[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
I'd make a few changes.
Where I don't agree is this: all brands need some diversity. You need it in order to get people into the showroom. I'm sure in Volvo's case that there are customers who come in because of the XC90, but end up buying an XC70. Volvo would lose those customers without the XC90, even though they're not buying the SUV in the end.
Where brands should distinguish themselves is in their product philosophy, not in the class of vehicle they sell. I think by defining a philosophy for each brand, GM can reduce overlap and rebadging while maintaining a strong lineup in all of its dealerships. There are still opportunities for platform sharing, but it can be done where convenient, and it should not dictate the limitations on new products (which re-badging does). Below are my ideas for brand philosophies.
Cadillac is GM's top brand. It has to beat the best of both Mercedes and BMW. Refined, luxurious, powerful, and the best of everything you can get. I think they're going the right direction. They need the full-sized truck-based SUV, the performance car-based one, the roadster, the sedan, and everything else. There has to be a Cadillac for everyone who wants one, whatever size car they want to drive.
I think there is a market for Buick. Buick is the American cruise-o-barge thing. It is luxury at the expense of performance. It may be a tough audience to market to, but I think they're out there, and if you can get your message across correctly, it should be a profitable division. For example, they're the same people Kia is going for with the Amanti. Buicks should feel solid and safe (more than the Kia, for sure), and they should cruise down the highway well. I'd say Buick should offer family cars (sedans and wagons), a minivan, an SUV, and a convertible (to compete with the Chrysler Sebring or Toyota Solara, for example).
Pontiac is obviously the performance division. In contrast to Buick, I'd say they are performance at the expense of luxury (whereas Cadillac has both). The Solstice should be a great new car for them. The GTO, if it had better styling and were marketed better, would be the right idea. A Pontiac should be exciting, even if the interior feels cheap. It should be a sports car, a sedan, or a crossover SUV; no truck-based vehicles.
Saab has always tried to blend practicality with safety, comfort, and performance. It should not have the power, handling, or luxury of a Cadillac. It should also be priced well below a Cadillac, for that matter. Saab is not a truck company. It should have a more performance-oriented crossover SUV. Hopefully the 9-6X will be just that. After that, the 9-7X is unnecessary. Saab should also have the 9-5, 9-3, 9-2, and a 9-1...something like the 9X would make an excellent 9-1. A 9-4X made by raising a 9-3 and putting in AWD would complete the lineup nicely. It should feel solid, and the suspension should be tuned for high-speed handling.
Saturn is the entry-level brand. It needs to compete with Toyota and Honda, in particular their small cars. Saturns should look fun and have some neat features that don't cost much. Small sedans and small SUVs are a good market for them. I'm not sure the Sky fits into that. They need a larger car for diversity, but that gets into territory that Chevrolet does well (more on that later...)
GMC is a truck division. Pickup trucks, vans, and vehicles designed for commercial and fleet use. A GMC dealer doesn't need to have any vehicles that would pull the average customer off the street, because that's not their customer.
Chevy is difficult. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Chevy should market trucks to the regular consumer, and they can distinguish themselves from GMC that way, still selling essentially the same products. Badge engineering is cheap, and that is a case where I think it works. You can probably also rebadge the same minivan used at Buick as a Chevy. Chevy has a lot of overlap with Pontiac on performance cars: the Monte Carlo could easily be a Pontiac, for example. Their small cars compete with Saturn, and their midsize cars will too when the Aura comes out. But Chevrolet is the basic American brand, and you certainly can't get rid of it. It should have a broad lineup of just about every class of car. Cheap, less luxurious than Buick, less performance-oriented than Pontiac. Chevy is also the brand for unique cars that don't fit this description or any other: the corvette and SSR, for example.
Chevrolet's biggest problem is that it has an image problem in sedans. It needs to separate itself better from the rental car stigma...yeah, the new Malibu is different than the Malibu Classic which will continue as a rental car, but they shouldn't have kept the name Malibu. Hopefully the Cobalt will erase people's memories of the Cavalier.
If Chevy can fix the image problem, then Saturn becomes completely redundant. It could be turned back into a quirky, different brand, with plastic panels, etc, but that didn't seem to be working. It could be a platform for new ideas, such as hybrids, new powertrains, new body shapes, or youth-oriented models (ala Scion). But GM isn't very original with stuff like that...My vote would be to keep all the brands, at least until Chevrolet can fix its image. At that point, if you can't come up with a creative use for Saturn, scrap it.
So, within this structure, how do you share platforms to save money? Well, like I said before, GMC and Chevy would share the large truck platforms by simply rebadging. Caddy could get some of those as well, with only minor modifications. Caddy cars should be rear-wheel drive, and I think Pontiac should too. They should be able to share platforms there, but I'm talking about platform sharing like the 9-3 and Malibu are doing, not rebadging. Buicks, Saabs, and Chevrolets should be front drive with an AWD option in some cases. These brands can also share platforms. Crossover SUVs can share platforms all around: Pontiac, Saab, Caddy, and Chevy should get them. I'm not opposed to Saab getting its crossover platform from Subaru (as in the planned 9-6X) either. Not every brand has to have a version of every platform, but every platform should support more than one car to make it worthwhile. Platforms are also shared with Opel (which has its own market requirements that I don't know much about), so this increases the flexibility.
In many cases, GM's recent moves make sense with the above vision. What they really need is some more excitement to get customers back. The reliability is up, but there's still a stigma with GM vehicles. They need to beat that. I think there's a role for all of their brands, but if they don't get some creative people in management, they're going to have trouble justifying Buick and Saturn, in my view.
Matt
'99 9³
posted by 65.106.18...
, Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:13:58
, Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:34:45
, Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:31:32, Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:17:25
, Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:54:42, Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:24:52
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
