Sign in to follow this  
NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Who’s In Charge of GM’s Brands?

5 posts in this topic

Who’s In Charge of GM’s Brands?

By John McElroy

WardsAuto.com, May 11, 2010 8:00 AM

Commentary

Back when General Motors was great, it was a holding company that owned some of the best car companies in the U.S. GM’s genius chairman, Alfred Sloan, constantly fought the very system he built to keep those companies autonomous and decentralized. He would be horrified to see how they are run today.

In less than a decade after Sloan retired from the board in 1956, his successors slowly but surely consolidated operations, all in the name of “efficiency.”

First they started combining manufacturing operations. Later they began sharing powertrains and platforms. After that, they put all engineering operations into one group. Finally, they merged everything.

These once proud car companies (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac) first were turned into divisions, then downgraded to marketing operations, and now they don’t exist at all. The brand names exist (except for Olds and Pontiac), but they no longer are their own operations. Worse still, no one is in charge of them.

Let me say that again. No executive is in charge of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac or GMC, because they no longer exist. They are merely names on badges that are affixed to GM vehicles.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe you need an executive in charge of a car company. I don’t mean a marketing manager or a sales manager. I’m not talking about someone who is a liaison between design and engineering. I mean an honest-to-goodness boss who only cares about his or her company. Someone who pounds the table, fights the system and protects the sanctity of their brand.

The danger in GM’s current setup is its executives will become ever more loyal to their functional departments, not their brands. They will end up making compromises and concessions that make sense for the greater good of GM, but which result in homogenized brands that fail to enthrall customers.

Sloan knew this. Even so, during the Great Depression, when sales dropped off a cliff and revenues plunged precipitously, he was persuaded to consolidate the sales and manufacturing operations of Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac in order to achieve “efficiencies.”

GM shrank from five divisions to three, and it cut costs.

But Sloan was so worried about the detrimental effects of centralization that a year and a half later, even though the Depression was still raging and GM was operating at less than 30% capacity, and despite the fact restoring the five divisions would raise costs, he went back to having decentralized divisions.

The GM of today is very different from what Sloan knew. Even so, I have no doubt he would want to see executives in charge of those brands; people who can call their own shots.

I’ll go out on a limb and make a prediction: In the next two years, GM will announce another reorganization. And that’s when it will name the new executives in charge of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.

link:

http://wardsauto.com/commentary/whos_in_charge_100510/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67impss    89

We can only hope I think that GM should have someone in charge of product overlap ie J car proliferation. Then allow each division to fight for their own concepts. GM owns the plants, holds the rights over procurement, sets budgets for marketing... When a division gains market then their clout & budgets go up. The rivalry was good for the bottom line the dealers killed it with the X then the J car broke the damm :2cents:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SAmadei    224

Didn't Pontiac and Chevy share body shells since 1926? The brands were called divisions from GM's beginnings. They were never marketed as 'companies'. Only brand loyalist call them that.

Chassis, yeah. To my knowledge, not bodies.

Of course, 1920s-era chassis are pretty simple and other divisions shared larger chassis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
balthazar    1,996

SAmadei' ~ >>"Chassis, yeah. To my knowledge, not bodies.

Of course, 1920s-era chassis are pretty simple and other divisions shared larger chassis."<<

The reverse :: bodies were shared, NOT chassis'. IE; GM went to a BOP body in 1931- tho of course they weren't identical, but shared some substructure & dimension points.

Chicagoland ~ >>"The brands were called divisions from GM's beginnings. They were never marketed as 'companies'. Only brand loyalist call them that."<<

Incorrect. I will have to research it, but the Companies indeed were autonomous in identification in the beginning.... I believe the term 'Division' didn't start until the 20s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this