Quote Of The Day: Filling The Pipe Edition

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Changes are coming to GM’s corporate ranks, likely as soon as government pay regulations are put into effect. CFO Ray Young’s departure is already a sure thing, and former car czarlet Steve Rattner has revealed that Fritz Henderson is an interim placeholder in everything but title. Oh, and Bob Lutz won’t last forever (gosh, that will be a sad day, won’t it?). Meanwhile, GM’s promote-from-within approach to culture change practically guarantees that some other denizen of the RenCen will move up at some point. Sweeping generalizations about GM management aside, is there anyone we should be particularly worried about? Autoextremist Peter DeLorenzo seems to think so. In his latest “rant” about Chevrolet’s decision to review its ad account, he skewers a particular GM executive in terms that make one almost believe he has given up his recent, lamentable role as GM’s resident cheerleader.

The other aspect of this story is that Brent Dewar, one of Fritz Henderson’s pals – they served at GM Brazil together – was brought back from GM Europe to run Chevrolet and significantly was the only divisional head to be given a VP title right off of the bat. It is said that he is the chief instigator of the Chevrolet account review, but that’s not completely true, as previously noted. It is clear, however, that Dewar – a legend in his own mind and if a contest were staged would be hands-down winner of the GM executive least likely to engender any love for his arrogant, reactionary and at times nonsensical behavior and rigid view of the world and his place in it – is the heir-apparent to Lutz’s CMO title whenever Bob is ready to hang up his spurs. And in case any of you analysts out there are paying attention, this is a very bad thing and at the very least should give one pause about GM’s marketing future, “A.L.” (After Lutz.) Needless to say, this is a developing situation that will bear watching.

Snap! But if Dewar so perfectly exemplifies what Rattner termed “the friendly arrogance” of GM’s executive culture, shouldn’t we be worried about the fact that he’s currently running the company’s only relevant brand?

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 7 comments
  • Lokkii Lokkii on Oct 23, 2009

    Another vote (however reluctantly) for Lutz vs. [s] an inbred [/s] a homegrown choice. While it can be argued that Lutz did not do enough, or that he did the wrong things, it can't be said that he did nothing. There have been improvements in the appearance of GM cars and of GM interiors on his watch. The second generation CTS, unlike the first generation, is a handsome car. Care to speculate what the Camaro might have looked like without him? As someone who was severely disappointed with the Sky/Solstice I must at least admit he tried. Getting a team of camels to make cappuccino -let alone a good cappuccino - isn't easy.

  • Ronnie Schreiber Ronnie Schreiber on Oct 23, 2009

    I personally think Lutz' biggest success has been the marked improvement in GM's interior design and execution. Go from the Pontiac G6 to the Saturn Aura to the Chevy Malibu and you'll see significant improvements in the interior with each iteration of the platform. Same with the CTS. At one of the shows, Lutz said that interior design and quality was one way a mfg could really leapfrog the competition. While exterior styling is the emotional draw, the driving experience takes place inside the car. A well executed interior can very positively enhance a consumer's impression of a car.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next