Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 ANALYSIS 
25

Saturn: GM's Biggest Mistake

Brand was an unsustainable distraction from the start

Share

(Newser) – As General Motors’ Saturn experiment ends with a whimper, it’s important to understand that the brand was a failure from the start. Some obituaries blame GM for not providing a fuller roster of vehicles to build customer loyalty—but if anything, the automaker gave Saturn too much, writes Mark Ritson. Saturn was created in the mid-'80s to compete with cheap Japanese imports. But in order to compete, Saturns had to be cheap, too, making the brand unprofitable from the start.

"An even bigger cost for GM was the time it lost building a brand it believed could fight off its Japanese rivals," Ritson argues. The firm should’ve spent the past 24 years making the strategic shifts it has only recently been forced into, he writes for the Harvard Business Review. "The notion that another brand, rather than fewer brands, was the way forward turned out to be a colossal distraction."

A torn Saturn flag is shown at a Saturn dealership in San Jose, Calif., Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009.
A torn Saturn flag is shown at a Saturn dealership in San Jose, Calif., Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009.   (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
A Saturn dealership sign is seen in Whittier, Calif., Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009.
A Saturn dealership sign is seen in Whittier, Calif., Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009.   (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Its initial setup costs of $5 billion were soon extended as Saturn's sub-compact prices failed to cover the huge costs of a dedicated plant with massive operating costs. By 2000, Saturn was losing $3,000 on every car it sold.
- Mark Ritson

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
25 comments
VIEWING:
 
IN RESPONSE:
Robert_Dada
Oct 2, 09 6:22 PM CDT
Like you would have turned it down had it been offered to you.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
Doctor_Zaius
Oct 2, 09 8:03 PM CDT
That figure includes the pensions and health care benefits of retired workers and as such is a bullshit figure since those retired workers paid into their pensions and health care funds. Funny, Toyota is profitable and they pay their auto workers virtually the same as what the UAW used to make but the CEO of Toyota made $1million a year compared to the CEO of GM who made $17 million a year. Please tell me again how it was the Union workers that ruined the American auto industry, I need a good laugh. Oh, and those UAW workers? Don't worry, they busted that union good, those guys now make about $15 an hour. Imagine raising a family on that...
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
Fondue
Oct 2, 09 11:19 PM CDT
I see the white power MichaelSavageFan has changed his name.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
out4blood
Oct 3, 09 8:07 AM CDT
Sooo... according to zaius... The billions of losses GM had were due to the 16milion annual difference in CEO pay. Worker compensation all around the economy look to union workers as a comparison. Not overpaying manual labor union workers will lead to the demise of the middle class. What have I been learning before? I should've been on newser from the start!
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
IN RESPONSE:
Doctor_Zaius
Oct 6, 09 4:49 PM CDT
GM has layer upon layer of executives, most of them useless, all of them overpaid. The example of the disparity between the Toyota CEO and the GM CEO just illustrates where the scale is out of whack. Sad that I had to spell it out for you, try to keep up Junior.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.