GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How I would run GM

GM seems to have finally begun the business of distinguishing its own brands under the leadership of Lutz and Ed Welburn. However they seem to be caught in a brand quagmire. Cutting brands for GM certainly means cutting volume and revenue, something GM cannot afford at this moment. Given this predicament, GM needs to take drastic steps to retain all its brands without loosing focus on profitability.

Here is how I would run GM. I would divide GM up into groups of brand, which would be free to target every other brand irrespective of whether they belong to GM or not. The main reason being that one cannot expect GM to keep all the brands in its arsenal and not have them overlapped. My goal would be to grow all the brands internationally, and give them the freedom to go after customers wherever there are people to buy cars. Holding these ideas, divisions would be grouped, into lower and upper volume brands going to each to division. The goal would be to avoid a Jarguar, Volvo Land Rover type situation where cars are so expensive for a division that they are always unprofitable. The division would be primarily financial and would operate as individual business unit.


The Divisions would be as follows

Cadillac, Chevy, Hummer, GMC


Holden Pontiac Buick


Saab, Opel, Saturn, Vauxhall

There would be ground rules which I will post later. Got to go now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,231 Posts
I would flood the market with Daewoo Korean Chevy rebadges because they're cheap and they will sell.

Oh wait, this was supposed to be one of those wet-dream threads where we pretend GM has money to spend.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
should GMC and chevy be together? i mostly agree except id do-
Cadillac/Buick
Saab/Saturn,Opel,Vauxhaul
GMC/Pontiac/Jeep
Chevy
Dodge/Chrysler
IF the merger happens,if not,it would be the same minus the Chryslers
GMC would build everything from Chevy like trucks , but would go on up to prime mover tractor units. Something GM gave up to imports like Volvo, Mercedes and Nissan Diesel.

I would flood the market with Daewoo Korean Chevy rebadges because they're cheap and they will sell.

Oh wait, this was supposed to be one of those wet-dream threads where we pretend GM has money to spend.
The idea that GM will be ok without spending any money is laughable.
GM has to spend money, one way or the other to be profitable. It seems you do not want to be part of this discussion. Fine by me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
So essentially undo what they did in 1980 and de-chevyize the hierarchy with the exception that they can't do their own engines b/c the costs would be too much. In other words restore the brands to legitimate brands with decision making abilities and not just have "Pontiac", "Cadillac" or "GMC" be marketing gimmicks. The gorilla in the room (ie: Chevrolet) would hate this. It would likely be good for the company as a whole though. Ever since the Chevrolization of 1980, GM has been going down hill of which there appears to be no bottom.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
So essentially undo what they did in 1980 and de-chevyize the hierarchy with the exception that they can't do their own engines b/c the costs would be too much. In other words restore the brands to legitimate brands with decision making abilities and not just have "Pontiac", "Cadillac" or "GMC" be marketing gimmicks. The gorilla in the room (ie: Chevrolet) would hate this. It would likely be good for the company as a whole though. Ever since the Chevrolization of 1980, GM has been going down hill of which there appears to be no bottom.
Exactly.

here are the rules, I am still working on them


Here are the Rules


1. GM corporate would own all platforms. They would be design flexible and brands would be responsible for adapting them to their needs. For example Saab and Pontiac might have similar handling needs, but different approaches to luxury. Divisions would be free to build their own platforms if they so choose. But they could be used by other groups. GM would not dictate on group owned platforms, but they would have to be flexible for adaptation by others. and would be immediately available to all divisions.

2. GM would also own power trains but again the power trains would be flexible, enough to allow for differentiation in adaptation.

3. Technological advances would be developed by corporate for off the shelf use, as needed. If a group develops a technology, it would be immediately available to all divisions, without need to stick to hierarchy pecking orders. For example if Saab decides a CTS infotainment system could help them sell more, Cadillac cannot say no, but they can get paid for it to be available to Saab.

4. Each group would be assigned its own plants, other groups can come into agreement about plant use with owners, and if need be, unused capacity could be assigned to a different business unit that needs it.

5. Design would be completely independent of each other. Ed Welburn would have very little control over divisions design direction.

6. Brands would be free to shop outside GM for parts. For example, Saab might want a boxer from Subaru, or Cadillac might decide Mercedes V12 power plans are worth looking at, it would be totally OK to do it.

7. A rebadged would be allowed if the group that owns it says it is OK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
The Divisions would be as follows

Cadillac, Chevy, Hummer, GMC


Holden Pontiac Buick


Saab, Opel, Saturn, Vauxhall

There would be ground rules which I will post later. Got to go now
As usual, another great idea from you, mbukukanyau. I agree the divisions need a bit more autonomy to be truely successful, but my divisional structure was more like:

<premium>-<mainstream>

Buick+GMC - Chevrolet [and Dodge/Jeep if Chrysler is acquired]
Saab - Saturn/Opel/Vauxhall
Cadillac - Pontiac/Holden (Holden exclusive models like alpha/zeta not Astra, et al)

You'll notice Hummer is gone (not my preference buy my prediction) and Chrysler as well (my preference if deal goes through).

Exactly.

here are the rules, I am still working on them


Here are the Rules


1. GM corporate would own all platforms. They would be design flexible and brands would be responsible for adapting them to their needs. For example Saab and Pontiac might have similar handling needs, but different approaches to luxury. Divisions would be free to build their own platforms if they so choose. But they could be used by other groups. GM would not dictate on group owned platforms, but they would have to be flexible for adaptation by others. and would be immediately available to all divisions.
Totally agree that GM own all platforms, but I think the one thing GM HQ should do is tell them what platforms they are allowed to use. Not necessarily what they must use, but what's available. Example: Pontiac/Cadillac shouldn't be allowed to use Gamma. They don't have to use alpha, but that's what GM should provide them.

2. GM would also own power trains but again the power trains would be flexible, enough to allow for differentiation in adaptation.
Definitely agree.

3. Technological advances would be developed by corporate for off the shelf use, as needed. If a group develops a technology, it would be immediately available to all divisions, without need to stick to hierarchy pecking orders. For example if Saab decides a CTS infotainment system could help them sell more, Cadillac cannot say no, but they can get paid for it to be available to Saab.
That's a great idea I hadn't thought off--the paying part. What if Cadillac was only required to share with other premium brands like Saab and Buick/GMC?

4. Each group would be assigned its own plants, other groups can come into agreement about plant use with owners, and if need be, unused capacity could be assigned to a different business unit that needs it.
umm...I would think it would be easier to have plants based on the platform used. What are your motivations behind this move?

5. Design would be completely independent of each other. Ed Welburn would have very little control over divisions design direction.
Yeah, he shouldn't dictate design direction, but maybe oversee and approve it.

6. Brands would be free to shop outside GM for parts. For example, Saab might want a boxer from Subaru, or Cadillac might decide Mercedes V12 power plans are worth looking at, it would be totally OK to do it.
Hopefully it wouldn't come to that. I think GM Powertrain should make available all types of engines, but I see your point.

7. A rebadged would be allowed if the group that owns it says it is OK
You lost me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
As usual, another great idea from you, mbukukanyau. I agree the divisions need a bit more autonomy to be truely successful, but my divisional structure was more like:

<premium>-<mainstream>

Buick+GMC - Chevrolet [and Dodge/Jeep if Chrysler is acquired]
Saab - Saturn/Opel/Vauxhall
Cadillac - Pontiac/Holden (Holden exclusive models like alpha/zeta not Astra, et al)

You'll notice Hummer is gone (not my preference buy my prediction) and Chrysler as well (my preference if deal goes through).



Totally agree that GM own all platforms, but I think the one thing GM HQ should do is tell them what platforms they are allowed to use. Not necessarily what they must use, but what's available. Example: Pontiac/Cadillac shouldn't be allowed to use Gamma. They don't have to use alpha, but that's what GM should provide them.



Definitely agree.



That's a great idea I hadn't thought off--the paying part. What if Cadillac was only required to share with other premium brands like Saab and Buick/GMC?



umm...I would think it would be easier to have plants based on the platform used. What are your motivations behind this move?



Yeah, he shouldn't dictate design direction, but maybe oversee and approve it.



Hopefully it wouldn't come to that. I think GM Powertrain should make available all types of engines, but I see your point.



You lost me.
On the the plants control, It would enable brands control their own quality torrerances. If corporate is running the plant, you have a huge component of their perception out of the brands control.



On number 7, my thinking is, if you just want to screw up, so be it, but you cannot blame corporate, you allowed the rebadge, so, you be responsible. But it an be helpful to have the option to increase sales quickly, or to cover ones bases in case of sudden market demand.

I have been trying to think what, I'd do with Daewoo, I would probably give it to the Saab Crowd, or Holden.

Chevy can fed for itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
On the the plants control, It would enable brands control their own quality torrerances. If corporate is running the plant, you have a huge component of their perception out of the brands control.
That makes sense especially if GM has told, say Pontiac (to continue that example) that it can use zeta and alpha but not epsilon/gamma/delta and therefore all of its products are zeta and alpha. With flexible assembly lines making maybe 7-10 cars between the 2 platforms I could see capacity maxed out which was my main concern. So the key here would be flexibility in manufacturing.

On number 7, my thinking is, if you just want to screw up, so be it, but you cannot blame corporate, you allowed the rebadge, so, you be responsible. But it an be helpful to have the option to increase sales quickly, or to cover ones bases in case of sudden market demand.
Gotcha.

I have been trying to think what, I'd do with Daewoo, I would probably give it to the Saab Crowd, or Holden.

Chevy can fed for itself.
I disagree here. Chevy could fend for itself, but in this case Daewoo fits best with Chevy considering its small plebeian fwd roots. Neither Holden nor Saab [should] fit in that category.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
That makes sense especially if GM has told, say Pontiac (to continue that example) that it can use zeta and alpha but not epsilon/gamma/delta and therefore all of its products are zeta and alpha. With flexible assembly lines making maybe 7-10 cars between the 2 platforms I could see capacity maxed out which was my main concern. So the key here would be flexibility in manufacturing.



Gotcha.



I disagree here. Chevy could fend for itself, but in this case Daewoo fits best with Chevy considering its small plebeian fwd roots. Neither Holden nor Saab [should] fit in that category.
Holden is an enigma since they sell everything GM makes save for Cadillac, Buick and Saab.
They would take a lot of heat from Chevy on the lower end and Cadillac on the top end, but they probalby would run pontiac better than it is run today and would Force Chevy to design its own RWD vehicles for the middle east, since Pontiac and Holden would take those over.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
That makes sense especially if GM has told, say Pontiac (to continue that example) that it can use zeta and alpha but not epsilon/gamma/delta and therefore all of its products are zeta and alpha. With flexible assembly lines making maybe 7-10 cars between the 2 platforms I could see capacity maxed out which was my main concern. So the key here would be flexibility in manufacturing.



Gotcha.



I disagree here. Chevy could fend for itself, but in this case Daewoo fits best with Chevy considering its small plebeian fwd roots. Neither Holden nor Saab [should] fit in that category.
Holden is an enigma since they sell everything GM makes save for Cadillac, Buick and Saab.
They would take a lot of heat from Chevy on the lower end and Cadillac on the top end, but they probalby would run pontiac better than it is run today and would Force Chevy to design its own RWD vehicles for the middle east, since Pontiac and Holden would take those over.
should GMC and chevy be together? i mostly agree except id do-
Cadillac/Buick
Saab/Saturn,Opel,Vauxhaul
GMC/Pontiac/Jeep
Chevy
Dodge/Chrysler
IF the merger happens,if not,it would be the same minus the Chryslers
How would Cadillac and Buick compete in the $10,000 range? My aim is to level the playing field.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top