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.

>>> 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.

>> 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. 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.

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). Plus DRLs
improve visibility and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted
a reference to. IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM
is out the window.

Chris