Comments on: Lutz: GM, Ford can’t kill brands

By: Veda

Veda — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:58:19 +0000

lewissalem, very interesting point. I’d like to have them price fixed and sold over the net. The dealers can be their service centers. No middleman, less cost.

By: autonutt

autonutt — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:52:19 +0000

IndianaJones — Chrysler didn’t suffer as much in killing Plymouth (or DeSoto for that matter) mainly because all Plymouth dealers were dualed with Chrysler, and in some cases Jeep and even Eagle (which was reduced to one model and phased out a year or two earlier) — so the dealers weren’t being aced out of a franchise. Oldsmobile was a very popular brand in the 1970s though, and because of this many dealers had clung to their stand-alone Olds dealerships through the rough 80s and 90s, hoping for a product resurgence, only to be informed they would be cancelled. So it is a different situation.

By: lewissalem

lewissalem — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:55:20 +0000

Who cares about the dealers? I’m sick of “the dealers” this or “the dealers” that. Screw them. Sell cars directly to me over the Internet. I don’t care. What saddens me with all of this dealer talk is that there’s nothing in there about the consumer. What about us? These are the same dealers that markup Thunderbirds that they can’t FORCE off the lot three years later.

PRODUCT.

By: Ricardo Head

Ricardo Head — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:50:12 +0000

Wickedated wrote:
….. if Lutz knows what hes talking about all the time,
….. how come GM is losing $1000 for every vehicle it sells?
.
.
Because gas costs too little, I think.

By: Wickedated

Wickedated — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:06:27 +0000

if Lutz knows what hes talking about all the time, how come GM is losing $1000 for every vehicle it sells?

By: Kaizen

Kaizen — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:33:45 +0000

Putz needs his Ensure and medicine. He’s talking too much crap. He needs to hurry up the Camaro and stop using dated platforms to launch cars.

By: Gogogodzilla

Gogogodzilla — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:55:59 +0000

Geez.

Lutz the Putz is having a problem thinking laterally.

If it costs too much to officially kill a brand… then simply reduce the brand’s models to one. Such as if Buick needs to be killed, reduce the number of Buick models to the Lucerne, and only the Lucerne.

Eventually, car dealerships will switch to other companies because there would be no way to earn enough money simply selling one model and only one model.

Which effectively kills the brand off.

By: IndianaJones

IndianaJones — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:03:06 +0000

Seems like Lutz gave this interview during happy hour….
…. Can’t kill a brand name?! The public will. Demographics will. Eventually all the Buick owners will too old to drive. European Ford products sold as Mercury? Bring back the Merkur. So was Chrysler sued when they killed Plymouth and DeSoto? Or Ford for the Edsel….. wait,they were probably sued for keeping it 2.2 years.

By: GL1

GL1 — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:26:42 +0000

Well I hope that Lutz has brought enough recreational drugs for the rest of us to be on so his **** will start making sense. And by the way where di he graduate from business school ? in Graneda or something ? GM needs to loose this clown he’s ALL MOUTH…

By: Ricardo Head

Ricardo Head — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:17:33 +0000

How about a long term plan to combine brands and dealers that avaoids the lawsuit hassles. Reality is the dealerships do not have lifetime contracts and monopolies so this should be doable.
.
Then, when the brand-combinations get going, you start phasing out vehicle redundancy (i.e. brand engineering) at the combined dealerships. Something along those lines should be doable.

By: Kenny W

Kenny W — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:30:54 +0000

599GTB,
Lutz said that Buick & Pontiac where “damaged brands”. He was then misquoted and it spread like a wildfire. He never stated that they were going to be getting rid of them.

By: imageWIS

imageWIS — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:23:16 +0000

Fine GM can’t kill brands; but can it kill Lutz?

Jon.

By: 599GTB

599GTB — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:15 +0000

I like Bob Lutz because he has balls. However, he’s flip flopped on this issue. Last March 2005, Lutz stated to that if Pointiac and Buick did not live up to projections, “then we would have to take a look at a phase-out. I hope we don’t have to do that. What we’ve got to do is keep the brands we’ve got.”

By: audiot

audiot — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:50:24 +0000

Big secret = all car brands are controlled by their dealers.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:47:37 +0000

Oldsmobile was a jinxed brand, I mean, how the hell can you market something with OLD in its name? It was a wise choice to kill it, but now GM (and Ford for that matter) need to heavily focus each seperate brand on a certain trait (luxury, sport, safety, economy etc.). It’s the only way to get those brands out of their current identity crisis.

By: Kenny W

Kenny W — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:23:51 +0000

Closing Oldsmobile in the long run will prove to be a wise choice, but the immediate & middle future effects where a disaster. As Brendino said the costs of lawsuits and litigations and buying out the dealers was astronomical. Then factor in the costs of closing the plants, idleling the workers (aka paying UAW workers to play checkers), and the lost business (while not a lot of sales where made all the parts & such were paid for. GM was likely making a profit on most Olds sold) and the end result is that GM really bit the bullet.

GM can’t afford to close any more brands as the costs would be even higher this time around.

By: MikeFX

MikeFX — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:23:01 +0000

A lot of the rules on how dealers interact with manufacturers where put in place when American car companies ruled these lands. There was never any thought back then that a division would have to be shut down. Once again, the lack of speed in adapting to new environments has left some pants down near the ankles.

GM seems to doing a great job realigning their brands. Whoever thought Saturn would ever be hot again? Ford needs to get Lincoln focused, and start bringing Ford of Europe models over as Mercurys.

By: GMFan

GMFan — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:15:20 +0000

The state franchise laws are what gives dealers the right to sue. Think about, if a dealer invests millions to sell a particular brand and the manufacturer renigs on their end of the bargain, the dealer should be compensated.

By: lanapat7

lanapat7 — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:09:29 +0000

Brendino, I hope someone in GM got fired by such poor planning. They did not consider the litigation risks involved.

I bet many lawyers purchased yachts and beach front property with the fees they received in these lawsuits. Well, at least GM is helping the US economy.

By: Brendino

Brendino — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:43:43 +0000

lanapat…Oldsmobile was almost a financial disaster. I read an article somewhere (sorry I can’t cite it) which said what this article said: They had to buy out the vehicles and the rights that the dealers had and then they had to face lawsuits…It has cost them BILLIONS of dollars, almost to the point where keeping the marque would have been more cost effective.

By: mblommel

mblommel — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:37:35 +0000

So he’s saying that corporate policy is controlled by dealers? Whoa, no wonder GM is in trouble.

By: Veda

Veda — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:17:43 +0000

Damn the guy’s pissed alright… but I have to agree they don’t have the $ to kill anything right now. As for Toyota, yea they even put unique labels on their different lines. The excellent Harrier and the Noah come to mind…

By: lanapat7

lanapat7 — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:54:29 +0000

So killing Oldsmobile was a financial disaster…

By: A4

A4 — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:49:20 +0000

soaring blue bird? told you all toyota was gay