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?

>>> 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. 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.

>> 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.

Chris