"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>
>>> Yes, because you are trying to insinuate that this was only a short
>>> lived success.
>>
>> How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the
>> campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous year
>> a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is
>> anybody's guess.
>
> How do you know it is an anomaly then?

A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a
textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and
unless future sales numbers show otherwise.

>>>> No kidding. Do you have someone else in mind that is at fault for
>>>> either situation?
>>>
>>> I would not call good sales numbers anyone's fault. They are GM's
>>> success.
>>
>> I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success
>> and
>> failure both rest with GM management.
>
> I am the one, who said that _you_ see it as a _fault_ of GM that they came
> up with good marketing and sold a lot of cars lately.

No, I clearly said I saw it a genious (or ingenious). How can one possibly
intrepret that as my seeing it as a "fault"?

> You had to find something wrong with GM's success
> because said success blasts a thick fat
> hole into your theory that GM's cars are
> not being bought because of DRLs
> or other features.

Uhm, I was praising the "ingenious" marketing campaign..comparing it to how
poor sales had been earlier in the year and how it's possible now to meet
last years numbers (at least now they are in reach). How one intreprets
that as "finding something wrong" is beyond me. Do you just like to argue
even when there isn't anything to argue about? Or do you really believe
this stuff you make up in your head that you think people said (or meant to
say for some nefarious agenda that is made clearly up in your head as well).

>>> With the employee pricing the cars are stickered much lower than they
>>> previously were and they are stickered consistently, which makes even
>>> the less haggle experienced unlikely to get suckered into a bad deal.
>>
>> I already agreed with your premise of "no-haggling" benefits. But the
>> deal on average (across the board) wasn't better.
>
> I never claimed it was. On the contrary. This supports my view that the
> old 'haggle or you are gonna get fleeced' method of selling cars was
> actually driving customers away, not your hated DRLs.

DRLs have nothing at all to do with this. DRL's are a constant factor in
the before and after numbers (they existed before the jump in sales and they
existed after...so DRL's offer no influence positive or negative since
nothing changed with them). Surely you realize that the only factor in the
sales jump was the ad campaign (all else being equal).

The dynamics of auto purchasing decisions are involved and contain numerous
criteria. Removing the "haggle-factor" will certainly bring some people
in...no question about it. There are still a percentage of buyer that won't
buy a car equipped with DRL's as well, regardless of what the deals look
like. There is no correlation of any decision criteria in the dynamic of
sales decisions to sales numbers alone without knowing (by interviews or
surveys) what specifically caused people to buy or not to buy with the
promotion. In other words, there is no way for either of us to know what
the impact is without the missing piece of data that neither of us
possesses.