[aball]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference between a GMC and the equilalent Chev is. Oldsmobile got the chop because there wasn't enough room for Chev, Buick and Oldsmobile. Surely GMCs aren't that different in philosophy to Chevs.

Why does GM need two lines of almost identicle trucks to compete with Ford and Chrysler?

How are GMCs "Professional Grade" and Chevs aren't?

Chev is middle of the road, Buick aims for the market bettween Chev and Cadillac, Pontiac wants to please the enthusiastic driver. What can a GMC offer that a Chev doesn't?

Surely this is badge engineering gone mad and something GMNA could look at if it were serious about saving money and more importantly, giving the consumer a clearer understanding of it's brands identities and values.

 

[airbalancer]

Had a 2000 Silverdo sb ext and now drive 2003 Sierra 4x4 SLE sb Z71, bought in Dec. Got a GMC only because GMC has a front end that does not look like crap. Beside this I see not difference.
I believe they could make one dividesion and that could include vans, suv, and trucks.
If they were to kill Chevy trucks and round everything into GMC they should just do in a year and not 4 like Olds.Most people will say it is about time. The only people who will care would be Chevy spin doctors who speak in fork tongue to save their jobs.
They probably could save a couple grand on the list price of a truck

 

[nsap]

Yeah, I have been thing on this suject. If GM doesn't start to set GMC into a class of its own. Then GMC's future will be Commerical Grade

 

[ehaase]

GMC's main point is that it sells well and makes money. Brand overlap was not the reason for dropping Oldsmobile. Huge losses and declining sales, partly because of less demand for medium priced cars and GM's poor quality reputation in the 1980's and early 1990's, caused the demise of Oldsmobile. Dropping GMC would not mean that all of those buyers will automatically buy Chevrolet trucks. As long as GMC makes money, leave it alone. If the market for trucks ever plunges and GMC loses huge sums of money, then we can talk about getting rid of GMC because of the overlap.

 

[Ming]

GMC is just a way for GM to allow Pontiac and Buick dealers to offer Chevy trucks.

The GMC Envoy XUV is the only vehicle that shouts originality to me out of their lineup, and Chevy or Buick or someone will probably eventually get a version of it.

I would like to see GM use GMC as its fleet rental unit. I'd like to see it become "commercial grade". No more Chevy sales to Avis and Hertz. Let one brand take it on the chin in resale value, and since GMC doesn't have a huge fan base like Chevy, it might as well be them.

This would mean GMC would need to offer a few more vehicles.

I would like to see:

1. Another CSV Minivan variant, but just in "commercial white", and with a panel van version.
2. A cheap but solid pair of rental cars for the fleets - one small and one large. A GMC version of the new Malibu, for instance.

But we all know the Chevy dealers love their fleet sales, so this would probably never happen.

 

[desmo9]

PLEASE. Enough brand sacrifice to make a quick buck. Isn't Saab enough? GMC brand has a history as long and decorated as any in GM. But GMC cars and MINVANS? They came close with a version of the ElCamino once, but at least that was a truck. GMC started as the Grabowski (sp?) Motor Company, entered the GM family like many other brands, and until about 1950 was not even called GMC but "General Motors Truck". That's right... the badges on the vehicles said GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK. The GMC bodies were always similar to Chevys but under the skin there was always a difference (where differences mattered to truck buyers). GMC was always a bit more commercial in nature, but commercial meaning "utility", not "fleet." Chevy started to take on a market that was buying trucks for all-purpose use, as it is today. GMC retained the traditional farmer and contractor types. GMC's suspensions and powertrain were often more rugged on the Chevys. For example, in the late 60's most Chevy pickups' rear suspensions used a trailing-arm/coil spring setup for better ride, where GMC's had the tried-and-true leaf spring setup. Through the '60s, GMC got its own powertrain, hulking big-torque V6, V8, and V12 engines that made Chevy's smallblock V8 look miniscule in comparison. These engines were truck-specific and never appeared in any cars.

Yes, today Chevy is a jack of all trades, and GMC is little more than a different front-end styling treatment. Another pathetic re-badging attempt by GM brass. Let's not sacrifice the GMC brand heritage because of those idiots, OK? Before dragging GMC through the mud with a minivan and Malibu-clone, I'd rather see it be put out to pasture. It would actually feel right at home there, always did. Only problem is, for many GMC still has a "tough" image that's higher on the food chain than Chevy. If GMC goes bye bye, GM had better ensure that all these buyers switch to Chevy, and not go to the competition.

Do you guys consider history when you formulate your strategies? If you're younger (or any age, really) and don't know or care to know about brand history, you need to consider that the heart of the pickup market is aware of it. It's not appropriate to just "make up" brand positioning strategies in a La-Z-Boy, and use brand names as if they never existed before. GMC isn't Scion or Geo. If you want a fleet-only brand, fine. Use a new name. Or Saturn, even. Saturn has no identity and no relevance anymore.

There is a GMC-only forum out there I also belong to. It's membeship is about as large as the one here. I'd like to see their reaction if I posted this thread over there.

 

[airbalancer]

I was think of dropp[ng the Chevy Truck line.
History of line means very little to buyers.
I would like to just truck dealers who might know the truck they selling instead of us telling them what is in the truck they are selling

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by airbalancer@Feb 16 2004, 06:16 PM

History of line means very little to buyers.

Don't understand your final point. As for history not being important to buyers? In many cases it's true. But it does matter to some...and if you're running GM, it oughta matter to you. The best companies in the world do not abandon their past. They roll with the changes, for sure, but they don't knee jerk their way into a new business model every 20 years just to experiment. You build upon your strengths, and abandon your weaknesses. GM has, in many cases, built upon weaknesses and abandoned strengths.

 

[airbalancer]

Sorry about the writing I was little rushed to get to a job.
I wish there was salesmen who actual knew about the trucks they selling.
If find I have to explain to them about features I want that are offered on their trucks.
The main reson I stayed with GM because a had a cap that I wanted to reuse.and had some GM visa points to use up

 

[paul8488]

Originally posted by desmo9@Feb 16 2004, 04:50 PM
Yes, today Chevy is a jack of all trades, and GMC is little more than a different front-end styling treatment. Another pathetic re-badging attempt by GM brass. Let's not sacrifice the GMC brand heritage because of those idiots, OK?

Do you guys consider history when you formulate your strategies? If you're younger (or any age, really) and don't know or care to know about brand history, you need to consider that the heart of the pickup market is aware of it. It's not appropriate to just "make up" brand positioning strategies in a La-Z-Boy, and use brand names as if they never existed before. GMC isn't Scion or Geo. If you want a fleet-only brand, fine. Use a new name. Or Saturn, even. Saturn has no identity and no relevance anymore.

There is a GMC-only forum out there I also belong to. It's membeship is about as large as the one here. I'd like to see their reaction if I posted this thread over there.

i think that there's a problem when a brand CAN be so easily discarded. few would say that cadillac or chevrolet could be discarded... many more would say GMC could be. while the points you make are perfectly valid, you also say yourself that currently "GMC is little more than a different front-end styling treatment".

past glories are great... but as they sit GMC's AREN'T significant nowadays. and until GMC begins to mean something again (besides shiny grilles), GMC will be in the hands of consumers who don't mind paying a little extra for a glossy chevrolet.

i can admit i don't know what the GMC brand means (other than what you wrote), and will likely never be in the market for a GMC truck... but i also am not a target cadillac buyer, and still see how important it is to GM. there are those that buy GMC trucks and wouldn't buy chevrolet trucks... but i'll guess most are older and know what GMC used to mean. without becoming a unique and distinctive brand, GMC will fail to grab ahold of new buyers that value just the things GMC buyers used to value.

guess what i'm saying is the only thing that sells GMC's (over chevrolet trucks) today is flash. brand image may not mean much to younger consumers these day... but that's because up until recently we've only known a bloated and rebadged GM. i'll buy into image when there's something to back it up.

 

[LGRpup]

Maybe its not the best reason to have a different brand around, but i think GMC is there to boost sales. Everyone I know that has Sierra bought it because they didnt like the look of the Chevy.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by paul8488@Feb 16 2004, 09:11 PM

i think that there's a problem when a brand CAN be so easily discarded. few would say that cadillac or chevrolet could be discarded... many more would say GMC could be. while the points you make are perfectly valid, you also say yourself that currently "GMC is little more than a different front-end styling treatment".

Well it wasn't long ago Cadillac wasn't doing much better than GMC. GM finally did what it took to strengthen the brand. They didn't relegate it to fleet sales. I guess I'm saying to GM... do right by the brand, or get rid of it. Don't milk it into extinction. At least GMC retains decent product. I also know people that prefer the GMC truck styling to their Chevrolet counterparts. You could say that Chevy is the cheap alternative to GMC. Six of one,... And there is still a subtle distinction between the two, with GMC being a bit more polished. I don't think GMC has to die, but I'd rather see the brand disappear than to adorn the decklid of a Malibu.

 

[Erunion]

People, People, People.

GMC is there for 1 reason, for the dealers!

If it wasnt for GMC every GM dealer that wanted to sell a truck would need to be a Chevy dealer.

This way they can have a Pontiac/GMC dealer. Thats much better then Pontiac/Chevy dealer, now isnt it?

 

[desmo9]

Why do all dealers need trucks in the lineup? Every brand will have an SUV and a minivan. Buick and Pontiac dealers never had pickups in the past, and they don't need them now. An automaker's business case is based on money which is based on satisfying the market with good product. The dealers barely register here. And they don't need to, because if you figure out what the market wants and how to sell it profitably, the dealers will ultimately be happy. Setting up branding and product decisions under UAW pressure to keep plants open or under dealer pressure to provide each brand with a full-range of product is a recipe for failure.

 

[doh]

Originally posted by Erunion@Feb 18 2004, 06:29 AM
People, People, People.

GMC is there for 1 reason, for the dealers!

There are hundereds of reasons 1 being that Pontiac/Buick dealers need to be in the truck/suv market
But more importantly is brand loyality it is large in trucks. I have had customer swear that they would never buy another Chevy "for what ever reason" while purchasing a GMC.
GM has been looking at separating the brands for some time now, I remeber the rumor in the mid 90's th GMC was to be the upscale truck line (Denali) and Chev to be the working mans truck. Heck Chevy used to have a $300 price advanage over GMC, for what they were the same.
I believe that they can and should break up the content of each line a little to make it that we are not competing against ourselves so much and start to compete more against Ford, Dodge,Nissan and Toyota.

 

[paul8488]

okay i saw an envoy on the road today... and D-D-D-DAM that's a fine looking truck! it's got that strong character line running all the way around, just below the windows. it's a nice touch that really finishes off that SUV. i think maybe i'm softening... a few of the GMC's are significantly classier than their chevrolet counterparts. this might make buick SUV's a little less useful... and while some REAL, underneath difference might be useful (between GMC and chevrolet trucks)... i officially give my blessing to GMC.

yes, i AM assuming my blessing makes everything alright

 

[rcj_houston]

Could be as simple as continuing to offer you a choice that has destinctive styling differences and yet requires little, if any, retooling for the manufacturer. That is almost straight profit in my eyes. Change the grill, change the hood and a little bit of trim on the inside/outside, while 90% of the trucks/suvs are identical.

Makes perfect marketing sense. If you sell a Chevrolet Tahoe instead of a GMC Yukon, who still gets the profit? GM of course.

Rock on gents!

Cheers

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by rcj_houston@Mar 17 2004, 11:48 PM
Could be as simple as continuing to offer you a choice that has destinctive styling differences and yet requires little, if any, retooling for the manufacturer. That is almost straight profit in my eyes. Change the grill, change the hood and a little bit of trim on the inside/outside, while 90% of the trucks/suvs are identical.

Makes perfect marketing sense. If you sell a Chevrolet Tahoe instead of a GMC Yukon, who still gets the profit? GM of course.

Rock on gents!

Cheers

What about extra tooling, plant changeovers, marketing and distribution costs?

The greatest net profits go to those who can sell the same amount of vehicles under fewer brands.

 

[rcj_houston]

Originally posted by desmo9+Mar 17 2004, 08:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (desmo9 @ Mar 17 2004, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-rcj_houston@Mar 17 2004, 11:48 PM
Could be as simple as continuing to offer you a choice that has destinctive styling differences and yet requires little, if any, retooling for the manufacturer. That is almost straight profit in my eyes. Change the grill, change the hood and a little bit of trim on the inside/outside, while 90% of the trucks/suvs are identical.

Makes perfect marketing sense. If you sell a Chevrolet Tahoe instead of a GMC Yukon, who still gets the profit? GM of course.

Rock on gents!

Cheers

What about extra tooling, plant changeovers, marketing and distribution costs?

The greatest net profits go to those who can sell the same amount of vehicles under fewer brands. [/b][/quote]
The extra tooling for a grill and a bumper is considerably less than retooling for a completely different vehicle.

You said it yourself "The greatest net profits go to those who can sell the same amount of vehicles under fewer brands.", but simply say "under fewer components".

As far as marketing, when is the last time you actually saw a GMC commercial? Actually, I saw one last week for the first time in ages. I actually dont see where the plant would have to change over much, if at all. They would simply be installing a different shippment of grills and a few different pieces than before.

It's almost straight profit.

cheerios Have a great weekend, I will check back on Monday

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by rcj_houston@Mar 19 2004, 12:19 AM


As far as marketing, when is the last time you actually saw a GMC commercial?

Quite a few, actually. It seems I've seen as many ads for GMC as I have for Chevy trucks in the past year or two. GMC keeps pushing the "Professional Grade" stuff and luckily has abandoned the "Thad Stump"... GM engineer nonsense. But as much as has gone into that campaign, what has Chevy than told us about its trucks? Are Chevy's not professional grade?

I agree that as long as both sell in ample volume, giving buyers the choice isn't too harmful. But hypothetically-speaking, if GM could sell the same volume of trucks under one brand, it would bolster the bottom line quite a bit. Probably to the tune of $billions per year.

For GMC to justify its long-term existence, it needs to offer more than different fascias. Give it some product of its own. Do a new Jimmy to compete with the upcoming Ford Bronco, for example.