General Motors considers shedding more brands.
Maybe they should just stick with Chevy and Cadillac.

« The paranoid style of media relations | Main | Amateur hour »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef00e553a7d91f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shrinking giant:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
GM, and others, traditionally sell essentially the same car under multiple names and makes. Other than the alleged marketing boost, what's the sense in that?
Posted by: justcorbly | Jul 07, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Why have both Chevy and GMC when they are essentially the same vehicle? I've never understood why American companies do this. Look at Ford with Mercury, GM with Chevy and GMC, and Chrysler with Dodge and Chrysler (and Plymouth a few years ago). Cut out the brands and focus on making good cars people will buy.
Posted by: DeacSteve | Jul 07, 2008 at 01:14 PM
In some cases, the different brands are legacies of having bought out independent car companies. A subset of buyers will maintain loyalties to the brands.
In the case of Saturn, GM developed this as a new brand to compete more effectively with Japanese imports. The brand was supposed to be more innovative, customer-focused, and quality-focused than GM's existing brands.
Car companies aren't the only ones who do this. For instance, there are very few appliance makers in the U.S. but numerous brands.
Posted by: Dave Ribar | Jul 07, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Dave when they first rolled out Saturns the resale values and quality surveys rivaled the Japanese imports. GM then did what they always do and rolled the Saturn production into their other operations. Since then Saturn resale and quality ratings are hardly distinguishable from other GM brands. The difference would be the manufacture of Saturns in traditional union shops vs Spring Hill Tennessee where there was little union power and workers could stop the assembly on their own for any perceived quality issue. Many reviewers say that GM is making the best cars they've ever made, but they can't overcome their years of putting shoddy work in many cases along with the market changing around them.
Posted by: Roger Greene | Jul 07, 2008 at 03:19 PM
We recently took a trip in a rented Chevy Cobalt. We didn't choose it, just asked Budget for a compact car and that's what we ended up with. It was very nice. I'm 6'0" and had plenty of leg room and head room. Trunk big enough for luggage and a set of golf clubs. The best part? We averaged 36 MPG -- mostly highway.
But most cars seem impressive when new. Will the Cobalt be a rattling, door-handle broken, window-leaking, transmission-slipping piece of crap at 80,000 miles or will it go and go with minimal repair to 180,000 like a Toyota? That's the rub.
Posted by: Roch101 | Jul 07, 2008 at 03:57 PM