NFS4
No Lifer
http://www.latimes.com/classified/autom...,0,4322283.story?coll=la-home-highway1
**Updated 4/8**
The Pontiac G6 is a sales flop. At General Motors, let the impeachment proceedings begin.
By Dan Neil
Times Staff Writer
April 6, 2005
At the moment the news broke, I had written two words of a review of the Pontiac G6: "Dump Lutz."
On Monday morning, the news came that General Motors North America Chairman Robert Lutz and Group Vice President Gary Cowger were "relinquishing" their duties with GM North America to assume unspecified roles in GM's global product development and manufacturing efforts ? compared with the high-profile role Lutz has occupied, this is like "extraordinary rendition" to Pakistan.
Although GM's chairman and chief executive is Rick Wagoner, Bob Lutz ? also known as "Maximum Bob" ? has been the point man for GM policy and future product design, the Great White-Haired Father, the Man with the Golden Gut, the auto industry's most quotable and charismatic executive in a town where charisma is scarcer than banana trees.
In his 3 1/2 -year tenure, GM has lost something like 3 percentage points of market share. I was about to make the case that, given GM's current China syndrome ? North American market share dropping to its lowest point in decades, and market analysts, sensing no real momentum for reform within the company, downgrading the company's bond ratings to near-junk status ? someone's head ought to roll, and the most likely candidate would be the numinous white noggin of Lutz.
Cashiering Lutz, I would have argued, would be a positive sign for the street's analysts that the company is serious about accountability. Indeed, it had to be Lutz, for symbolic reasons that go beyond the car business. Of course, the responsibility is not solely his, but the culture of executive exoneration has to end somewhere, and it's not going to be in Washington, D.C.
However, given recent events, I have to revise my story. To wit: Dump Wagoner.
It was Lutz, after all, who candidly averred at a Morgan Stanley meeting last month that GM might have to phase out some of its product lines, even using the word "damaged" to describe Pontiac and Buick. In the ensuing furor, Lutz claimed his remarks were taken out of context and over-hyped by the sensationalist media, like that scandal rag Automotive News.
Wagoner memo to Lutz: Stop making sense.
GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad. How can four nearly identical minivans ? one each for Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet and Saturn ? be anything but a waste of resources? Ditto the Four Horsemen of Suburbia, the Buick Rainier, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X. How does the Pontiac Montana minivan square with Pontiac as the "Excitement" division? Why, exactly, is GMC on this Earth?
For a company so utterly devoted to each of its 11 brands ? counting offshore badges such as Opel, Holden, Vauxhall ? the overarching strategy seems to be to flatten the distinctiveness out of all of them in the name of global efficiencies. Take Saab, poor Saab. The new 9-3s will be built in Russelsheim, Germany, alongside Opel Vectras. The 9-2X is a badge-engineered Subaru WRX. The 9-7X is a Chevy Trailblazer built in the Nordic enclave of Moraine, Ohio.
Other recent Wagoner miscues:
GM utterly missed the boat on hybrid gas-electric technology and lobbied Congress not to raise fuel-economy standards on the grounds that meeting higher standards would divert funds from critical research in the ultimate propulsion technology, hydrogen fuel cells ? an argument that, shall we say, lacks authenticity. Today, GM has no hybrids of consequence on the street, while rivals Toyota and Honda are selling as many as they can build.
As part of a product reorganization, GM announced last month that it would speed up development of new SUVs and trucks in the pipeline and slow-walk development of rear-wheel-drive Zeta car projects. So, let's see: At a time when SUV sales are cliff-diving, GM proposes to speed up big SUV development and 86 the mid-size, rear-drive future products?
This reallocation of deck chairs seems pointless when the real problem is the massive overhead of a company that cannot find the will to downsize. Capitalism, remember, is creative destruction.
However, the best case for a putsch in GM's Renaissance Center offices is this: The cars aren't selling.
Honestly, it takes some sort of perverse genius to make the Grand Am, the car the Pontiac G6 replaces, look like a showroom winner, but the G6 is selling at about half the volume of the unloved and unlovely Grand Am, which dates to the 1980s. Even a multimillion-dollar giveaway of G6s on "Oprah" in September wasn't enough to fire up sales of this car.
Six months into its life, the G6 has thousands of dollars on its nose and analysts are calling it a flop. Last month, Pontiac offered more incentive money as a percentage of MSRP than any other brand, a full 16%, according to Edmunds.com.
The G6 is not an awful car. It's entirely adequate. But plainly, adequate is not nearly enough.
Exterior styling: The G6 sedan, based on the same stretched-wheelbase platform as the Malibu Maxx, has its wheels in the right place, nicely quadratic and corner-wise. There are a few odd proportions that add up to a kind of visual consternation: The car's front tapers around the headlamps like a school eraser; the rear deck is more a rear bustle, with an arm's length of sheet metal over the rear wheel wells; and wheels and tires themselves seem small when, at 17 inches in the GT package, they aren't really.
Meanwhile, the detailing of the bodywork makes the skin of the car look eggshell-thin. I wonder how many buyers look at this car and wonder what is behind the billboard?
Interior styling: The GT comes with comfortable leather-lined bucket seats, nicely bolstered with heaters. I like the soft grip on the hand brake. That exhausts my praise for the interior.
The center console is a plastic fantastic with the now-familiar stacked boxes of the audio head and climate controls, and we know what comes with familiarity. This is pretty much a style-free zone in a larger moor of monochromatic plastic and vinyl.
The G6 does have a couple of fun features, both optional: an oversized moon roof that folds back in sections so that, lined up on the roof, the car looks solar-powered; and a remote starting function.
Some options are less fun: Side-impact and curtain air bags, four-wheel anti-lock brakes and traction control are all cost-extra options on the base model.
Performance: The GT model I drove had a 3.5-liter iron-block V6 under the hood, good for 200 horsepower and no surprises at all. And ? though I can't believe I'm writing this sentence in 2005 ? this pushrod six is mated to a four-speed automatic transmission. It is because of this powertrain that the phrase "thrashy and unrefined" has become the hackneyed cliché that it has.
The electric steering is numb and oddly weighted. Though I thought the ride was very nice, the handling is pushier than a mortgage-refinance telemarketer. The car has zero appetite for hard driving. You want excitement from the "Excitement" division? Try to get this thing to turn in a sharp corner.
Bah.
This is an uncompetitive product, an assertion borne out not by my say-so but by sales numbers. When ballclubs have losing records, players and coaches and managers get their walking papers.
At GM, it's time to sweep the dugout.
**Updated 4/8**
GM, IN PROTEST, PULLS ADS FROM L.A. TIMES
April 8, 2005
In what may go down as one of the most conspicuous moves by a car manufacturer against a major media outlet, General Motors Corporation has pulled all of its advertising from Tribune Company's Los Angeles Times for the foreseeable future, according to a report in today's Wall Street Journal. Brian Steinberg and Joseph Hallinan of the Journal say it is in response to a series of articles about General Motors that have appeared in the Times' Wednesday section, "Highway 1."
At the heart of the issue are "some factual errors and misrepresentations in the editorial coverage," GM spokeswoman Ryndee Carney told the Journal. "It's not just one story. It's a series of things that have happened over time, and we've made our objections known to the paper, and so we'd like to keep our discussions between us and the paper private," she said.
"As a general policy, we don't do this," she added. "It's very, very rare that we would do this."
Carney declined to specify the amount of money at issue, citing competitive reasons. The Journal contact the Tribune, who also declined to disclose a figure. "Our policy is never to comment on the amount of money an advertiser spends with us," the spokesman said.
That didn't stop the Journal from speculating, however. "One person familiar with the advertising industry said the amount is perceived by people in the industry as 'highly significant' and that the action is seen as punitive." A media buyer, speaking generally to the Journal, said the amount would likely be in excess of $10 million.
The Journal reports that the auto maker spent about $2.8 billion on media time and space for advertising in 2004, according to TNS Media Intelligence. That figure includes ads for television, cable, newspapers and other media platforms.
"As GM has struggled to stop losing market share in the U.S., executives there have stepped up the volume of their complaints about negative press. Leading that offensive is Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, who chastised reporters at the New York Auto Show last month, and has taken media critics to task in his Web log," report Steinberg and Hallinan.
In his Wednesday column, "Rumble Seat," Los Angeles Times automotive writer Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions. "GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad," wrote Mr. Neil, who also called for the ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner.
Dan Neil won a Pulitzer Prize for critical writing last year in "Rumble Seat." He is the only automotive journalist to have won the coveted award.
This is not the first time an auto maker has pulled advertisements in protest to critical writing by a publication. It may be, however, the largest of its kind. Toyota pulled one year's worth of ads from Motor Trend magazine, in protest to an article it perceived to be overly critical of the Toyota Supra. After Car and Driver magazine described the 1969 Shelby Mustang GT500 as "a Thunderbird for Hells Angels," Shelby pulled its ads from the publication. (In response, the publisher of Car and Driver magazine cited the action in its publicity as an example of its 'no nonsense' journalism.)
If General Motors is hoping that its action against the Los Angeles Times will have a chilling effect on negative journalism against the auto maker, it may do just that. On the other hand, it's doubtful that discussions about this incident will remain quiet.
