View Single Post
  #1  
Old July 19th 05, 12:12 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:06:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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, it just is a good marketing campaign. It's not uncommon that a good
> marketing campaign boosts sales numbers drastically.


Of course it is a good campaign...I've agreed with that premise from the
start. And repeated it three times now (at least). Did you miss it every
time?

Something typically causes a anomoly to occur (which can include a marketing
campaign. Nevertheless, it's still a anamoly by definition Not sure why
you're arguing a point that can't be any clearer.

It will be interesting to see what happens now that Chrysler upped the ante.
Chrysler is also offering the employee discount. BUT, Chrysler is adding
$599-$3500 more discount on top of that! <whew!> Not sure how they can
afford it...I guess we'll see.

>>>> 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 were complaining about GM's campaign and success. That clearly shows
> that you think they are at fault. Which is not surprising, because your
> pretty theory that people don't buy GM because of DRLs was blasted out the
> window by this very campaign.


How was a statement of praise that indicated a ingenious marketing move,
compared to the other sales numbers of the year, even come close to
qualifying as a complaint? Exactly what are you reading here in this
forum?

>>> 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).

>
> Of course DRLs have to do with this. You claimed that people are not
> buying GM because of DRLs any more.


No, I claimed that a certain segment of the market won't buy GM because of
DRL's. The debate can only be what percentage that segment of the market
is. Is it 1%, 2%, 10%....who knows? Until someone does know, a accurate
assessment of impact to the monthly sales number cannot be known with any
certanty (only that there is *some* impact of a unknown amount)

> As preposterous as the claim is for a
> company that has almost 30% of the car
> market in the US, it was proven
> even more wrong when without removal the
> sales numbers shot up just
> because people were freed from
> the haggle/hassle issues.


Surely you can understand the simple concept that if 1% of the market won't
buy DRL equipped vehicles, then the market share mumber would be 31% if DRLs
weren't forced on them (given your market share number of 30% with DRLs and
assuming that 1 out 100 people won't buy for that reason). If it's 10 of
that market, then market share would have been 40%.

> Face it, no one cares about DRLs enough to make a buying decision because
> of them or the lack of them (except you of course, but that you are not
> very good at selecting criteria for buying cars is nothing new).


And you apparently choose to ignoring those thousands of people that have
stated the same in the public comment dockets at the NHTSA, and those that
have stated same in numerious forums, newsgroups, etc. Why? Those are
real people that buy cars. Most of them on the NHTSA site state that they
are current GM owners that won't buy another GM for that reason. Of course
that may be why GM is pushing so hard, for the past 10+ years, to make DRLs
mandatory. Doing so would remove the marketing disadvantage GM has if
buyers couldn't go elsewhere to avoid them. But that is speculation on my
part...but sure does smell fishy.

> Plus DRLs improve visibility


If you had read the report, you would know that it increases conspicuity,
not visability. Unless DRLs also wash your windows and clean your glasses
too! ;-)

> and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted
> a reference to.


And you've yet to answer my earlier question that if this was so cut and
dried (no down sides to DRLs to work through yet), why didn't the NHTSA make
them mandatory 10 years ago? Hint: You'll find the answer if you keep
reading beyond your one document out of thousands on file.

> IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM
> is out the window.


Curious question. How do you "explain-away" those comments posted at the
NHTSA if some percentage of the public doesn't hate them? How do you
"explain-away" all the hate DRL sites and postings of how to disable them,
etc. Or are you making stuff up in your head again?

Also check the wording of your sentence. I've clearly stated (a half dozen
times now, at least), that this applies to a *segment* of the market...not
generally to "people"

Also:

I didn't ever say that "people hate DRLs and thus won't buy GM.."
I said that "...a segment of the public hate DRLs and (that segment) won't
buy GM..."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements. Not sure why you
change the context...repeatedly.




Ads