"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:21:00 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>> [whine...]
>>
>> I called the GM marketing campaign "genious". And you call that a whine?
>
> 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.

>>> If GM sales are down, GM is at fault. If they are up, GM still is at
>>> fault.
>>
>> 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.

>>> The 'employee discount' campaign is not so successful because the
>>> savings are greater than they were before but because people know they
>>> get a decent deal without having to haggle for all kinds of 'college
>>> discount' and 'dealer incentive' and so on.
>>
>> No arguement from me. Interesting that the Washington Post (a couple of
>> Sunday editions back), mentioned that the average sales price for GM
>> cars in June was about $200-400 *higher* compared to previous months in
>> 2005. The employee discount isn't really the better deal comapratively
>> speaking to the rebate and incentives that had been in place. But the
>> marketing apparently made it sound better...pure genious.
>
> No, the deal is better for many people. With the rebates and incentives
> the customers were suckered into the dealerships where the sales droids
> promptly would proceed to dismember the less experienced ones by thelling
> them 'oh, we already sold the one car we had at that price, but here is a
> XXX at $YYYYY ($YYYYY > MSRP, but they of course don't mention that),
> that's a great deal. And people get pressured into really bad deals.
>
> 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. You might want to read the
article (if it's still posted). Like I said, the article stated that the
average sales prices (from title and registration records) was $200-$400
higher in June with this campaign. That means that people were paying more
on average than before for the cars. But that is part of the genious of it.
Sell more cars and make more on each (on average). That has to help reduse
the losses for this quarter, one would think.

>>> Face it, most people do not like to haggle. And I think the discounts,
>>> many
>>> of them with conditions attached or '2 at this price' were not making
>>> many people wanting to buy. I personally love to haggle but I know I am
>>> the exception, which is why a straightforward marketing campaign like
>>> 'you pay what we pay' is successful.
>>
>> Did I say genious... :-)
>
> You mean ingenious or genius, one or the other. In this context ingenious.
>