GM Piles on the Incentives
Automotive News [sub] reports that GM’s Zen Master/Product Guru Mark LaNeve is turning his back on ye olde (2006) “market pricing.” You know, where the sticker price reflects the actual selling price. Or thereabouts. “In terms of a pure strategy where we price right to market and have no incentive spending — we have very few vehicles where we’d do that. We’ll have some level of incentive spending almost across the board.” After that… I’m confused. Why has GM increased ’09 product prices by 2.7 percent (roughly $790)? And what’s this mean? “LaNeve said GM prefers to spend incentive money for competitive reasons — not to reduce inventory, as it has been doing, because the latter is ‘wasted money.’ “We continue to want to price our vehicles to the market. We’d like to see incentive spending wane once we get our inventories adjusted. I think it smoothes out after the first quarter. We’re hardly building anything in the first quarter.” So, Uncle Sugar’s paying GM not to build cars, so they can eventually offer incentives to steal market share from carmakers who aren’t being paid not to build cars? Sweet.
More by Robert Farago
Comments
Join the conversation
All I can say is that because of existing incentives I'm now a proud owner of an Impala SS. Figured it'd be a good time to buy something with balls before Uncle Stalin err I mean Sam takes that right from me.
What a funny coincidence: Last week I responded to an article about GM by saying "if I were to win a brand new GM on The Price is Right I would of course be glad to take it and immediately put it up for sale on Ebay." I was raised in a loyal GM family and my first three cars were of that lineage but way back in the mid 80's all of us soured on GM and have not and will not ever buy another of their products. Both Honda and Toyota have given such a tiny number of problems that they've been our brands for decades.
jkross wrote: I don’t believe most GM and Chrysler buyers understand the risk of massive depreciation they run. They simply look at the monthly payment and determine whether they can afford to buy or not. Aint that the truth ... people who currently own recent GM OR Chryco products will most likely be upside down the ENTIRE length of their loans (probably another 3-5 years for most). This will preclude even those who 'might' buy another car from the two losers not to be able to. Certainly (almost) no import buyer will ever consider GM or Chryco, so that leaves current GM and Chryco owners, who aren't upside down, who have good credit, and who 'need' AND are capable of buying a new car as the only audience that GM and Chryco have. Pretty damn slim pickin's as far as targeted buyers go, if you ask me. GM and Chryco and the UAW need to go away and stop raping the American public for their 30 years of incompetent management that they now expect the American public to pay for. I have no problem with Ford, who seems to get it and produces a decent automobile. If I were Ford or Toyota or Honda or any of the companies NOT suckling at the public teat, I woud be FURIOUS at the unfair trade practices they have to contend with trying to sell cars against the US Govt. My question is ... who's going to be the first company to be told by the Govt to go **** off, we're not bailing you out ? I can't wait for that to happen.