*phew*
I tried reading all of that, and I ended up skipping paragraphs.
It felt like I was reading something right out of Time or Newsweek.
Anyways to try and distill it all:
Zarella was absolutely 100% right. Branding and the strength of the brand is the key to success.
However, Zarella was 1,000% wrong when it came to developing products and determining which brands to focus on.
The Brand strength does not come from the individual models, but from the actual division.
And this is where GM falter today, with them focusing on "General Motors" as the actual brand. "General Motors" is NOT a brand. It never in its 100 year history been a brand. It is more synonymous with a holding company -- like Berkshire Hathaway.
For example, there is no "Berkshire Hathaway Underwear Co." It's Fruit of the Loom. There is no "Berkshire Hathaway Chocolate Co." It's called See's Candies. There is no "Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Co." It's GEICO.
GM doesn't know how to brand.
GM does have too many products. However, the company is stuck in its old ways, and the cultural shift necessary to change the company may be too significant to make.
See... what GM's doing here? It's under the guise of "channel consolidation."
The main issue with the shut down of Oldsmobile was that it left hundreds of dealerships hanging. Combining channels allows a few things: 1) More product to sell, 2) Allows GM to shut down a brand, while maintaining product within the channel, 3) Less dealership "disruption."
GMC can be folded within Chevy trucks and be reborn as a true "Professional Grade" brand.
Pontiac can die.
Buick can be, shall we say, "contemporary luxury."
Chevy is the all-American car brand.
Cadillac is, shall we say, "world class luxury."
HUMMER remains focused on premium off-roading vehicles.
Saab is the premium European niche.
Saturn is all purpose European cars for Americans.