No, the point is he would not have been there to look at the old product to begin with. He did not hear buzz about the old product, he heard it about the new Cobalt. If you filter what you hear, people always say things to back up your position.

The order is this:

1. New prouct and pricing inline with todays market.

2. Fix the dealer experiance.

Thats my 2 step plan that will save GM. I need to start crashing GM stock holder meetings to get this across..........wait a minute, they are already doing this! Who would have thought that the people at the top actually have eyes and brains that work?

 

Cute, and somewhat rational.
As to "crashing" stockholders meetings, I've been attending these meetings since 1982, so your reference is passe.
No debate as to the value of new product and realistic pricing.
No personal "slams" to people "at the top". Ther're not bad people, they just don't understand the American car business. For example, why take the highest quality, best selling full size car in the country, LeSabre, and quit making it? Why come back with a GTO and have it look like a Grand Am? Why conceed the muscle car market to Mustang by eliminating the Camaro? Get the drift? They are intelligent, just unaware of how to sell cars.

 

Not necessarily. We were given one anecdote, from a new member with virtually no credibility here. Maybe he or his friend were/are already Mazda owners? Maybe there was something he or his friend didn't like about the interior of the Cobalt (back seat, trunk, who knows). As for the buyer - maybe he injected some bad attitude into the conversation. Really, what do you expect to happen, if you show up at a dealer looking (and most likely smelling) like a ditch digger? I'd expect the dealer to be at least a tiny bit skeptical, and it's reasonable to ask you if you are qualified to buy a car. If a buyer then gets defensive, all the more reason to suspect they cannot be serious about buying. And don't try to tell me Mazda somehow has the market cornered on good salesmen. I went to a Mazda dealership a few years ago due to a promotion. I said I was interested in test driving a car due to a book offer Mazda had sent. They treated me like trash and even belittled my driving once I finally convinced them to let me take a spin in their nearly-out-of-gas demo. As I have said - it could have been a case of my agenda affecting the results. But as a side effect of that visit, no way I'm going back to a Mazda dealer any time ever again. (Although a primary reason I'm not going is their torque-anemic offerings )

 

It was basically ancient... time to replace it. Like LaCrosse, that replaced the near indentical Regal and Century... Lucerne should pick up LeSabre's slack.

This has been discussed to death, but you need to understand that Mr. Lutz wanted to get a RWD sports coupe here ASAP (Iornically, I personally think this ties into the elimination of the Camaro and especially Firebird, which is your next point of order). With only limited changes to the body able to be done in a quick and cost effective way... the front fascia was about all that could be changed from the Monaro. Ironically... lots of people complained and complained that the Monaro was available in Oz, but not N.A.... then it comes, and all of a sudden it's bad. In all fairness, Pontiac could have avoided the backlash by picking a name other than GTO since the current car wasn't really designed form the get-go to be a "GTO"... I think it fits the roll just fine, but some people still disagree.... still, I think a lot of THOSE folks would pan ANYTHING with "GTO" on it as "unworthy"... so, take that for what it's worth.

This subject has been talked about since before the F-cars were cancelled here... there is a MULTITUDE of reaons the car ended in 2002... the real beef is that there wasn't a replacement car available for MY2003.

 

Very good analysis.

 

Just curious, but did you ask this question at the shareholder meeting?

 

No, but probably should have.

 

Wanted to sit this out awhile, since this subject tends to become a continuous loop.

Guess who just won the most biting but extremely hilarious quote of the month?

1. Zarella worked for Wagoner after he was demoted and Wagoner was elevated to CEO. Simply put, GM's board put Zarella in a position where he'd prefer to move elsewhere.

2. Why is the ship going down in the 1st place? Over-reliance on large trucks at a time when buyers began to turn away is a good place to start.

3. The plan is weak in that you don't address product at all, overcapacity isn't even mentioned, ways to improve the product approval process is ignored, product development is skipped, how to avoid missteps with vendors that result in product delays is MIA. That's a start.

On the positive side, many of your ideas will help the retail side.


I don't normally say this about any car, but the Bonneville is pure garbage, and the poster child of marketing gone wrong..... and I was a Bonneville fan..... till I rented one.

The different between bashing and simply hating something is in reasons, so here's mine:

The Bonneville's ride and handling was extremely soft and did not like to be tossed (as in accident avoidence). Base level Impalas, Malibus, and Grand Prixs have better handling. The Bonne's suspension is obviously made to appeal to the same age group who would buy Buicks. But look at it's guages, multitude of small buttons, sporty looks inside & out, "Excitement" marketing, and it's top tier position in Pontiac's lineup simply made Bonneville a car that looked like it would appeal to my age group (about 40), drove to appeal to my parent's age group (about 65) and really appealing to neither.

The GXP was a loser out the gate. The sticker price of 39K was Forrest Gump stupid. For the same cash you could buy a nicely equpted Cadillac CTS, a V8 Lincoln LS, or a loaded to kingdom come Chrysler 300C Hemi. Though you could get a Bonneville GXP discounted to around 32K, at that price point, you were at the GTO list price.

Words are easy to say, but when it's YOU that's coughing up $700 per month for the next 48-60, and YOU are the one who's going to be working hard, sacrificing vacations, savings, and the other little creature comfort things in order to buy something as big and financially commited as a brand new car, Ford Mustang GT starts to look very good next to a GTO that costs $8K more ($160/month extra). The Chrysler 300C takes it from the Bonneville. Pontiac doesn't even have something comparable to a Celica GTS or a SRT-4 Neon.

I like the Grand Prix & the GXP version is the only front driver I'd consider for myself. But for someone walking into the showroom today, seems the only thing gathering intrest is the GTO (sales are running ahead of expectations) and the G6 (retail sales up 75% over Grand Am).


You probally don't realize that Buickman has spoken against most everything you credit him for. You really need to dig a littel deeper.
1. Employee discounts for everyone? Hates them.
2. MSRP you're willing to pay? He prefers the wheeling & dealing.
3. Fixed Price? If you mention it to him.... run!

 

You're right, the issues you mention are not addressed in the first twenty steps. Like your reasons on Bonneville, agreed. Am not in favor of over-inflated pricing and do want closer to transactional figures. Point is getting there in a logical progression vs. a broad sweeping change sure to bring disaster. Negotiating will always be a part of the auto business. GMS to everyone will bring a much worse set of financials in the 3rd and 4th quarter, destroying brand image and equity in the process.

 

Can you explain why exactly the gms pricing will bring disaster? I really dont recall you explaining why its so bad.

 

Certainly. First let me tell you what I do like about it. It is simple and easy to understand. The message is clear and the deal is real. Customers love the upfront pricing and feeling they are not paying more than the next person. Also, charging everyone the same forces salespeople to sharpen their skills as professionals in order to earn the business.
The downside however is worse than the benefit. The same effect could be achieved with a more gradual effort, which would yield a more lasting and profitable selling environment. GMS for all has cost the dealers and salespeople tremendously across the country. Now I'm not asking you to feel sorry for these folks, but realize unless they earn a return, they won't be around long. This is only the beginning of what is wrong. The larger problem is the diminished brand image as GM is seen as only worth consideration when the merchandise is at distress levels. GM is stuck selling "the deals" instead of "the wheels". Look at the newspapers, price, payment and rebate. Where are the feature, benefit, and lifestyle correlations? Bringing top dollar requires having products that are aspirational. I know most everyone here will say it's all about product and I do agree. However in the meantime we CAN increase sales through effective marketing. Granted that won't make die hard import lovers switch back, but it can and will have an effect on many who left and would return given the proper belief in a turnaround.
The disaster IMO, will come in the third quarter as savvy dealers who, anticipating the "payback" period, soften up on their stock orders for 06's. GM books revenue when the dealer receives the vehicle. Moving the old 05 inventory cost GM and the dealers. When, and if, dealers do not order units to match scheduled 3rd and 4th quarter production, GM will have a massive problem as revenues drop significantly. As income decreases and we all know costs continue to rise, the core North American operations will bleed red ink. I predict the loss in NA to exceed $2 Billion. Again, as I have said before, I hope I'm wrong for all our sakes. Believe me I WANT GM to win. For years I followed the company closely, attending meetings, offering solutions, doing my part at the dealer level. Only after seeing the obvious mistakes time and again did I attempt to organize a plan (1997). Even then I tried for years to deal behind closed doors, meeting execs incl Lovejoy, Smith, Cowger, Larsen, LaNeve, Gerosa, Dewar, and others. Some think my style brash and aggressive. Please be aware I've been at this for the last 8 years and only recently went public due to GM's refusal to listen and seeing them continue to lose share. The final straw was LaNeve's comment that he felt The Plan would cause GM to actually lose share. That is when I went public and have done so with a passion. Next up, all US GM dealers to receive a copy and high level meeting with UAW.

 

What I shared with this thread was an experience. My credibility should have no bearing as to what my experience held. By your standards, am I to assume that only people that have proven their worthiness to you may post their experiences, here on this forum?


Appearantly, you did not read the post. He was my brother. No one in my family has ever owned a Mazda before. You must have missed the part where I stated that I was a GM fan. Read the post.


Again, read the post.


Again, read the post. I showed up, introduced myself, expressed my interests and inquired about some more information. That was all. The first words out of the salesman's mouth was what I stated. Have you not read anything? And you council about credibilty issues?


Please tell me you just did not refer to me with a racial slur? Perhaps I should elaborate my attire during that evening. I was dressed in blue jeans, a button down green w/ tan pinstrip shirt, and tan shoes. My normal attire are: Khakis, button-up shirts, sport jackets, and dress shoes. For business meetings: full business dress. Yes, I did mentioned about me tackling weeds, but I would like to think I have a little more common sense than to show up to a place of business looking like...a ditch digger?


I do agree, to a certain extent. I do, however, also believe there should be a level of professionalism. It would be hard to convey the salesman's demeanor into words on a forum post, that which can be translated with the same passion and arrogance in which it was given. BTW, I am the manager of night operations for a trucking and logistics company. Short of being the actual owner (my only boss) of the company, my measly salary is more than enough to purchase a vehicle. But I do tend to be very picky about how and where my money is spent.

I did not have any plans to go to Mazda either. It just happened be a dealer a long the way to a Dodge dealership, after leaving a Nissan dealership. In no way was I going to a Ford dealer. Of course, I did not buy this car for me. As I said, I'm a GM fan. "Keeping the faith" all the way. My apologies to everyone for interjecting a difference of opinion/correction. I have visited this site for a little while now, and thus far it has been a pleasure to read up on everyone's opinions, rants, raves, and tidbit of information. Hope to chat more with you all in the days to come.

 

Perhaps you have posted to the wrong thread?

 

Deviant's example of his Cobalt SS shopping experience was not an example of "poor marketing" on GM's part. The product was (and is) good, and some sort of marketing happened, or they would not have been there to see the car. Whether through word of mouth, or seeing a good review in a car magazine, or seeing print or TV ads, the product was known to them.

What killed the deal was horrible treatment by the dealer. Though, to be fair, if some young person walks up dressed down and possibly sweaty/covered in grass clippings, you might be less inclined to take him/her seriously... just the way the world works in many cases.

Anyway, the point is that it wasn't something GM did that cost the sale in this particular example. The sale was doomed by the conduct of the dealership, which is not owned or run by GM.

Sad that it went down that way. Of course, had it been me, I'd have a) maybe looked a little better when going to the dealership, and b) found a dealership that I liked. I would not settle for a lesser car or a car I didn't want just because of one dealer's behavior.

EDIT: Just saw your reply to BigDarknFast regarding your attire. I guess if you were wearing jeans and a button down, you should have been fine. The weed eating comment threw me off, though. We you weed eating in that outfit, or did you change just before you came (in which case, why mention the weed eating at all?). Assuming you were wearing that, I'd say that should be presentable enough. That makes the dealer look even more stupid. But again it is the dealer, not some GM's marketing department.

 

Agrred, GM did nothing wrong in this case. In fact, they did everything right. When I refer to marketing that does though include everything from concept to final delivery and follow up.