This year marks the 100th anniversary of General Motors. Most of us probably remember Ford's "Centennial Celebration" of 2003. Ford's celebration largely eclipsed Buick's 100 year anniversary, also in 2003, though fans of the brand (and GM) certainly marked the occasion. Oldsmobile's 100th birthday came in 1997.
Here's the question -- can a car company remain strong and prosperous after 100 years? Few people would argue that Ford is in a stronger position today than it was in 2003. The same could be said of Buick. And we all know how Oldsmobile is doing... If you were to use Oldsmobile as the example, it was euthanized in 2004, giving it a 107-year lifespan. Ford and Buick will be 107 in 2010. GM will be 107 in 2015. Dodge will be 107 in 2021. Hmmm...
Let's extend the analysis beyond domestic brands. Toyota started as a car company in 1936; Honda in 1948. That means those companies are between 60 and 70 years old, or approximately 40 years "younger" than most of the domestics. Those companies are looking quite strong today.
Now lets go back 40 years and re-examine the domestics. In 1967 Buick, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford and Oldsmobile were all quite strong, too. Is there a connection? Will Toyota and Honda still be prosperous in 35 years? Hyundai Motor Company started in 1967, putting it another 20-30 years behind the Japanese makers. Are they holding true to the time cycle? Do they seem about 30 years behind Toyota and Honda in the "aging" process?
Of course Mercedes-Benz built its first car in 1886, so that company has already out-lived Oldsmobile...though some might argue about M-B's current financial strength as well.
If nothing else it makes for an interesting analysis.
By clace
on January 9, 2008
07:32 AM
No, i don't think that century is really a viable and set lifespan for car companies. The domestic maker's are recoverting from some circumstances that the foreign makers haven't had to deal with, like the unions, the gas crunch opening the door to competition, the top heavy corporate structure, ect ect
By miniharryc
on January 9, 2008
07:59 AM
Companies like GM & Ford are realy anomalies...if you subscribe to the theory of "Creative Destruction", at least. Look at IBM. They originally made tabulating devices and typewriters, then were the "big iron" in computers, now they're centered around services and consulting, having divested all their PC business (which they CREATED!)
GM and Ford...umm...still make automobiles. In the current environment, no corporate culture can survive intact over that long a period. GM is undergoing massive internal changes, and so must Ford to survive.
By mr215
on January 9, 2008
10:00 AM
The Big 3 have done far better than most other large manufacturing companies in this country. The US isnt really the place for mass manufacturing of expensive goods anymore and thats why aside from the auto industry and Boeing and catapillar you dont see much of that stuff UNLESS its paid for buy government/military spending. most large industrial companies that started in the same era as GM and ford are in worse shape or defunct by now. while lack of quality and other issues play a part in the decline of any business there are other factors that come into play. Its not coincidence that the US' manufacturing footprint is smaller than ever and shrinking every year. While some will say US companies have lost ground due to worker and management incompetence but I disagree. It has been proven many times over that US workers can compete when given the chance.
By iskch
on January 9, 2008
10:21 AM
In the big corporate world all depends in the real managment style and market opportunity. The company that survives the changes and apply to them will keep doing business. Unions, is not only for the US car makers. Both European, Asian car manufacturers have to deal with their own unions in their respective countries and many enviromental issues.
We are in the phase where new players will take place in the car market and others will dissapear.
By hondacura4
on January 9, 2008
03:10 PM
Evolution and execution are the key factors.
By rsholland
on January 9, 2008
03:31 PM
Love the Chevy Suburban picture, which, BTW, began life around 1935 or so.
I don't think a company being 100 years old has anything to do with it. It's really about who's been running the company all those years, and the culture that has been created during that timespan.
By chevy598
on January 9, 2008
03:34 PM
Toyota's first american workers (Kentucky & NUMMI) were hired in the 1980's. They should have their 30 years in and start retiring sometime after 2010. Not only will Toyota be paying health insurance on the employee doing a certain job, but also the retiree who used to do that job. This will definetly be a drag on their operating profits.
By texases
on January 9, 2008
03:51 PM
Most car companies died long ago, so nothing special about 100 years. (Packard, Auburn, Mercer, Delorean, you can go on and on.)
By estreka
on January 9, 2008
04:19 PM
I don't think companies have lifespans, but I do think industries do.
Is the auto industry past its zenith? Perhaps. We won't know for many years.
A few industries to consider:
Railroad
Farming
Utilities
Music (perhaps?)
Film (has to be a blockbuster to make money anymore)
Medical (lucrative but implosive)
Housing (referring to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac)
Postal
Many once-profitable industries have become marginalized as they became older. Some became government branches; others became subsidized. In a capitalist society, I'd imagine many probably ran for 100 years or so before intervention was required. Could the auto industry undergo such a process? I remember not too long ago Detroit industry leaders were begging in the oval office.
By savetheland
on January 9, 2008
07:33 PM
Any company develops corporate culture over the time and to change it is extremely difficult unless you fire all employees including higher management. You may think Ghosn changed corporate culture at Nissan. But wait until Ghosn gone – all troubles will surface back. So yes – you can add Nissan to your list already, no need to wait for 100 years. Other brands I would add are FIAT, SAAB, Jaguar, Mitsu, Mazda. Brands like Jeep, Volvo, Subaru have some value so they may survive a brands of rich parents.
American corporate culture developed long time ago and does not fit current environment anymore. Unions has to go. CEO behaviour has to change. There are no guarantee anymore. Most important thing is team work with high level of employee education and devotion to work overtime without additional pay. To see what I am talking about just visit Silicon Valley. Live free or die hard.
And most important there is a new thing - global shakeout. And government can do nothing about it.
By braverichard
on January 10, 2008
03:43 PM
Mercedes-Benz proves this theory incorrect, unless you think of it as the anomaly. As a matter of fact, Daimler is the world's oldest automaker and is in great shape. It has had its ups and downs but by far it is worth a whole lot more than GM, Ford and Chrysler combined and is in no financial trouble.
By slowloris
on January 11, 2008
12:30 PM
Renault: founded February 25, 1899
Worldwide sales in 2006 2,433,604 units
PSA Peugeot Citroën :2007 world sales 3.428 mln
The first Peugeot automobile was produced in 1889
Citroen founded in 1919