New Car Buyers

[Xist]

It was 2008 and someone later told me they had a hiring freeze.

[johnnywheels]

Originally Posted by Vrman455

Sure, they aren't completely different cars, but they're differentiated enough that there probably isn't a lot of demographic overlap in potential buyers, if at all.

So, my thesis is: platform sharing today results in cars that are well differentiated in looks, size, feel, and performance, unlike GM's strategy of rebranding the same exact model between brands as recently as a couple decades ago (but still today with their trucks, I'll give you that), and if I'm going to buy an argument that this is not the case, I need to see some convincing evidence to support it.

Been noticing this trend more and more myself...the 2015 Challenger, Mustang, and Camaro are way more similar to each other than they have been in previous years. The unique features are beginning to fade and they are all going to a more sleek, modern design. Mixed feelings..

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by johnnywheels

Been noticing this trend more and more myself...the 2015 Challenger, Mustang, and Camaro are way more similar to each other than they have been in previous years. The unique features are beginning to fade and they are all going to a more sleek, modern design. Mixed feelings..

Domestic brands are now somewhat confused about their identity, and the approach to increase their market share in export markets also leads to that design issue.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by johnnywheels

Been noticing this trend more and more myself...the 2015 Challenger, Mustang, and Camaro are way more similar to each other than they have been in previous years. The unique features are beginning to fade and they are all going to a more sleek, modern design. Mixed feelings..

you understand that those three cars do not have the same platforms?
they are from three distinct different manufacturers.

THe Camaro shares with the Cadillac, the ATS I think.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

It's under your caps lock key somewhere. You must have inadvertently hit it when you edited Wikipedia's text to make the commentary appear to be part of the definition.

A good rule is not bound by, well, rules:
The laws of thermodynamics aren't simply about energy.
Murphy's laws of combat aren't actually about the military.
The Peter Principle isn't just about bureaucrats.
That's why people outside those fields know what they are.

Yes, the Peter Priniciple is simply an observation that pointy haired bosses promote people based on performance in their previous positions while disregarding their suitability for the position being promoted to. And the Bible is simply a book that you find in hotel room desks, and the Earth is mostly harmless. But what does it all mean? The whole point of the Peter Principle is not that you should be careful in your staffing choices or even have to be within an organization, it's that advancement stops because of lack of success.

Promotion is a result of success. DeLorean did very well at every level within a large company, and decided that he was therefore capable of running a whole company. If you still need to see him as being inside an institution, look to the governments and banks that give and lend money to startups even today. The Bank of America and the British government looked at his performance as a GM executive and cheerfully bankrolled his new company.

But niggling little details got him, like the need for an experienced workforce. The engineer in him looked to put his factory in a place with high unemployment so the local government would give him a sweet deal. The inexperienced CEO in him didn't realize that if everyone in the factory was new to their jobs, quality just wasn't going to be there.

The legalities of entrapment aside, smuggling coke is a bad idea. A great engineer may be confident that he has all the details worked out, but even a mediocre CEO should know enough to turn it down. Fail.

I agreed he failed at the DMC that he created from thin air and a concept.

But that is not the Peter Principle.

"The whole point of the Peter Principle is not that you should be careful in your staffing choices or even have to be within an organization, it's that advancement stops because of lack of success."

So, ANY person who had levels of success in an organization, then leaves and trys something else - and fails is the Peter Principle?????
sorry but no.

THe peter principle is based on management making a choice to promote. That's the core of the concept. it is not based on the self employed individual making the choice. He may not have had the skill set to run a corporation from scratch, But had had the skillset to run an existing corporation.

[Fat Charlie]

Different companies' platforms in the same market niche are going to have a lot of similarities because they're meant to do the same things for the same customers- like a Silverado and an F-150. Not much difference there. Now different vehicles that share a platform generally have more differences. Sure, it can look only cosmetic, like with the Suburban and the Yukon, but what's really being done there is the Silverado/Sierra share a platform with the Suburban/Yukon. Those are huge differences, and a really good re-use of engineering and parts.

Originally Posted by mcrews

I agreed he failed at the DMC that he created from thin air and a concept.
...
So, ANY person who had levels of success in an organization, then leaves and trys something else - and fails is the Peter Principle?????

He didn't try something else, he tried to move up from division head to CEO. He had a stellar track record of creating successful cars from thin air and concepts within someone else's company. Everything he did worked and he kept getting promoted. Everyone (himself included) thought that his past success at lower levels meant he would be a good CEO. Companies fail for many reasons. With startups, the failure generally isn't the founders' fault- starting a company that fails actually makes you look more valuable to existing companies and prospective startups because bad experience is a better teacher than good times.

The company wasn't doing well financially, but it may well have survived his inexperience and continued on- they had done a lot to overcome their initial quality problems. But he drove it into the ground by picking coke smuggling as a finance option.

Your insistence that the PP doesn't apply here because he started his own company is missing the forest for the trees. Remember all the crap Obama took for his "you didn't build that" line? DeLorean didn't build it. The DMC that he built was a few meaningless sheets of paper from his lawyers establishing a company. I can start Fat Charlie Motor Company today and it won't mean anything either, it'll just be a letter from the NH Department of State establishing an LLC. FCMC won't be anything real unless the higher ups in industry and government (the institution that you require promotion within) decide to promote me all the way up from dealership parts guy to car company CEO. That would be too much of a stretch, but promoting an awesome GM division head isn't unblievable. Banks, governments and others in industry promoted him. They bankrolled him and literally built his factory for him.

He was promoted to CEO because the Powers That Be were impressed with his performance as a division head and thought he would do well running a whole company. He had a rocky start because his engineering skill set didn't translate well, but he was working on overcoming that. The banks weren't convinced and cut him off. They had money into his operation and they were still so unimpressed with him as a CEO that they decided to cut their losses and shut him off. He confirmed their judgement by resorting to drug smuggling. Yes, the coke is the thing people point to, but what gets overlooked is that the professional money men, the ones who finance large industries, the ones who literally promoted him from division head to CEO, were so unimpressed with his actual abilities as a CEO that they shut him off. Only then did he get drug smuggling dropped in his lap and he thought it was a wonderful idea, confirming the bankers' assessment.

He did really well at every level up to division head.
The Powers That Be decided that it meant he'd do well at the next level, even though it called for a different skill set.
He didn't do well at all.

You can be drawing a paycheck from the same company for all those steps if you want. He didn't, but the process was the same. Say one of his steps was from GM to Ford and then GM hired him back to be CEO. When something eventually happened at GM that brought out his bad decision making, would that hip fake to another company make it look like the PP didn't apply? I don't think so: the process (principle, one might say) is the same no matter what building you're working in on any given day.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

THe peter principle is based on management making a choice to promote. That's the core of the concept. it is not based on the self employed individual making the choice.

A self-employed individual is his/her own manager.

[mcrews]

for starters....learn to comprehend.....

"Originally Posted by mcrews View Post
THe peter principle is based on management making a choice to promote. That's the core of the concept. it is not based on the self employed individual making the choice"

re-read the (now red) quote.

stfu

Originally Posted by jamesqf

A self-employed individual is his/her own manager.

duhhhh.........

you don't do much outside reading do you?

Let me go slow.........

THe peter principle is the conflicting interaction between to entities:
1. Management
2. the individual

Really....you 'think' they can be the same????????


btw, say hi to your friend 'Harvey'.

[freebeard]

btw, say hi to your friend 'Harvey'.

Ad hominem much?

While I agree Delorean was probably entrapped, he was trying to break into an industry that is resistant to new entrants. Tucker, Davis, ...the list goes on.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

for starters....learn to comprehend.....

"Originally Posted by mcrews View Post
THe peter principle is based on management making a choice to promote. That's the core of the concept. it is not based on the self employed individual making the choice"

re-read the (now red) quote.

Humm... If we want to discuss comprehension and such, why is it that you don't seem to comprehend my previous post, in which I explained that I know how to write user CSS, and so your "now red) quote" actually looks like the attached image to me. So there's absolutely no point in making things different colors, or using fancy fonts, as the on-line equivalent of shouting, because I simply won't see them.

I've never found that arguments are improved by shouting, and ignoring all that makes my life much more pleasant. Maybe you should try it?