Quote Of The Day: Alternate Reality Edition
Published: April 1st, 2010
Share
We no longer have the dubious honor of leading this category. We’ve been down that road before, and we know it’s a dead end.
We didn’t listen to GM’s monthly sales call today, but it we had, we would have been even more likely to screw up the headline for Edmund’s incentive report [ed: for which we deeply apologize]. The cognitive dissonance between Susan Docherty’s triumphalist quote and Edmunds’ harsh version of reality left even Automotive News [sub] scratching its head. “GM says it avoided spiff frenzy — but Edmunds numbers beg to differ,” runs the shit-starting headline. Docherty claims that GM pays a mere $2,800 in incentives per vehicle, far short of Edmunds’ chart-topping $3,519 “true cost.” So what gives? Well, GM’s numbers do come from JD Power…Still, that shouldn’t make J.D. Power’s per-vehicle numbers lower for GM, said Edmunds.com analyst Jessica Caldwell.
“We’ve been doing the same thing for years, and it’s weird that we’re coming to a point where all of the sudden we’re showing a huge discrepancy,” Caldwell said.
So, is this a core-brand, non-core-brand issue? Is it the perception gap? Or did JD cook up some numbers that would allow Ms Docherty to preach the second coming of responsibility? Either way, both GM and Chrysler are having a hard time walking their talk on incentive spending. But hey, they aren’t playing with their own money.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
First they lost their biggest volume crown, nowt they're losing their incentive crown? What next? We'll find out GM isn't king of non-salary employee benefits anymore? Woe is me!
Well since you did so deeply apologize, so will I. I shouldn't have lost my cool over your misrepresentation of incentive spending, but you have a responsibility to your readers to present facts, not fiction (April Fools notwithstanding). I understand that TTAC loves to bash Chrysler because it does bring readers to the site, but bash where it's due, not because you have failed to get the correct information. Many of your readers support this company precisely because they have been trashed repeatedly, first by Daimler, then by Cerberus. Your smarmy, tongue in cheek comments, are like kicking a dog that's been run over already. Someday, you may find yourself in that position, and I hope that you receive better treatment than you've given.