Interesting point. How many people actually realistically cross-shop those? Regardless, I suspect at least 4 out of 5 people would want the Camry. Why?
- Buick = damaged brand (think rental fleet)
- Camry = bland styling, but Buick = even worse.
- Toyota's perceived superior quality (initial quality may be equal, but Toyota is better in the long term)
- No compelling reason to take a risk vs. a Camry

Having said that, you're right in that the differences are much smaller than people perceive them to be.

Now the Solstice -- that's a car they did a good job on. Clearly targeted the Miata, but made it compelling via styling.

 

Very subjective. I think the LaCrosse exterior design isn't any "worse" than a Camry. I think the front-end of the Solstice is way too curved and looks like a shoe.

 

I think one vastly overlooked point is that GM is trying to slash it's sticker prices and increase other incentives to sell their cars. And it's becoming the only way they can actually move a vehicle off the lot - the lure of thousands off an already inflated stickerprice. And the cars they build which actually are close to sticker in value, however few there are (Corvette, GTO, Solstice) are kept in short supply. In the past, it's always been a common and, well, rather smart idea to lowball an offer for most any GM vehicle because the sticker was inflated. Long, arduous haggling was always more prevalent in any domestic dealer than an import dealer.

Conversely, Honda and Toyota need minimal if any incentive to move their product. People shopping those brands (myself included) go to the dealer knowing exactly what they want - model, trim level, color, options/accessories, and price. They have done extensive research, and pretty much have come to make an educated offer. One that ensures some savings off sticker, but isn't a lowball figure because they understand they won't get it for some massive discount. In other words, the car they are looking at sells itself, and they don't need to talk to a salesman about it

 

Forbes reports that the Monte Carlo sales are down 45% this year. I guess the 2006 model front-end refresh isn't exciting anyone much.

 

Impala sales down 17%, but still -- what a FUGLY ride. Check these two out:

GM sales: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...eries_1105.xls

Honda/Acura sales: http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1007?m...54825&mime=asc

Honda sold more Accords last month than all Pontiac models COMBINED!!! Even then, ya gotta wonder how many of the Pontiac and Chevys sales went to Fleet (Hertz/Avis/etc.) Can't imagine there are 3 Cobalts sold for every 4 new Civics...

 

And that's exactly what I'm saying. GM's only way to get people to buy their cars is to slash their prices, since their cars are just average; if GM wants to lure people back to the fold, they need to produce some exceptional cars that people will actually consider competitive to Honda and Toyota.

 

" Already inflated sticker price" I really don't think thats the case, true they lured a ton of customers in with the employee pricing deal, but at what cost, they lost 1.6 billion dollars for the quarter I believe. GM needs to get closer to to sticker to start making money. As soon as there are no incentives out there, the cars pile up at the dealers. GM has many, many serious problems to deal with. They needed to start working on these problems when their market share started drifting down years ago. But they didn't, now I actually think that bankruptcy is a real possibility because or it.

 

Therin lies the catch 22 GM is stuck in..... no one in their right mind will pay anywhere near sticker for a GM car, so in order to move them they have to slash prices. By slashing prices, they can move the product. In the process, they loose profit, but if they don't slash prices, they don't sell.

Which is why GM's only option is to declare bankruptcy, and once reorganized, they must produce cars which people are willing to buy not because of price but because of product.

Today's world demands results in both product and profit..... not one or the other, but both.

 

I still think you should check out what Ganley's got on sale. Not because the sale will help GM; every car that Shelton here sells, GM must lose money on.
(I'm talking about cars; since Shelton got the GMC franchise, I don't think he's sold one Envoy or Yukon.) Same as Golling or Noonan; all these cars sold, and none of them does anything except induce complacency at GM. "We're not doing as bad as they say we are; we do sell these cars we produce." Yes, but at what cost!

But you are saying what I'm saying everyone else, which is the same among the more clued-in types on GMInsideNews: GM needs to kick the labor and supplier contracts that they can't afford, and they can really only be done through bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy may or may not change the management and board of directors (the latter is arguably as bad as the former) ... but I don't know. It depends on how much you think the bad practices are ingrained into GM culture. h: