GM’s December sales release shows a scenario that is reflected across the industry: hefty sales declines on the year with some evening out in December. GM’s sales fell six percent last month, the result of a 54 percent decline in “non-core” brands and a 2.2 percent increase in core brand sales. Still, considering December 08 sales were down nearly by half compared to 2007, it’s clear that GM still has some climbing to do to return to something resembling normalcy. Of the four core brands, the three smaller saw modest gains, with Buick climbing 37 percent, Cadillac gaining 11.4 percent and GMC improving 4.8 percent. But those gains were offset by a 1.5 percent decline in Chevy sales. For the year, Buick dropped 25.4 percent to 102,306 units, Cadillac fell 32.3 percent to 109,092 units, GMC fell 31.1 percent to 259,779 and Chevrolet dropped 25 percent to 1,344,629 units. [Complete GM sales data in XLS (Excel) form available for download here]
To anyone that is surprised by this result-it is just what the skeptics (if you’re a fanboy that is pronounced “hater”) have been saying the last few months about GM “turnaround”-favorably bad year-over figures to compare with and big incentives produced relatively “good” percentages in Sept-Nov.
This company is continuing in the direction it has been on for 30+ years.
Bunter
The data is out there try PR Newsline.
Yeah, I’ve deciphered GM’s gobbledygook, and the data is incoming…
It would seem to me that a 37 percent sales gain – like the one Buick experienced – is hardly “modest.” That strikes me as pretty impressive, and I’m no GM fan. Or is that a typo, and it was really 3.7 percent?
GM has greatly ramped up incentive spending, but we need to see exactly which vehicles had incentives on the hood.
I would imagine that the dead brands – Pontiac, Saab and Saturn – would need the heftiest incentives to move the metal. If GM is spending big bucks to move Buicks, Cadillacs, Chevrolets and GMCs, then there is definitely real trouble behind those figures.
geeber-this kind of surge is not unusual in a small product line. One hot product can jump the results (or one bad one crush them). It sounds like the LaCrosse is pretty hot (haven’t seen the sales numbers by model)-that would do it.
Bunter
Interesting, as I have yet to see a new LaCrosse on the road around here, while I’ve seen several new Tauruses (and without the rental-car barcodes on the windows).
Sorry Ed, but I cry foul. GMs website does a good job of issuing this Data. Hate them all you want but keep it truthful.
Juniper: Hate has nothing to do with it, there was an error in their link that made my browser fill up with lines of code. I worked around it, they’ve since fixed it, and the spreadsheet is available at the link in the post.
More analysis coming…
Hi geeber, I think LaCrosse was up 270%. Haven’t seen one either, but the increase amounts to only a few thousand cars. Buick can double this year and it won’t help the General.
Regards.
Bunter
I never knew Mr. Spock was a Buick man.
Fascinating…
Maybe Buick should change their tagline to “Live Long and Prosper.”
Far be it from me to call Bunter 1 a GM hater,but feel free to call me a fanboy.
Glass half full guy that I am,the numbers don’t look that bad.33% reduction in fleet sales seems to stand out,as does the 54% decline in non core.
The GM turnaround is happening very slowly,as is the rest of the economy. I know this is tough on the “we hate GM “crowd, but GM is still here,and it ain’t going away ,just yet.
I’m sorry, mikey, but with all due respect the only reason GM is “still here” is because it was, and is continuing to be, rescued. Propped up. Set free of all the debt incurred over many years of mismanagement and greed. And financed by my unwitting tax dollars. I have avoided GM cars for many years now because of their poor quality and abysmal customer service. But I never hated them. I hoped that they would turn it around. After all, I’m Detroit born and raised. But I hate them now.
Hi Mikey,
Just a note; GM’s sales were the bottom performer among the major players. When the market is up and you are treading water you are not winning.
GM has bought some market share with tax dollars tha last few months and reality, IMO, is setting in.
BTW, I don’t think I have ever seen you use the term hater, you have more class than that. That said, it is a pretty common response from GM fanboiz to any skeptical view on the subject of GM’s health.
Cheerio,
Bunter
Yeah OK Bunter 1….Hate is a nasty word. Though a little open minded thinking woudn’t hurt you.
Well Mikey “open mindedness” is sometimes linked to the perspective you come from.
I’ve seen several cycles of GM’s “turnarounds”. As recently as the fall of 2007 they bought market share for a few months, the press shouted “the’re saved” and the GM fanboiz went wild. Those of us that were skeptical and said “not so fast” were called closed-minded then also.
Two years later it looks like we were the ones with minds open to the facts and our critics, including I dare say yourself, look like they ignored the writing on the wall.
I do think I am open to seeing a GM turnaround, I do not think the evidence is compelling. The sales response, sans massive incentives, is not there. The reliability numbers are not there. They have trouble in several major markets (NA, Yurp).
Profitibility is not coming anytime soon.
Is your mind open Mikey?
Regards.
Bunter
GM’s newest and most competitive products (Lacrosse, Camaro, Malibu, CTS, Equinox/Terrain, Lambda triplets, and SRX) all look to be selling well. They’ll have to keep down the incentives, stay away from fleets, and need to avoid a major sales drop with those new models in 2010. I think it is going to be a big challenge to keep the Camaro numbers up with the Mustang’s new engines.
The Cruze, Regal, ATS, and XTS are also all going to need to be successful products. Then the Volt will have to work the way GM claims.
That is a lot of “ifs”, but I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.
All this talk about “competitive products… selling well” and “reduction in fleet sales … [and] in non core” doesn’t make sense because GM won’t be able to lay off everyone on the “non core” and “non competitive” products.
If it were able to do that, it would not need bailout.
Awesome picture! LMAO! Hey Subaru had an improvement and they didn’t get a sexy woman in their post like the other manufacturers.
[http://www.girlskissingtube.com/video/Vasc8ghyu1g/Sexy-Subaru-Forester-Sumo-Carwash.html] HAHA
I’m torn on my feelings towards GM right now.
On one hand, in certain segments, they have some real winners (Malibu, LaCrosse, Equinox, the Lambdas, CTS, of course the Corvette). And the new interiors they have been coming out with in those cars are VERY handsome and good looking, yes even in person.
OTOH, in a lot of segments they have non-competitive dogs and complete misses (Aveo, Cobalt, Impala, Lucerne, all of Cadillac except the Escalade and CTS). Not ONE of their brands has a lineup without some serious holes in it. You can’t run a value brand like Chevy, especially in the age of peak oil, without competitive subcompact and compact cars. You can’t run an upscale luxury brand like Cadillac that doesn’t have a real flagship 7-Seires/LS competitor. That dog just won’t hunt.
I am going to keep saying it. “Non core brands” constitute 7.5% of GM’s December sales. Problem is that the “non core brands” are not part of GM at all. Therefore, December sales of GM cars are down well over the 6% that GM is touting. I will bet somebody $5 that when the “non cores” are finally flushed out of the system, GM will start comparing results (say in 2010) against only the “core” brands from the prior year. In other words, use the discontinued cars to pad sales numbers as long as they are around, then do all further comparisons with the “non cores” subtracted out of the prior year. This way, GM never has to admit the true magnitude of the sales decline. Any takers?
That certainly sounds like GM Standard Operating Procedure to pull something like that.
“I have avoided GM cars for many years now because of their poor quality and abysmal customer service. But I never hated them.”
LOL
” …. a 54 percent decline in “non-core” brands and a 2.2 percent increase in core brand sales.”
This says that most of the would-be customers for Saturn & Pontiac didn’t migrate to other GM products … they went to the competition. Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan and Hyundai all had solid sales gains in December. A big piece of that came out of GM’s hide.
The ham handed way GM did its brand slaughter and dealer slaughter has left the company is an even weaker competitive position than it was before the bloodletting.
Also, BTW, Edmunds infamous analysis which claimed to predicted that the cash-for-clunkers program would destroy November and December sales results has proven to be completely wrong. It has proved to be every bit as flawed as I said it was back then. Funny how Edmunds’ so called analysts were all over cable news and the ‘net back then with their story, and yet are completely silent about following it up.
When GM canned Oldsmobile, a large number of owners migrated to Hyundai for their next vehicle, so GM had plenty of warning that this could happen.
Not to be a broken record but…
*cough*
2 more selling days in 2009
*cough*
Unadjusted year over year comparsions are a oxymoron. That -6% is more like -13. It all evens out over the course of a year, but why not be accurate on a monthly basis instead of only on Dec 31st?
Chrysler and GM are in a depression…
Ford and Toyota are having a recession….
Chrysler has a product problem…
GM has a pi$$ed off customer problem…
I can see that the US taxpayers are getting their money’s worthn’t.