|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 21, 2009 9:18:33 GMT -6
GM is being run into the ground by accountants who are totally unqualified to manage it, so says the author of this article......................................................................................... GM's bean counter cult kills again: Saab is dead Say what you will about the financial executives (bean counters) who have dominated General Motors for the last half century, but don't call them powerless. They have effectively killed off Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, and now Saab through their mismanagement of what was once the greatest manufacturing company the world had ever seen. Saab originally opened as an aircraft building company in 1938. After producing military planes during WWII, Saab introduced its first car in 1947, a two-stroke, front wheel drive, aerodynamic beetle-shaped car that showed original thinking throughout. The Saab was constantly refined and soon became a terror on the European rally circuit where it piled up an unequaled winning record. Saabs were known for original style, safety engineering, brilliant ergonomics, and, once their turbo models were introduced in 1978, sporty performance. Saab was an original, quirky, safe and fun to drive ride for non-conformists. Then came General Motors' bean counters. GM bought half of Saab in 1989 and the balance in 2000. The company's cult of accountant princes did to Saab what they did to GM's domestic brands, they saved money and looked good on next quarters' balance sheets by slapping Saab badges on anything that moved instead of engineering models unique to the brand. There was a parade of Opels with Saab badges glued on their hoods. A re-branded Subaru that became a joke called "Saabaru." And the worst indignity of all, a Chevy truck re-branded as a Saab SUV that fooled nobody except the nobodies who ran General Motors. GM's execs failed the Saab brand. Just as they failed their entire corporation's line-up. GM's bean counter cult is the Charles Manson Family of auto execs, killing brands with wanton stupidity. As former GM superstar executive John Delorean said, “A man trained and skilled only in financial control, who has no direct operational experience, simply lacks the understanding necessary to run the business.” But run it they did, straight into the ground. www.examiner.com/x-6882-Classic-Autos-Examiner~y2009m12d19-GMs-Bean-Counter-Cult-claims-another-victim-Saab-is-dead |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2009 9:44:16 GMT -6
I like this guy that wrote this article. He is very bold and, well, CORRECT. Leave it to GM. I honestly cant think of a company that has messed up as much as GM. They have made ALOT of mistakes. Killed off way too many brands, and lost alot of loyal customers.
|
|
|
|
Post by lanceslambos on Dec 21, 2009 13:02:38 GMT -6
now wait a minute... how did this happen since big brother owns GM now or should i say Government Motors?
|
|
|
|
Post by killroypete on Dec 29, 2009 15:18:18 GMT -6
They probably are still in "Downsize at all cost" mode.
Pure accountants running any compagny is a recipe for disaster. My opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by my1stluv on Dec 30, 2009 9:12:09 GMT -6
They really are stupid.
Too bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by KliffsAurora on Dec 30, 2009 21:23:49 GMT -6
The government "did" say that GM needed to focus on four core brands. To bad those core brands have GMC and Buick in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by latenight72 on Dec 31, 2009 0:05:52 GMT -6
GM should only be Chevrolet and Cadillac, IMHO.
Or, if they want to up-class Cadillac more, then Buick can slot in the middle. But right now, it [Buick] doesn't fit anywhere. It blends into both Chevrolet's potential lineup as well as Cadillac's. Make Cadillac more refined, a true German BMW/Mercedes contender. Slot Buick lower, in the Lexus/Infiniti range.
But getting rid of Buick and keeping Cadillac as it is, works also. Cadillac competes with both the Germans as well as the slightly lower-cost luxury manufacturers from across the pacific. The only issue, it doesn't do either quite well. Not a knock on Cadillac, but it's a bit higher than Lexus/Infiniti and still a good bit lower than BMW/Mercedes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Dec 31, 2009 9:30:15 GMT -6
With no Buick, where do you see cars like a nicer version of an Impala fitting? Sold as a Cadillac? I always thought it was pathetic to have a tarted-up Camry in the Lexus lineup, a Caddy W-body would be similar. Though that said, the ES is the best-selling Lexus by far (in spite of the incredible price you pay for such a mediocre car), so maybe it's not a bad move?
What about fairly plain/utility cars with a lot of performance, like the G8? Sold as a Chevy? Personally I think Pontiac could have worked as a Scion-like performance/youth brand. Except with real performance instead of just sporty looks. Chevy shouldn't have "SS" versions of every dang model. Instead you buy the sporty Poncho version.
I don't know that it matters, though. You can't change the perception of a brand that quickly. Whatever they want to sell as a Chevy or Buick or Caddy, it will take a long time before people think of that brand as a purveyor of that type of car. And GM won't be around for a long time. So just do something that makes it look like our billions are being put to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by turnne on Jan 5, 2010 19:03:00 GMT -6
With no Buick, where do you see cars like a nicer version of an Impala fitting? Sold as a Cadillac? I always thought it was pathetic to have a tarted-up Camry in the Lexus lineup, a Caddy W-body would be similar. Though that said, the ES is the best-selling Lexus by far (in spite of the incredible price you pay for such a mediocre car), so maybe it's not a bad move? What about fairly plain/utility cars with a lot of performance, like the G8? Sold as a Chevy? Personally I think Pontiac could have worked as a Scion-like performance/youth brand. Except with real performance instead of just sporty looks. Chevy shouldn't have "SS" versions of every dang model. Instead you buy the sporty Poncho version. I don't know that it matters, though. You can't change the perception of a brand that quickly. Whatever they want to sell as a Chevy or Buick or Caddy, it will take a long time before people think of that brand as a purveyor of that type of car. And GM won't be around for a long time. So just do something that makes it look like our billions are being put to work. are you sure the ES is their best seller? If that is the case it has not been for long as the RX was their best seller the last I heard And you say the car ..the ES ..I mean..is mediocre? what is your definition of mediocre? Granted...It is not a driver's car...but neither were the Aurora or STS I had That being said....is the feature set not up to par?...is the car unreliable?....is it worth pennies of the sticker price just a few years into ownership? and let me say..I have no interest in one They hold resale too well for car that doesn't drive any better than it does However I have seen many with over 200K..still going strong and still worth a few $$ warren |
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Jan 5, 2010 19:16:20 GMT -6
are you sure the ES is their best seller? If that is the case it has not been for long as the RX was their best seller the last I heard I was talking about cars. And you say the car ..the ES ..I mean..is mediocre? what is your definition of mediocre? |
|
|
|
Post by turnne on Jan 6, 2010 5:35:37 GMT -6
from the definition
1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.
2. rather poor or inferior.
would you really use that definition to describe any Lexus product?...the number one selling luxury car in the United States for many years now....and one that is always on the higher side of purchase price..new OR used
Warren
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Jan 6, 2010 7:25:11 GMT -6
would you really use that definition to describe any Lexus product? Not only would I, but if you read my post I actually did. The ES is barely adequate as a car that costs about $40,000 new. It's a Camry with frosting on it. |
|
|
|
Post by turnne on Jan 6, 2010 9:44:09 GMT -6
would you really use that definition to describe any Lexus product? Not only would I, but if you read my post I actually did. The ES is barely adequate as a car that costs about $40,000 new. It's a Camry with frosting on it. lol..and then you reply with a dictionary definition that one could use to describe a tube of toothpaste..or anything else for that matter and if you read my question I asked on what grounds you considered the car mediocre? I know very well what the textbook definition of the word is ..and if you think rebadging cars with some extra trim and a different brand name... all the while adding to the sticker price makes for medocrity... then there are quite a few mediocre ones out there In fact I was looking at a $74,000 Escalade sitting on the showroom floor the last time I was at the Caddy dealer... Talk about frosting......then there was that $90K XLR sitting downstairs with even more frosting Warren |
|
|
|
Post by KliffsAurora on Jan 7, 2010 8:54:01 GMT -6
I was looking at a $74,000 Escalade sitting on the showroom floor the last time I was at the Caddy dealer... Talk about frosting......then there was that $90K XLR sitting downstairs with even more frosting Warren Escalade owners are interesting.  but... very few people know the XLR was based on the Corvette. Since I know this I would never consider one. Even used they seem too be as much as a nice C6. |
|
|
|
Post by dynamic1964 on Jan 8, 2010 19:11:58 GMT -6
I sending my heart to all ho work on the Saab factory, and all the people around it ho make all the parts for the cars. 90% of the parts makes here in Sweden. This is like a parody, yes i think that right now, and only harm Saab as a automobile. Its all on the news as a first scoop like: Saab gonna be saved! New buyer! And so on..
GM has, like Oldsmobile, make it clear, Saab is history!
No i feel sorry for all the employments ho try to rich the last straw..
Thanks, Arne
|
|
|
|
Post by toro68 on Jan 9, 2010 14:29:35 GMT -6
They really are stupid. Too bad. Yes they are! |
|
