I don’t see how GM can ban the markups. That would violate anti-trust laws.

how would GM instructing their dealer network NOT to gouge the customers when attempting to rebuild/expand a brand a violation of antitrust?

If they conspired with the dealer network TO gouge the customers that STILL would not be a violation of anti-trust…

Where the hell does anti-trust come in to play?

oh, btw, the article even states that “ban” is Edmunds words, not GM’s…..

The purpose behind antitrust law is to keep markets competitive so that businesses and ultimately consumers can purchase the best possible goods and services at the lowest possible prices. The United States Supreme Court has observed that “[e]very violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress.

In other words. By GM telling their dealers to not mark up their prices, or even telling them to lower their prices would be a violation of the law. Price-fixing comes to mind.

If GM, by suggesting that Saturn dealer do not gouge customers is a violation of anti-trust laws, then isn’t the “MSRP” concept is a violation as well? MSRP is used for nearly every product out there, from soap to electronics to cars.

Further, certain small-scale, high-end products, like Dana Design backpacks or B&W speakers do not allow their distributors to put their products on sale without a special excemption (Dana Design did until they were sold at least) to protect their retailers. Wouldn’t this also be an anti-trust violation?

It seems to me this may be a misaplication of the anti-trust concept?

I’m glad we have so many lawyers here. I was worried I had stumbled onto a car site. Can we move on to the ramifications of the tax code for Ford?

Anti-trust is Microsoft buying all rival software companies so you have no other option but go through them. Anti-trust is all oil companies combined as one. Anti-trust would be GM buying all foreign car companies to create a monopoly in the marketplace.

Anti-trust does not enter into the equasion of GM instructing their dealer network not to gouge customers.

Price fixing would be GM consulting with all other brands to increase the price of their automobiles each year at double the rate of inflation. That way, the automakers make more money, yet the consumer doesn’t equate it as a gouge since all companies are increasing at the same rate.

Price fixing could also be GM discounting their vehicles to $5,000 so that everybody buys from them and no one else. Sell the cars at a massive loss for a period of time, but competitors would go out of business by not selling a single car. Once the competitors are out of business, raise the prices to higher than they should be because you now have no competition. (for an example, look at United Airlines and WestPac airlines at DIA)

Price fixing and Anti-trust have no relevance to this. This is a parent company instructing their dealer network not to bend their customers over a chair. The parent company is pouring A LOT of $$$ into the brand and do not want to hurt the revitalization by gaining a reputation for massive dealer markups.

So they are supposedly working to gain “trust” that the dealerships won’t gouge on the price. Great.

How about regaining the “trust” that the car won’t fall apart once the warrantee is up. How about regaining the “trust” that some yahoo at your local Saturn (Or other GM brand) dealership won’t F up your car while doing routine maintenance.

I do know that I can “trust” future resale values on these new Saturn products will tank miserably (Used car bargains!)At least GM products are consistantly reliable at that function.

I think it is good that GM is telling the dealers to be careful. The MSRP is just a suggestion, but they don’t want to go against the old Saturn motto of “one set price.” If you went to the dealer, and they said there was a premium, you should walk away.

Paul D:
There was an article recently that stated the Pontiac Solstice is holding is value exceptionally well, one of the top 5 new vehicles in fact.. I do not see the Sky tanking and the solstice being ok.

Saturn has ALWAYS had HIGHER marks for dealer service departments than any of the import brands!

Falling apart when the warranty is up? ANY company has a lemon or two… but this is 2006, not 1986. Even a Hyundai will last you 100k without falling apart. It is impossible to purchase a “bad” vehicle now-a-days. Some vehicles may fit your needs more than others, but nothing is a “bad” vehicle.

It is obvious by your post that you do not care abot facts and figures. Tuck in your skirt, your bias is showing.

they can tell the dealers they will cut their allotment if the add to the MSRP. that is legal

“Falling apart when the warranty is up? ANY company has a lemon or two… but this is 2006, not 1986″

Tell that to my friends and family who have been burned multiple times by GM products. All have been replaced by either import product or a couple of FMC and Dodge products. BTW, two of the people burned had Saturn Vue SUV’s and they were running fine when they went in for routine service appts.

As far as Solstices holding value, they aren’t even through model year 1 so I would hope that the resale value hasn’t tanked that badly yet! Check back in a couple of years pal, when these things are 2 or 3 years old.

Has nothing to do with bias, just not as enamored with GM products like yourself.

If you read my post in the Lutz thread, I am not enamored with GM, I just have an open mind about what is a good product and what is a bad product.

My friends brothers roomates fathers bosses daughters uncles gardener had 1988 Hyundai Excel that was a POS, does that mean that the Azera is a POS?

and the VUE… did your friends with the problems have the Honda engine in it? What was it taken in for and what were the problems coming out? What was the dealerships response to the issues?

One of the problems was related to the CVT trans. while the other was engine related (4-cyl). Oil leaking, that’s all I am aware of.

Stealership claimed no responsibility. One got traded for Freestyle Limited while the other is awaiting best deal on a new RAV 4 Sport.

Geez… I don’t really see why you guys are bickering over anti-trust laws and whether GM and/or Saturn (sales, parts, or service) should be given a (or another) chance…

The real news is, “Interestingly, the Sky Redline is rumored to cost just $3,000 over the base model [$23,690].” If I can go to a Saturn dealer and pay $26,690 + TTT for a Saturn SKY Redline, I think that’s pretty good news.

The few Saturn dealers who mark up the Sky will get less Skys. More importantly, Saturn may give less of the potentially profitable Aura’s and Outlooks. The delaer controls the retail price, but the ca maker decised product allocation.

Has any other brand taken such steps? Toyota (Prius)?
Ford (Thunderbird)? Even other GM makes Pontiac/Solstice, Chevy (Corvette)?

Can some of you ever give credit when a GM brand does something good?

Can some of you ever give credit when a GM brand does something good?

If this were a GM fansite, then yes.

But it isn’t. Nobody HAS to like General Motors.

I think it’s a good move on GM’s part. One of the key features of the solstace / sky lines is it’s excellent price point. When it debuted at auto shows, Pontiac had this hot little roadster they claimed they could sell for around 20 grand. Paying 26,000 for a fully loaded Sky is a pretty good deal.

Unfortunately GM is in a position where they need to build up their brand rep. They can do this by having lots of the new hot and flashy cars on the road. That alone will bring in folks to a dealer to check out the car, and potentially purchase a GM product. Hell, I am an import fan, and I will at least test drive one this summer. I like the styling so much that it is in my mind a potential purchase.

GM’s move to try to foil price gouging makes sense to me, as if they take a 26,000 car and add 2-3k in dealer markup, you are now competing against a different class of car. It will be an easy decision for me to walk down the road and purchase an S2000 or 350Z for 30k versus a 30k GM product.

This is a good decision from GM.

These are not Ferarris. They really are not super premium luxury cars that have annual production of around 200 or less cars. These are inexpensive sport roadsters sold by GENERAL MOTORS. I do not recall seeing even a BMW, Mercedes-Benz or Jaguar badge anywhere on these vehicles.

GM isn’t doing so well right now and they sure could use as many sales as they can get.

If I have the means and I’m looking for a Ferarri or Lambo, I’m sure to expect some markup for exclusivity.

Markup on an inexpensive budget sportscar may make perfect sense and reason to marketers and dealerships but it doesn’t fly with me. Even if I have the $27,000 for a Sky Redline.

GM STILL MAKING LAME GAY CARS.I CAN THINK OF TWO THINGS THAT ARE JUST AS BAD AS GM………….FORD AND DODGE…….TOYOTA MOVING FORWARD…….

^^^^ That is very constructive. Thank you for sharing your bright mind with us. Now run along, don’t forget to take your medicine…

Maybe GM ought to start doing some “dynamic invoicing,” setting invoice price to the dealers according to market demand. I’ll bet the dealer wouldn’t care much for a taste of its own medicine…