And if you believe that, you’ll believe GM’s Marketing Maven Mark LaNeve’s denial that the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) is pressuring GM to axe GMC and Pontiac. “The strategy we laid out for you [in February] is still the strategy,” LaNeve, GM’s vice president of vehicle sales, service and marketing, said today in an interview with Automotive News. “Are we working it, tweaking it, examining every aspect of it? Yes, but nothing has changed with our strategy.” In fact, reports that “GMC is going away are just unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue.” OK, so either Bloomberg‘s “people” got it wrong or LaNeve’s lying (gasp!). And here’s one from left field: maybe the PTFOA has cut LaNeve out of the loop. After all, they cut off his former boss at the knees. Given LaNeve’s part in the destruction of eight GM brands, and his assertion today that Buick and GMC are profitable—very profitable—what possible use does GM’s current masters have for such a spectacularly lousy manager?
If Buick and GMC are profitable brands, maybe GM should just get rid of Cadillac and Chevrolet? They must be the big profit sinks that are destroying GM. Or maybe everything will be just peachy keen once GM is rid of Saab, HUMMER, and Saturn. They’re expecting to make a profit of the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge, too.
Can he explain why the amount GM has lost each of the last few years has eleven digits and three commas in it if Buick and GMC are “very profitable”? Are the others brands responsible for not only negating Buick and GMC’s profit, but also all the company’s loss?
Does GM HAVE to kill Pontiac?
What about just selling the G8, Solstice, and a Firebird without any corporate advertising? They could sell them at Chevy lots! GM is already screwed to hell no matter what right? So what would it help to off Pontiac?
/wonders if he is into the “bargaining” stage of grief yet or still in “denial”.
Do I see hair plugs on top of his head? Ugh. Let it go man. Shave it short…
GM still owns the Brooklyn Bridge? I gotta tell you young kids, back in the day, GM owned the world.
/waxingnostalgictypes
This guy looks like a Ghoul from Dawn of the Dead.
If these “brands” are so “profitable”, then why the hell is this joke of an automaker asking for handouts?
Am I missing something here? Oh, I see…they are “very profitable”…just not “profitable ENOUGH”…ok, I got it. Kind of like when tax revenues, while still rising, are not rising enough…thus we call it as “revenue cut”….and must raise taxes accordingly….ie, all lies.
There must be something in the water at the RenCen.
As a general rule of thumb I dislike gov’t meddling in private business and markets – their actions are all to often ham fisted and the results full of unintended consequences.
This could be the exception to the rule.
What happens when the company is dumber (sic) then the government agency that is trying to ‘save’ them?
It’ like some sort of economic Underachiever’s Olympics.
He’s GM’s very own Baghdad Bob.
segfault…
He’s GM’s very own Baghdad Bob.
I was thinking the same thing.
This would be completely unbelievable if this weren’t the same guy who, several weeks ago, touted Saturn as having strong public acceptance as a brand, it just needed a ‘new business plan.’ The PTFOA, of course, slipped a torpedo to Saturn within a few weeks. It sounds like LaNeve is not only out of touch with reality, he’s out of touch with the real bosses of GM these days.
Photo needs a caption:
“I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad.”
-ted
Ah c’mon, give the guy a break. He’s a sales guy. By definition, he has to be a chronically annoying cheerleader with a “damn the torpedoes”, “never take no for an answer” personality. Sales guys like these are trained from an early age to visualize the future they want and do or say anything to get there. Reality is merely an an annoying obstacle to overcome.
Buick probably is profitable on a worldwide basis…when China is included. GMC likely is profitable since every vehicle is a truck and a copy of a Chevrolet. And then again, are we talking profits before allocation of other expenses such as corporate overhead, interest, taxes, etc.?
The reality is that none of it matters since GMNA as a whole hasn’t made money in years.
Crackers:
I agree. This LaNeve is paid (quite well) to paint a rosy picture.
He’s just doing his job and I’d do the same for his salary. Besides, LaNeve probably starts to really believe the crap he spews.
I am sure that Buick does make a profit. In China. GMC makes no sense, and never did. I remember as a small child(3-4), my father worked a summer job at the GM truck plant in Pontiac. He explained that he made trucks for Chevy and GMC. And that they were exactly the same. I didn’t understand why they had 2 identical products. If a three year old understands such a basic business error, why has it taken so long for GM to think the same thing?
GMC makes no sense…until you realize that the second best selling vehicle in GM’s portfolio is the GMC line of pickups. Yes, they’re identical to Chevy’s, but in these times, how can you justify killing off your number two seller?
As far as Buick is concerned…GM owns brands that it doesn’t sell here (Vauxhall, Opel). There’s no reason Buick couldn’t exist as a China-only brand. But Buick’s product mission is muddled – entry level luxury products, full size SUVs and full-size float-mobiles? Each could be incorporated into Cadillac.
Kill Buick here in the States, leave GMC / Pontiac as sellers of niche performance cars and trucks. They already share dealerships – why not?
But Saturn, alas, is dead…which is a shame, since they’ve got a pretty nice lineup of vehicles these days. Given a few more years, the new marketing strategy might have had a chance, but no way in the time they had…
Give this guy a break. What do you want him to say, dose anyone want to buy two brands that have no value and holds massive debt? My gut feeling is that he is BS his way hoping that someone will buy these brands so they can clean up their balance sheets.
If your not attempting to overhype a cleaning product, never speak in public wearing a headset type of thing (and don’t do it then either!).
Looks like he is saying, “But wait! Order now, and I will also throw in the mini ShamWow, a ten dollar value, for free!
@Freedmike:
To answer your question about killing the General’s second-best-selling product line (the Sierra), I ask this: what else would those people buy?
A person who wants a full-size pickup only has six choices to begin with (until Chrysler hits the C7 brick wall). If GMC isn’t an option, then there are only five possibilities. It seems extremely like to me that a GMC Sierra buyer will wind up buying a Silverado anyway, nineteen times out of twenty. This is particularly true if Chevrolet took over the Denali label for an up-market trim level on their trucks and SUVs, giving the same luxury option that Ford offers with the Lariat/Platinum versions of the F-Series. Closing GMC will benefit Chevrolet, because anyone who would buy a GMC will find a Chevrolet to be almost indistinguishable, anyway.
It’s just funny to me. Some say kill Buick, some kill Pontiac, others save them. We all agree that GM has too many brands. We just can’t agree on which we’d keep.
I don’t think it is a brand issue but a brand dilution issue. As posted above, GMC and Chevy compete directly against one another. Same with Cadillac and Buick as well as Chevy, Saturn, Pontiac, Holden, Opel Vauxhall.
In addition, GM makes cars that no one wants.
If I were GM’s head honcho, I’d list ALL non-profitable MODELS and axe them. Then I’d group the remaining models into brand definition and axe duplicate models. All trucks and truck sized SUV’s would be GMC. Hummer would be a single model in the GMC brand. All CUV’s (station wagons with ground clearance) would fall into Chevy. Pontiac would be GM’s sport division and move towards making real sports cars. Saturn would sell rebranded Opels and eventually Buicks from China. Buick would cease US sales/production and move to China. Caddy would make real luxury cars – no trucks. Corvette would race at Le Mans.
Let the PTFOA deal with dealers issues, bond holders, labor unions and let GM build cars.
{edited because I forgot something}
Just pay the CAFE fine like Porsche and Mercedes until the Public actually wants to buy hypermilers. You’ll know that when Saturn (Opel) becomes America’s #1 brand!
Everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too.
Something overlooked by most folks pertaining to GMC is that a very small portion of GMC’s sales are Pickup Trucks. GMC makes it’s money with “Ton and a half” and above. Real trucks. Commercial vehicles.
(I too hate people who post one after the other…sorry about this)
“GMC makes it’s money with “Ton and a half” and above. Real trucks. Commercial vehicles.”
Nonsense. GMC tried to sell off the medium and heavy duty business to Navistar last year, but that deal fell apart after the two had announced it! The fraction of GMC’s business which is the big stuff is very, very small … and not profitable enough for Navistar to go through with the deal.
Annecdote time-One of my co-workers used to be a GM service manager.
He tells me they used to get in Chevy trucks with GMC tailgates or steering wheels. He says the guys at the truck plants joked that they “sand them with a brick and paint them with a mop”.
Yes, this was years ago.
Chevy and Caddy only. Even then I give them 40-60 against on avoiding C7. C11 is a done deal.
Bunter
Landcrusher
“Looks like he is saying, “But wait! Order now, and I will also throw in the mini ShamWow, a ten dollar value, for free!”
Just pay separate shipping and handling.
Ha ha, he does kind of look like GM’s version of the Shamwow guy. Maybe when he’ll meltdown and end up on the news when he’s unemployed too.
The hair regeneration chemicals have leeched into the spin-doctors brain!
Merge Saturn in to Pontiac, so you have Pontiac Saturn. Saturn has good product (finally) so it needs to sell its models through a larger number of dealers. Then Pontiac could eliminate its smallest cars (keep the Vibe).
We’re all just beating a dead horse with this, you know. Any reasonably intelligent 8 year old can tell you that GM has far too much product overlap and duplication. All of the TTAC B & B have wonderful theories on how to revamp the product line, but folks, GM isn’t listening. In the midst of the worst downturn in almost 50 years and with GM on death’s door, why did GM launch not one, but four different vehicles based on the Lamda platform? Really? This is the response from GM? Four different Lamda trucks? GM deserves to die, truly.
Keep Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. GMC sells trucks. Period. Maybe one or two larger CUV’s. Cadillac sells performace luxury, and no SUV’s; Make the Denali and the Escalade as GMC trucks, and retain the Corvette and SRX CUV as Cadillacs. Buick sells luxury cars, slotted in between Cadillac and Chevrolet, and Chevrolet sells basic cars and low end CUV’s. You want a quality CUV? Move up to GMC. You want a luxury sedan? Move up to Buick. You want a performance sedan? Move up to Cadillac. At most there should be one overlap per line. GMC and Buick with the Lamda. Buick with a luxury version of the Malibu (which should be Chevrolet’s largest car). Differentiate between basic, luxury and performance using the various divisions, not within each product line. Amalgamate all four divisions into one dealer network and cull Pontiac, Hummer and Saturn from the fold. People who purchase Chevrolet trucks will almost certainly just switch to GMC, and ditto for those who buy Pontiac versions of Chevrolet cars; they will just transfer allegiance to other GM brands long before they switch to other makes.
If GM can build a superior product (because just catching up to the competition won’t be good enough), sever at least 1/3 of the dealer network and rationalize the product line, they just might pull this off.
Of course, pigs could learn to fly also.
Or go on GMI and find out how to save GM without cutting any brands…..
“GMC makes no sense…until you realize that the second best selling vehicle in GM’s portfolio is the GMC line of pickups. Yes, they’re identical to Chevy’s, but in these times, how can you justify killing off your number two seller?”
I must be missing something here. If GMC went away, would the buyers not be able to find their way to the Chevrolet dealership instead? I’d suspect that the great majority of them could, and would.
(Apologies to the several other commenters who had already made the same point above.) Of course the Chevy truck/GMC thing is only one example of GM’s needless duplication.
I’m not sure how well Buick is going to do with the new 2010 LaCrosse. It’s higher end models will be pushing mid to high 30’s price tags. Buicks reputation is one of stodgy blue haired drivers looking for large cushy interiors, large trunks to fit there lawn chairs or wheelchairs, split bench front seats and a nice smooth quiet V8 engine. None of these things are offered on the 2010 LaCrosse. It’s trunk measures a compact like 12.8-13.3 cu. ft. depending on model, the top engine is a 3.6 liter V6 and 6 passenger seating is left up to the Lucerne and Enclave. It will be interesting to see if the Lexus GS inspired exterior styling will attract much if any of the younger set making this cars low sales volume and Chevy Malibu LT base pricing much of a profit maker at all.
Gardiner Westbound :
April 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
There must be something in the water at the RenCen.
If they joined the pipes with the same material they use for their intake manifold gaskets, I’m guessing that something in the water is ethylene glycol.
That would explain GM’s comatose state.
I think a better question is:
How can GMC NOT be profitable?
I want Pontiac to die so badly. I will celebrate the day that they announce that they are going to kill the worthless joke of a brand. They are all idiots to keep that brand going, especially since they keep trying to aim it at the youth market. Sorry GM, but the youth market is too busy buying Mazdaspeed 3s and Civic Sis to pay attention to a Chevrolet – tarted up with pointy spoilers, bold paint, and gaugy cladding that is matched with an equally gaudy interior – that is pretending to be a performance car. Nobody cares about Pontiac anymore. They have the Solstice and G8, but unfortunately the G8 has been a massive flop, and the Solstice is all looks, no brains. And GM loses money on every one they sell. If GM doesn’t kill off Pontiac when they go Ch11, I am going to cry. Maybe I am just pissed because Oldsmobile was chosen over Pontiac to get the guillotine when I believe that Pontiac deserved to die much more than Olds.
Buick is going to have to stick around, unfortunately. From what I know, Buick is so popular in China because the people over there believe it to be a respected brand here in the US. Kill Buick here, and their sales in China are going to tank. On top of that, Buick has an excellent hand of products (In my opinion), and they are all relatively fresh. I think that they can get Buick to work by bundling it with Cadillac and selling the two together in the same showroom. So, in other words, Buick is not going anywhere.
I don’t get GMC either, and I gag in my mouth whenever I see their commercials talking about how they have always used the world’s finest engineering. It is just a fucking rebadged Chevy! And although I believe that if GM kills them, the GMC buyers will be smart enough to find their way to a Chevrolet showroom, I do believe this guy when he says that GMC is profitable. GM probably makes a killing off these. They take a Chevrolet, throw on a few different parts that should probably cost $500 in total, then jack up the price about $10,000. Genius. So because of this, GMC is not going anywhere either.
carsinamerica :
April 17th, 2009 at 1:03 am
@Freedmike:
To answer your question about killing the General’s second-best-selling product line (the Sierra), I ask this: what else would those people buy?
Agreed, but you don’t just kill off the brand that sells your #2 selling product overnight. Theoretically, yes, everynoe who wants a GMC pickup would automatically buy a Chevy, but if I were GM, I’d want GMC phased out, not dumped overnight. That’s why I’m saying: leave GMC as a seller of performance and luxury trucks, and see how it goes. If it doesn’t work, begin a transition to Chevy.
Kurt. :
April 17th, 2009 at 3:55 am
In addition, GM makes cars that no one wants.
Two of their cars are on the list of top-10 selling cars in America.
Freedmike:
I’m sure that GM would prefer something like that. However, they’re well past the time that they could do such an experiment. Simply put, they’re out of money, out of time, and out of luck. They don’t have four or five years to wait and find out if GMC can survive solely as a purveyor of luxed-out sport-utes.
The other problem with your idea: if the “Glock of Damocles” (to borrow a phrase) is hanging over Pontiac, and Buick has a small lineup to begin with (if Buick survives in the US), and GMC is to be made a niche player, too, then what sales volume will support the BPG dealer network? They’d all go bankrupt themselves.
It is NOT LaNeve’s job to be a cheerleader and paint a rosy picture. These techniques may have worked in another era, but not anymore. It is his job to know what works NOW and in the near future.
Maybe we’ve arrived at a place in time that requires real leaders. You know, the kind of guys that just get the job done.
“GMC makes no sense, and never did.”
Back in Ye Olden Tymes, GMC was Pontiac’s truck division. They were mostly built in Pontiac, used Pontiac V8s in the late ’50s, and supposedly the bowling-ball-sized water pump on the GMC V6 came from that first-gen Pontiac V8. All of that went away in 1967, when the GMC factory was repurposed to make the larger trucks while Chevy factories made the light-duty trucks for both brands. The V6 in the pickups basically went away after 1969, and the quad headlights went away after 1972.