GM to pull the plug on Pontiac.

On Apr 25, 12:51*am, wrote:
> On Apr 25, 12:25*am, Jeff > wrote:
>
> > 4) GM has not made any final decisions about any of its brands.
>
> > Jeff
>
> On Monday, GM will announce they are dropping Pontiac.

OK, but as of now, they haven't. And, according to the reports that I
have heard and seen, they are still going to have it around as a niche
brand.

Jeff

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>Stupid idea. Of course, GM is chock full of stupid ideas. Why is it a
>stupid idea? Because I like driving Japanese cars! Of all the brands of
>cars GM makes, the FIRST one I would go look at is a Pontiac! Screw Chevy.
>I know there are die-hard Chevy fanatics out there, but face it: the
>current crop of Chevy cars have absolutely NOTHING in common with the cars
>you guys love.

Problem is that the current range of Pontiacs have nothing in common with
the cars that people associate with the name. If you ask the man on the
street about Pontiac, he'll remember an old GTO he had years ago. This is
not a progressive brand.

As far as the cars currently sold under the Pontiac name... odds are they
will continue to be sold under some different name. It's only a label
on the grille these days.

>Once again, GM is thinking more of the Shareholders than the Customers.
>Chevy's are inexpensive to build and have a higher profit margin. So GM
>makes more money per car. But if nobody's BUYING your cars, you're not
>making any money!

Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
selling under different brand names. So eliminating a few of the brands
is a good step. And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
it in terms of modern vehicles.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Apr 25, 7:19*am, Jeff > wrote:

>
> OK, but as of now, they haven't. And, according to the reports that I
> have heard and seen, they are still going to have it around as a niche
> brand.
>
> Jeff


Pontiac Is Dead

Date posted: 04-23-2009

DETROIT — According to a source at General Motors, the company will
announce next Monday its new "faster, deeper" reorganization plan,
which will likely include a death sentence for the Pontiac brand.

Inside Line called Tom Wilkinson, news relations PR man for General
Motors, who said: "There's nothing I can share with you at this time.
Keep your eyes on our media site. Officially, nothing has changed with
Pontiac's niche-brand status, until you hear differently."

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146706

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>> Stupid idea. Of course, GM is chock full of stupid ideas. Why is it a
>> stupid idea? Because I like driving Japanese cars! Of all the brands of
>> cars GM makes, the FIRST one I would go look at is a Pontiac! Screw Chevy.
>> I know there are die-hard Chevy fanatics out there, but face it: the
>> current crop of Chevy cars have absolutely NOTHING in common with the cars
>> you guys love.
>
> Problem is that the current range of Pontiacs have nothing in common with
> the cars that people associate with the name. If you ask the man on the
> street about Pontiac, he'll remember an old GTO he had years ago. This is
> not a progressive brand.
>
> As far as the cars currently sold under the Pontiac name... odds are they
> will continue to be sold under some different name. It's only a label
> on the grille these days.
>
>> Once again, GM is thinking more of the Shareholders than the Customers.
>> Chevy's are inexpensive to build and have a higher profit margin. So GM
>> makes more money per car. But if nobody's BUYING your cars, you're not
>> making any money!
>
> Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
> selling under different brand names. So eliminating a few of the brands
> is a good step. And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
> it in terms of modern vehicles.
> --scott
Not a lot is said about the duplication of dealers. There are way to
many for GM. High volume dealers can sell with less overhead so
consolidation of dealerships is also a priority and a sticking point in
negations for cost reduction. A lot of dealers have gone out of
business but a lot more need to close.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Once again, GM is thinking more of the Shareholders than the Customers.
>> Chevy's are inexpensive to build and have a higher profit margin. So GM
>> makes more money per car. But if nobody's BUYING your cars, you're not
>> making any money!
>
> Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
> selling under different brand names. So eliminating a few of the brands
> is a good step. And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
> it in terms of modern vehicles.

In any case, GM is legally required to deliver the maximum value to the
shareholders. In some businesses that means thinking only of the
customers, in some it does not. If continuing Pontiac results in more
profit and revenue than discontinuing it, then they should keep it
because it delivers more value to the stockholders.

It's interesting that Toyota and Honda, two manufacturers that fight the
U.S. government much less on recalls and emissions issues are also two
of the companies that consumers view as most favorable.

On Apr 25, 8:42*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

<...>

> Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
> selling under different brand names. *So eliminating a few of the brands
> is a good step. *And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
> it in terms of modern vehicles.
> --scott

The problem is that there hasn't been a difference in quite a long
time - not since GM went from having divisions to having brands, which
was in the late '90s, IIRC.

> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Apr 25, 12:53*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:19*am, Jeff > wrote:
>
>
>
> > OK, but as of now, they haven't. And, according to the reports that I
> > have heard and seen, they are still going to have it around as a niche
> > brand.
>
> > Jeff
>
> Pontiac Is Dead
>
> Date posted: 04-23-2009
>
> DETROIT — According to a source at General Motors, the company will
> announce next Monday its new "faster, deeper" reorganization plan,
> which will likely include a death sentence for the Pontiac brand.
>
> Inside Line called Tom Wilkinson, news relations PR man for General
> Motors, who said: "There's nothing I can share with you at this time.
> Keep your eyes on our media site. Officially, nothing has changed with
> Pontiac's niche-brand status, until you hear differently."
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146706

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...lan-on-monday/

So we don't know. But, logically, it makes to me to get rid of the
brand. GM effectively has other niche brands, namely the Corvette and
Camaro (both of which are Chevy's). I think they should hold on to the
European companies, but, I don't think that will happen. Long term, it
will be good for the company. They can do what they did with the Geo
brand when they dumped that - merge the cars and trucks with Chevy.

Jeff

On Apr 25, 1:01*pm, Fat Moe > wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
> >> Stupid idea. Of course, GM is chock full of stupid ideas. Why is it a
> >> stupid idea? Because I like driving Japanese cars! Of all the brands of
> >> cars GM makes, the FIRST one I would go look at is a Pontiac! Screw Chevy.
> >> I know there are die-hard Chevy fanatics out there, but face it: the
> >> current crop of Chevy cars have absolutely NOTHING in common with the cars
> >> you guys love.
>
> > Problem is that the current range of Pontiacs have nothing in common with
> > the cars that people associate with the name. *If you ask the man on the
> > street about Pontiac, he'll remember an old GTO he had years ago. *This is
> > not a progressive brand.
>
> > As far as the cars currently sold under the Pontiac name... odds are they
> > will continue to be sold under some different name. *It's only a label
> > on the grille these days.
>
> >> Once again, GM is thinking more of the Shareholders than the Customers..
> >> Chevy's are inexpensive to build and have a higher profit margin. So GM
> >> makes more money per car. But if nobody's BUYING your cars, you're not
> >> making any money!
>
> > Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
> > selling under different brand names. *So eliminating a few of the brands
> > is a good step. *And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
> > it in terms of modern vehicles.
> > --scott
>
> Not a lot is said about the duplication of dealers. *There are way to
> many for GM. *High volume dealers can sell with less overhead so
> consolidation of dealerships is also a priority and a sticking point in
> negations for cost reduction. *A lot of dealers have gone out of
> business but a lot more need to close.

The problem is that there is an agreement governed by state laws that
GM will continue to supply the dealers with cars of a particular
brand. It cost GM over $1,000,000,000 to get out of the agreements
when it killed Olds In addition, it costs lots of money to end a
dealership contract for a brand that will continue. Bankruptcy laws
will help with both of these if needs be. However, Saturn has already
lots of dealerships close.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:42 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>> Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
>> selling under different brand names. So eliminating a few of the brands
>> is a good step. And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
>> it in terms of modern vehicles.
>> --scott
>
> The problem is that there hasn't been a difference in quite a long
> time - not since GM went from having divisions to having brands, which
> was in the late '90s, IIRC.

But currently Pontiac is the one brand that's most differentiated from
the ChevrobuickGMC borg, save for Cadillac. I'd say kill Buick and let
Pontiac live. Kill off the clone cars and keep the G8 and Solstice.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Apr 25, 2:34*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 8:42 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > <...>
>
> >> Problem is that there's no real difference between the cars that they are
> >> selling under different brand names. *So eliminating a few of the brands
> >> is a good step. *And Chevy has good name recognition and people think about
> >> it in terms of modern vehicles.
> >> --scott
>
> > The problem is that there hasn't been a difference in quite a long
> > time - not since GM went from having divisions to having brands, which
> > was in the late '90s, IIRC.
>
> But currently Pontiac is the one brand that's most differentiated from
> the ChevrobuickGMC borg, save for Cadillac. *I'd say kill Buick and let
> Pontiac live. *Kill off the clone cars and keep the G8 and Solstice.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I respectfully disagree on two grounds.

1) Hummer and Saab are more differentiated from that block. By your
argument, those brands should remain.

2) Being different is not necessarily good. Pontiac is selling far
fewer cars than the Chevy brand. Apparently different doesn't bring in
the bucks.

Actually, what may work would be to sell the G8 and Solstice in Chevy
dealers. That will bring in people to look at the cars and perhaps buy
those cars or other Chevies. that one big reason why Ford and Chevy
and the Mustang and Corvette. I doubt either are big profit centers.

Jeff