Marchionne insists Fiat Chrysler needs 9 brands; market watchers disagree
Luca Ciferri
Automotive News
June 11, 2014

Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne wants his recently merged nine-brand automaker to more than double vehicle sales and operating profit by 2018, but financial analysts doubt there will be enough cash available to fund double-digit - and in some cases triple-digit – volume growth at eight of the marques over the next five years. They believe Marchionne will need a leaner portfolio for his plan to work.

"If it was not for Brazil, where it is the No. 1 brand, Marchionne should simply kill the Fiat brand," Philippe Houchois, a London-based auto analyst at UBS told Automotive News Europe. Said Arndt Ellinghorst of consultancy International Strategy & Investment in London: "I still think it could be Dodge or Chrysler, but not Dodge and Chrysler."

Marchionne and his team unveiled Fiat Chrysler's five-year plan last month. The key targets for 2018 include: boosting sales 60 percent to 7 million; increasing revenue to about 132 billion euros from 93 billion euros expected this year; and improving operating profit to a range of 8.7 billion euros to 9.8 billion euros from a 2014 goal of 3.6 billion euros to 4.0 billion euros. Analysts consider all three goals beyond Fiat Chrysler's reach, especially since it will carry a net debt of more than 10 billion euros until at least the end of 2016. Fiat Chrysler also must cover costs associated with 55 billion euros of self-financed investments during the plan period.

CONTINUE AT AUTONEWS.COM

Said Harald Hendrikse, a London-based analyst with Nomura Holdings: “The problem is PowerPoint presentations are a lot easier than real life. These brands need a huge amount of work to get where they need to be. The world changes very slowly and you have brands at the bottom of the pile in many regions. It’s not going to happen overnight.”

That bolded statement could've come right out of Auto Extremist's keyboard.

 

When questioned by analysts last month about the plan, Marchionne was asked whether he thinks his volume and profit expectations could actually sustain Fiat Chrysler’s nine brands over the long term. The CEO said that Fiat Chrysler’s advantage is that “we now have brands in the marketplace that are not butting heads.” He added that the new plan already eliminated two brands: Lancia and SRT.

SRT started off as a limited edition/sports-moniker, so losing it as a "brand" doesn't bother me since it will just return to what it was originally (a top-spec package/trim-line).

Lancia, on the other hand, does bother me. I still think there is a place for the brand, but know that there won't be any money to support it. Honestly, I don't "get" how they'd try to keep Abarth as a separate brand (it's a separate brand in Europe, but a trim-level here in the US), but dump Lancia.

This quote was interesting:

"If it was not for Brazil, where it is the No. 1 brand, Marchionne should simply kill the Fiat brand," Philippe Houchois, a London-based auto analyst at UBS told Automotive News Europe.

There's no way the Fiat brand is going to disappear. It's over 100 years old and it has deep roots in Europe and elsewhere. However, if the Fiat brand is actually that damaged, you'd almost have to wonder if they should start selling another another marque (like Lancia --- or Chrysler for that matter since it is now "mainstream") or just "invent a 500" brand (since 90% of what they will sell moving forward will be based around the 500's mystique or the Panda).

 

There's no way the Fiat brand is going to disappear. It's over 100 years old and it has deep roots

Are we talking about Oldsmobile or Fiat?
Age isn't a savior.

 

A lot of car companies have visions of huge growth over the next few years (especially Fiat/Chrysler and VW). I think by the end of the decade some will be eating humble pie.

I can see Jeep growing strongly but everthing else seems questionable. Chrysler should grow retail sales, but will they drop the extreme amount of fleet sales? The two might offset.....

 

What worries me is the lack of a defined mainstream luxury brand. It sounds like Alfa dealerships will be few and far between to start, so where will luxury buyers look in the FCA portfolio? Jeep has a few luxury vehicles, Grand Cherokee Overland and the upcoming Grand Wagoneer, but they're excluding a lot of buyers with those offerings.

 

It's not going to take them very long to build their dealership network. I think expanding the Alfa distribution line is going to be the least of their worries. Actually getting product out that they can sell in a reasonable timeline is going to be more important, imo.

Cutting Lancia is a no-brainer, imo.

 

Need9 brands? Good Lord...How did that work out for Ford and GM?

 

How does it work out for VW?

The problem is I'm not exactly sure that Fiat has the level of management and branding expertise VW Group has.

 

Having that many brands is going to be a lot of work but with Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Ram all sold out of the same dealerships they're quite connected. Clearly some brands are going to get more focused with only a couple of models while some will expand and offer full lineups. The planning and branding are going to be complicated but it's possible. Just avoid the temptation to make all brands all things to all people.

 

At least give FCA/Sergio credit for being aggressive and trying to win. I don't get the same feeling from anyone in GM. They seem far too happy with ever declining, but profitable revenue.

 

At least give FCA/Sergio credit for being aggressive and trying to win. I don't get the same feeling from anyone in GM. They seem far too happy with ever declining, but profitable revenue.

So true.

And that "Ever Declining Revenue" eventually breaches the "point of no return" (it always does) and GM becomes a collection of "Zombie Brands" like Acura.

 

Ugh who cares. There's 600 auto brands in the world and they all make the same 4 or 5 vehicles and they're all trying to choke each other out.

 

to me this "chart" has some funny numbers in it I see way to big of NUMBERS for Alfa and to small of a NUMBER for RAM as unless something changes the growing American truck market will push RAM there with NOTHING DONE and with 2 NEW vans and a DAKOTA say based of the Wrangler Unlimited chassis / component sets for both NA (RAM) consumption + Fiat PRO for global as a HiLux competitor
I could see RAM almost double there projected

 

Sergios grand plans are goals....

How close his teams get to the goals is his goal.

Interesting management style.

As one of the few actual Lancia owners on this forum.....IMO it's time to let the brand go. I also like abarth as a brand even over fiat at least in America. I do admire the fiat commercials though so either way is fine.

SRT needed to be folded back in...

What happens to dodge, Chrysler, and fiat in America is something time will tell(which one if any gets absorbed) with ram separated from dodge .....dodge has to be successful or it's in danger with Sergio....I imagine dodge will survive for the near future and sharing platforms with alfa does give life to both brands potie tial for volume.

 

Sergios grand plans are goals....

How close his teams get to the goals is his goal.

Interesting management style.

As one of the few actual Lancia owners on this forum.....IMO it's time to let the brand go. I also like abarth as a brand even over fiat at least in America. I do admire the fiat commercials though so either way is fine.

SRT needed to be folded back in...
What happens to dodge, Chrysler, and fiat in America is something time will tell(which one if any gets absorbed) with ram separated from dodge .....dodge has to be successful or it's in danger with Sergio....I imagine dodge will survive for the near future and sharing platforms with alfa does give life to both brands potie tial for volume.

I personally think FCA "wasted" SRT and should have become the tuner arm for the AMERICAN brands unless Chrysler AND JEEP are going to "A" not get "tuned" or "B" grow there OWN tuner label
and IMHO the BIG difference between FCA and GM is GM insisted on keeping to channels with 2 complete auto line ups where as FCA wants 9 brands to do the JOB of 1/2 brands and "cluster bomb the SH*^ out of the segments with "micro focus/branding
I see 2 ending's ONE HUGE GROWTH and big $$$$$$$$$$ OR 2 cash burn and chapter 13 in FLAMES
with NO middle ground

 

and who is going to fund all of these grandiose plans?

Fiat Chrysler North America.

So Jeep-Chrysler-Ram-Dodge effectively subsidize the costs of Machionne's European obsession.

 

Dodge-Ram should be one brand
Fiat-Alfa should be one brand
Can Ferrari-Maserati be one brand? Why not.

That should make "market watchers" happy.

 

Fiat Chrysler's roadmap to 7 million sales

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles aims to increase global sales 60 percent to 7 million by 2018 from 4.4 million last year. To reach the goal CEO Sergio Marchionne wants to boost Chrysler, Fiat and Jeep's combined sales by more than 2 million vehicles in the next five years. The CEO also will invest 5 billion euros in the chronically underperforming Alfa Romeo brand in a bid to boost sales fivefold to 400,000 by 2018. Here is a brand-by-brand breakdown of the expectations (listed in alphabetical order).

Alfa Romeo
2018 target: 400,000; 2013 sales: 74,000
Key points: Alfa will get a completely new lineup featuring eight models based on a new rear-wheel/all-wheel-drive architecture. The first model -- a mid-sized sedan – is due in late 2015. Marchionne said he expects Alfa's 2019 sales to exceed a half million. Alfa and Jeep are the main pillars of the automaker's global expansion plan.

Chrysler
2018 target: 800,000; 2013: 350,000
Key points: Chrysler will be expanded to six models that cover 65 percent of the global market from three models that cover 25 percent of total sales. The three additional models – the 100 compact sedan, a mid-sized crossover and full-sized crossover – are expected to add about 275,000 sales by 2018. Chrysler also is expected to win about 175,000 customers a year from sister brand Dodge after it stops making the Avenger mid-sized sedan and Grand Caravan minivan in 2018.

Dodge
2018 target: 700,000; 2013: 800,000
Key points: Dodge's global volume will decline as it eliminates models and is turned into a performance brand.

Ferrari
2018 target: 7,000; 2013: 7,000
Key points: Ferrari aims to protect its exclusivity by limiting sales to 7,000 supercars a year. Four-model range will feature two cars with V-8 engines and two with V-12s. Ferrari will debut a new or revised model each year and give its models an eight-year life cycle.

Fiat
2018 target: 1,900,000; 2013: 1,500,000
Key points: Fiat brand foresees no sales growth in Europe during the five-year plan as 2018 sales are expected to be flat at 700,000. Growth will come from Fiat's largest sales region, Latin America, where it expects to sell 800,000 vehicles by 2018, up more than 100,000 from last year. Marchionne wants Fiat to triple sales in Asia-Pacific to 300,000 and double volume in North America to about 100,000. Fiat's U.S. sales should get a boost from the 500X subcompact SUV, which is due to debut in Europe later this year, and a two-seat roadster derived from the new Mazda MX-5. The roadster is due in late 2015 and will be sold worldwide.

Fiat Professional LCVs
2018 target: 600,000; 2013: 431,000
Key points: The vans unit expects to maintain European market share, grow in Russia and Latin America and strengthen its presence in the Middle East and Africa.

Maserati
2018 target: 75,000: 2013: 15,400
Key points: Maserati will grow to six model lines from three during the next five years with the additions of the Levante, the company's first SUV, in 2015, the Alfieri coupe (2016) and cabriolet (2017), and the redesigned four-seat GranTurismo (2018).

Jeep
2018 target: 1,900,000: 2013: 732,000
Key points: Jeep's manufacturing footprint will be expanded to 10 plants in six countries from four U.S. plants. Jeep production will be added in Italy, Brazil, China and India. In the next five years Jeep's U.S. capacity will be stable at 1 million while Europe will grow to 200,000 units a year. Jeep's dealer network will expand to 6,023 outlets in 2018 from 4,706 now to cope with the growth.

Ram
2018 target: 620,000; 2013: 463,000
Key points: Ram's U.S. range will add models derived from the Fiat Ducato and Doblo and add diesel powertrains.

Luca Ciferri and Jennifer Clark

Marchionne promised that Fiat Chrysler would continue to emphasize brand differentiation to avoid making a mistake he sees in the current marketplace. “Depending where you travel, I’ve seen cars that start with an R having a D in front of them,” he said, referring to Dacia models re-badged as Renaults in countries such as Russia and outside of Europe. “The cross mixing of brands is going to destroy the fabric of the brand. A brand is a precious thing,” Marchionne added. His words and passion for brand preservation come too late for Lancia. The 108-year old Italian automaker suffered its final blow when its European lineup added rebadged large Chryslers that found few buyers in Europe.

Two quick points on this chart and the quote:

1). If Marchionne is really only interesting in moving forward with "global brands" and brands that have "global potential" you almost have to wonder why they need Fiat Professional LCV and Ram? He's making the point that seeing a single product sold as a Dacia in one market and a Renault in another market is damaging to a brand. Couldn't the same thing be said of seeing the Ram ProMaster in the US being sold as a Fiat Professional Ducato in Europe?

2). Assuming that my first point is valid, doesn't keeping the Fiat Professional LCV and the Fiat Brand as corporate cousins "hurt" the Fiat Brand? Remember, Marchionne separated Ram from Dodge in order to "better focus both brands". The idea was that you can't sell commercial/professional products under the same badge as "family-oriented" products (Caravan, Journey, Avenger), muscle cars (Charger), and sports cars (Viper). Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But the point is, he made the decision to separate one part of the brand from the other to facilitate serving very different customers.

Under his own paradigm, doen't seelling cutesy city-cars/B-segment cars like the Panda and 500 (and their derivatives) under the Fiat brand somehow damage the "commerical mission" of the Fiat Professional products? Just as with Dodge, shouldn't Fiat Professional be "splintered off" into a separate unit with a different name so as to better serve/build a following for those customers?

Bottom Line: If it were me, I would just eliminate the Fiat Professional LCV brand and redub all of it as Ram. Ram is a great name and has a "tough" image that can easily be exported to other markets. They can do it slowly over a few years time. They could even have badges that said "Ram by Fiat Professional" for a number of years before just having "Ram" alone. Point is, if they are looking to create a "world wide" brand that addresses commercial vehicles, then this is a solution that both insulates the Fiat brand and gives wider exposure to Ram in the world market.

But that's just my opinion, of course.

 

Two quick points on this chart and the quote:

1). If Marchionne is really only interesting in moving forward with "global brands" and brands that have "global potential" you almost have to wonder why they need Fiat Professional LCV and Ram? He's making the point that seeing a single product sold as a Dacia in one market and a Renault in another market is damaging to a brand. Couldn't the same thing be said of seeing the Ram ProMaster in the US being sold as a Fiat Professional Ducato in Europe?
Every try driving a RAM Power Wagon in london? Thats why theres RAM and FIAT Pro. LCV


2). Assuming that my first point is valid, doesn't keeping the Fiat Professional LCV and the Fiat Brand as corporate cousins "hurt" the Fiat Brand? Remember, Marchionne separated Ram from Dodge in order to "better focus both brands". The idea was that you can't sell commercial/professional products under the same badge as "family-oriented" products (Caravan, Journey, Avenger), muscle cars (Charger), and sports cars (Viper). Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But the point is, he made the decision to separate one part of the brand from the other to facilitate serving very different customers.
Its not about the Amount of brands, its all about Platform sharing that would reduce the cost of making various models of one platform. See VW.


Under his own paradigm, doen't seelling cutesy city-cars/B-segment cars like the Panda and 500 (and their derivatives) under the Fiat brand somehow damage the "commerical mission" of the Fiat Professional products? Just as with Dodge, shouldn't Fiat Professional be "splintered off" into a separate unit with a different name so as to better serve/build a following for those customers?

Because in AMERICA, Fiat doesnt need Fiat Professional, we have RAM that has the ProMaster and ProMaster City in its lineup, Fiat Pro. in Fiat studios would not fit well in the Trendy boutique. its like Having RAM in a Maserati Studio.

Bottom Line: If it were me, I would just eliminate the Fiat Professional LCV brand and redub all of it as Ram. Ram is a great name and has a "tough" image that can easily be exported to other markets. They can do it slowly over a few years time. They could even have badges that said "Ram by Fiat Professional" for a number of years before just having "Ram" alone. Point is, if they are looking to create a "world wide" brand that addresses commercial vehicles, then this is a solution that both insulates the Fiat brand and gives wider exposure to Ram in the world market.

But that's just my opinion, of course.

....

 

These are the same analysts that predicted that Sergio could never hit the global sales targets of the previous 5 year plan (which he did).

I suspect Lancia is going to be shut down -- it makes sense. They are down to one country with one model. It's probably over.

Maserati and Ferrari are very small brands, but high profits per car -- so they really aren't difficult to manage. I did enjoy reading about the idiot analyst from London who doesn't understand the difference between a Chrysler and a Dodge. He predicted that Chrysler or Dodge would have to be closed down -- yeah, just because Chrysler is only doing like 25 times the sales volume of Maserati right now... Gotta kill it. What a tool. I wonder if all analysts ride to work on the "short bus."

 

Where are they going to get enough cash flow to fund all of this expansion. Though Chrysler is throwing off cash, to grow that much will need even more $$..... Plus they are banking a lot on China - I think a lot of companies have many eggs in the China basket, but with their pollution issues and a government that could legislate foreign car owners out of business overnight there could be some issues (which would be an even bigger problem for GM).

I'd be more impressed if I heard that they were working on some new platform sharing process as VW has announced to consolidate costs to allow them to maintain such a sprawling, 9 division structure.

And I question if Alfa will ever be able to compete with the Germans for the simple fact they aren't German. And I don't know about the quality of current Alfa's, but I've never heard quality and Italian in the same sentance.....

 

Geez, what a lousy and biased rag AN really is.

Chrysler is routinely reported to have 'presented' this -

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles aims to increase global sales 60 percent to 7 million by 2018 from 4.4 million last year.

( Actually about 59 % )


And AN, who apparently never passed third grade arithmetic says this -

" Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne wants his recently merged nine-brand automaker to more than double vehicle sales.


No wonder they do not understand so many things ......

 

Pardon my cynicism, but I have a hard time listening to banks make claims on what is "good business". The old, "do as I say, don't do as I do" thing, especially UBS.

 

Yep.


And woe to any OEM who listens to their mostly nonsense.


Perhaps the analysts on display here are both nervous and sore - because they have been missing more than hitting of late - and wouldn't you know, Chrysler whose CEO is rightfully fond of banker jokes has played a significant role in certain markets with all that.


So if past predicts the future then...... some of whatever Chrysler can accomplish is gonna come out of somebody else.


Meanwhile the pets have not, are not now, and likely will not perform quite as expected.

And that is putting it optimistically.

Just wait 'till the recall party really gets rolling......

 

1. All of this guesswork by "analysts", journalists and armchair managers without access to actual market data and industry/company specific cost and revenue data coupled with sound excellization is hot air.

2. You can make a guess on whether you need two bags or one bag for your groceries after taking a glimpse of it rolling down the conveyor towards the cashier. But using the same method to argue whether a business "needs" a number of brands is just silly.

3. A brand is an opportunity to make extra margins / win extra sales by making the product appealing and emotionally desirable. A brand is not a cost position, it is an asset. Sergio VERY SLOWLY starts to understand that IMHO.

4. If anything is a problem and a potential risk in the current marketplace, it is the rampant overstretching of brands. As the market polarizes between "cheap appliances for getting around" and "luxury lifestyle status-enhancing items", trying to cover both becomes more and more impossible. Almost all of mainstream brands, from Ford to Toyota, try to do both in some measure in different markets, and as markets converge and products and brand image become global, their lineups and brand image become a mess with less and less distinguishing features.

4.1 In particular, the lifestyle segment, where most of the extra money is, will gravitate toward brands with some personality and a permeable, strong image, like MINI or Range Rover. The likes of Ford and Toyota are fighting a losing battle for the upper segments of their traditional market with the premium/lifestyle brands. Ford's Vignale attempt is a feeble admission of that.

4.2 This is why if anything can be said when looking at the groceries moving on the conveyor belt, it is that automakers may need more brands, and brands will need to return to being smaller and more focused. The key to success in the future's marketplace may be a portfolio of a few strong brands that appeal to a possibly affluent spectrum of buyers, not one brand that tries to appeal to broad spectrum of buyers.

4.3 And one of the best ways of making a strong, focused brand is taking one that has a lot of heritage to build upon. This is why Fiatsler is actually in such a good position, they collected a large portfolio of such brands.

4.4 That said, Marchionne's idea for the Fiat brand does not seem all too well tough-out for me. They will try to be cheap and premium at the same time, which is something that doesn't usually work.

4.4.1. Either Fiat is the ideal brand for Brazil - specializing in smallish, inexpensive yet sturdy and cheap to own/maintain thanks to proven technology cars - a sort of a Dacia with actual styling and one that you do not have to be ashamed about. And this is also what works in developed markets like Europe, as the Dacia evidence proves.

4.4.2. Or Fiat becomes the modern-day Lancia - premium small cars built upon humble underpinnings, but with styling, interior appointments and a story to enhance them into something so much better and quite desirable. But while Lancia had decades of heritage to hark back to and make their message convincing, Fiat still only has the 500 - it is a lot of arm-twisting to create a premium story out of it.

4.4.3. On top of all that are the commercial vehicles, as pointed out. They make Fiat something of a Ford or Toyota - a brand watered down to a point where it is meaningless.

4.4.4. And when you look at sales results, replacing Lancia with Fiat doesn't really change much - the Fiat 500L seems like a runaway success in Europe, until you compare the sales numbers and see that in reality it just replaced the once-successful (but with much less fanfare) Lancia Musa in Italy and France, where the vast majority of sales of both models are. Both the 500 and the 500L could have been Lancias all along and would have probably sold just as well.

 

3. A brand is an opportunity to make extra margins / win extra sales by making the product appealing and emotionally desirable. A brand is not a cost position, it is an asset. Sergio VERY SLOWLY starts to understand that IMHO.

EXCELLENT

One of the best posts I have ever seen on this site!

Brands can be focused on specific segments and profits maximized by producing products that "Speak to the Emotion" of the segment.

Those products then become the most "desirable" in the segment giving them pricing power and profits.

It also does something more important, it gives YOU the money, not your competitors.

4. If anything is a problem and a potential risk in the current marketplace, it is the rampant overstretching of brands. As the market polarizes between "cheap appliances for getting around" and "luxury lifestyle status-enhancing items", trying to cover both becomes more and more impossible. Almost all of mainstream brands, from Ford to Toyota, try to do both in some measure in different markets, and as markets converge and products and brand image become global, their lineups and brand image become a mess with less and less distinguishing features.

Another great point and spot on.

4.1 In particular, the lifestyle segment, where most of the extra money is, will gravitate toward brands with some personality and a permeable, strong image, like MINI or Range Rover. The likes of Ford and Toyota are fighting a losing battle for the upper segments of their traditional market with the premium/lifestyle brands. Ford's Vignale attempt is a feeble admission of that.

4.2 This is why if anything can be said when looking at the groceries moving on the conveyor belt, it is that automakers may need more brands, and brands will need to return to being smaller and more focused. The key to success in the future's marketplace may be a portfolio of a few strong brands that appeal to a possibly affluent spectrum of buyers, not one brand that tries to appeal to broad spectrum of buyers.

4.3 And one of the best ways of making a strong, focused brand is taking one that has a lot of heritage to build upon. This is why Fiatsler is actually in such a good position, they collected a large portfolio of such brands.

More great points.

Marchionne has made the most of the brands he "inherited" from Chrysler and allowed them to "return to their roots" and rebuild themselves for the future.

So far the results have been quite good, with few "misses", but those are going to happen in any 5-year plan.

4.4 That said, Marchionne's idea for the Fiat brand does not seem all too well thought-out for me. They will try to be cheap and premium at the same time, which is something that doesn't usually work.

4.4.1. Either Fiat is the ideal brand for Brazil - specializing in smallish, inexpensive yet sturdy and cheap to own/maintain thanks to proven technology cars - a sort of a Dacia with actual styling and one that you do not have to be ashamed about. And this is also what works in developed markets like Europe, as the Dacia evidence proves.

4.4.2. Or Fiat becomes the modern-day Lancia - premium small cars built upon humble underpinnings, but with styling, interior appointments and a story to enhance them into something so much better and quite desirable. But while Lancia had decades of heritage to hark back to and make their message convincing, Fiat still only has the 500 - it is a lot of arm-twisting to create a premium story out of it.

4.4.3. On top of all that are the commercial vehicles, as pointed out. They make Fiat something of a Ford or Toyota - a brand watered down to a point where it is meaningless.

4.4.4. And when you look at sales results, replacing Lancia with Fiat doesn't really change much - the Fiat 500L seems like a runaway success in Europe, until you compare the sales numbers and see that in reality it just replaced the once-successful (but with much less fanfare) Lancia Musa in Italy and France, where the vast majority of sales of both models are. Both the 500 and the 500L could have been Lancias all along and would have probably sold just as well.

Marchionne also made quite a few changes to his "original" 5-year plan when market realities dictated them, not that he got them all right, but nobody is ever going to have a 5-year plan go unchanged in today's ever changing global auto market.

Marchionne's new plan seems sound except for the Fiat Professional/RAM thing and agree he maybe falling into the trap that Fiat can be more that it realistically can be.

But again, at least he has a 5-year plan.

 

Go back further in time before Imperial even existed as a separate brand.

Or said another way, look at all relevant brands from their inception forward 'till Imperial is formulated.

 

Do you mean Chalmers Motor Car?

 

KingElvis is correct.

The only thing that killed Oldsmobile and Pontiac was GM's mismanagement of the brands.

I've said this multiple times on this board but if Oldsmobile were still RWD and sold the Cutlass it would still exist.

 

I agree with you and King Elvis. I was watching a program a few weeks ago with industry experts. They said point blank GM lost market share and it lost buyers. They said killing those brands did not help GM's bottom line it hurt them. They said too many people assume that once a brand was killed those people would go to another GM brand. The thing is, they do not and they didn't. I own two Oldsmobiles. The only car maker out there offering something similar right now is Kia and Hyundai. Hyundai and Kia were smart. They went after that segment GM and Ford walked away from. That is that entry level luxury segment of valued packed cars. A lot of those buyers left GM because GM like Ford walked away from that near luxury/entry luxury segment where Oldsmobile was. They walked away from the performance with Pontiac. Right now Dodge is doing what Pontiac used to do and should be doing. What GM failed to see is dumping all your models at Chevrolet and some at Buick did not fix the problem. It made it more apparent. Why on earth would I step down and buy Chevrolets? I do not care how many features/options you put on them. It is and it will always be a "Chevrolet". People want something different. People want a brand they can identify with. GM like Ford does not understand: marketing, brand differences, the market place. VW and all these other companies are adding brands , but some how have made those brands different even though they share parts.

All GM had to do was mange its brands and understand the market and keep the product relevant to today's buyers. They did not. GM messed up and needs to own it and fix the problem.

In today's market because everything is almost like everything else and global styling and brand differences is what will make cars stand out. How many companies are going to keep trying to out Camry the Camry?

I hope while GM is fixing everything else they are fixing in the company, they can fix their brand issues and gaps in their product line up.

 

How exactly would Oldsmobile fit into the picture in the context of GM's current lineup? If you're feeling crazy, go for Pontiac, too.

My answer: they wouldn't. Chevrolet would overshadow them all like it already does, and anything those brands represented would just be able to be folded into Chevrolet.

 

If you're going to do Oldmobile you SHOULD do Pontiac too. Here's why: Oldsmobile's success from the 40's onward was attributed to performance. The first muscle car was the 1949 Olds 88 and the Rocket division rocked it that way for decades... until the arrival of what most folks now call the first muscle car in the Pontiac GTO in 1964. After the muscle car mayhem started to die down GM decided Pontiac would continue with it's sporty image and olds became fairly bland and eventually destroyed. Pontiac followed the same path eventually by peddling Vibes and other garbage...

So where would they fit now? Either would slot above Chevy as the sporty division. The equal of Dodge. Chevy can go back to value and mainstream. Buick has the performance credentials of an Elevator - not to mention buyers lined up at life's check out counter. However, Olds is probably too far removed to returned and Pontiac probably isn't needed if GM would just make legit SS models of Chevy's lineup. Buick is only here becasue of China and outside of that place it's not really needed in the North America except to convince the Chinese it's legit...

 

This is all going to be exciting to watch. Alfa and Jeep are probably two of the most loved brands. Dodge as an affordable performance brand (which is what Lutz wanted to turn Pontiac into) should excite everyone here. Fast forward to 2018 and if these 3 brands live up to expectations FCA will be THE PLACE to shop for a car.

I don't know, but I assume splitting off Ram from Dodge had something to do with fuel economy requirements. Fleet average is still based, in part, on the footprint of the vehicles you sell. There's got to be something in that calculation that drove that decision.

 

I think GM NEEDING to feed 2 complete and un related supply channels Chev/Olds/Caddy AND Pontiac/Buick/GMC and the dealers NEEDING "bread and butter" product lead GM to make "clone cars" and THAT choice lead to the KILLING of brands where as the FCA line up is being "aligned" to PREVENT clone cars and even in house segment competitors and MOSTLY delivered through ONE supply channel reducing the NEED for full line appliances and allowing marketing/branding into "niches"

 

Fiat Professional can be folded into Ram. Dodge can be folded into Chrysler (Chrysler has made some great performance models over the years as well). The European side of FCA is weak. Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati need some serious work. Other than that, they shouldn't have an issue with overlap.

Fiat is FCA's Scion
Chrysler is FCA's Honda
Ram Trucks is FCA's truck and commercial vehicle brand
Alfa Romeo is FCA's Lexus
Jeep is FCA's Land Rover
Maserati is FCA's Bentley
Ferrari is FCA's Lamborghini

They have every market covered.

 

Maserati = Jaguar
Alfa would be closer aligned to Infiniti
Chrysler is better aligned to Opel/Buick than Honda; perhaps Acura in some cases.

 

Chrysler is such a damaged brand in Europe, it's not worth continuing. Chrysler tried and failed there in the '60s and '70s with Rootes and SIMCA. They tried again with K-cars in the '80s and '90s and that didn't go well, either. They tried under DCX with the Neon, PT, Crossfire, and other models, and failed again.

Fiat not only has history on its side, but it's a brand that resonates within Europe. The 500 and Panda are massive hits there. Chrysler, to the Europeans, has been an on-again, off-again experiment in vehicles ill-fitted for their markets. Dodge has even less cachet there.

 

I wonder if the Fiat FREEMONT/Dodge Journey type of selective rebadging is going to keep on going OR will Fiat carry Dodge/Chrysler products like Fiat is carried in the USA IE Grand Voyager

my experience with European VAN owners as they are more proud of there van/brand loyal than Americans are to there trucks EX as "white vans" are almost the MANS car making an arbitrary Fiat professional TO RAM name change less then successful like renaming RAM TO Fiat Professional in the USA