GM's Unique Brands!

[Stunt]

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer; do you really think any of the following vehicles are going to attract new buyers or help sales?

I don't know who they are trying to fool, but making an ugly car that nobody likes and giving it 4 names is just ridiculous.

Chevrolet
Pontiac
Buick
Saturn

 

[b0mbrman]

Is this a strict rebadge or is there some brand positioning involved?

 

[sniperruff]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Is this a strict rebadge or is there some brand positioning involved?

i think just interior. but yes 4 brands is ridiculous.

and yes that does look like sh!t. looks worse than the aztek.

 

[eldorado99]

I've driven one, it was the Chevy... I'm all for domestics and everything, but it was a huge POS.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Is this a strict rebadge or is there some brand positioning involved?

i think just interior. but yes 4 brands is ridiculous.

and yes that does look like sh!t. looks worse than the aztek.

Yeah...for some cars, I can imagine 3...one mainstream, one luxury, and one sporty version

Now, for a minivan, 4 is beyond silly

 

[dandruff]

:laugh:

 

[potato28]

Fvcking retarded...

 

[SKoprowski]

GM beens doing that for years- remember the Cadillac Cimarron- it was a rebadged Cavilier.

 

[Paddington]

Umm... I don't think GM ever pretended they were all unique vans built seperately from scratch. The Buick is a bit more costly than the rest, as it has some luxury appointments, and different suspension/tuning. The other three are about the same and cost a similar amount. They're vans for different dealers.

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer;

Have any proof of that? I think making a couple of different variants adds very little cost to GM, and if anything cuts prices lower, because now there are more dealers selling essentially the same product, increasing competition and lowering prices.

 

[waggy]

ok i agree. thats fricken insane. all 4 are the same! sheesh.

tough i did look t the reley. but then started hearing lots of negitive stuff about them

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Umm... I don't think GM ever pretended they were all unique vans built seperately from scratch. The Buick is a bit more costly than the rest, as it has some luxury appointments, and different suspension/tuning. The other three are about the same and cost a similar amount. They're vans for different dealers.

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer;

Have any proof of that? I think making a couple of different variants adds very little cost to GM, and if anything cuts prices lower, because now there are more dealers selling essentially the same product, increasing competition and lowering prices.

The automotive market is competitive enough for GM, it doesn't need to drive prices lower on itself. They are barely turning a profit and are practically giving their cars away. (financing, etc)

Like you said "now there are more dealers"...more dealers = more inventory, more staff, more service staff, more property costs. Toyota, Honda, Nissan have less than half the brands GM does; are they hurting/struggling? Hardly.

Not to mention the administrative costs for each brand, the added cost to make marginally different parts, lower volumes at the plant level, etc. A separate model is only justified if it can offer the customer more value or features another product cannot give them. GM is not taking customers from their external competitors...if anything they are competiting against themselves...as you said.

The best argument against your point is your own words...heh.

 

[bctbct]

Arent you the guy that lives in Canada, hates Unions, and knows so much about the auto industry at the tender age of 23?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Arent you the guy that lives in Canada, hates Unions, and knows so much about the auto industry at the tender age of 23?

Yes I live in Canada.
Unions can be counter productive (hate is a strong word)
I study the auto industry

...point?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: bctbct
Arent you the guy that lives in Canada, hates Unions, and knows so much about the auto industry at the tender age of 23?

Yes I live in Canada.
Unions can be counter productive (hate is a strong word)
I study the auto industry

...point?

you care maore about bashing GM, then owning their cars, so why the post?

 

[Paddington]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Paddington
Umm... I don't think GM ever pretended they were all unique vans built seperately from scratch. The Buick is a bit more costly than the rest, as it has some luxury appointments, and different suspension/tuning. The other three are about the same and cost a similar amount. They're vans for different dealers.

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer;

Have any proof of that? I think making a couple of different variants adds very little cost to GM, and if anything cuts prices lower, because now there are more dealers selling essentially the same product, increasing competition and lowering prices.

The automotive market is competitive enough for GM, it doesn't need to drive prices lower on itself. They are barely turning a profit and are practically giving their cars away. (financing, etc)

Like you said "now there are more dealers"...more dealers = more inventory, more staff, more service staff, more property costs. Toyota, Honda, Nissan have less than half the brands GM does; are they hurting/struggling? Hardly.

Not to mention the administrative costs for each brand, the added cost to make marginally different parts, lower volumes at the plant level, etc. A separate model is only justified if it can offer the customer more value or features another product cannot give them. GM is not taking customers from their external competitors...if anything they are competiting against themselves...as you said.

The best argument against your point is your own words...heh.

Oh so now the consumers get a cheap deal because the dealers compete with each other? That's the opposite of what you claimed:

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer

So are they adding cost to the consumer, or are they making things cheaper for the consumer?

And why are you so concerned about GM's profitability. Are you a stockholder?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Paddington
Umm... I don't think GM ever pretended they were all unique vans built seperately from scratch. The Buick is a bit more costly than the rest, as it has some luxury appointments, and different suspension/tuning. The other three are about the same and cost a similar amount. They're vans for different dealers.

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer;

Have any proof of that? I think making a couple of different variants adds very little cost to GM, and if anything cuts prices lower, because now there are more dealers selling essentially the same product, increasing competition and lowering prices.

The automotive market is competitive enough for GM, it doesn't need to drive prices lower on itself. They are barely turning a profit and are practically giving their cars away. (financing, etc)

Like you said "now there are more dealers"...more dealers = more inventory, more staff, more service staff, more property costs. Toyota, Honda, Nissan have less than half the brands GM does; are they hurting/struggling? Hardly.

Not to mention the administrative costs for each brand, the added cost to make marginally different parts, lower volumes at the plant level, etc. A separate model is only justified if it can offer the customer more value or features another product cannot give them. GM is not taking customers from their external competitors...if anything they are competiting against themselves...as you said.

The best argument against your point is your own words...heh.

The costs already exist.

Because the brand already exists--staff, property, admin included--adding another model to an already-existing line from an already-existing vehicle probably just adds trivial cost...

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: bctbct
Arent you the guy that lives in Canada, hates Unions, and knows so much about the auto industry at the tender age of 23?

Yes I live in Canada.
Unions can be counter productive (hate is a strong word)
I study the auto industry

...point?

you care maore about bashing GM, then owning their cars, so why the post?

I want GM to be successful, but with poor decisions like this...how can it go unnoticed?

Cheap financing and lower costs relative to competition hides the simple facts of an inferior product. Just comparing prices between the automakers you can observe a declining marketshare for GM even though they beat the competition on price. The company is focused on cost cutting, screwing over retirees and their workers, and pushing more cars out the door instead of offering a substandard product 4 times over.

GM is a huge employer in Canada; the two largest plants in North America are in Canada (most efficient as well). They have a lot of work to do.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
The costs already exist.

Because the brand already exists--staff, property, admin included--adding another model to an already-existing line from an already-existing vehicle probably just adds trivial cost...

So because the cost already exists...it's somehow justified?

If I always drop $200 a week at the casino and eat out every night does that mean they are fixed costs and I should look to get small discounts on frequent "playing" from the casino or deals from a restaurant....or just drop it as they add no value to my life?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Stunt


Cheap financing and lower costs relative to competition hides the simple facts of an inferior product. Just comparing prices between the automakers you can observe a declining marketshare for GM even though they beat the competition on price. The company is focused on cost cutting, screwing over retirees and their workers, and pushing more cars out the door instead of offering a substandard product 4 times over.

GM is a huge employer in Canada; the two largest plants in North America are in Canada (most efficient as well). They have a lot of work to do.

GM is trying to survive.

Foreign plants are newer, have HUGE tax incentives, 0 legacy costs.

Younger generations have a poor view of US auto makers.

The bottom line is to sell cars and make money. GM is trying to adapt and do that.

This is like the 5th GM bashing thread this week and one thing that always stands out is foreign buyers who admit they are becoming less impressed with the product they purchased based on it being "better"

Its a car, you get in it and drive from A to B. Want to make a good financial decision, put your money in an appreciating asset instead of a car.


BTW I picked the Silverado over the Sierra even though it the same thing, yet looks different.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Oh so now the consumers get a cheap deal because the dealers compete with each other? That's the opposite of what you claimed:

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer

So are they adding cost to the consumer, or are they making things cheaper for the consumer?

And why are you so concerned about GM's profitability. Are you a stockholder?

Consumers get a deal from external competition but not from internal competition. The cost to consumers for rebadging are clear as stated above.

For example if Dell offers a beige PC and comes out with a black PC; does that lower the price, offer anything more to the consumer or increase sales? Of course not. If other PC makers enter the market, then yes...the price will drop for consumers.

The added costs are quite clear, but you have yet to show me the cost savings for the consumer...other than weak economic fluff. Do you think if GM offered a GMC version of the same vehicle...you'd see a drop in price of these cars?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Paddington
Oh so now the consumers get a cheap deal because the dealers compete with each other? That's the opposite of what you claimed:

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer

So are they adding cost to the consumer, or are they making things cheaper for the consumer?

And why are you so concerned about GM's profitability. Are you a stockholder?

Consumers get a deal from external competition but not from internal competition. The cost to consumers for rebadging are clear as stated above.

For example if Dell offers a beige PC and comes out with a black PC; does that lower the price, offer anything more to the consumer or increase sales? Of course not. If other PC makers enter the market, then yes...the price will drop for consumers.

The added costs are quite clear, but you have yet to show me the cost savings for the consumer...other than weak economic fluff. Do you think if GM offered a GMC version of the same vehicle...you'd see a drop in price of these cars?

The thing you dont factor in is that most people want choices, I wouldnt buy a beige PC but someone might only buy a beige PC.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Stunt


Cheap financing and lower costs relative to competition hides the simple facts of an inferior product. Just comparing prices between the automakers you can observe a declining marketshare for GM even though they beat the competition on price. The company is focused on cost cutting, screwing over retirees and their workers, and pushing more cars out the door instead of offering a substandard product 4 times over.

GM is a huge employer in Canada; the two largest plants in North America are in Canada (most efficient as well). They have a lot of work to do.

GM is trying to survive.

Foreign plants are newer, have HUGE tax incentives, 0 legacy costs.

Younger generations have a poor view of US auto makers.

The bottom line is to sell cars and make money. GM is trying to adapt and do that.

This is like the 5th GM bashing thread this week and one thing that always stands out is foreign buyers who admit they are becoming less impressed with the product they purchased based on it being "better"

Its a car, you get in it and drive from A to B. Want to make a good financial decision, put your money in an appreciating asset instead of a car.


BTW I picked the Silverado over the Sierra even though it the same thing, yet looks different.

So you bought a chev product over a gmc product...GM was going to get your money anyway. They need to compete with the automakers who are stealing their marketshare; they are not.

I 100% agree with the asset/liability comment. This is precisely why I own a cheap and reliable Civic coupe. Not the car for everyone, but from a practical standpoint can't be beat.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Paddington
Oh so now the consumers get a cheap deal because the dealers compete with each other? That's the opposite of what you claimed:

GM's bloated brands are doing nothing but adding cost to the consumer

So are they adding cost to the consumer, or are they making things cheaper for the consumer?

And why are you so concerned about GM's profitability. Are you a stockholder?

Consumers get a deal from external competition but not from internal competition. The cost to consumers for rebadging are clear as stated above.

For example if Dell offers a beige PC and comes out with a black PC; does that lower the price, offer anything more to the consumer or increase sales? Of course not. If other PC makers enter the market, then yes...the price will drop for consumers.

The added costs are quite clear, but you have yet to show me the cost savings for the consumer...other than weak economic fluff. Do you think if GM offered a GMC version of the same vehicle...you'd see a drop in price of these cars?

The thing you dont factor in is that most people want choices, I wouldnt buy a beige PC but someone might only buy a beige PC.

Find a person who hates the SV6 and loves the uplander and I'll accept that comment.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Stunt

So you bought a chev product over a gmc product...GM was going to get your money anyway. They need to compete with the automakers who are stealing their marketshare; they are not.

I 100% agree with the asset/liability comment. This is precisely why I own a cheap and reliable Civic coupe. Not the car for everyone, but from a practical standpoint can't be beat.

I have never liked the grille on the GMC, so I may have purchased a Ford F150. This is one complaint I have with foreign, there is not much individuality to their cars. Have they ever made a two-tone paint job?

 

[vi edit]

So you bought a chev product over a gmc product...GM was going to get your money anyway. They need to compete with the automakers who are stealing their marketshare; they are not.

That's the key there.

It still costs money to change up the little trim pieces and stamp out different logos. It still costs money to market them differently. Instead of spending the time, money, and effort trying to rebadge something 4 different ways, put that time and money into improving your fit and finish on ONE vehicle and focusing your efforts.

You don't see Honda and Toyota offering 4 versions of the same thing. (Although *some* argument could be made regarding some overlaps in the Acura/Lexus lineups).