Not long after the time of your story, perhaps about 1971, I was a new
member of a large IBM group providing sales and service support to Ford
headquarters in Dearborn MI. One of our top salesmen, a very personable,
astute,
highly-educated, and self-motivated fellow, was part of a group that
visited Japan
to attend a quality conference, and he visited many Japanese companies
while on
an extended stay in Japan.
He came back absolutely alarmed, and an avid evangelist on the need for
US auto companies to get their butts in gear. He put together a very
enlightening
presentation, which he gave to auto executives at every opportunity, on
exactly
how Japan was taking over the world markets in cameras, watches, TV's,
video,
machine tools, etc, etc... one by one. He warned them that Japan would soon
focus on the auto industry and that they would succeed there, too,
unless we
made massive changes, and he outlined the needed changes.
He soon became very discouraged, because although the execs listened to him,
and nodded their heads, and thanked him for his zeal, they did not seem
moved
to action. They also were slow to recognize the potential of computers,
aside
from counting beans and tracking inventories. He soon became totally
discouraged, felt there was no future for the auto industry, left IBM and
started his own company to pursue his business interests in the high tech
and financial fields (as Ross Perot had done some years earlier).
Here, management and labor were fierce adversaries, not the innovative
partners
they were in Japan.
Auto industry execs (bean counters like Roger Smith), were far more
concerned
with averting the next strike, collecting their quarterly bonus, and the
size of their
golden parachute, than with the long-term health and prospects of their
companies or the quality, appeal, or innovation of their products.
Unions were only concerned about the size of their paychecks, next month's
dues totals, preventing labor-displacing productivity advances, and how
many more
perks, union stewards, and labor rules they could force into the next
labor contract.
Government was only interested in increasing corporate taxes, getting
the union vote,
and passing more OSHA safety laws, not in assisting industries to
compete in the world market.
They were all amply warned. Their inattention, inaction, and selfishness
has come to fruition.
Game over.
> That guy is dead on! I remember only so well when as an AMC dealer in 1969
> and 70, we were scraming for and could not get Gremlins. In the meantime,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>
>> http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant
Comatus@bex.net - 27 Apr 2007 15:39 GMT
Need to avoid my usual bean-counter rant here, but: you could make the case
that "we are all bean counters now." We are accustomed to thinking of a
company and its product line as something that strives to carry on through
the generations (now where would Stude guys get an idea like that?).
Automation, labor strife, and infotech aside, the REALLY big thing that
began to change in the 50's, and is now a fact of life, is that next
quarter's trend, this year's dividend, and the size of the golden parachutes
ARE the reality of a corporation's existence--not the family name, its
sacred history and traditions, or its hopes for the future.
When your nest egg , or your retirement fund, invests in the rise and fall
of company stocks, their bottom lines becomes just that, no more, to you and
to your broker/administrator. Firms no longer sell out, abandon a product,
or close up shop only due to dire emergency. Sometimes they "maximize
investor value" by just letting it die on the vine, riding it down, and
knackering the corpse. I won't tell anyone to get used to it, because I
never will. I find it horrifying, unmanly and un-American, and just like
most of you, I'm probably profiting from it right now on some line of my
'portfolio.' And like so many other things in the industry, that was a
Studebaker first.
studebaker8@shaw.ca - 27 Apr 2007 23:24 GMT
> Not long after the time of your story, perhaps about 1971, I was a new
> member of a large IBM group providing sales and service support to Ford
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> while on
> an extended stay in Japan.
Keep in mind, England got hit a LOT harder than the U.S. when it came
to small sedans. This somewhat ironic, when some of the first
'modern' Datsuns were Austin Cambridges built under licence in the
1950's. The auto industry in Coventry is all but DEAD now, other than
assembly plants for German and Japanese, and U.S owned car makers.
Since MG-Rover crashed in 2005, there's no more home grown cars that
are 100% true Brit. Even Volkswagen almost got complacent thinking
the rear-engined, air-cooled Beetle could be a million seller forever,
but the got the message real fast, and pulled a Rabbit out of the hat
just in time. If GM and Ford are not careful, they could be another
casualty like the article suggests now that the Japanese are producing
luxury cars and full size trucks, besides millions of small cars that
have proved themselves to be better built than what Detroit has been
building. One would have thought the makers of 4-wheeled vehicles
would have forseen that coming; especially after watching Honda almost
instantly become the top selling motorcycle in North America by the
mid-sixties.
Craig