Finally! The tragical story of Saturn’s dastardly demise at the hands of GM is being told in the American pop press. Newsweek’s reciting of the tale (April 13, 2009 issue) will cause any reader to shed a tear – apart from perhaps the Japanese competition, who dodged a somewhat weakly-aimed bullet.
When Roger Smith announced Saturn, he said its mission was “to develop and produce an American-made small car that will be fully competitive with the best of the imports…[and] affirm that American ingenuity, American technology and American productivity can once again be the model and the inspiration for the rest of the world.”
But GM management and the union couldn’t stomach the change. As Newsweek says, “the competitive knives Saturn faced within GM did far more damage than any threat from overseas….”
It’s a warning to all American businesses that the price of not innovating and not acting boldly will eventually pull you down. Who, ten years ago, would not have been thought mad for prophesizing the coming bankruptcy of GM?
Yet think about how many people have been promoted and rewarded for authoring this tragic chapter in the history of the American automotive industry.
It’s all due to a contradictory-seeming combination of hubris, cowardice, and greed – any one of which is usually enough to spell eventual disaster for any dramatic character (or company). The key word here is “eventual,” because, as David Lynch says in Inland Empire, actions do have consequences. Yes, those consequences can take a long time arriving. But boy, do they arrive.
As I’ve stated earlier (and even earlier), our sympathies lie with the Saturn people who couldn’t stand up to the forces within GM to prevent this tragedy from unfolding.
– Doug
Saturn was indeed a blown opportunity. I’ve owned two of them, and they’re decent vehicles, if somewhat boring. But one experience I had was very telling of how GM ran the company. Once, while in the showroom waiting for an oil change sometime around 2004 or 2005, I asked a Saturn salesman if Saturn had any plans to produce any hybrids. he replied that, “no, it’s not really something our customers are interested in.” The comment revealed a GM that was so shortsighted that it couldn’t even see the customer standing in the showroom freely stating what he wanted to see.
That’s extraordinary, Jeff. Wow. What absolute blindness. If ANY American car customer was interested in a hybrid it was the Saturn customer.
So clearly it was a car that GM wasn’t interested in.
I guess, unless something miraculous happens, Saturn will be a lesson in the business history books pretty soon. How sad. To admit that America’s great industrial powers couldn’t do what the Japanese do.
Bully for the Japanese.
– Doug
From all I’ve read and heard about Saturn over the years was that it is a company that was started because GM wasn’t willing (or couldn’t) change the culture/image/operations of its established brands so they “had” to start Saturn to try to move the rest of the company forward. It started okay. Saturn owners were a tribe of sorts in the beginning, going on an annual pilgrimage to the birthplace of their beloved cars. But when GM decided it needed to save some $ by having Saturns built on the same platform as the rest of the GM brands, the culture crashed, Saturn operations became more and more like the other GM operations and customers no longer identified with the quirky uniqueness of the brand (because it no longer existed). Should have been expected though. Why would anyone think that GM could sustain an innovative new car brand? Peter Senge noted in his book, The Dance of Change, that “leadership is the ability to create and sustain positive change.” The “sustain” part is key to any organization’s success.
Dead on, Mr. Collie.
It comes down to leadership. I suppose there is a Darwinian quality to the marketplace in that it will sniff out leadership and (sometimes) reward it.
And vice versa – it will sniff out a lack of leadership and (usually) smack it.
As Winston Churchill used to say (original source, anyone?), we cannot guarantee success, we can only put ourselves in the position to deserve it. Leadership, innovation, a unique brand are no guarantee. But they are the only pathway to sustained success.
Like you say, the challenge is to sustain those long enough to deserve good things.
– Doug
where are the chevrolet corsa inside U.S.A….ITI IS A BIG QUESTION.
FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IS THE BEST LITTLE CHEVROLET OF THE HISTORY OF GM….but never was sale inside our country .why?…because gm does not want quality in the cars in the marquet of usa…..they need not good cars like toyota in american marquet …it is real…it is very sad that american industry in cars is a bad lay…..I used to drive chevrolet in south america ..germany gm…they are beatiful ..and then..the worse of gm for american marquet…now every body know….japan car maker have a big party/ GM IS OVER….saturn will be the next line in the history of usa car maker like pontiac, and oldsmobile…it is not funny..
I am very upset with GM. I will never buy another American car. I hope GM loose big time for this. What a bad idea. I own a 2008 Saturn. I am looking for anything but an American car.
THAT IS IT FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When will American car makers get it right??? I hope Saturn owners everywhere can now see that American cars are fourth.
I will never buy another GM car!!!!!!!