"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> [whine...]

I called the GM marketing campaign "genious". And you call that a whine?
The rest of the comment was statistical fact (which can be turned around).

>
> 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?

> 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.

> 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... :-)

> And if GM keeps up the good marketing more and more people are going to
> notice that GM doesn't sell a Citation or Pontiac 6000 any more but good
> cars for the money.

No argument from me on that (some exception, but fewer then their used to
be).