OT: Pontiac done
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm
The venerable muscle car is getting the axe. GM sure sucks balls when it comes to branding. Tell me this car wouldn't sell like hotcakes if you change the logo to Infinity, Acura, Scion, BMW, or Lexus:
http://eleventhst.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pontiac-gto-wallpapers-4…
Seriously, take a look at their divisions below. The only ones with a concrete brand image are Hummer and Cadillac. GM fails Marketing 101.
Chevrolet
GMC
Pontiac
Saturn
Cadillac
Buick
Hummer
Saab
They all have images, they're just not all good ones.
Chevy -- all-American car, a standard
GMC -- trucks (that's really about it)
Saturn -- ok, I don't really know on this one
Caddy -- old-school luxury cars
Buick -- old people
Hummer -- jerks with small dicks
The last two are definitely right.
It would also probably run if you change the logo to Infinity, Acura, Scion, BMW, or Lexus ;)
Honestly though, that is a cool looking car, going to check the spec on it.
My guess is I would need to drive 40 miles to buy one here in Northern California.
Hippie.
Agent
Chevrolet - I have no idea. As a young person, I would be embarrassed to drive a Chevrolet. Bland styling, uncool image. They keep pushing the Malibu since it won a bunch of awards, but the only more lame car I can think of is a Buick or Saturn, both owned by GM.
GMC - Trucks and truck-based, their best brand. I think they're doing well here.
Pontiac - :.( - While they were once known as awesome muscle cars, they decided to build cars that look like this: http://www.capsautosales.ca/cars/2002GrandPrixStk962.JPG and ruined their image. My Grandma owned a Grand Prix and loved it. Grandparents shouldn't be owning cars made by a "muscle brand."
Saturn - Supposed to be their cheap, affordable brand. Getting killed here. Why are you building luxury higher-priced Saturns and Saturn sports cars? Nobody is going to pay $25,000 to own a Saturn. Jesus, stick to your brand.
Cadillac - Good brand. Sport luxury for those in a mid-life crisis.
Buick - Cars for old people. For some reason, they spend all their money trying to convince us that Tiger Woods, with millions of dollars, chooses to drive a Buick.
Hummer - This could be a great brand and a challenger to Jeep if they built some Cherokee-type SUV's and invested in changing their gas-guzzling image.
Saab - Fail. You have a European car brand which has a sport luxury image, but it's just been terribly utilized. There is no reason that Saab couldn't have competed with BMW's. I attribute to poor marketing (again).
April 24th, 2009 at 10:02 PM ^
GM is sucky at marketing. I have no idea how they went so wrong. Ford is waaaay better at marketing their vehicles. I'm a young person and I think they have good looking (with the exception of the Focus), technologically advanced vehicles. GM? ...not so much.
Personally, I'm not sad at all to see Pontiac go the way of Oldsmobile. I've owned two Pontiacs (not by choice, I drive a Jetta now) and they were both crap. Terrible vehicles. The only mildly attractive vehicle they produce is the new G8. I like the muscular look they went with:
Ford's marketing strategies are a little better, but overall it's made its share of hideous blunders as well. The biggest has to be basically sitting on the same design for the Taurus for over a decade while competitors upped the ante. Remember when the Taurus sold like hotcakes? You never see a new one now.
To underscore your point, I didn't even know Ford still made the Taurus.
I have a Cadillac STS 2005 and absolutely love it. I had a 740i previously because none of the Big 3 offered a comparable luxury performance sedan. The STS has more horsepower, equal handling and a way better interior overall.
All I am saying is that Cadillac's are no longer just for old people, check em out. The CTS and the Escalades are best in class in my e-pinion.
I'm not so sure managing multiple brands is ALWAYS a good idea in business. Yes, brands have value. But it's expensive to maintain them and get them to grow. And if you do invest in building a brand, then where's the return?
At some point you've got to thin the herd (simplify), show some freaking earnings and/or kick competitors in the chops ) preferably in that order). GM is managing something like 12 vehicle brands, and none of them very well. I would not have chosen Pontiac as the first one to slice off, but hey, the days of being romantically selective about this question were surrendered probably the very second that the first "Pontiac Sunbird" left the GM assembly line.
Toyota pretty much manages 5 vehicle brands: Toyota, Isuzu, Scion, Lexus, Daihatsu. And they are kicking ass during horrible economic times.
Honda: Honda and Acura.
BMW: BMW, Mini and Rolls Royce
Maybe there's something to keeping it simple and concentrating on doing a few things really, really well?
Although your general point is taken, Toyota actually posted an operating loss (its first in 70 years) in the final quarter in 2008. It's just a brutal market right now.
I know they are planning on dropping the Saturn name soon, so I guess they will just consolidate into the established brands. Overall, I agree that cutting Pontiac wouldn't be my first choice, but the D3 need to make themselves more streamlined, and maintaining multiple brands with significant overlap probably isn't helping the bottom line.
GM won't drop Buick. Sure it might not be so great in the US, but the new Buick midsize SUVs aren't actually doing so bad. The real reason GM keeps Buick around is the China market. Buick is the GM brand representation in China, it does much better than the Ford or Chrysler offerings there.
Pontiac was the logical choice to cut. Pontiac's offerings can be folded into Chevy and Cadillac.
Buicks are also known for being a reliable car that holds its value. And I admit I love that lacrosse car they have. I think branding is what got the big three in trouble in the first place. For a good part of the nineties people branding (rightly so) their vehicles as being, well...sucky. This stigma has stuck with them even though the quality of the products they put out has improved. It's like being the kid that smells like pee in grade school. No matter where you go in life or what you do when ever you run into an old classmate you'll be piss pot (insert name here)
After Pontiac's "game changing moment" commercials in 2007, they were dead to me. Yeah, it's on me to be a Michigan fan, but don't rub my nose in _the_horror_ for more than a year and expect me in your showroom anytime soon. ( I'm keeping my 'vette. )
I was really hoping Pontiac would survive the troubles. I like Pontiac. And my first car was an Oldsmobile, so apparently I'm pretty bad at picking out GM brands.
Although seriously....that GTO was a mistake. Not the concept. The execution. My very first thought when I saw it: "Looks like a Honda Civic." Not the first impression I was hoping for, nor the one GM probably was hoping for either.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:15 AM ^
awwww dang it! I like pontiacs! RABBLE! RABBLE! RABBLE!
My dream of owning a G6 will never be fulfilled.:(
But seriously, I used to work as an automotive journalist. On my first day I listened to GM's new director of marketing (can't remember his name but he came from Proctor & Gamble) railing on and on at the auto show about GM building brand identity for each of its badges. He didn't stay all that long. Over 10 years later and they are still building several cars over several badges on the same chassis (the Cobalt is the G5, the Rendezvous is the Trailblazer is the Envoy. The Malibu is the Aura. The Vue is the Arcadia is the Traverse. You get the point.) Like the gentlemen above pointed out, the only brands with any identity are Cadillac and Chevy.
I'm sure you can pick up a G6 for $8k used.
One of the most ordinary cars I've ever seen in my life. Nothing distinctive, and a dog when it comes to reliability.
I was joking.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
And I was drunk. Oops.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
I have no problem telling you that "car wouldn't sell like hotcakes if you change the logo to Infinity, Acura, Scion, BMW, or Lexus". None of those companies would ever put out a car that poorly designed. Why is it poorly designed? Three reasons: (1) performance,(2) interior design, and (3) Technology. It might be a sweet looking car on the outside, but much like the new Camaro, they failed on interior design. It's a sweet looking car from afar, but as soon as you get up close to the car it loses all appeal. I might as well have been in a Dodge Charger. It's the little things that just kills GM's car designs. That extra $2,000 that they have to squeeze out of every car that doesn't go toward putting something back into the car goes a long, long way. When I was at Sebring back in March, the Audi display was right next to the Chevrolet display, and the differences between the cars when it came to performance, design (interior and exterior), marketing/presentation, and technology could not have been a more stark contrast.
To go a step further on the interior design issue: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/MediaNav/year=2009/make=po…
That is pathetic.
I'm not sure if my "sarcasm meter" is broken here or not.
I actually really like that interior, a lot.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:49 PM ^
It's too bad they didn't make the GTO look like that Woodward edition. You can get the body kit for like $6000 if you like it that much. You can definitely do some things to make the GTO look nice.
I really like the G8. Nice sporty look with over 400HP. They make them handle like poo, but that can be corrected. However, GM NEEDS to start making cars top notch handling/performance even if it costs a little more to the consumer. It seems everyone is more interested in quality over cost.
They could very easily do it without raising the price of the car if they weren't pissing away over $2,000 per car on stuff that doesn't go into making a car.