More like: "Ruined an already bad brand", if you ask me.

Analysts say the departure of DaimlerChrysler chief executive Jürgen
Schrempp marks the merciful end of a failed expansion strategy. The
stock market greeted the announcement.

Jürgen Schrempp's exit does not exactly come as a surprise. The
DaimlerChrysler CEO has faced intense criticism from analysts and
shareholders for his ambitious strategy of international development.

"The supervisory board and Jürgen Schrempp agree that the end of 2005
would be the perfect time for a change in leadership," the
DaimlerChrysler supervisory board said Thursday in a tersely-worded
statement leaving out the usual words of thanks for the outgoing boss.

Hours later in another surprise development, the Web site Germany's
Manager-Magazin reported that Mercedes boss Eckhard Cordes had asked
the DaimlerChrysler supervisory board to dissolve his contract. The
board had requested time to mull the issue, the magazine wrote, quoting
"informed sources."

Cordes apparently cited the lack of complete support from the
supervisory board for his difficult job of restructuring Mercedes as
one reason for his wish to step down.


Schrempp "ruined a good brand"


Under Schrempp's leadership, Daimler acquired Chrysler only to see the
company enter a serious downward spiral.



=========================
I had high hopes for Chrysler when I heard Daimler was buying it.

And look what happened: Horrible model after horrible model. I figured
that horrible PT Cruiser was already greenlighted before the buyout, so
I let that one go. But then I saw the 300.. and the Crossfire... and
one awful design after another.... embarrassing.

Chrysler went the exact OPPOSITE of what Mercedes-Benz has achieved and
innovated. They build pointless pieces of garbage- not that it was any
better before Daimler stepped in, mind you.

 

Interesting -- I wonder what Cordes's relationship with Zetsche is
like? I could easily imagine that he's decided to leave before
getting fired....

 

+--------------------------------------+
\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
\ \ 1 9 /
\ 0 \ 10 /
\ \ TROLL-O-METER /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\___\______________________/
\ /
\....................../


+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..

 

I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
not doing well financially.

 

I think a lot of people in this group don't really understand that what
motivates automakers is to sell cars.

They don't sell cars to the general population. Nor do they sell to the
population of people who actually have a clue about how a car works.
Nor do they sell to the population of people who actually have a clue
as to what the difference is between a good car and a POS.

Automakers sell to a select group of people called "New car buyers"
who are comprised of a majority of people who have more money
than they know what to do with, and therefore buy or lease brand new
vehicles every year (or every other year) and a minority of people who
buy a new car once a decade. This group is extremely fickle in it's
tastes and appears to make buying decisions based on the opinions of
a group of car pundits who know even less than they do (if possible)
and who seem to judge a car by how many and how large the cup
holders are in it, and who hold forth in forums that regularly appear
in the sorts of periodicals one regularly finds in the local dentists
office waiting rooms, or stuck in airplane seat backs.

Chrysler figured this out and managed to get a group of air-heads
plugged into venues that other air-heads hang out in, and who
came up with some of the ugliest (to normal people) designs
imaginable - designs embraced by this totally-disconnected-from-
reality group of consumers known as New Car Buyers.

Ford and GM didn't do this and so their more mundane but practical
designes fell "out of fashion" as they were lacking enormous front
ends, little slitty windows, and wheels the size of manhole covers.

Ted

 

Dan, I assume you are pretending to be a Troll; very funny.
The only thing "horrible" about my 01 PT Cruiser Limited automatic is its
very wide turning circle, lack of power, and only fair fuel economy.
Otherwise it is interesting to look at, very flexible in its use
configurations and [except for the sway bar components] very well built and
reliable.

Richard.

 

Richard, you thundering moron, you've done it again. Failed to read
carefully enough to discern who said what and who responded to it how. And
now you've misattributed to me what somebody else said. Idiot.

 

I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
not doing well financially.


I think a lot of people in this group don't really understand that what
motivates automakers is to sell cars.

They don't sell cars to the general population. Nor do they sell to the
population of people who actually have a clue about how a car works.
Nor do they sell to the population of people who actually have a clue
as to what the difference is between a good car and a POS.

Automakers sell to a select group of people called "New car buyers"
who are comprised of a majority of people who have more money
than they know what to do with, and therefore buy or lease brand new
vehicles every year (or every other year) and a minority of people who
buy a new car once a decade. This group is extremely fickle in it's
tastes and appears to make buying decisions based on the opinions of
a group of car pundits who know even less than they do (if possible)
and who seem to judge a car by how many and how large the cup
holders are in it, and who hold forth in forums that regularly appear
in the sorts of periodicals one regularly finds in the local dentists
office waiting rooms, or stuck in airplane seat backs.

Chrysler figured this out and managed to get a group of air-heads
plugged into venues that other air-heads hang out in, and who
came up with some of the ugliest (to normal people) designs
imaginable - designs embraced by this totally-disconnected-from-
reality group of consumers known as New Car Buyers.

Ford and GM didn't do this and so their more mundane but practical
designes fell "out of fashion" as they were lacking enormous front
ends, little slitty windows, and wheels the size of manhole covers.

Ted

____________________________________


Marketing and image are EVERYTHING!!!!!!

 

Whereas engineering, quality manufacturing and servicing are not?

 

Actually the Ford 500 would sell like hotcakes if it had an engine and if
the driver didn't have to shoe horn is legs into position. The area for the
driver's bottom half is incredibly cramped and I am not a big guy.

 

Dan; what do you really think. You are far too reserved. [You are right of
course, I should never have assumed that you had such a good sense of
humor].

Richard.

 

I really think you're a fuckwit.

It happens with some frequency.

 

Ted,

This is one of the most intelligent bits of analysis I've seen
recently. You don't have to be a marketing specialist to figure out how
the new car business works. Talk to some of your friends and
acquaintances who buy new cars. Very few of them seem to be able to
make a rational decision based on practicality or value. Most seem to
watch what everybody else is buying, and get one in their favorite
color. By definition, those who have good enough sense to let somebody
else take the huge loss of value on a new car are not the market that
the manufacturers are courting.

As this pertains to the question of whether or not an auto manufacturing
company is being run in an intelligent manner, how difficult must it be
to market a product aimed directly at a bunch of folks who have more
money and enthusiasm than good sense? You could say the same about
yachts or golf clubs, but even those markets aren't as goofy as the new
car market. A car is an inherently practical purchase, because in our
society just about everyoby has to have one. But a new car buyer is by
definition not a smart shopper, unless he/she has money to burn. I
wouldn't want to be in charge of pitching a product to that market.
Most of us are way too practical to be good at it.

 

He forgot to add that marketing and image are everything, if you lack
engineering, and quality manufacturing and servicing. Then again, image
comes more from engineering and quality than from marketing, at least
over more than a few years. Toyota didn't get the image they currently
have from good marketing, that's for sure!


Matt

 

You forgot to insert "low" before frequency.


Matt

 

Well that's not the case across the board - remember I said that there's
a minority of people who buy a new car once a decade (or longer) and
drive it until it's got 200K miles on it and/or the wheels are ready to fall
off.
Add to that corporations who buy vehicles for fleet use, and are very
concerned with maintainence costs. But these are definitely a minority.

It would be most interesting to know what the numbers are of the
percentage of new cars that are sold at various ages. It is probably
a bell curve, such as 10% resold at age 1, 15% resold at age 2,
20% resold at age 3 and so on, tapering off at age 8, 9, 10. But
that is just a guess, I'm sure that the aftermarket parts suppliers have
already done such analysis.

Ted

 

There's also a very small subset that doesn't think about buying a new
car but will when something really exceptional comes along. That sort
of describes me when VW came out with the 180HP 1.8T in the GTI and also
I think a lot of new Mustang buyers (who otherwise would have kept their
old 5.0s going indefinitely)

nate

 

Lots have people have done the same and got nowhere near the service
life on their vehicles. While service is important it is not anywhere
near the whole story.

Your driving a vehicle that most parts in it have
been in production for 10-15 years. It does not have the sex appeal
that the brand new piece of shits do like the Prius which have practically
zero history of production on most major subsystems.

Automakers would mostly prefer to keep the same model lines and
subsystems in production as long as possible. Why on earth for example
would you replace the 41TE/A604/Ultradrive transmission with a new
model, it's been in production nearly 20 years and all the bugs have been
worked out. But, that majority of new-car-buyers that we have all been
talking about won't stand for it. The automakers see their older
tested, tried & true designs hold less and less market share every year,
while during the same time this mass of idiots in the new-car-buyer group
gravitates more and more to the new, untested, untried designs like the
hybrids.

Think for a second of the economics. Which model lines do you think are
the most profitable for the automakers? The older ones which have been
in production and gone through the debugging phase, and thus have low
warranty claims on them, and have little R&D dollars spent on them?
Or the brand new lines which have been in production a short time and
have a high risk of recalls, much higher warranty claims, and a lot
of ongoing R&D spent on them?

There is a reason that the Volkswagen bug was in production for so long.
Unfortunately, the "new car buyers" out there are a much different group of
people as a whole today, than they were 30 years ago. And the car market
is a lot worse for it I'm afraid.

Ted

 

Maybe it has something to do with this news item..

U.S. probing alleged DaimlerChrysler bribes
Criminal investigation centers on automaker's Mercedes unit

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:53 a.m. ET Aug. 5, 2005

FRANKFURT, Germany - DaimlerChrysler AG said Friday it is cooperating
with the U.S. Justice Department, which is investigating claims that the
company=3Fs Mercedes Car Group may have paid bribes to foreign officials
and that senior executives were aware of it.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Toni Melfi said the investigation was linked
to an inquiry last year by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
That investigation began after a former Chrysler accountant in Detroit
claimed the company kept secret bank accounts with which to bribe
foreign officials.

Melfi did not say how many countries or how many people were being
investigated. The Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified U.S.
officials, said Friday the claims centered on a dozen countries and that
senior executives in Stuttgart, Germany, were aware of it.
Story continues below

Justice Department officials did not immediately return calls for
comment.

The German-American automaker had mentioned that it was cooperating in
the investigations in its July 28 earnings report and said its internal
investigation had not reached any conclusions as to whether any laws
were broken. It added that adjustments to past earnings reports may be
required as it completes its investigation.

The Journal said German officials were also investigating after 53-year-
old Rudi Kornmayer, the managing director of a Mercedes plant in
Nigeria, shot and killed himself in a park in Esslingen on July 22.

Prosecutors in Stuttgart said he left a suicide note behind, but it
provided no details on the claims.

 

Damn, someone at Chrysler's been spending too much time reading
Wheels (Arthur Hailey)

Ted