[David S]

What this article underlines is that by withdrawing from the markets or reserving markets for brands, the entire FCA Group was able to offer fewer Cuv / Suvs than the Volkswagen brand alone.

That it does, but that isn't an accomplishment to be proud of.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Yes, FCA did not offer a large number of CUVs because they put most of their eggs into the Jeep basket believing that Jeep's high margins could last forever while making the brand diluted.

Now Jeep sales are declining and margins are shrinking.

You see, FCA retreated from the sedan segments and then offered only one highly compromised model in the CUV segment.

FCA management was not intelligent enough to understand that multiple, focused offerings of the same size CUV penetrates the market better than a single model that tries to be all things to all buyers.

Smart management understands that market needs are diverse and tries to capture as much of that diversity through.....diversification of product offerings.

But Marchionne ran FCA as a financial company rather than as a manufacturing company. Marchionne's product focus was the stock price, not the vehicles.

 

[Adventurer55]

That is why the head of the NA operations SHOULD be a product person that understands this market. We have nothing and I mean nothing close to that at the moment. Ram guy seems to understand Ram. That's about it.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

That is why the head of the NA operations SHOULD be a product person that understands this market. We have nothing and I mean nothing close to that at the moment. Ram guy seems to understand Ram. That's about it.

The pickup market is still hot. I give credit that the interiors and quality have been better than the other brands. That is significant in that it shows quality is possible while making profits.

A monkey could have managed Jeep from 2009-2016 and the results would be the same.....growth while the CUV market was growing. Now that the CUV market is stabilizing, Jeep sales are declining because there are not enough products superior to the competition. The FCA Jeeps (Renegade, Compass, Cherokee) are weak and declining in sales while increasing in incentives. The refreshes have been lackluster and did nothing to correct their deficiencies.

The lack of fuel efficient CUVs offered by Chrysler or Dodge is resulting in a company being left behind while the competition is getting better and better. The competition is now going directly after Jeep's "capability" as well, leaving no outstanding brand attribute to exploit.

FCA sat on its posterior, diluted the Jeep brand, milked whatever profits were available and left the company weaker than it was in 2009. If you dispute that, think about the products that brought profit after 2009...they all existed before 2009 and are now either old and not updated or they are discontinued.

 

[Adventurer55]

I believe if one goes back and rereads your posts, mine, Valiant's and many others, we all kept saying the same thing. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost, let's see if Mr Tavares has the right farmer to feed them, and make them strong again. I put it in farm terms because that's the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Gareb]

That it does, but that isn't an accomplishment to be proud of.

Exactly

 

[Prabhjot]

Some questions.

What is the average transaction price of these purportedly failed fca nonJeeps, and incentive as well as inventory levels? A reminder that the renegade and compass are not made in usa for cost reasons, and are THE jeeps spearheading the JEEP brand's globalization into Europe, Latam, India+rhd markets (with decent success) and china (less so.) Also average transaction prices and incentive levels and fleet sale levels relative to both segment competition currently and esp telative to the old deep 'sub prime' etc specials...the old patriot and old compass preFCA.

If Jeep renegade, compass and cherokee performance and engineering and design etc is to b taken as a drag on Jeep nrand equity....how to explain jeep all too successfully moving up in the world....new wrangler, gladiator, new gc l, new gc, g/wagoneer? Even as global sales and brand equity is good and getting better considering the deep discount it suffered for decades around the world (for poor or worse quality, reliability, and technology) even as everyone 'recognized' it as THE suv genre definer.

 

[Prabhjot]

Finally: where possibly does the confidence in the face of ALL evidence hitherto arise here that a jeep renegade and compass and chrokee by another name(s) ie as dodge s andor chrysler s would involve higher avg transctn prices? Lower incentives? Even better fleet and dealer inventories?

Going by the pre2008 history of c, gm as well as ford: THAT is the only relevant benchmark.

 

[valiant67]

Finally: where possibly does the confidence in the face of ALL evidence hitherto arise here that a jeep renegade and compass and chrokee by another name(s) ie as dodge s andor chrysler s would involve higher avg transctn prices? Lower incentives? Even better fleet and dealer inventories?

Going by the pre2008 history of c, gm as well as ford: THAT is the only relevant benchmark.

You are still commenting on a market you fail to understand while viewing from afar. Here are the basics:
1) FCA had a large fuel economy problem.
2) Making everything “Jeep” made the vehicles heavier to add some marginal level of capability to make them Jeeps. This compounded the costs for failing to meet targets.
3) Jeep does not have a quality reputation among the general public. Those great margins you brag about are killed by the incentives necessary to move these small FWD based Jeeps.
4) The quality problems and flooding the market with these cheap Jeeps reduces the Jeep premium. This is the cost the FCA supporters fail to consider. You can’t have a Dodge or Chrysler CUV because of “margins” but you will justify a Jeep that slowly lowers Jeep margins. A trio of small Jeeps that are getting kicked around solidly by Toyota RAV4.
Perhaps FCA should have protected Jeep’s reputation rather than prostitute if for a few more dollars today without considering the long term damage to the brand.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

You are still commenting on a market you fail to understand while viewing from afar. Here are the basics:
1) FCA had a large fuel economy problem.
2) Making everything “Jeep” made the vehicles heavier to add some marginal level of capability to make them Jeeps. This compounded the costs for failing to meet targets.
3) Jeep does not have a quality reputation among the general public. Those great margins you brag about are killed by the incentives necessary to move these small FWD based Jeeps.
4) The quality problems and flooding the market with these cheap Jeeps reduces the Jeep premium. This is the cost the FCA supporters fail to consider. You can’t have a Dodge or Chrysler CUV because of “margins” but you will justify a Jeep that slowly lowers Jeep margins. A trio of small Jeeps that are getting kicked around solidly by Toyota RAV4.
Perhaps FCA should have protected Jeep’s reputation rather than prostitute if for a few more dollars today without considering the long term damage to the brand.

Yes, FCA had short-term gains that are already being eroded away. That is not brand management, but brand dilution and destruction.

Jeep sales are down because so many customers are one-time buyers and never return to the brand. Grand Cherokee and Wrangler are the only 2 models that have high customer retention rates. Every other Jeep has damaged the brand by delivering an inferior customer experience.

Marchionne was like a leech that would come into a company and consume what he could, leaving a dying husk behind while seeking his next merger (host). Little was done to position the brands for the long-term.