I have an idea for how it should be run. Dispite the Obama Admin's commitment to being a 'silent' partner, perhaps there is no time like now to make big changes. NUMBER ONE: Why do we have new models every year anyway? Does Apple Computer come out with a new MacBook every year? NO! Technology has advanced to the point that cars are lasting longer than ever. It seems more fiscally responsible now-a-days to focus all the R&D into a model that would be promoted and sold for 3 - 5 years. This would streamline marketing efforts reducing cost. Each year that the car is in production, the parts (in theory) would get cheaper because of the ability to mass produce. And a longer selling cycle would allow more time for the dealers to actually sell all the cars that are made. Rather than scrapping them or rush liquidating them.
Also, quit naming the model by the year, that way customers won't feel like they are buying an 'old' product. You can follow the technology model and call it the Chevy Volt G1 (meaning 1st generation). Then there is no time limit on it.
Comments (5)
That wouldn't work, because you would have no basis for trade in evaluations. You wouldn't know if the car with 40,000 miles was driven in 1 year or in 3. You wouldn't be able to accurately price the vehicle for retail or for trade. You wouldn't want to buy a Pre-Owned vehicle without knowing those details and a dealership wouldn't want to buy your current car if they didn't know either.
What's need is for these companies not to produce three of the same cars with three different name plates. The Chevy Tahoe, the Caddilac Escalade, and GMC Yukon are all the same vehicle. Slightly difference appearance, different ammenities, but the same vehicle built in the same production line. One day they put a GMC plate on it, the next a Chevy plate. Why does GM need to sell three of the same exact vehicles? I think this is huge waste of resources because you think that Caddilac customers won't buy the higher end Chevrolet.
I totally agree about the different badging of the exact same car. However I disagree about the trade evaluation. This would actually make it easier to evaluate, because the variables are reduced to mileage only. You can make a safe assumption that a car with higher mileage has in fact been used more than one with low mileage. Electrical and internal components don't wear out if they are not used. It's not like a car owner is sitting in their car not moving but rolling the window up and down continuously.
I don't know about you, but if I'm in the market to buy a used car, I'd buy a 2005 model with 40,000 miles on it over a 2007 model with 85,000. With the same logic, if two "Chevy G1's" are for sale and one has 40,000 miles and the other has 80,000, which one would you be more inclined to buy? Over time it could actually help the cars retain their value if a company makes a car that has proven to function the same during a 5 year period, dispite it's mileage use.
I like the idea of non-year driven car models, but I'm sure it is a marketing tactic to drive more consumption. If you offer and XYZ 3000 and your competitor offeres an ABC 5000, it sounds more powerful, modern and appealing. Once one company does it, everyone needs too (like cutting manufacturing costs by off-shoring or automated assembly lines). I'm not comfortable with the government weighing in too heavily either.
Trade-in evaluation could be simply solved by looking up the vehicle's unique VIN number and seeing exactly when it rolled off the assembly line and when it sold as well.
Brand diversity of pretty much the same product isn't neccesssarily unheard of either - P&G manufactures most of the diaper products which appear to be alternatives and competitors.
I would welcome this change, but I fear w/o collusion with all the other players in the auto industry, it would make GMC appear weird and give them a possible disadvantage. If anything, I think they should scrap all their ideas and follow the innovative ideas that their Saturn division began with successfully.
this is dumb the market drives the sales, keep it using capitalistic principles, maybe split it up four different companies and have them compete, all patents and company technologies up to this point can be used by each company, let them create more propreitory technologies themselves to try to get ahead.
Where's my free car?