Quote:
Originally Posted by fastball
I ask you now, what would have cost GM more in the last few years? Eliminating more divisions (Buick, Pontiac, Saab, GMC) and facing the bombardment of lawsuits by dealers, or a complete meltdown of the entire company? GM is surely in no better shape today keeping with what I now consider frivolous nameplates (Chevy and Cadillac are the only nameplates GM needs right now, and I know this is a bold statement to make to you but with all due respect I can argue why there hasn't been a need for anything but Caddy and Chevy for the last 5 years) than they would have been had they eliminated them, and dealt with the aftershock accordingly.
|
How does one oppose the other? The costs of eliminating a brand...or multiple brands as you say would FAR surpass what they're already paying for things. The aftershock...would have killed them. And then that company...the smaller..."leaner" company, still realing from the aftershock, and possible
already broke from paying off all those dealers, retirement deals, and restructuring...would have been knocked squarely over the head with this economic meltdown...if they had done as you say above -- they'd be dead right now without question.
I don't think GM needs to have as many brands as they do, either...but I think, more strongly, the last thing they needed to do in these past few years is spend a crapload of money to eliminate a bunch of brands.
