Aron9000

I'm in Nashville. Although I've seen a bit of a cultural shift here over the past several years(I'm 32, lived here my whole life). The old money, good old boy, 3rd generation Ole Miss frat boy type still buys the Denali, but there have been a lot of upper east coast and LA California types move in who would buy an Escalade. Really the type who controls the wealth quietly through stock options, seats on the board of directors, that old school keep a low profile traditional Nashville oligarch drives the Denali. The flashy I'm a big shot entertainment lawyer or record company CEO, I control the wealth gate for artist and songwriters types, ie I run the record companies and make the deals even though I'm not CEO of a record company type drive the Escalade.

TangoRed

Ha. That's funny- I drove a 2008 Yukon Denali for much of my time at Vandy. There were definitely a ton roaming around.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

I don't get having the two brands either, but the current GMC trucks sure do look alot better (to me).

Lil4X

I think it's GM's branding choice - something to provide Buick dealers with an SUV for their showrooms. If you think about the huge sales figures posted by SUVs, Buick showrooms would be rather desolate without the GMC line. While GMC was once the "truck" line of GM, building nothing but working trucks, when SUV's became popular in the mid-80's they morphed their "panel wagon" into a near-luxury vehicle. I understand from a local Buick salesman that dealerships across the country went howling to GM's management for something to offer their buyers, as their dealerships were rapidly becoming the best-lit graveyards in town.

Chevy has the Tahoe/Suburban, Cadillac has the Escalade, and Buick dealers needed a foothold in the market. The GMC, particularly the Denali line, was developed to represent a layer of luxury above the Chevy and just below the Ex. It's a well thought-out package that's aimed at a slightly upscale target market - for the upscale professional who wants something other than a "Chevy" with its cache of blue-collar appeal. You can actually drive your Denali to the Country Club without having to hang your head and park with the staff 'round back.

mmarshall

Some otherwise good points, but I don't agree that Buick shops would be graveyards without SUVs (or the GMC line). There are still a LOT of seniors, traditional Buick customers, and simply those that like a nice reliable, comfortable sedan buying LaCrosses, although the new version with the El-Confuso shifter and mandatory engine stop/start system might turn off some people.

LexBob2

Thru November GMC sold 424K units at retail -1.6% (483k units overall -3%). I doubt that the division is going anywhere in the near future. I'm sure GM welcomes the volume.

swajames

Had my 2015 Sierra serviced this morning and wandered around the lot while I was waiting. There were a lot of Denali trim SUVs and trucks in stock. That's why GM has GMC. Trucks at those trim levels/prices would be a tougher sell if they were Chevy badged. Nothing wrong at all with the Silverado but the additional brand is what helps GM push higher trim/higher profit inventory.

tex2670

Why is everyone defaulting to the position that GMC would be trimmed, rather than Chevy Trucks? If GMC goes, as others have said, Buick and Caddy dealers that also have GMC franchises would be left in the cold. But if Chevy Trucks are merged into GMC, any GM outlet can still sell trucks, they can keep the lower end base trucks, mid-level trim, and Denali trim, and sell to the entire customer price point that GM sells to now. And eliminate duplicative marketing costs.

mmarshall

Good question, Tex.....though me and one or two other posters did hint at that earlier. The difference, at least as I see it, is that Chevy Trucks are already part of one division, while GMC, as a division, exists on its own. If the GM truck buisness is all rolled up into one division (Chevy) instead of both Chevy and GMC, that would, in theory at least, result in a leaner GM, with three divisions instead of four, that could operate more efficiently. Ford, GM's chief rival, manages to operate that way, with all of its pickups sold under the Ford nameplate...there never were any Mercury pickup trucks which would be the equivalent of GMC, and both attempts at marketing Lincoln pickups (Blackwood and Mark LT) were a disaster. Lincoln, of course, does sell some SUVs, as does Buick and Cadillac at GM.

Fizzboy7

The main problem with having these two brands is it keeps Chevy from ever excelling. They simply have a cap they cannot go above, or it will stomp on GMC's shoes. Imagine being a human twin, and never being able to be super smart, super attractive, or super talented with anything because you weren't allowed to step on your twin or be better than him. It is the EXACT same thing here with Chevy and GMC. Chevy will never be able to be any sort of achiever because they have to stay down thanks to GMC. Not a smart way to run a company at all. The unwritten motto for Chevy Trucks is, "good, but not allowed to be great."

swajames

I wonder if you're perhaps offering up good examples of brand/marketing failures, but maybe not focusing on the point that GMC is actually and already doing what Lincoln couldn't - GMC is selling large numbers of premium GMC-branded examples of models that are Chevy badged and sold through the more mainstream brand channel. GMC's truck transaction prices are able to run at the higher levels because it is a separate division. You're assuming people would still pay 60/70K for "Chevy Denali". I'd argue the market is already saying that they will pay it because it's NOT a Chevy. The trucks are, of course, substantially identical in many respects, but it's easier to rationalize a 60/70K GMC Denali than it would be to rationalize a 60/70K Chevy truck. Chevy does, of course, have ways to sell you a very expensive truck, but to do that you basically need to buy the highest trim and the biggest baddest diesel. GMC commands the premium with more mainstream examples.

The bottom line, however, is that no-one has more insight into the economics and demographics than GM themselves. If it made sense for them to do what's being suggested, then they had the perfect opportunity to do so during and after their bankruptcy - but didn't. GMC is still here for the reasons many have articulated in this thread, not because GM is somehow missing the obvious.

It's noteworthy that year to date, GMC has outsold Buick and Cadillac combined.

mmarshall

Chevy is actually considered the more mainstream-brand nameplate of the two.....GMC is somewhat upscale.

GMC pickups cost more because they come with more trim and equipment, though, except for the grille and front end, the difference is not that great. With the Terrain and Acadia, the differences from their Chevy counterparts are more pronounced.


Have you checked out what a Ford F-150 King Ranch, Platinum, or Limited goes for? Limiteds start at over 60K....for the Ford nameplate. And yes, they sell....the F-150s, numerically, are still the top-selling trucks, if you separate Chevy and GMC into two different lines.

Few people probably have more respect for GM's comeback after 2008 and 2009 than I do...........but they are still clearly capable of making, if not outright mistakes, at least questionable marketing decisions. Buick, for example, was doing very well up through 2016, but has made some recent questionable decisions for 2017 that could (?) undo some of its progress. And Cadillac has certainly not managed its lineup particularly well. (neither has Lincoln, of course, until recently).

tex2670

True--but GM could eliminate everything but Chevy, and be leaner and operate more efficiently--but would be less profitable. You can't just look at one aspect--you have to look at the entire picture--what costs can be cut to end up with maximized profits?

TangoRed

What? It's not like a Chevrolet has to be terrible, their sweet part is just the mainstream market. Using your logic you could say that Cadillac is also preventing Chevrolet from achieving greatness. In any event they are experimenting with upmarket Chevy's where it makes sense. Below is the Silverado High Country:

mmarshall

So far, I want to thank everyone for their replies and input.......most of it has been very good. This Chevy Trucks-vs.-GMC question is a subject I've wanted to discuss for awhile, but, with all the rest of the stuff that I post, didn't really get around to it as a separate thread till now. Though not universal, the clear majority consensus among you all seems to be that the GMC division is profitable enough (despite selling mostly upscale Chevy-clones), with enough demand for its products, that doing away with it would do GM more harm than good. I didn't quite see it that way at first, but a number of you have made some very good arguments supporting that position.