Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
GM shrinks Volt's gas tank, range drops from 600 to 360 miles
MINI dealers to sell Alfa Romeos in the U.S.
Honda to reveal OSM open-top concept in London
With crisis looming, GM may unveil Volt for 100th anniversary
Next BMW M5 will nix V10 in favor of twin-turbo V8
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Lincoln MKS
Track Test: 2008 Roush 427R Trak Pak Mustang
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Cayman S
First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mazda MX-5 Miata Retractable Hard Top
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this threadGM appoints four "brand czars" as part of realignment plan
(Page 1 of 1)
Kaptain75329 @ Apr 29th 2008 12:47PM
One other thing I forgot to mention - because GM setup Saturn originally as it's own company, the dealer contracts were written up with very much the same philosophy. Under the contracts, they're not really "dealers" - they're "retailers". This was not only to reinforce the no haggle policy (required since these cars were not profitable in the first place - bleeding had to stop somewhere) but also to prevent owners from putting other GM brands on the same lot. Doing so would have had consumers associating the brands as all part of GM which would defeat the point of propping up Saturn as the American economy icon it was intended to be.
Talk about unintended consequences.
Franchise laws in many states make GM's choices extremely difficult -- to the point of not being feasible -- from the perspective of brand consolidation or even closeouts. The laws make it near impossible for GM to merge the "retailers" with "dealers" - GM is allowed to setup their business for one market but responding to a new market has to be done by adding more. Replacement is not an option because that would mean removal before addition, and that might cost jobs. Thus, such a move isn't politically expedient, and even less politically correct.
GM really is trapped here. This is the only way they can encourage/push dealers to close down because at least this way most folks will have some place to go. Brands can't die quietly - dealers live off them the same way the unions do. Nobody in this equation wants to understand the reality: the ship is sinking. If a few people jump off, the rest can survive. Since no one will, and GM can't force it, they have to repair the ship at sea with what they have on hand.