GM: The New Service Company

[CBECK]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

The problem is exactly what's already been hinted at.....what's going to be perceived as more sophisticated? A Civic with a nav system or a Cobalt with OnStar? Whenever I read a media review, OnStar might be mentioned, but it's not described as a strong selling point of the vehicle. I don't think it's a feature that's going to cause many to pass the Toyota dealership on their way to a GM franchise. I've had it on my Aurora which I didn't renew. I have it on my VUE which will expire in December. I highly doubt that I'll renew it this time either. I suppose if I was in sales putting 30-40 thousand miles/year in my car, I might consider it. I occassionally use the minutes that I purchased at a deep discount, but frankly, I don't think I'd pay retail for those minutes - they're crazy expensive. I'm a little surprised that there's a 65% retention rate at the current price points - if true, then obviously a lot of other people see more value in the service than I do. If you think of it as insurance, by most standards, you'd have to say it's pretty expensive. For example - if I consider it insurance against locking my keys in the car and saving that expense, what are the odds that will happen?

Actually, considering that thier are approx 4,000 Chevy stores in the U.S not to mention the other brands. So, if something happens service wise, Onstar knows where you are and can send help to a nearby GM store whereas Toyota has about what 400-600 stores in the U.S. What are the chances of you getting help sooner? I'm sorry, I'd take a insurance policy like Onstar and would definiately help aid in my auto-buying descision. Also, if you think that $16 a month is expensive for a insurance(Onstar) policy I'd have to call you crazy.

[WhenenRome]

Originally Posted by jlmartin99

I realize that everyone has the right to smoke for example, even though there is clear and convincing evidence, that this personal product is a detriment to personal and public health. Today, it is individuals that have the right to choose to smoke, however as evidence mounts as to second hand smoke, there will be in the future, more legislation to protect the health rights of those who choose not to be exposed to smoking environments. I would suggest that many auto accidents are not of a singular nature, but impact others as well. Safety features to avoid or minimize the impact of accidents benefits our whole society.

I'm not sure if your post was merely going off on a tangent. But if you're suggesting that someone not renewing or subscribing to On-Star has a ''second hand smoke-like'' impact on other parties, I think that's way off base. Exactly how do you mean that?

And whether or not I'm reading that part correctly, I'm pretty sure you are suggesting (in the first part of your post) that people who don't renew On-Star also don't generally consider auto safety a priority... Not only is that just wrong, it's just plain condescending. Actually, I find most of the arguments against the people who rationally decide not to renew for the price (i.e., suggesting that one of us non-subscribers could have an accident and end up feeling ''pretty dumb'') arrogant as a whole.

Instead of assuming that we're just "stupid people who don't care about safety," why not take a more humble approach to your thoughts as to why we don't subscribe to it? I mean - not that a personal decision requires justification to anyone else - but I've explained quite explicitly why I chose not to renew. It's a rational sentiment, certainly not that of a stupid, reckelss, or careless person... and it's a sentiment that may reflect a number of people who don't renew On-Star.

Perhaps GM should consider renaming it On-Snob - to appeal to those who specifically want it to feel smarter and more relevant (and just plain better) than non-subscribers? Because I'm seeing some statements here that are just coming off more as egotistical than substantial.

[WhenenRome]

Originally Posted by CBECK

You'd be surprised, XM is getting closer to 80% by the month. Why not Onstar?

Well, because when I initially said no to renewing the XM, they came back with an offer that was much cheaper than its regular price, and much cheaper than On-Star itself - which is something I anticipated. Of course, I took it. The XM is used all the time.

The On-Star discounted renewal offers I've received on the Buick LaCrosse are nothing to write home about (it lapsed in August).

And I only received one or two On-Star renewal notices on my Oldsmobile Bravada right as it lapsed in June - and they were at full price, no discounts offered. I've received nothing since on the Bravada. I don't even get surveys on the Oldsmobile, while I do on the Buick. It kind of overall indicates GM's sentiment (or lack thereof) toward current Olds owners - but that's a whole other topic.

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by WhenenRome

I'm not sure if your post was merely going off on a tangent. But if you're suggesting that someone not renewing or subscribing to On-Star has a ''second hand smoke-like'' impact on other parties, I think that's way off base. Exactly how do you mean that?

And whether or not I'm reading that part correctly, I'm pretty sure you are suggesting (in the first part of your post) that people who don't renew On-Star also don't generally consider auto safety a priority... Not only is that just wrong, it's just plain condescending. Actually, I find most of the arguments against the people who rationally decide not to renew for the price (i.e., suggesting that one of us non-subscribers could have an accident and end up feeling ''pretty dumb'') arrogant as a whole.

Instead of assuming that we're just "stupid people who don't care about safety," why not take a more humble approach to your thoughts as to why we don't subscribe to it? I mean - not that a personal decision requires justification to anyone else - but I've explained quite explicitly why I chose not to renew. It's a rational sentiment, certainly not that of a stupid, reckelss, or careless person... and it's a sentiment that may reflect a number of people who don't renew On-Star.

Perhaps GM should consider renaming it On-Snob - to appeal to those who specifically want it to feel smarter and more relevant (and just plain better) than non-subscribers? Because I'm seeing some statements here that are just coming off more as egotistical than substantial.

Greetings WhenenRome,

No, I think you misread my comments. I was suggesting that yes, most new auto buyers do not consider auto safety high on their priority of features. And when it comes to safety, telematics (OnStar) is only one element in designing a comprehensive safety auto system. For accident avoidance, I mentioned the federal Highway Safety administration has release a statement to the effect that they have determined the anti-skid systems could save many lives and help drivers avoid accidents. I would not consider Onstar classified as part of the active safety avoidance category. I do consider Onstar or any telematics system that supports drivers and passengers in emergencies a key element in safety and should be part of the auto safety system design.

I am not hung up on arguments regarding subscriptions. I was really was making a much more pervasive statement, suggesting that government regulations might be required in order for auto makers to include auto safety technologies systems required for every passenger car, SUV and truck, such as full array air bags systems, anti-skid, telematics for air bag deployment and emergency situations, roll over, avoidance and protection systems. I consider telematics just part of the safety system topic, just like anti-lock brakes are just one component, but all of the technologies designed to work together is where the power and value to consumers truly is in my view. Quite honestly, the talk about who subscribes is of no interest to me personally, that is an individual choice as it should be.

JLM

[ChevroletRevived]

Originally Posted by CBECK

You'd be surprised, XM is getting closer to 80% by the month. Why not Onstar?

GM says that OnStar has a 65% rentention rate. OnStar is a great safety feature. Really, really invaluable in certain situations. A big selling point. GM shouldn't license the technology...

[chad4835]

Wonder if they have the ability to have other manufacturers use their infrastructure and give them a royalty?

[ChevroletRevived]

They can do that. But, it's a dumb idea, and it shouldn't be done. It should be a GM selling point.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by ChevroletRevived

They can do that. But, it's a dumb idea, and it shouldn't be done. It should be a GM selling point.

Maybe... or maybe it's a way for all those people who would never buy GM in the first place to hand over >$100/year into GM's bank account.

Is some typical import snob actually going to buy a GM car instead of the overhyped foreign perversion of the day simply because of OnStar? I doubt it.

[ChevroletRevived]

An interesting way to look at it!