of their sales still depend on trucks and SUVs for profit.So they need the GM brand to allow other than chevy to have decent sales numnbers.
You can achieve this within a brand. Look at Toyota. They produce pickup trucks, SUVs, family sedans, minivans, compacts, and hybrids. So instead of creating a new brand for each niche, they simply offered products for each type of customer. The Avalon appeals to the older buyers who have a good amount of money to spend whereas the fresh grads can get a Corolla. You can even offer different styling within a brand. Whereas the Lexus ES looks like a boring sedan, the IS looks sporty.
Toyota can sell a car from $12K-$70K under the same Toyota name, with the same dealership. Hyundai and VW can do it, too, but it takes a special nameplate to do that, and that nameplate is definitely not Chevrolet. Sure, they may have the Corvette, but in some countries it's not marketed as a Chevy. Chevy has way too much baggage in the eyes of many Americans. GM needs different nameplates for differentiation; the existing brand names (Chev, Buick, et al) all have vastly different connotations in the eyes of the North American consumer; there's too much historical baggage with all of them that Toyota has a lot less of. Chevy is affordable (though the MSRPs nowadays aren't so affordable), Pontiac was aspirational, Buick is the solid citizen, and Cadillac told the world that you have arrived. Lots of people don't want to pay a zillion dollars for a Chevy a la the Hyundai Genesis and Equus, and they won't.
Lots of people don't want to pay a zillion dollars for a Chevy a la the Hyundai Genesis and Equus, and they won't.
What?
They don't. The most expensive car Chevy makes is the Vette, and they have no problem selling that. The Malibu and Impala are about the same, price-wise, as the Genesis.
Outside of the dealer network issues and other concerns, GM could have existed as just Chevrolet and Cadillac.
Interesting that we can write off the "dealer network issues and other concerns" with one sentence without really diving into WHY those are important.
GM doesn't own it's dealers. There are a lot of reasons for this, but killing brands affected independent businesses that often didn't have another car line to sell, and often couldn't legally change to one of the remaining lines. In fact, one of the big reason in the '60s that GM had so many similar cars in dfiffernt brands (especially similar musclecars) was that if they gave one dealer network a car to sell, the others would demand a similar car in order to compete. There was often a pretty big battle between Chevy dealers and Pontiac/GMC dealers (I worked for a Pontiac/GMC dealer for a while and saw that first hand, as they were competing with the Chevy dealer down the street).
GM can afford to downsize the brands now becaue of the age of the mega-dealer, who owns multiple brands. Most metro markets have a few mega dealers that sell multiple brands. Here in Baltimore, Antwerpen sells brands from all the big 3 and a number of imports, as does Koons and Len Stoler, all competing with each other, but each one sells every Ford, Chrysler, and GM brand and model line, as well as most import brands. So it's not like the old days of one guy owning a single dealership of one, maybe two brands. But those single brand dealers are still out there, and legal contracts keep GM from consolidating too much yet.
Interesting that we can write off the "dealer network issues and other concerns" with one sentence without really diving into WHY those are important.
GM doesn't own it's dealers. There are a lot of reasons for this, but killing brands affected independent businesses that often didn't have another car line to sell, and often couldn't legally change to one of the remaining lines. In fact, one of the big reason in the '60s that GM had so many similar cars in dfiffernt brands (especially similar musclecars) was that if they gave one dealer network a car to sell, the others would demand a similar car in order to compete. There was often a pretty big battle between Chevy dealers and Pontiac/GMC dealers (I worked for a Pontiac/GMC dealer for a while and saw that first hand, as they were competing with the Chevy dealer down the street).
GM can afford to downsize the brands now becaue of the age of the mega-dealer, who owns multiple brands. Most metro markets have a few mega dealers that sell multiple brands. Here in Baltimore, Antwerpen sells brands from all the big 3 and a number of imports, as does Koons and Len Stoler, all competing with each other, but each one sells every Ford, Chrysler, and GM brand and model line, as well as most import brands. So it's not like the old days of one guy owning a single dealership of one, maybe two brands. But those single brand dealers are still out there, and legal contracts keep GM from consolidating too much yet.
I didn't mean to gloss over the importance of the dealer arrangements, though I did. What I was trying to imply was that in all practical terms, they could have existed as just Chevrolet and Cadillac. Do to the complex dealer issues, which still exist though less than they were, GM's hands are sort of tied. In the case of Buick and GMC, they had recently forced the merger of Pontiac, Buick and GMC into single dealer outlets. When these dealers lost Pontiac they were content as long as they had full lines with Buick and GMC to sell.
So, while I didn't pay the dealer issues a lot of service they certainly effect GM's business model and the decisions that they make.
You can achieve this within a brand. Look at Toyota. They produce pickup trucks, SUVs, family sedans, minivans, compacts, and hybrids. So instead of creating a new brand for each niche, they simply offered products for each type of customer. The Avalon appeals to the older buyers who have a good amount of money to spend whereas the fresh grads can get a Corolla. You can even offer different styling within a brand. Whereas the Lexus ES looks like a boring sedan, the IS looks sporty.
The funny thing is that Toyota actually has three lines. Scion - Toyota- Lexus. Toyota felt that their brand image was too stodgy to attract younger buyers, so they created Scion. This was done in the same way that they created Lexus as Toyota itself was not viewed as a luxury brand. The bottom of Toyota's lineup with the Matrix and Corolla competes at price point with the offerings through Scion. The difference is that Scion has a completely seperate marketing effort and more unique styling.
That is the point of multiple brands, to have seperate marketing channels and styling that appeal to different groups. I'm not convinced that GM needs 4 brands, but I think they can make 4 succesful. Again, as I detailed in my earlier post, GMC is the head scratcher, but was needed for the dealership side of things. That is the only one I still think is redundant.
Chevy has way too much baggage in the eyes of many Americans. GM needs different nameplates for differentiation; the existing brand names (Chev, Buick, et al) all have vastly different connotations in the eyes of the North American consumer; there's too much historical baggage with all of them that Toyota has a lot less of.
This is precisely why I think GM should do away with the different brands. The brands they have now have too much baggage. Take Buick for example. The Lacrosse looks like a nice car, but the Buick brand has been so ingrained in the minds of most consumers as an old person's brand, that a lot of younger people will pass on it simply because it's a Buick. Creating new nameplates isn't the answer. You change Buick to brand X. But after a while, brand X will be thought of as the old person's brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The funny thing is that Toyota actually has three lines. Scion - Toyota- Lexus. Toyota felt that their brand image was too stodgy to attract younger buyers, so they created Scion.
In their case, it made sense. But in GM's case, it's actually hurting them. Imagine if the LaCrosse didn't have the Buick name on it. Whatever the reasons were for having separate brands, they're no longer valid.
They don't. The most expensive car Chevy makes is the Vette, and they have no problem selling that. The Malibu and Impala are about the same, price-wise, as the Genesis.
Around me, the Malibu and Impala are so heavily discounted you'd think GM was having its going out of business sale. Both are readily available for under $20K, while I've seen a Sonata with a $1000 dealer markup. As for the Corvette, they downplay the Chevroletness of it a bit, with the separate Corvette badging.
You can achieve this within a brand. Look at Toyota. They produce pickup trucks, SUVs, family sedans, minivans, compacts, and hybrids. So instead of creating a new brand for each niche, they simply offered products for each type of customer. The Avalon appeals to the older buyers who have a good amount of money to spend whereas the fresh grads can get a Corolla. You can even offer different styling within a brand. Whereas the Lexus ES looks like a boring sedan, the IS looks sporty.
Didn't Toyota just create a new marque in the form of Scion? Even Toyota understands there are limits to how stratified a single marque can get, at least in this market.
Anyway, every time this topic comes up, I'm always amazed at how many people think GM should jettison GMC when that's their most profitable marque. And yes, having a separate marque for trucks gives non-Chevy dealers the opportunity to sell trucks, which makes it easier to support/sustain Cadillac and particularly Buick dealerships.
Didn't Toyota just create a new marque in the form of Scion? Even Toyota understands there are limits to how stratified a single marque can get, at least in this market.
Anyway, every time this topic comes up, I'm always amazed at how many people think GM should jettison GMC when that's their most profitable marque. And yes, having a separate marque for trucks gives non-Chevy dealers the opportunity to sell trucks, which makes it easier to support/sustain Cadillac and particularly Buick dealerships.
You're missing the point. It makes sense to create a new brand if the parent brand has an image that's chasing away the customers you're trying to attract. Scion is a perfect example of that. But with GM, their multiple brands are hurting them. Sure GMC may be their most profitable brand, but does that make up for the lost sales they have when people avoid a brand like Buick cause they think it's for old geezers or Chevy because they think it's for low income people? I doubt the people who buy the GMC Jimmy would stop if it were suddenly renamed the GM Jimmy. In fact, I know some people who actually want SUVs, but avoid GMC because they associate it with "rednecks".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
