4

GM needs radical reinvestment

L.A. Times Auto Critic Dan Neil.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF COMMENTARY

Kai Ryssdal: Remember back when the government lent GM and Chrysler all those billions of dollars and got stock in return? The president promised his administration would be a hands-off owner. I don't recall any such promises from Congress, though. Today the House is considering a bill that would force the two car makers to reopen the thousands of dealerships they've closed over the past couple of months. Commentator Dan Neil says GM in particular needs to re-think a bunch of things.


DAN NEIL: The worst idea I've heard this week is GM CFO Ray Young's suggestion that GM could start paying down the debt owed to the U.S. government with the proceeds from an IPO as soon as next year. Because the capital market and shareholder expectations were soooo good to GM before.

I have a better idea. Whatever money GM has or makes in the next decade, it needs to plow back into the company, into product R&D, engineering, battery technology. Call it radical reinvestment. Because ultimately, if GM cannot turn around its product portfolio, the taxpayers money is toast anyway.

I get it. GM wants to convey an image of company reborn and revitalized company, GM 2.0. That's why they've put those fresh-faced kids Bob Lutz and Fritz Henderson out there. And the Obama administration is desperate to shed itself of so-called Government Motors. The problem is GM's current products aren't that great, and the cars and trucks in the pipeline were all penciled out by the highly unreformed, prebankruptcy GM. In other words, GM has a long shadow of mediocrity to escape.

To win back old customers and entice new ones, the image-challenged GM needs to overcompensate. I recommend the Lexus strategy. In 1989, Toyota's luxury division launched the spectacular LS400 sedan for about $37,000. It was obvious that Lexus was losing money on the cars, but it established the brand and created legions of fans. Today, Lexus is the biggest luxury brand in the U.S.

Like Toyota, GM needs to forget about making profit in the short run, and concentrate on making great cars and trucks. Any politically driven effort to repay the U.S. Treasury early will only send GM back to the miasma of short-term, cost-cut product planning that landed them in bankruptcy in the first place.

With great product, all can be forgiven, even debt.

RYSSDAL: Dan writes on cars, and a whole lot of other stuff, for the Los Angeles Times.

Mike Kohon's picture
Mike Kohon - Jul 22, 2009

S.J.: I grew up down the road from the plant that made the EV1. They're not in the attic; they're in metal cubes and/or recycled into soda cans.

S. J. Phred's picture
S. J. Phred - Jul 17, 2009

How about pulling the EV1 out of the attic, and sliding its chassis underneath the Solstace body? Betcha THAT would sell. Even with that "old" technology of the EV1, it would still be ahead of the curve.

Mike Kohon's picture
Mike Kohon - Jul 16, 2009

While listening to Dan Neil's commentary about what General Motors needs to do to be competitive again, I was confused when he evoked the Lexus LS400 and the fact Lexus lost a lot of money on the car in an effort to pull in customers. In late 2005, Neil gave a review of the Pontiac Solstice that closed with the lines, "At a time when General Motors needs beauty more than anything else, needs sex appeal, needs marketing, this is probably a smart car, and they will lose a lot of money on it." Perhaps, a different strategy is in order.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2005/12/19/ready_for_the_...

Terry Harris's picture
Terry Harris - Jul 16, 2009

Heard your mention of Congress thinking of requiring the auto makers to reopen their closed dealerships. Why stop there, require all businesses that have closed outlets in the last couple of years to reopen them.