GM Starting To Listen?

[2b2]

I feel the need to preface my post with a recap
(apologies for things taken out of context/order)
If it's too long for you, just read the Bolds (and this first quote)

--------------
Evo69 "...You see GM traditionally ALWAYS kept a little distance between the consumer and themselves they usually dont want to get too close... ...how GM did things back in their hey day/Back in those days the nearest they ever got to interface with consumers were during ... the Woodward Avenue scene...

Thanks to the Internet as the new technological interface they can really LISTEN to what GM fans and consumers want. Now dont be fooled they still dont want to get too close, they are a corporate animal and we all know how corporations behave...

...GM has been caught off guard by the enthusiasm of GM fans to the mini car trio and the Chinese Buick Park Avenue... The PR and marketing guys should be more on the ball, they should be more aware of whats going on and current especially on the coasts, it seems they have the wrong people in the right places. GM cannot afford to be caught off guard by enthusiasm of their own friggin product much less those made by foreigners..."

steve333 "I see very little sign of GM listening to anyone... ...why do we have to tell them the obvious?"

mkaresh "...GM doesn't want to listen because really listening would mean more work, and they feel stressed out already..."

SierraGS "...But the total neglect and just plain brain dead moves on existing product is amazing.
These things drive me crazy because they could all be fixed tommorow by getting someone who knows how to sell cars to buyers on the coasts. GM's real problem is with option content more than anything and it is completey fixable."

steined "There are GM product managers who read enthusiast boards. But they aren't always the one's making the final decision..."

mcool "GM surely doesn't have to listen to the voices on this forum. They would be wise to take anything here with a grain of salt. That said, this site is an awesome example of a vivid discourse surrounding their core business. It's a focus group that runs itself and evolves more quickly than any corporate commitee can ever hope to. Kudos to all those keeping this site running and constantly improving..."
--------------

Back "then", 1. Customers would "Ooo & Ahh" at concept cars.
& 2. the telephone system was still being developed.

NOW, 1. many people would say "It's about F'ing time" if presented with a cold-fusion-powered water-fueled FlyingCar.
plus 2. we're online!
THEY don't understand that yet.
THEY don't realize THEY're under-utilizing a major resource - us!
I've suggested THEY recruit some of us as Confidential-Kibitzers...
Car mfg's need Their Own by-invitation Forums!

THEY 'probably' don't even need to pay us. Heck, I'd pay MyBrand to 'pay attention'.

Why do their forums have be by-invitation/private?
1. It must be secure. The best advice/input requires not-for-everyone information.
2. THEY have to know Who they're talking to (gag order) & keep track to know how to evaluate the input.
(that's the problem with focus groups GIGO Garbage-opinions-In-Garbage-cars-Out)
3. THEY need more than "Cool" or "Barf" -- Their-eyes-only space for RIA-ish input could be provided.
4. THEY need to keep the most valuable contributors.
5. the forum would actually be just one part of the advisory workgroup with 'levels of access'.

--------------
01cavalier "...it can take a long time for changes to happen.
--------------
Exactly, THEY are running out of time to change. WE could speed up the process
with ideas
with requirements that Other Mfgs are only too happy to fulfill
with the occasional WTF a corporate drone would never utter.

--------------
nsap "The reason GM doesn't have the funds to design such is because they neglected their product lineup for the last 30 years."
&
01cavalier "...GM should have put both the front and rear drive models on sale..."
--------------
It's been said "It doesn't cost any more to bend the metal a different way"
&
A major problem everywhere imho, is people thinking things have to be Either-Or.
If you (corp) have more than one child (brand,model) you Have To 'feed' them All...
...or put them up for adoption.

Letting a brand or model starve means you've already lost the right to Have them!
Having posters say "THEY oughta get rid of that brand/model" equates in the RealWorld to a neighbor calling a ChildAbuse Hotline.
Unfortunately there's no 800-number for Car Abuse.

BUT there are plenty of posters crying ABUSE, all that's needed is to connect us with the 'right people'.
How do I know these PrivateForums don't exist?
By those "plain brain dead moves" that continue to be built.
(...maybe-possibly some of the competitors actually do have them... hmmm)
but I'm sure the 3? domestic mfg's DON'T!

maybe someday soon they will & we can all say, like
asim, "This is great. GM is starting to listen..."

(thanks to anyone that read this far - esp. dataminers for MyBrand!)

[steined]

Mkaresh: You may well have witnessed the development of the Aztek, but the stories in B-school about the Aztek from former GM executives and designers is that it was born from customer-focus groups and customer input. I simply point to this as an example that you can't always give the customer what they want because the customer doesn't always know what they want. This is just a fact. This doesn't preclude GM from listening to customers or forums, but businesses can't be run based on consumer input alone, companies must also innovate, I think we can agree this is where GM has been lacking until recently.

[ponchoman49]

Now if only we could get GM to listen to all of the other problems with the company right now such as 197 HP 3800's in flagship Buick models, eliminated your best models, options, wheels and colors for the new year and keeping the less desirable crap, a Buick lineup with but 3 vehicles, no 6 speed automatics in your all new trucks, poor mileage ratings on many of your newly introduced models etc. When these things are all addressed, I will then believe that the General is listening. Until then it is business as usual.

[69Firebird400]

Originally Posted by steined

Mkaresh: You may well have witnessed the development of the Aztek, but the stories in B-school about the Aztek from former GM executives and designers is that it was born from customer-focus groups and customer input. I simply point to this as an example that you can't always give the customer what they want because the customer doesn't always know what they want. This is just a fact. This doesn't preclude GM from listening to customers or forums, but businesses can't be run based on consumer input alone, companies must also innovate, I think we can agree this is where GM has been lacking until recently.

I have no reason to doubt mkaresh's account of the Aztec's development, versus what a textbook might say. He was actually inside GM while he was working on his Ph.D. Perhaps there is a difference between the Aztec concept, which most of us agree was better looking, and the actual Aztec production vehicle. People liked the idea of the Aztec concept, and it didn't look too bad, so they asked for it. Instead, they were served up a half-baked hideous vehicle that tried to do too many things but was not really good at any of them, and therefore will be the butt of automotive jokes for the next two decades.

It's one thing to get feedback from non-scientific polls online (as they did wtih the three minicar concepts) and listen to the "buzz" about a hot concept car at an auto show, and it's another to actually build a business case that goes beyond the first-year emotional buyers and is actually a product that people want to buy. They made the same mistake with the SSR, and I really hope they're not making it with the Camaro.

[bcjohnso99]

There are soooooo many good ideas at GMI (especially the revitalization exercises) that maybe you should have bought Chrysler and implemented them instead of waiting for the deaf giant...

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by 69Firebird400

I have no reason to doubt mkaresh's account of the Aztec's development, versus what a textbook might say. He was actually inside GM while he was working on his Ph.D. Perhaps there is a difference between the Aztec concept, which most of us agree was better looking, and the actual Aztec production vehicle. People liked the idea of the Aztec concept, and it didn't look too bad, so they asked for it. Instead, they were served up a half-baked hideous vehicle that tried to do too many things but was not really good at any of them, and therefore will be the butt of automotive jokes for the next two decades.

What many people often fail to understand about concepts is that they are often developed after the production design has been finalized. They are based on the production design by embellishing it, not the other way around. This was the case with the Aztek concept. I saw finished bodies-in-white in 1998. The Concept was shown in January 1999.

The whole, "we showed the concept and people said to build it, so we did" line is generally a crock. It's usually about the PR and generating buzz. Usually (though certainly not always) the production decision was made before the concept was shown.

The big difference with the concept was that its wheels were far larger and the cladding was body color. The product team on the Aztek fought for larger wheels, but the engineers said that nothing over 15" was viable. Failed the "tire flop" test. And unpainted gray cladding was used on the production Aztek most likely to save a bunch of money and get the business case to work. I don't know the details of that decision, but I did hear discussions of how Jeep was using such cladding on the Grand Cherokee, and how much cheaper it would be to use such cladding.

Then the 2001 failed and so the 2002 got 17s and body-color cladding. Which helped a lot, but by then the damage had been done. I've long maintained that if the Aztek had been introduced with body color cladding and the five-spoke 17s as standard equipment, it would not have flopped. Essentially, it would have looked more like the concept.

[Havasavana]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I witnessed the development of the Aztek firsthand, and listening had absolutely nothing to do with it. Clinic results were negative, and ignored. The designers knew it was ugly, but knew better than to speak up. The board of directors wanted a crossover fast and cheap, and that's what they got.

GM doesn't want to listen because really listening would mean more work, and they feel stressed out already.

Talk doesn't mean anything. We'll know they're really listening when the products reflect it.

This is similar to the Vega story as depicted in the DeLorean book. Similar uninformed input and similar bomb result with a short life-span for the product.

Originally Posted by steined

Mkaresh: You may well have witnessed the development of the Aztek, but the stories in B-school about the Aztek from former GM executives and designers is that it was born from customer-focus groups and customer input. I simply point to this as an example that you can't always give the customer what they want because the customer doesn't always know what they want. This is just a fact. This doesn't preclude GM from listening to customers or forums, but businesses can't be run based on consumer input alone, companies must also innovate, I think we can agree this is where GM has been lacking until recently.

It seems to be a CYA move by the people responsible for the failure. "Gee we listened and see what happened"? "So that just proves we should do what we want." Your point that "you can't always give the customer what they want" misses Mkaresh's point. GM DID NOT give the customer what they wanted. They gave the customer what some BoD hacks wanted and the customers responded as the clinics indicated they would.

What counts are sales at profit. No blaming customers, dealers, or workers. If a product does not make a profit, the people with true responsibility take the heat. One of the books I've read about designing processors and computers had an interesting analogy. They likened it to pinball. If you win (your product is profitable), you get to play again; if not, it's game over for you. I don't think it should be one strike and you're out, but the bottom line must be respected. Mary Walton's book, "Car", describes the design of the '96 (I think) Taurus. The car came in on time and in budget but was priced too high, and didn't meet sales expectations, so the design team was blamed instead of those up the line who set the price target and specs.

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by steined

Mkaresh: You may well have witnessed the development of the Aztek, but the stories in B-school about the Aztek from former GM executives and designers is that it was born from customer-focus groups and customer input. I simply point to this as an example that you can't always give the customer what they want because the customer doesn't always know what they want. This is just a fact. This doesn't preclude GM from listening to customers or forums, but businesses can't be run based on consumer input alone, companies must also innovate, I think we can agree this is where GM has been lacking until recently.

Especially when a product flops, people do not tell the truth about what happened. When I was inside GM, I was struck by how little the stories in the press resembled what was actually going on inside the organization. This applies to successes as well as failures. The information you have had access to is very limited and often inaccurate.

I was also struck by how little executives really knew about what was going on. They only knew what they saw in Powerpoint presentations and through multiple layers of communication. If you have a boss who has a boss, you should know what this is like. How much does your boss' boss know about what is going on at your level within the company? In most companies, very little. Inside GM, there are far more levels.

The impetus for the Aztek and Rendezvous came from GM's board of directors, specifically the chair at the time, John Smale. It's a sign of the limited perspective of GM insiders that the head soap salesman had to be the one to say, "GM needs crossovers." Smale saw Toyota doing well with the RAV4 and Honda doing well with the CR-V, and said, "We need vehicles like these." One of the marketing guys showed me the memo when it came down. This was in 1997. Most GM people at the time thought cars were cars and trucks were trucks, and that was that. They looked around Detroit and said, "Where are all of these CR-Vs Honda is supposedly selling? We don't see them." I actually heard people saying this.

The board wanted the crossovers ASAP, and they insisted that they be developed for as little money as possible. So they were based much more heavily on the minivans than they ought to have been. Designers would joke amongst themselves about how ugly the Aztek was.

The top priority was to get something to market as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Aztek was the first "go fast" program, and was to prove GM could develop new products fast like Toyota. So no one was taking the time to second guess anything. They're very good inside GM at convincing themselves that potential problems aren't going to be problems. When I was there, they spent more time figuring out why they didn't have to do xyz than figuring out how to do xyz.

GM had a word for people who complained about things: "whiners." The message was that if you didn't like how something was going, keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you'll just upset everyone and slow things down. Everyone had to work together to maintain the illusion that everything was okay.

Fewer clinics were conducted than usual to cut time out of the product development process. The results were generally negative. The response: customers just don't know what they want so far ahead of time, they've got to be led. The irony is that in this and many other cases clinics have been blamed for causing many of the failures they predicted. Used properly, clinic data is very useful.

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by bcjohnso99

There are soooooo many good ideas at GMI (especially the revitalization exercises) that maybe you should have bought Chrysler and implemented them instead of waiting for the deaf giant...

There are sooooo many good ideas inside GM. This is one other thing I realized when I was there: any idea I might have 100 people inside GM had probably already had.

The problem is implementation. Many people have ideas. Some are good, some are bad. But how can you tell which are which? Which ideas would be implemented? This is one of the most difficult tasks for an organization, and most fail miserably at it. In the end, in most organizations the person with the power makes the decision, and this is rarely the person with the best grasp of the situation.

When I was inside GM, people would often complain that meetings were too large, that there were "too many people in the room," and that this was slowing things down. There was some truth to this, but too often the root of the complaint was that the more people you had in a meeting, the more ideas you had in a meeting, and the less likely it was that everyone there could convince themselves that everything was just peachy and they could move forward.

They don't listen to the ideas of their own people. They already have far more heads involved than they'd like to have involved. You think they're going to listen to ideas, in many cases the same ideas, from people here?

[Lichtronamo]

Originally Posted by nsap

[...because I could candidly argue that with GM supporting us we would be much more courteous as to what we post; thus them having more control than they do now.

Interesting. My question would be "why"? Also, isn't this the same type of bias towards advertisers that the buff magazines are often accused of?

[Ming]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

They don't listen to the ideas of their own people. They already have far more heads involved than they'd like to have involved. You think they're going to listen to ideas, in many cases the same ideas, from people here?

Honestly, no. But I do think GM can be affected by a groundswell of support to import or build a certain product already in discussion or already being built somewhere else in the world. Especially when the demands come from existing GM customers.

Even a large company like GM has to respond to what its customers want, ultimately, or face losing them to the competition.

The good thing about the Autoline Detroit segment was that it introduced casual TV viewers (who might not otherwise scour the internet for information) to a car that GM USA had no intention of showing or introducing to US customers at the time of its debut in Shanghai. I've read more than a few responses to the whole Park Avenue thing from guys in their 50's & 60's who went out and looked up the info on their own and drooled over the photos of that car then sent letters to GM. No thanks to anyone in GM's North American PR group.

Now that its created a response, mostly thanks to OUR interest --- the initial relative lack of threads and excitement by the other GM-focused forums and blogs was not lost on me, btw, though some accused us of being over-the-top with our Park Avenue and Riviera coverage --- GM is now doing such things as including the Park Avenue & Riviera glamor shots in USB keys given out to press (Night of 5/11 - per Jalopnik/Autoblog). A car they've made no mention of at any of the US autoshows.

So at least GM is responding, in its own way to excitement generated here, even if they aren't looking at our individual posts for advice.

[mkaresh]

They can be affected, especially if some execs already want to do it.

But they also know they've been burnt. For decades the press and fans have asked for overseas models to be offered in the U.S. A few times the OEMs have followed through. The experience looks like this:

Merkur XR4Ti: flop
Merkur Scorpio: flop
Pontiac Lemans (Opel via Daewoo): flop
Ford Contour: flop
Cadillac Catera: flop
Pontiac GTO: flop

[nadepalma]

Good write up nsap. I hope that our friends at GM listen to what their fans have stated; and a little communication wouldn't be amiss either.

[geozinger]

Many thanks to MKaresh, I had no idea he had been working for GM previously.

It's been fascinating to read about his experiences working on the inside, particularly with the Aztek. We owned two of them, and were happy with the function of the car, but the reliability issues prevented me from keeping either one. Now with his insight, I understand even more. (You're right, the '02 makeover did wonders for the car)

About 15 years ago I worked for a company that was a manufacturer of climbing equipment that was sold to the general public. (Coincidentally, they are a supplier to GM, also.) Mkaresh's descriptions of what took place in meetings at GM mirror what happened at this company, too. I guess I'm glad (and disappointed) to see that some things remain the same, no matter where you go.

Cars are my avocation, and I really enjoy this site. I have learned plenty here, especially from folks like mkaresh (and others). However, mkaresh's assessment of GMI's influence on GM is probably spot-on. This website may make some noise occasional noise, but no offense guys, I'm sure that the volume of noise that GM gets worldwide, GMI's influence is going to be pretty small.

Just my $.02.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by FoMoCo Fan

How about a RIA that instead of fantasy products, or perhaps, in ADDITION TO THEM, focuses on what really matter, this BUSINESS of running a company? You know, sales, marketing, all that stuff. It's not just about styling a better car, if you can't afford to sell it at a profit. Three cheers for the enthusiasm, but photoshops and fantasyland talk (like the Chinese LaCrosse going on sale this summer in the US, along side the US LaCrosse) is about as realistic as me talking about how I'm going to build a rocket to Mars.

I'd be willing to do the business slant, but it really takes a lot of time to compile that sort of information. And it's time I just don't have. Plus market segment studies, trend analyses, yadda yadda yadda. It's very involved. What I'd be able to do would really only scratch the surface.

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

GM doesn't know what it wants. Like most auto comapnies it is still all about politics.

Right. GM has no clue what it wants, and GM is probably the most political company in the world. Even IBM has managed to destroy multiple levels of heirarchy.

I don't believe one bit that they've "listened to customers." They can put up a blog or respond to the off question posed from one of these sites, but what have they really done? THey've answered 1 question from a site and put up a blog -- which is most likley corporate controlled and washed over by PR anyways. And I frankly didn't like Lutz's tone when he said "It's not the Chinese Park Avenue, it's the Holden Park Avenue." It's a very gentle backhanded slap.

Does GM really care about the customer? Or do they just say they do? Well, if GM really practiced what they preach, they would be at the leading edge of every major automotive trend, and not consistently and continually playing catch up.

GM's identified CA as the source of the majority of automotive trends. And that's a good step. THere have been articles about sending designers to California to experience the CA car culture and car market. And then they just send them back to Michigan?? What's the use of that? Does spending a few weeks in CA really inbue the culture of CA or even the car culture? Not even close. GM needs a design and engineering campus in CA. Not an office. Not a few scattered areas. Not a hotel conference room for a few weeks. One large campus. About 1,000 people. We have designers and engineers coming out of our ears. There should be no problem staffing up.

Remember when Nissan folded their CA office and moved to Tennessee? How much of a brain drain was that?? It decimated Nissan!! That's the problem of having upper management NOT being in touch with the US and the US market. The simple act of saving a few dollars now has cost Nissan dearly in the future.

Are they listening to customers? No, otherwise, they wouldn't be trailing the market trends. I think their "focus groups" or "surveys" or however they do their research is geared to what GM wants to believe, so they can prove to themselves that they are right.

GM simply needs to start thinking and acting out of the box.