GM Sales Down 11 percent

[fan]

One thing to consider when talking about Satun's sales could be brand's overall growths.
Saturn is up 10% compared to last year. Each brand has a customer base. Its sales foundation are those customers.

So, when a Saturn fan enters the dealership there's no longer only Vue to consider but Aura, Astra, new Vue, Relay, Outlook, Sky so he has more choices and could easily crosshop a Vue with Outlook, or an Aura with Vue, or an Astra with an Aura. So, before judging per vehicle sales(finger pointing at Aura), it would be good to consider the brand's overall evolution.

Further on, if a brand grows 10% a year, that simply means 10% pure conquest sales. Toyota brand does not have this kind of growth and it has more resources. Toyota got where it is today step by step. It took them 30 yrs. I guess people expected a miracle with Saturn. You can't compare overnight Saturn with Toyota, Aura with Camry, Outlook with Highlander and so on.

Other things to consider are : the new Vue, the brand's more important vehicle has just been launched and the brand has moved upscale.

[andy82471]

Originally Posted by tripowergto

You neglect to concider that Saturn is GM's import conquest division.

And it has failed miserably in that mission.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by andy82471

And it has failed miserably in that mission.

Saturn's conquest % is higher than most, if not all, other GM brands.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by 1487

can anyone prove Saturn is losing more money than any other GM division? People repeat that line over and over and I want to know how one can prove that Saturn is a money loser but Buick, Pontiac and Saab are not. GM is losing money overall in the US market so one could argue all of their brands are not profitable in the US. I'm sure Chevy and GMC are making money due to the number of trucks they sell- but what about everyone else? Why is Saturn always singled out as the primary source of GMs' woes? You guys think Buick and Pontiac are making money?

They're just jealous.

[351E]

Have said it for 4 years on these pages ... there's still barely one or two GM cars under $30K I "gotta have" ... and I think the collective market feels the same way. Even stuff I'd consider, fall short in certain ways ... horsepower (Astra), availability of a manual gearbox (Aura), ...

A new CTS here and Malibu there isn't enough to pin an umpteen-branded, global company on. Overall grade? Still a C or a D, Bob (Lutz).

[steverino]

Originally Posted by igor

to quote Peter DeLorenzo: Too many brands, too many models, too many dealers.

Igor

And not enough buyers to justify any of it

[silvergoat2k6]

Meanwhile, people continue to buy boatloads of the Japanese midsize sedans:

November '07 sales:

Camry -- 35,409
Accord -- 28,161
Altima -- 19,811

That's over 83,000 Japanese midsize sedans sold in November. That's a huge number no matter how you look at it. More importantly, that's 83,000 people who did not buy GM/Ford/Chrysler.

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by fan

One thing to consider when talking about Satun's sales could be brand's overall growths.
Saturn is up 10% compared to last year. Each brand has a customer base. Its sales foundation are those customers.

So, when a Saturn fan enters the dealership there's no longer only Vue to consider but Aura, Astra, new Vue, Relay, Outlook, Sky so he has more choices and could easily crosshop a Vue with Outlook, or an Aura with Vue, or an Astra with an Aura. So, before judging per vehicle sales(finger pointing at Aura), it would be good to consider the brand's overall evolution.

Further on, if a brand grows 10% a year, that simply means 10% pure conquest sales. Toyota brand does not have this kind of growth and it has more resources. Toyota got where it is today step by step. It took them 30 yrs. I guess people expected a miracle with Saturn. You can't compare overnight Saturn with Toyota, Aura with Camry, Outlook with Highlander and so on.

Other things to consider are : the new Vue, the brand's more important vehicle has just been launched and the brand has moved upscale.

Yeah, but Saturn's sales (even with all of this new product) were down 17.0% in November-more than GM was down overall, due to the winding down of the fleet-heavy Ion, and the fact that every single continuing Saturn product had a down month (the fact that the Outlook wasn't sold in November 2006 wasn't enough to make up for all of that-and when you start to have Outlook sales in the previous year, Saturn's numbers will look even worse). Also, the replacement of the Ion, the Astra, isn't here yet, will sell significantly worse than the Ion (even best case scenerio), and, due to the fact that it's imported from Europe combined with the weak dollar, will lose GM money on every sale.

Let me make a prediction: From now on, Saturn will have at least 12 consecutive down months (as compared to the previous year). In fact, I could probably be bold enough to predict that Saturn will never again have a single month where they sold more than the prior year. (Of course, GM could dump a bunch of Saturns into fleets for dirt cheap one month or do another employee pricing sale and ruin my prediction, but that doesn't really actually help Saturn and it's profitablity.)

Buick, Hummer, and Saab are also in similiar situations-they will probably be down for the foreseeable future, just like Saturn. When you have eight brands, and half of them are in permanent tailspins, that's not a good thing (even though the four that are are not GM's most important brands).

Looking at the numbers again, and it's quite possible that Pontiac will be down consistantly in the near future as well. Depends on the numbers the G8 pull in, I suppose.

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by 1487

can anyone prove Saturn is losing more money than any other GM division? People repeat that line over and over and I want to know how one can prove that Saturn is a money loser but Buick, Pontiac and Saab are not. GM is losing money overall in the US market so one could argue all of their brands are not profitable in the US. I'm sure Chevy and GMC are making money due to the number of trucks they sell- but what about everyone else? Why is Saturn always singled out as the primary source of GMs' woes? You guys think Buick and Pontiac are making money?

Saturn has never, ever, ever made money. Buick and Pontiac were profitable for decades (although you are right that they no longer are).

GM now probably only has three profitable vehicle nameplates domestically: Caddy, Chevy, and GMC. Caddy because premium vehicles make money, Chevy and GMC because large SUVs and pickups are inheritly profitable. Caddy is fine; but Chevy and GMC's profitability will go away if sales of GMT-900s drop significantly consistantly, which they might.

[tripowergto]

Downsizing into non existance just doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

[hrcslam]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

The Acadia (and Enclave) are doing fine, but the Outlook's sales are as bad as the Aura's (actually worse in units sold, but the Aura should outsell the Outlook). The Enclave outsold the Outlook by almost 500 units, and the Acadia sold more than 3,000 units more than the Outlook. The Outlook, as the lowest end model of the three, should sell more than either, IMHO, or at least beat the Enclave.

Saturn is a failed experiment. It never made a profit and never will. It might be in GM's best interest to shut it down when thier current products are due for a replacement, if they can manage the hit in sales that would occur (that is, on plants that make both Saturns and other GM models, can they keep them open if they remove Saturn's sales?). At this point, they are just throwing good money after bad.

Have you ever thought it was intentional for Saturn to sell so little vehicles? Like GM did it for a reason? I bet they did.

Originally Posted by Geotpf

True, but it's not working. Now, if you shut it down, you will lose all, or almost all, of those sales. But losing sales where you lose money on every one isn't really a problem, is it? The only problem is if those vehicles are built at plants that build other GM products that don't sell well enough to make up the difference. That is, if you build a Saturn and a Chevy at the same plant, and eliminating the Saturn means that you have to eliminate a shift, GM may lose even more money by doing that (because fewer sales to spread out the fixed costs of the plant) then losing a small amount of money on every Saturn sold. (Although that's not neccessarily true-GM probably would have made more money if there was just an Acadia and an Enclave than they do with those two plus the Outlook.) Plus, there's the shut down bribes to the dealers.

So, the decision is this-which loses less money overall-keeping Saturn open, but losing billions on it every year, or shutting it down, and potentially losing even more, at least in the short term.

Can you prove Saturn is loosing more money (if any at all) than other small brands of GM?

Originally Posted by tripowergto

However: A lost customer(ie Saturn/GM loyalist) tends to be lost forever(see Oldsmobile demise) A new conquest, if pleased, potentially could buy MANY future vehicles from GM. It's EASY to lose customers and increasingly DIFFICULT to gain new customers therefore higher cost/investment will be required to convert every new customer. Even at an initial profit loss it's worthwhile if you gain a repeat and loyal customer.

It's also been proven often that Saturn owners would NEVER concider a similiar Chevrolet model. I nearly always prefer the Pontiac or Saturn version over the often lesser Chevrolet. Choice is ALWAYS a good thing!

I own a Saturn Ion ( I used to own two) and I used to sell Chevy's. I must agree I would never buy a Cobalt or G5 over the Ion.

Originally Posted by Geotpf

But why would GM want a customer if to get them means they lose money on them? That is, if you lose 200,000 customers a year, but to get those customers, you lost a grand or three on each sale, isn't that a good thing? Why is having higher sales but lower profits a good thing? I don't see many people moving from a Saturn to a high profit full sized SUV or pickup from Chevy or GMC (at least no more than people moving from a Corolla to such)-that's not a reason to keep Saturn. Even if they become a loyal Saturn customer, doesn't GM lose money every time they buy a new Saturn?

I traded my Ion (4 door) in for a Chevy Suburban; I am sure I am not alone....You were saying?

Originally Posted by 1487

can anyone prove Saturn is losing more money than any other GM division? People repeat that line over and over and I want to know how one can prove that Saturn is a money loser but Buick, Pontiac and Saab are not. GM is losing money overall in the US market so one could argue all of their brands are not profitable in the US. I'm sure Chevy and GMC are making money due to the number of trucks they sell- but what about everyone else? Why is Saturn always singled out as the primary source of GMs' woes? You guys think Buick and Pontiac are making money?

Thank you. I was wondering the same thing. I find it amazing how people will attack Saturn with false information the they grew dicrectly out of their @$$e$. Prove it then we can talk. My side of the agrument is Saturn has been around how long? It's still here; it must be doing something right.

Originally Posted by fan

One thing to consider when talking about Satun's sales could be brand's overall growths.
Saturn is up 10% compared to last year. Each brand has a customer base. Its sales foundation are those customers.

So, when a Saturn fan enters the dealership there's no longer only Vue to consider but Aura, Astra, new Vue, Relay, Outlook, Sky so he has more choices and could easily crosshop a Vue with Outlook, or an Aura with Vue, or an Astra with an Aura. So, before judging per vehicle sales(finger pointing at Aura), it would be good to consider the brand's overall evolution.

Further on, if a brand grows 10% a year, that simply means 10% pure conquest sales. Toyota brand does not have this kind of growth and it has more resources. Toyota got where it is today step by step. It took them 30 yrs. I guess people expected a miracle with Saturn. You can't compare overnight Saturn with Toyota, Aura with Camry, Outlook with Highlander and so on.

Other things to consider are : the new Vue, the brand's more important vehicle has just been launched and the brand has moved upscale.

I concur. Give Saturn some time. They'll rebound. Hell, their doing better than most would expect and better than most other GM brands as far as conquest and total growth.

Originally Posted by andy82471

And it has failed miserably in that mission.

According to who? You? Next!

Originally Posted by 351E

Have said it for 4 years on these pages ... there's still barely one or two GM cars under $30K I "gotta have" ... and I think the collective market feels the same way. Even stuff I'd consider, fall short in certain ways ... horsepower (Astra), availability of a manual gearbox (Aura), ...

A new CTS here and Malibu there isn't enough to pin an umpteen-branded, global company on. Overall grade? Still a C or a D, Bob (Lutz).

Four years huh? It says under your join date: 2007? Elaborate please.

Originally Posted by Geotpf

Yeah, but Saturn's sales (even with all of this new product) were down 17.0% in November-more than GM was down overall, due to the winding down of the fleet-heavy Ion, and the fact that every single continuing Saturn product had a down month (the fact that the Outlook wasn't sold in November 2006 wasn't enough to make up for all of that-and when you start to have Outlook sales in the previous year, Saturn's numbers will look even worse). Also, the replacement of the Ion, the Astra, isn't here yet, will sell significantly worse than the Ion (even best case scenerio), and, due to the fact that it's imported from Europe combined with the weak dollar, will lose GM money on every sale.

Let me make a prediction: From now on, Saturn will have at least 12 consecutive down months (as compared to the previous year). In fact, I could probably be bold enough to predict that Saturn will never again have a single month where they sold more than the prior year. (Of course, GM could dump a bunch of Saturns into fleets for dirt cheap one month or do another employee pricing sale and ruin my prediction, but that doesn't really actually help Saturn and it's profitablity.)

Buick, Hummer, and Saab are also in similiar situations-they will probably be down for the foreseeable future, just like Saturn. When you have eight brands, and half of them are in permanent tailspins, that's not a good thing (even though the four that are are not GM's most important brands).

Looking at the numbers again, and it's quite possible that Pontiac will be down consistantly in the near future as well. Depends on the numbers the G8 pull in, I suppose.

Any more negative outlook for GM and I might mark you as a troll. Damn dude, no hope for GM huh? Sad. And, is Saturn up or down this year? Last I heard Saturn has been UP all year. I think your info is wrong boss.

Originally Posted by Geotpf

Saturn has never, ever, ever made money. Buick and Pontiac were profitable for decades (although you are right that they no longer are).

GM now probably only has three profitable vehicle nameplates domestically: Caddy, Chevy, and GMC. Caddy because premium vehicles make money, Chevy and GMC because large SUVs and pickups are inheritly profitable. Caddy is fine; but Chevy and GMC's profitability will go away if sales of GMT-900s drop significantly consistantly, which they might.

Never ever ever? Are you being sarcastic? I hope so. As I said before... How long has Saturn been around? And it's still here huh? Weird. Sounds like your wrong because Saturn must be doing something right to stick around this long. And in business terms this would mean Saturn is making GM money or has been and probably will continue to do so.


Tunnel vision seems to have been focused on the negative and pointed at Saturn by almost everyone on here. I shake my head in shame. And to think I consider you all GM faithful fans like my self. I am ashamed to be put in the same category as those of you who give up on GM so quickly. This a marathon not a sprint. GM lost a little battle the war is far from over.

[Geotpf]

GM (and every car company) doesn't break down (in publicly released information) thier profits per brand, but it's well known, and very, very logical, that Saturn never has made any money. From the Wikipedia page on Saturn:

Nevertheless, from the business point of view, the Saturn Corporation never proved successful. In 1993, Saturn announced its first profitable quarter, and later, its first profitable year.[2][3] However, there is no evidence that GM has ever recouped its massive investment in the company [5][6]. In any case, the company struggled so much that, in the new millennium, it was decided to integrate the company in to the GM infrastructure in 2003, with Bob Lutz aiming to bring the brand closer to its GM European franchise, Opel.

And, no, GM didn't intentionally make it so that they sold few vehicles. That's just stupid.

Basically, GM (in the domestic market) makes money on the GMT-900s and loses money on almost everything else. Saturn has no GMT-900s. Saturn's sales are down significantly from thier peaks. Every new vehicle they have sold (ignoring vehicle quality) has sold worse than expectations (for example, the Aura sells much worse than the old L Series, which itself was considered a dud at the time).

The problem is the business model makes no sense, and never has. It started as a brand that only sold a Corolla-clone. One vehicle is not enough to substain (and pay for) a seperate vehicle network, so they added others. Problem is, the no-haggle pricing model doesn't work for more expensive vehicles, especially ones that have similiar models sold at other GM dealers that do haggle (Sky vs. Solstice; Outlook vs. Acadia and Enclave).

Compare Saturn to Scion. Scion only has three vehicles and a Saturn-like no-haggle pricing policy-but it makes money. Why?

1. All Scion dealers are also Toyota dealers.
2. No Scion costs more than about 18k or so.

If GM was smart, two decades ago, they would have made Saturn a sub-brand of Oldsmobile. It would have been profitable, and it would have helped keep Oldsmobile alive. Oldsmobile would then be a logical upgrade for people who outgrew thier Saturns, like a Camry is a logical upgrade from a Scion model.

Now, the reason they don't get rid of Saturn is that short-term shut down costs would be huge. Shutting down Oldsmobile required about a billion dollars in dealer bribes to pay them off. Plus, it would require firing tons of UAW employees who would still get 90% of thier pay for an undetermined amount of time (in the jobs bank), and make plants that make Saturns and other vehicles inefficient and lose more money (that is, if you eliminate a shift at a plant, there's fewer vehicles to spread out the fixed costs of the plant around).

So, they decided to make a last ditch attempt to save the brand. But, again ignoring the quality of the vehicles, they have all been sales flops, for technical reasons related to the Saturn brand's design. I suspect they will shut down Saturn when thier current line up is due for a replacement (three years or so).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hrcslam

My side of the agrument is Saturn has been around how long? It's still here; it must be doing something right.

(...)

How long has Saturn been around? And it's still here huh? Weird. Sounds like your wrong because Saturn must be doing something right to stick around this long.

You must be kidding... that argument is total BS. It's absolutely possible for a brand to be doing poorly for 15 years and still be alive.

For example, by your logic, Jaguar must be profitable and it must be doing something right, since it's still alive.

The truth is that shutting down a consistently under-performing brand is an expensive process. It's easier and cheaper (in the short term) to keep a money-losing brand than it is to shut it down... having to pull the plug is a last-resort solution and it usually comes only after several failed turnaround attempts.

[DW115]

Originally Posted by Geotpf

GM (and every car company) doesn't break down (in publicly released information) thier profits per brand, but it's well known, and very, very logical, that Saturn never has made any money. From the Wikipedia page on Saturn:



And, no, GM didn't intentionally make it so that they sold few vehicles. That's just stupid.

Basically, GM (in the domestic market) makes money on the GMT-900s and loses money on almost everything else. Saturn has no GMT-900s. Saturn's sales are down significantly from thier peaks. Every new vehicle they have sold (ignoring vehicle quality) has sold worse than expectations (for example, the Aura sells much worse than the old L Series, which itself was considered a dud at the time).

The problem is the business model makes no sense, and never has. It started as a brand that only sold a Corolla-clone. One vehicle is not enough to substain (and pay for) a seperate vehicle network, so they added others. Problem is, the no-haggle pricing model doesn't work for more expensive vehicles, especially ones that have similiar models sold at other GM dealers that do haggle (Sky vs. Solstice; Outlook vs. Acadia and Enclave).

Compare Saturn to Scion. Scion only has three vehicles and a Saturn-like no-haggle pricing policy-but it makes money. Why?

1. All Scion dealers are also Toyota dealers.
2. No Scion costs more than about 18k or so.

If GM was smart, two decades ago, they would have made Saturn a sub-brand of Oldsmobile. It would have been profitable, and it would have helped keep Oldsmobile alive. Oldsmobile would then be a logical upgrade for people who outgrew thier Saturns, like a Camry is a logical upgrade from a Scion model.

Now, the reason they don't get rid of Saturn is that short-term shut down costs would be huge. Shutting down Oldsmobile required about a billion dollars in dealer bribes to pay them off. Plus, it would require firing tons of UAW employees who would still get 90% of thier pay for an undetermined amount of time (in the jobs bank), and make plants that make Saturns and other vehicles inefficient and lose more money (that is, if you eliminate a shift at a plant, there's fewer vehicles to spread out the fixed costs of the plant around).

So, they decided to make a last ditch attempt to save the brand. But, again ignoring the quality of the vehicles, they have all been sales flops, for technical reasons related to the Saturn brand's design. I suspect they will shut down Saturn when thier current line up is due for a replacement (three years or so).

It's funny how people talk about what they don't know. At one point GM looked at mating Oldsmobile and Saturn, but Oldsmobile didn't want anything to do with it. At that time Oldsmobile was visciously losing market share and Saturn was selling 280,000 cars on one car line. And no they were not rebadged Corollas. They weren't even a close vehicle. Where Saturn starting losing its market share was stagnent products. One car line for a decade while its other competitors which they were competing against were increasing their lineups. When they did bring other vehicles they were okay, but lacked a few things. Now the products lineup is right and they gaining market share and clientel is increasing we have our own Gm fans which are comparing similiar cars bashing its product line and abilities to help change things for GM. ??? When you are comparing vehicles that Saturn sells keep in mind the amount of dealerships that they have (440) versus 1200 to 1500 most all its competitors have.

[GMTECH89]

we can thank the *** car componies for that