Dear @PontaicRulz — as I stated in the thread you’re referencing:
“anything in the world is constrained by two major factors — time and resources (money).
This applies to any business and any person. And it applies to GM. Having Pontiac (and Saturn) in the fold resulted in contributed of the limited resources (time and money) and applying them to products that didn’t really matter (except to you and “a lot of” Pontiac die-hards). Pontiac and Saturn were not very profitable (if at all) and did not sell in high volumes, but still consumed significant resources (money — marketing, design, certain engineering steps, logistics and time). These resources could have been used to make better products for brands that truly mattered (Chevy, Caddy, Buick, and perhaps Hummer).
Again, to answer your question — Pontiac, and the various resources contributed to it — were major contributors to (old) GM’s decline. Not the sole contributors, but major ones — mind you.”
So long as GMC is healthily profitable, continues to earn a significant amount of sales, and serves a necessary niche, then it’s not “hurting” anything. But the moment profits shrink, it would be a wise business decision to re-evaluate the brand, its offerings, and perhaps its existence.
