That’s the long and short of it. I simply don’t understand it at all.
I understand the automotive industry, and its history. I understand what badge-engineering is and what marques are.
No other company has this weird thing going on with their trucks. Ford makes Ford trucks. Dodge makes Dodge trucks (I think they’re just called “Ram” now…whatever.) Toyota makes Toyota trucks. Full stop. But General Motors maintains these two separate truck marques even though they use the same platform and the trucks are, as far as I know, functionally identical.
My understanding is that, traditionally, GMC dealers are also Buick dealers. Back in the days when Buick only made cars, the GMC badge gave those dealers a broader selection of vehicles (i.e., trucks and SUVs).
As a consumer, I’ve always thought it was pretty stupid. When I see that type of thing, my first impression is that one brand might have lower quality parts to reduce costs, or something, which creates a negative impression in my mind for both brands because it’s just a weird situation (vs making a more clear distinction between commonly owned brands like Lexus/Toyota).
Yup, the man I live with is a contractor. Show up in a Chevy, you must be a sub. Contractors drive a GMC. At least that’s what I hear. It must be a boy thing
But you have a point. GMC and Chevy are functionally the same, using the same engines and drive trains (to the best of my knowledge), but GMC tends to be a little higher-end in luxury, passenger-wise. A few more options, more standard things than Chevys, and so on.
You also have to look at the reputation of the name. Chevrolet has had a great name for years, a recognizable and unique trademark, and immense brand loyalty. Why wouldn’t General Motors keep Chevys alive, if they enjoy such loyalty? Heck, I could buy a GMC, but I won’t, because I’m a Chevy guy. If GM withdrew Chevys, I might not necessarily buy a GMC–but by retaining Chevys, GM ensures it gets my money; instead of Dodge or Toyota, or (heaven forbid) Ford.
As said upthread, there used to be Olds and Pontiac dealers, in addition to the Buick, Chevy and Cadillac dealers.
They needed a truck product to sell.
It was part of Sloan’s cradle-to-grave marketing approach.
Go ahead and laugh, then think about Toyota’s branding here in the USA.
The “Professional Grade” branding is very recent.
In the 80’s the lines ran side-by-side.
There are anecdotal stores of a Suburban having GMC badges on the left and Chevrolet on the right.
If I remember correctly, the theory of GMC’s structure was that as a company grows larger it will become rife with bureaucracy and nonsense, and eventually become an immobile monolith that will be out-competed by smaller, more nimble competitors. To get around that, rather than trying to unify as a single, giant company they would preserve (or even create) autonomous subdivisions that operated as their own, independent car manufacturers.
In theory, while this does mean that you’re competing with yourself and wasting money on redundant R&D and whatnot, functionally if your smallest division is as large as your largest competitor and you own ten such divisions, you’re still a bigger company than your largest competitor. It’s wasteful, but you’ve still won and, in theory, you are better set up for continued dominance.
Arguably, this strategy did work. One might say that it worked too well and the company became so big that the unions came for it mega-hard and they achieved a virtual monopoly for long enough, in the US market, that they became blind to outside competition. They only competed with themselves.
Since the bankruptcy, they’ve opted for a more normal strategy of removing redundancy and taking advantage of their scale. Yes, they still have some redundancy like the one the OP notes, but it’s less extreme than it used to be.
On a sidenote, the company was sold to the union by the Obama administration as part of the “get out of bankruptcy” deal. Surprisingly, the union proceeded to sell all of its shares - losing its majority ownership of the company - and then a bunch of its members and its top guy were all prosecuted by the FBI for money laundering.
As mentioned above, the GMCs are fancier, and more expensive than Chevy trucks.
That said, if you’re hiring a contractor and he/she shows up in a GMC, would you consider that they may charge more for the job than a person arriving in a Chevy? Cut corners on quality to afford that fancy GMC?
Or would you imagine that they are so successful due to great business ability that it makes no difference what they drive?
How about if they arrive in a Cadillac Escalade?
Not trying to derail the OPs question, but as a homeowner who hires folks it’s something I’ve wondered about.
Even one or two decades before the 2008 crisis, the perception of the various General Motors brands was that they were selling identical cars, with just the nameplate swapped out. So for a long time, there was seemingly no difference between a Chevrolet [whatever] and a Buick [whatever] and a Cadillac [whatever].
Are the luxury features the main difference nowadays? My perception had always been that the GMC versions were a bit more “heavy duty” than their Chevy counterparts. That they came with a beefier suspension, could handle heavier payloads, tow more, and that sort of thing. But I admit I’m not a truck guy at all, so that was just something that I assumed without any evidence. Maybe that was true at one time but isn’t anymore. Or maybe it was never true and I just inferred it from the “professional grade” marketing.
This is the only accurate answer to the OP. It explains the why they STILL have two truck brands well after the shuttering of the Oldsmobile and Pontiac car brands.
GM feels that they need to have 3 tiers of products in the US market. Sales data backs this up.
Chevy - Standard
Buick - Near-luxury
Cadillac - Luxury
Each of these brands, in order to differentiate itself, must have a different point of sale. If they are all side-by-side on the same lot, you end up undercutting yourself pretty severely when would-be luxury buyers compare prices with premium trim levels of the standard models. Real luxury buyers are similarly alienated because they don’t want to be given the same service levels as the plebs, they’ll go down the road to the import dealers where they have free coffee, salesmen in suits and plush waiting rooms.
Therein lies the catch for GM, Buick really isn’t that strong a brand. It has a niche but it’s not leading in any category and it’s not drawing in a lot of foot traffic. GM, in order to keep their dealer-partners happy, needs to give them product that brings in enough buyers to keep the lights on and the salesmen fed. For Buick, GMC fits the bill. So long as huge parts of America remain addicted to status-symbol trucks they will reliably bring in buyers. GMC has a fan-base and they represent essentially the “top of the line” truck brand with their Denali line. That’s a profitable place to be.
Personally, if I were GM, I’d slash the GMC lineup until it’s just the Denali line. I’d probably even re-brand it fully as Denali and just own the domestic luxury truck market.
That’s the age old question for people that make sales calls. Drive an expensive car and make the customers think you’re successful and successful for a reason and if they buy from you they’ll also be successful.
OTOH, drive a cheaper car so you don’t give off the impression that everything you do is about the commission.
Of course, I say ‘age old’, but I haven’t heard people talk about it in years. I think with people more and more being in offices where they aren’t going to see the sales person’s car, it doesn’t come up.
I knew one person who would drive a beater to make sales calls and a Lincoln or Cadillac when he was out collecting money.
I specifically bought a GMC truck in the 80’s. I was working on a contract at Chevrolet. I didn’t like the way Chevy thought they’d perfected everything in the automotive field.
Yep- the dealerships used to be “Olds-Pontiac-GMC” dealerships from what I remember in the commercials, with Chevrolet in separate dealerships. Now they seem to be just Buick-GMC dealerships.
I’m straying from the topic of GMC here, but from what I understand dealerships were also the reason Chrysler kept the Plymouth brand alive as long as they did, even though by the 1980s there was virtually no difference between Plymouth and Dodge. There used to be Dodge dealerships and Chrysler-Plymouth dealerships. The Plymouth brand existed so those dealers could have an entry level car to sell along side the more expensive Chryslers.
