General Motors Europe Sales Down 2.7 Percent To 67,454 Units In October 2015

Comments

1. 

   So, unless there’s a remarkable turnaround, we can’t count on GM succeed in Europe for the time being?

   Like, Cadillac. Or anything, besides rebadged Opels that become Buicks.

   But at least Joel Ewanick spent 600m putting the Chevy logo on Man U’s jerseys. Guess the investment makes sense, given that Man U’s jerseys are red. 69 Chevys sold in Europe. Hope Joel got a good kickback.
   Reply
   1. 

      Should have kept Chevrolet around in Europe and invested in it by:

      1. Bringing new global products to market (crossovers, new Cruze, new Malibu)
      2. Renaming products with new names (Aveo should have become the Sonic, Matiz the Spark to do away with terrible reputation of those models)
      3. Improving image of the brand
      4. Increasing presence with expanded sales and service outlets
      5. Bringing the Chevrolet name to the sporty and high-performance segments to make sure the brand is mentioned in the same sentence(s) as Volkswagen Golf GTI and Golf R, Ford Focus ST and RS, Renault Megane R.S., etc.
      6. Joining field Opel/Vauxhall field representation for sales and service with those for Chevrolet.

      It would have been a long-term uphill battle, much like Cadillac is and will be for the foreseeable future… but it would have been worthwhile in the long-term future as well.

      It’s clear that Opel-Vauxhall is performing okay, but not to the levels of the most direct competitors (Ford and Volkswagen). So now, GM is left with a moderately-strong Opel in Europe, and no other perspectives to boost sales.
      Reply
      1. 

         They introduced the Cruze in Europe.
         Russia was supposed to be a major market, but then this happened:

         “GM to Close Russian Assembly Plant
         Auto maker cites market outlook; will book up to a $600 million charge in its first quarter”.

         Didn’t work out too well, which is odd – the Cruze is better than a lot of their competition in Western European markets, and good ol’ Russia.

         I don’t think the exchange rate is helping matters – .88/.90 Euros to the US $.
         Reply
      2. 

         Lots of car firms are loosing money in Europe, Chevy being one of them. There needs to be less not more also in Europe Vauxhall & Opel cover all the markets so any internal rival aiming at lower/middle ground or luxury ground would harm their profits. Once luxury makers Vauxhall & Opel now like everybody else concentrate on mass market appeal & cover the market well, the Malibu would serve the same market as the Insignia (best seller in class here) so why bother? IMO GM needs to sell the Colorado over here Vauxhall / Opel tweaked like Viva / Karl has been with Spark, it would surly take off & be a success. Also for a gamble that could pay off I’d sell the Cruze saloon in Europe as a Belmont.
         Reply
      3. 

         Agreed. GM seemed overly worried about over lap which makes me wonder why they did not stock Chevy with low cost Boajun varients in an effort to compete with Dacia and other entry level brands.
         Such a plan would have aided a vehicle like Spark AKA Karl that has no place in the currently premium-light Opel line up as it would be like VW selling Skoda offerings.
         GM is still having a problem positioning the brand with rumors of the new LaCrosse being sold along side scrap like Karl and, in the longer term a reworked Aveo.
         Positioning brands is a global GM problem with NA Chevrolet becoming more and more a reskinned Opel-based regional line up.
         Reply
         1. 

            because the profit on those budget vehicles is minuscule. fighting vw over selling cars that barely return profit isn’t a good idea when vw has the head start and two brands to fight you with.
            Reply
            1. 

               You’re right – the profit on mainstream-branded subcompacts and city cars isn’t great… but that doesn’t mean there is not profit to be had, and it doesn’t mean that GM/Chevy should give up, pack up their bags, and go home.

               It’s a powerful, global automaker with some weaknesses. It’s time to address those weaknesses.
               Reply
   2. 

      It’s Man United not Man U.
      Reply
      1. 

         No matter how you prefer to refer to it, $600m+ is a lot to pay to put the bow tie on the kit of a team in a country where virtually no one buys Chevys. And the deal included free Camaros and Vettes (LHD, btw), that the players didn’t want – they already have Lambos and Range Rovers (RHD), so the grounds crew @ Old Trafford drives the Chevys.

         Complete waste of money, ugly kit, and Super Joel avoided that nasty approval process, doling-out $600 large as GM was still dealing with BK.
         Reply
2. 

   Often we hear sales figures are up, to hear they are down don’t make sense – especially as we will probably hear next month they’re up again. Perhaps it suits to say they are down but I don’t see how, what about sales successes Adam & Mokka. I’ve also seen many Viva (Karl) on the roads too, then there’s the other models in the range many of which are best sellers or 2nd best sellers. Vauxhall & Opel have a strong image & a excellent reputation & history in class leading mainstream, luxury & performance cars.
   Reply
3. 

   New Astra K only just hit the showrooms during October, SportsTourer still not availalble. Chevy was losing market share in Europe before being withdrawn.
   Reply
   1. 

      Yes, Chevy was not performing well in Europe by any stretch. But the real question is “why?”.

      Answer: it was mistreated and mismanaged and not cared for. Not just in a certain year, but roughly since the early 2000s.

      Had GM made the decision to invest in it rather than withdraw, I truly believe that things would have been quite different.
      Reply
      1. 

         Alex,
         withdrawing Chevy (except the ‘Vette and the Camaro) and focus on Opel (and Cadillac) still seems like the right decision. Chevy could build on the entire GME/Opel infrastructure and GM had already invested in the launch of the products under the Daewoo brand. I don’t think that is too a position to start from.

         1. Bringing new global products to market (crossovers, new Cruze, new Malibu)
         =>been there, done that; Cruze, Orlando, Malibu, Captiva were all on sale in Europe
         2. Renaming products with new names (Aveo should have become the Sonic, Matiz the Spark to do away with terrible reputation of those models)
         => OK, you could have done that. But it wouldn’t have turned around things, I guess most people could have even named a Chevy model(other than the Corvette, perhaps), those smaller care were generally regarded as Korean econo-boxes.
         3. Improving image of the brand
         => Hell, yes! How exactly?
         4. Increasing presence with expanded sales and service outlets
         => Chevy had a good footprint, many dealers selling Opel and Chevrolet alongside each other
         5. Bringing the Chevrolet name to the sporty and high-performance segments to make sure the brand is mentioned in the same sentence(s) as Volkswagen Golf GTI and Golf R, Ford Focus ST and RS, Renault Megane R.S., etc.
         => Chevrolet has very capable sports cars with well-known brands with the Camaro and the Corvette. Still, most people in the market for that sort of car don’t have them on their shopping list in Europe. Building a hot hatch brand for Chevy at the expense of OPC/VXR (which do have a true followership) does not seem to make a lot of sense…
         What would be the point of starting a ‘long up-hill’ battle starting from a position well below Opel’s and with no true perspective to do any better in the foreseeable future?
         Reply
         1. 

            Abu,

            It might seem like the right decision in the short-term to meet the objective of breaking even in the 2015-2016 time frame. But it’s a short-sighted decision in the short term.

            To address your comments:

            1. Been there done that, but been there and done that poorly. There was very little to no marketing support in launching those vehicles. And if the image of the brand is poor, it doesn’t matter how good the vehicles are — they won’t sell well. I’ll address the image below in #3.

            2. Renaming vehicles with terrible/bad reputation would not have turned things around in the short term. But again, let’s take a more long-term outlook here. With proper, consistent marketing and a focus on consistency and a turn-around in the brand’s image, it would have made a difference long-term.

            3. How do you improve the image of a tarnished brand? There are many ways, and this is why GM employs many professional marketers. But having a new tagline, a consistent message in advertising, and a delivery of Chevy’s core values in messaging would have been a good place to start. Showing people why Chevys are better than the competition would be another. Combine that with new and highly-competitive models, and there’s a part of the answer.

            4. That’s my point. These cars don’t need to be sold alongside one another. They need to be sold at different outlets. The Opel and Chevy dealers need to compete to outsell each other on a monthly basis, and to grow sales as well. Setting the two in competition will resolve the problem of competing for the same customers based on the similarity of the Opel and Chevrolet lineups.

            Look to Hyundai and Kia for playbook examples on how to do this, as the two have been very successful in selling similar product under different brands in the same market (Europe included) that portray different core values.

            5. I’m not referring to the Camaro or the Corvette. I’m referring to high-performance variants of the Sonic/Aveo, Cruze, Malibu. Those vehicles sell in much greater volumes and are much more affordable than the Camaro or the Corvette. A lot of positive can come of using the Camaro and Corvette to communicate the prowess and strength of the performance variants of Chevrolet’s mainstream cars.

            And again, if Chevy and Opel were to follow in the sales operations and branding examples set by Hyundai and Kia globally, they will not have the problem of competing for the same customers.

            Overall, the battle will be up hill in the short to medium term. But I believe it is truly worth it in the long term, especially seen that GM is now the only major global automaker without a true global brand.
            Reply
4. 

   As Abu Manta says, it’s pretty much all about Astra, though the ill-thought exit from Russia is also negatively impacting sales.

   Whilst everyone knew it was the run-out year for Astra J, in March 2015 an Italian trade journal leaked a scoop that stated that Astra K would not only be much lighter, somewhat smaller, and with more interior room than J, but that crucially K would retail at around $2,000 cheaper per corresponding model than J. Since then, despite dealer incentives, Astra sales have understandably tanked across Europe as consumers wait for K to hit the market.

   Astra K finally launched in Germany in October, with the rest of Europe following in November. Despite Ellesmere Port in the UK being the lead Astra global production facility, Astras have only just started arriving in UK dealerships in the last couple of weeks and here we are at the threshold of December and I’ve yet to see a K on the road. Neither have I seen any TV advertising or press for that matter. Very odd.

   Rightly or wrongly, seems like Miss Mueller (Head of Marketing at GME) has opted for a soft launch … time alone will tell!

   Here in the UK, after a spectacular run of 30 years, for the first time Astra dropped out of the Top Ten selling vehicles in October (registering #11). I suspect we will see the same picture for November. Throughout that period, Astra has always sat in the top-five monthly sellers, regularly topping the UK charts.

   I suspect this is largely a temporary aberration and that by January/February, as more Astra variants become available, sales will start rising again.
   Reply
   1. 

      GM, an American automaker, had to leave Russia and was visionary in doing so.
      It will take years before relations between the two nations normalize.
      In the mean time, US companies are a constant reminder of sanctions, a slowing economy, losses in Ukraine, and now Syria.
      GM will not thrive in this new cold war. Nationalism will trump quality products and good reviews. Right now, anti Americanism is at a record high in the region.
      Reply
      1. 

         But as a global company, is GM wise to let politics get in the way of (what could be and has been) good business?
         Reply