GM Still Leading The Incentive Race

Cammy Corrigan
by Cammy Corrigan

Incentives are a tricky hand to play. On one hand, you can’t be mean in putting cash on hood, because you want to bring customers into your showroom. On the other hand, too much cash on hood, looks bad and in the long term, it’s proven to be bad for business. So, Edmunds’ January 2010 incentive figures for the United States [release via benzinga.com], were a very interesting read.


GM spent an average of $3103 per vehicle in incentives in January 2010, higher than the industry average. The majority of that spend comes from trying to offload what is left of Saturn and Hummer stock. This will present a problem to GM’s current CEO, Ed Whitacre, who said that reducing incentive spending was one of his top priorities. Even Susan Docherty wants this practice to be reined in, kind of. She said “We want to make sure as we look forward, that we’re using incentives on a judicious basis.” More of your tax dollars working hard. Jessica Caldwell of Edmunds also had another take on GM’s high incentives, “January incentives were not particularly generous or compelling — until some automakers began trying to conquest unsettled Toyota owners and shoppers late in the month,” she said.

In second place, was Ford with $3095 per vehicle. In third place, was Chrysler with $3061 per vehicle. It’s also interesting to note that out of the Detroiters, GM was the only one to reduce their incentives from last month. The other two in increased their incentives. Another 2 companies who increased their incentives from last month were Hyundai (December: $2027, January: $2096) and Nissan (December: $2157, January: $2455). Wait a minute, GM, Ford, Hyundai and Nissan all had higher (and some of the highest) incentives in January 2010? Remind me, again, who posted gains in sales for January 2010?

As per normal, Toyota and Honda reduced their incentives from last month (Honda: December: $1253, January: $1203. Toyota: December: $1665, January: $1550), all well below the industry average of $2382. However, Toyota and Honda also announced recalls in January which may hurts sales, so next month’s incentive figure will be interesting to see whether Toyota and Honda increase their incentives.

Cammy Corrigan
Cammy Corrigan

More by Cammy Corrigan

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Ronin Ronin on Feb 06, 2010

    Incentives are one part of the formula to determine the price of the item, and can't be looked at in isolation. If the sticker price or deal price of an item is too high for the market, the item won't sell. The mechanism for bringing down the price to the point where consumers start to buy the product, at least the mechanism used in the new car world, is the 'incentive.' If the product is less desirable, the market says it is not willing to pay as much. If the seller unwisely offered the product at too high a price, they must offer a greater incentive. So if GM has too high of an MSRP for the market, of course they need a higher incentive. Fantasy pricing meets the real world when a deal is made. So cross-check MSRP across brands, cross-check residual values, and then we can more readily compare whether an incentive is high or low.

  • Vento97 Vento97 on Feb 06, 2010

    GM's resale value race to the bottom continues...

  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
  • Lou_BC "That’s expensive for a midsize pickup" All of the "offroad" midsize trucks fall in that 65k USD range. The ZR2 is probably the cheapest ( without Bison option).
  • Lou_BC There are a few in my town. They come out on sunny days. I'd rather spend $29k on a square body Chevy
  • Lou_BC I had a 2010 Ford F150 and 2010 Toyota Sienna. The F150 went through 3 sets of brakes and Sienna 2 sets. Similar mileage and 10 year span.4 sets tires on F150. Truck needed a set of rear shocks and front axle seals. The solenoid in the T-case was replaced under warranty. I replaced a "blend door motor" on heater. Sienna needed a water pump and heater blower both on warranty. One TSB then recall on spare tire cable. Has a limp mode due to an engine sensor failure. At 11 years old I had to replace clutch pack in rear diff F150. My ZR2 diesel at 55,000 km. Needs new tires. Duratrac's worn and chewed up. Needed front end alignment (1st time ever on any truck I've owned).Rear brakes worn out. Left pads were to metal. Chevy rear brakes don't like offroad. Weird "inside out" dents in a few spots rear fenders. Typically GM can't really build an offroad truck issue. They won't warranty. Has fender-well liners. Tore off one rear shock protector. Was cheaper to order from GM warehouse through parts supplier than through Chevy dealer. Lots of squeaks and rattles. Infotainment has crashed a few times. Seat heater modual was on recall. One of those post sale retrofit.Local dealer is horrific. If my son can't service or repair it, I'll drive 120 km to the next town. 1st and last Chevy. Love the drivetrain and suspension. Fit and finish mediocre. Dealer sucks.
  • MaintenanceCosts You expect everything on Amazon and eBay to be fake, but it's a shame to see fake stuff on Summit Racing. Glad they pulled it.
Next