[brownsfan]

“They need to compete against their competitors, not themselves, but this will inevitably happen if GM keeps a third brand.”

I disagree, but either 2 or 3 brands would be better than what they’re doing now. GM’s vision is non-existant.

In the 3 brand scenario, a buyer might buy a Satun X versus a Chevy Y because they want the “better car”. Consumers can be pretty uneducated, not all of them understand that a Chevy Y = Saturn X with different labels. In years past, people would buy a Buick over a Chevy corporate twin and pay more for the better car. At the other end, a buyer with no concern for status symbols my buy a Saturn A vs. a Cadillac B because they are the same car, and the Saturn is cheaper.

Giving customers options, within limits, is a good thing.

[jalisco555]

Certainly GM has no coherent vision for the company as a whole, which is a significant part of the reason they're in such trouble. As to your point about 2 vs. 3, a two brand structure can still allow for a broad range of products. Look at Lexus. You can get an entry-level ES all the way up to a very high end LS, with intermediate steps in between. Given GM's legendary lack of ability to focus, the more brands they have the more likelihood there will be for internal, as opposed to external, competition.

This discussion is moot, anyway. Given the nature of state franchise laws GM can only reorganize like we're discussing after filing for Chapter 11.