Is Dan Akerson Going To Run GM Into the Ground?

I agree with the Autoextremist, Mr Akerson's tenure appears to be a maximum dose of Not Good.

There is great value to be had by having a non-auto-industry person in GM to provide some fresh perspective and to keep the strategy and operations up to date. The place for that input is on the board of directors, not the CEO slot.

After the tumult of GM's decline, bankruptcy, restructuring, and government equity stake what is needed is prudence, a steady hand, and focus on auto industry fundamentals. GM is like a recovering patient in need of physical therapy and rehabilitation after major surgery. The patient is not supposed to take up competitive downhill skiing for the first time during recovery. His concern about product introduction cadence is valid but overwrought, GM cannot afford to rush and make mistakes. If government-backed restructuring results in slipped product schedules, well, that is one of the prices of the bailout. Make the best of it.

A big-ego leader with an intense focus on near-term earnings is completely the wrong model for GM at this stage in its existence. The government involvement always ran the risk of clueless meddling, and it appears that is the way it will play out.

"Dan finds it very important that we become consumer-centric and make the company more of a marketing organization,"

Anyone who knows GM's history (ackerson obviously does not) would instantly know why this guy is the wrong choice based on this one statement. He was selected for the job because he knew wall street and GM needed someone to sell the IPO. If he does not realize that it's all about the product, GM is headed for disaster, again. This is what happens when you have someone whose background does not involve making anything running an industrial concern. Bill Ford was smart enough to hire a guy who knows how to BUILD things, GM's board would be wise to do the same.

Marketing-centric businesses ultimately fail (.com bust anyone?). Businesses with great products and decent marketing can do very well (Apple iPhone, Mini). Even great products with marketing campaigns that usually stink can do well (Ford F-150).

Moving GM (back) to focus on marketing over content would be a huge mistake.

Product, product, product. Keep the focus on product.

Let an advertising company handle marketing.

GM is not Apple.

GM needs to find an Allen Mullay or Ralph Guiles . . . quick.

(apologies in advance if I misspelled a name)

We have been saying for months that GM was falling into its old habits. And this is just one example. Unfortunately, having a crunch the numbers, etc. CEO could be a really, really big example. Let's hope that cooler heads will prevail.

Uh Oh... I think we've seen this movie before and the ending wasn't pretty. This time around, GM has a decent stable of product and some good platforms to build upon, lets hope they don't repeat the late 80's and early 90's with a fleet of look-alike cars built to a price point and underwhelming in both performance and quality. Keeping my fingers crossed....

Marketing has changed a lot in the past 10 years. Marketing now encompasses the entire brand experience. GM has improved their product offering, making marketing easier, but now they need to convince consumers that their products are better. Ford has been more profitable due to it's marketing.

Just because a 'non-car' guy is running a car company doesn't mean it is going to fail. Running a manufacturing company isn't as hard as a finance firm. Manufacturing companies are pretty similar. You have to design a product, create the product, transport the product, advertise the product, and then sell the product. Akerson knows how to do this. It's exactly what he did at Nextel.

Market all you want. If the product isn't as good as or better than the competition, you'll still lose market share.

The problem with constantly selling the "Sizzle" without the "Steak" is that eventually people realize there is no steak. And they hate you for it.

"The problem with constantly selling the "Sizzle" without the "Steak" is that eventually people realize there is no steak. And they hate you for it."

That sums up pretty well what I was about to say. In the 90's, prior to GM's product resurgence, the company was a lot of talk and few results. Many consumers eventually got pissed off enough to stop buying the products and stop believing the hype. For as much as I dislike Lutz, at least he was a car guy that brought change and made GM more product-focused. Losing focus on the product is what also almost ruined Ford under Jac Nasser.

"Running a manufacturing company isn't as hard as a finance firm"

Wow what an ignorant statement. I am not saying it's easy to run a finance company, but to suggest that's easier to run a manufacturing company, that has hundreds if not thousands of different suppliers to make a single product, as opposed to to a financial company that makes no physical product is silly to me. Especially considering that a lot of car manufactures have finance divisions as well (leasing, loans, etc.).

It's too soon to tell how Dan Akerson will do, but Ed Whitacre came over from AT&T and did a good job, and Alan Mulally came over from Boeing and is doing a fantastic job over at Ford.

But if GM wants a guaranteed route to success, they need to promote Mark Reuss to CEO. He's currently the President of GM North America, and he has a long background with cars and General Motors. If anyone can drive GM to the #1 spot in the world again, it's Reuss...

... GM hopes to enhance innovative mindshare while benchmarking world-class solutions ... all they need to do is strategize value-added convergence of the product/consumer space ... surely this will revolutionize intuitive markets for them ...

"The problem with constantly selling the "Sizzle" without the "Steak" is that eventually people realize there is no steak. And they hate you for it."

Agreed. This is succinct and correct.

I was raised in a GM house and it was painful to buy my first Honda. 5 Honda/Acuras (and no GM's) later it is much easier to support a company that focuses on product and not on patronizing me with badges and bullshit.

I am just about ready to come back to the fold GM, that CTS-V may not be as polished as its rivals, but revels in everything that is GOOD about you guys.

DON'T f*@!# this good mojo up right when you were just convincing me that you had changed.

Advertising and Marketing are not the same thing, many people mix this up. The marketing department is supposed to figure out what products a company should devote their resources to creating in order to have the best chance to make the most profit. If the engineers want to build nothing but two seat sports cars, GM isn't going to do very well, so you need a marketing department to say, for example, "To best compete in the market, we need a midsize car with these features and these drivetrains." IMO, the problem at Acura is a marketing problem, not engineering. Someone had to make the decisions not to keep an Integra/RSX like car in the lineup, to bloat out the new TL, to let the RL languish, to OK the bizarre ZDX for production, and to build a brand identity around the bucktooth grille, even after it was pretty much universally panned when it dubuted on the TL. These are typically marketing decisions.

Not that I disagree, but we also should remember that GM's marketing has kinda sucked lately, so it really could use a boost.

Unfortunately, today publicly traded companies in America have no interest other than to give shareholders a good return on investment. It doesn't really matter if they build a good product at all. It actually doesn't matter what they build.

There are a few exceptions though but most are in technology.

This post is right on point.

Example: Hyundai is blowing up. Why? Mostly because the PRODUCT has gotten so much better.

Marketing means a lot of things. Yes, there's the sales part, but there's also the listening part. Listening to the costumer allows you to discover unfulfilled needs in the market, then create products according to the needs and not only to give designer and engineers boners.

"Ford has been more profitable due to it's marketing."

I strongly disagree with this statement. That is a rather short sighted statement. Sure marketing is one piece, but Ford has had great recent success largely due to the business acumen of Alan Mulally and product development and engineering.

"Running a manufacturing company isn't as hard as a finance firm."

I too think this is an ignorant statement. Perhaps running some manufacturing companies isn't as "hard" as running a finance firm (of unspecified scope/size), however running a company as large and complex as a multinational automotive manufacturer is not simple. At all. Having worked as a suppler to both Ford and GM, my opinion is that it is much more complex than running a finance firm. Additionally, they actually make something tangible of value, not just chase and push numbers around.

I think that most people across the board in this blog agree that this guy is no good for GM's future. Hopefully he just stays with the marketing aspect, and gives more leg room for the true car guys at GM to produce good vehicles.

@braco:

You are showing your ignorance. GM sold GMAC a long time ago.

Also, Akerson ran Nextel from 1998 until some time in the early 2000s. Nextel had to build a network and build products, transport them from manufacturers, and then sell them to consumers. Those are the same issues that GM has to do. It's the same thing that Ford had to do back in the early 1900s, and the same thing that local milk dairies had to do in the 1700s. The problems that manufacturing companies face stay the same. The forces are stronger in certain directions at different times, but they have pretty much stayed the same since the beginning of business.

Ford has put out some good products, to be sure, but none of their comeback products have become segment-leaders. Plus, (and there was a WSJ article about this awhile back), Ford's got platform issues afoot - namely, too many of their cars are on that old Volvo architecture and Ford doesn't have a rear-drive car platform outside of the Mustang. So if Hyundai gets an A for being focused on product, Ford gets maybe a B. About the best evidence of a product focus at Ford are their reliability ratings.

And on top of that, a heavy dose of Ford's success HAS been marketing. Again, others have pointed this out, so it's not news, but the EcoBoost phenomenon is ALL marketing because the technology is neither new nor exclusive to Ford. And the Fiesta Movement thingie was probably more successful that the car's actual launch. And SYNC was a marketing coup, too.

Ultimately, though - the steak + sizzle comment was on-point.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Don't you remember how well GM's famous "Brand Management" marketing emphasis turned out?

Stupid missing edit button...
I was going to point out that the "Brand Management" suits that Zarella brought in were uniformly lacking in automotive knowledge- they actually believed you could sell cars using the same strategies used to sell cereal or disposable diapers.
Really.

"I agree with the Autoextremist"

+1000

every time I read some of the shill on here blowing smoke up my ass about how GM is doing so well I read the Autoextremist to get a dose of reality....the guy is awesome and plugged in like few on the outside are now.

he looks like steve ballmer in the upper left picture

I didn't read anywhere in the article where it says they're going to stop product development. I did read a quote that said they're going to become more consumer-centric which sounds good to me. I don't see a problem with marketing your company better.

I dunno bodyblue;
Seems GM is starting to do quite well, they're right behind Toyota in total cars sold for last year, sales in CHina and most markets are up, ahead of the average.

This says it all:
http://www.autoextremist.com/
Cost cutting and marketing triumphs over product.
Again.

Look at his bio on Wiki. Nothing in his background is related to the production and sale of a tangible, physical product. His prior - and often unsuccessful - experience is in I.T. He started at MCI at a time where it was known for it's poor management. He was at the helm of XO Communications when in went bankrupt (it's just now making a come-back).

The big thing is he is a member of the Carlyle Group, which bodes ill. The departed chairman of Chrysler - now Fiat - was from the Carlyle Group, just after he was fired from ruining Home Depot (and received a $250million parachute to go away).

GM is doomed. Although I hope this clown proves me wrong.