Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (446198)	1/8/2009 6:41:53 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

I agree with what you're saying about the definition of marketing, but honestly I don't think GM's problem is one of marketing. I think we all probably agree about the definition -- it is after all, stipulated in all Marketing Management textbooks. GM's core problem isn't marketing. It is one of not being able to produce cars that are competitively priced for what you get. If I have a choice to buy a Ford or a competing Nissan for the same price, I'm going for the Nissan every time. It is a better car and I'm not paying the same money for a lesser product. If the Ford is priced a couple thousand below the Nissan, then I can think about at it. But if Ford is overpaying its labor compared with the Nissan, they can't sell them for that. It really comes back to the old joke about losing money on each unit sold -- "we'll just make it up on volume". Of course, you can't do that. When you're losing money on every GM car you sell, the solution isn't better marketing; it is to get control of costs. You can only do so much with economies of scale. When you're spending a couple thousand more on labor to build a GM car, you're at a permanent competitive disadvantage. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (446198)	1/8/2009 8:53:15 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

Al, I agree with what you're saying about the definition of marketing, but honestly I don't think GM's problem is one of marketing. Reputation is built on quality. GM could produce the most cutting-edge cars that hit the right spots marketing-wise, but if they run like pieces of crap, marketing isn't going to help Of course, but by most accounts, Detroit has closed the quality gap with the Japanese...there is still a perception out there that their quality is inferior...and again, this is the point I have been making all along...which is that their brand is damaged...you believe because of quality, I think also and perhaps more importantly because of lack luster product. Guess whose job it is to fix these problems? Al