Collapse of the Big Three
America was once the leader and pioneer in the auto industry, a title that the country had for decades and a title that was so dear to America’s heart that it was unfathomable to think that title might ever be lost. It’s commonly misconstrued that America invented the automobile, when in reality that honor goes to German Karl Benz in 1885 (Rozema, 2010). “Americans did, however, industrialize the love of the automobile. America loves big, fast cars, and for many decades American car companies shared the biggest slice of the auto industry pie” (Rozema, 2010). America made having a car and the business of making cars firmly entrenched in American culture. This was a fact which kept the economy stimulated and which provided a consistent level of financial stability for the nation and the civilians within it. However the decade of the eighties marked the time when that began to serious slip away as Japan and Germany offered extremely competitively priced cars that had a high level of quality (Rozema, 2010). This marked a seriously influential reason for the beginning of the end: the decline of the big three.
The collapse of the big three car companies (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) was indeed a complex process of which many causes were responsible. In 2005, an interview with NPR put it perfectly, “Though the trio has dominated the American market for decades, its grip is slipping fast due to the perfect storm of business decisions — poor ones — raising health-care costs and strong foreign competition. The Big Three’s decline has already been felt by 130,000 workers that have been laid off since 2000. It’s only beginning to really impact the larger economy” (Gordon, 2005). While this excerpt offers several reasons for why the big three were losing so much business, one of the more compelling reasons offered was the real manifestation of formidable foreign competition.
Foreign Competition
As the narrator writes in the book Once Upon a Car, “Executives came and went at the Ford headquarters, but none of them was able to help Bill [Ford] stave off the flood of Toyotas, Hondas, and other foreign cars that were relentlessly beating Ford in the market” (Vlasic, 2011). When it came to the fierceness of foreign competition, executives at Ford, GMC, and Chrysler, had to have felt like they were paddling out water in a sinking ship. In 1997 the big three dominated the American auto market; in fact, Ford was number one in California as recently as 2005 (Schoenberger, 2007). However, once the tables turned they turned very rapidly. “An article from The Detroit Free Press (2005) stated that the combined market share of GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler was at an all time low of 60% in 2004. Currently, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are the top three foreign competitors with market shares of 13.1%, 10.8%, and 6.6% respectively (Standard and Poors 2004)” (Gatesman, 2005).
When a consumer market makes such a rapid and immediate shift in preference and behavior it’s often for a complex and multi-faceted amount of reasons, reasons which reflect the changing times. When any consumer market changes their preferences and choice of an automobile, it’s the reflection of changes in society, lifestyle changes, controllable changes and incontrollable ones.
One of the reasons why foreign cars were able to ease the market away from the big three was because they really were better quality. American cars still had a reputation for questionable levels of quality and that was something they just weren’t able to shake; this was unfortunate as cars from overseas were being introduced to the market that had levels of quality that cars made by the big three just couldn’t compete with. A Business Week article written in 2001 demonstrates that the problems facing the big three started with the engineers: “Factories make the cars the way they are supposed to be made, but that is the problem. The materials and the design of the car are poor quality. U.S. manufacturers also end up spending more in warranty costs than foreign manufacturers” (Gatesman, 2005). All of these facts point to a lower level of quality of American cars. If a car is going to be known for being a lower quality than its competitors, it should have a significantly lower price tag to match. Otherwise, there’s the danger of American car companies appearing as though they’re charging the same price for lower quality, comparable to a snake oil salesman.
However, as one scholar points out, it’s useful to determine how Lancaster’s Theory of Consumption can be applied to the car industry and the collapse of the big three.
The graph is very basic and it demonstrates the mix of traits between reliability and safety of car A versus car B. Simply put, consumers who purchase Car A, place safety as more important than reliability; consumers of car B. place reliability as superior to safety (Gatesman, 2005). The use of the theory is to help the determination of which characteristics are fundamentally important to the general purchaser of cars in America, shedding light fundamentally on how one of the reasons of the collapse of the big three was able to occur at all through the loss of market share (Gatesman, 2005). Examining the work that economist Gatesman conducted for this theory is indeed revelatory as it assumes that “a consumer obtains more utility with the higher quality car he/she buys. Since consumers are utility maximizers, they will buy the best quality car. Quality is represented by specific characteristics such as: safety, warranty, gas mileage, and reliability. Therefore, these variables will reveal what makes a ‘quality’ car and what consumers value most” (2005). It’s important to acknowledge as Gatesman points out, that some consumers will just be purchasing the car based on its price alone and so the comparison needs to reflect the price. “Market share is the dependant variable and defined by the following equation:
Market Share = (# of x cars sold / total # of cars sold in the segment) x 100
(where, x is the type of car, Camry, Impala, Sebring, etc.)” (Gatesman, 2005).
Gatesman used this formula to construct his hypothesis which was that mainly, Lancaster’s theory had to be absolute for nearly all cars: people need to prize the individual traits of the cars they purchase, and these traits were basically encapsulated by foreign cars (and completely lacking in domestic cars) at the time of the auto industry collapse (2005).
Gatesman used the empirical model revolving on the following dependent and independent variables: These variables selected for his equation are worth closer examination.
Price
The sticker price for the model — even if consumers don’t end up paying this price
Data used — the most standardized value ever.
Control variable
Country where cars are produced
At the time of Gatesman’s work, some foreign car companies had factories on U.S. soil, hiring U.S. workers.
Dummy variable
Safety
Based on National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data
Cars are crashed full frontal at 35 mph. The lowest score in each category is used for the cars: cars are only as strong as their weakest link.
Warranty
Assumption: if consumers have to pick between two similar cars they’re naturally going to pick the one with the better warranty.
Warranties are important as they lower repair costs.
Warranties are treated as a dummy variable.
Reliability
Rating taken from autos.msn.com
This rating can be seen as the “repair cost”
Dummy variable
Gas Mileage
During the collapse of the big three, gas prices were at an all-time high.
Is still a factor in some car-buyer’s decisions
Market Share Lagged
Dictates the popularity of a given car.
(Gatesman, 2005).
Ultimately, all of these factors helped him to come up with the following formula.
“% Market share = ?1 – ?2
price + ?3 safety +
4 reliability lagged + ?5 gas mileage + ?6
warranty + ?7
Market Share lagged + ?8
US”
(Gatesman, 2005).
The goal of this formula is to better illuminate what features consumers preferred the most when it came to automobiles during the early 2000s. In illuminating these preferences, it should shed light on the demise of the big three automakers, as one would assume that the characteristics preferred were ones which American cars simply did not possess. Most consumers don’t purchase cars impulsively. The purchase of a car first starts with a decision made in the mind of the consumer that a new car is needed, then the consumer weighs the advantages and disadvantages of various models (Khan, 2007). The behavior and thought processes which go into a consumer choosing one brand over the other is a complex and multi-faceted process and the consumer’s ultimate decision depends on their perceived consumer value of a given vehicle.
Consumer value= Costs of the vehicle — Total Benefits
In this formula the costs of the vehicle would include things like the price of the car, gas, maintenance, possible injury in case of accident, parking, pollution and annoyances such as traffic (Khan, 2007). The total benefits would be the fun of driving, the aesthetic value of the car, ease of transportation, the fun of owning the car, the help it might provide one’s work or family and other values (Khan, 2007). The formula for calculating the percentage of the market share that cars made by the big three vs. cars made by foreign automakers highlights where the consumers head was at during this decline of the American auto industry.
This formula created the following values for the following automobiles:
“Mean Values for Each Model:
Car Market Share Price Safety Reliability Gas Mileage
Chevy Impala 4.49 18400.70 4.23 3.60-19.80
Chrysler Sebring 1.00 18340.56 4.17 4.75-20.67
Ford Taurus 8.09 18406.00 4.40 4.70-19.22
Honda Accord 8.81 16922.10 4.00 4.44-24.30
Nissan Altima 3.29 15931.00 3.69 5.00-22.75
Toyota Camry 8.70 17651.80 4.00 4.40-22.45”
(Gatesman, 2005).
Of the table above one can see that both price and market share were taken from Ward’s Automotive; the figures for safety, reliability and gas mileage were taken from autos at msn.com (Gatesman, 2005). When examining all of these characteristics in the format of a table, such as the one above, the preferences of consumers becomes crystal clear and it’s not at all difficult to understand why foreign cars started to surge ahead in popularity. Essentially foreign cars were offering the consumer more — better gas mileage and better prices, greater reliability. The value to the consumer was exponentially higher, and no one could ignore it.
The importance of a perceived high value in an automobile is something which cannot be underestimated, particularly during the early 2000s when the big three started to decline. As one of the factors which contributed to this decline had to do with the rising cost of fuel. “The last place where the American car makers make pretty easy money is full-size pickup trucks. They don’t have a lot of competition in that area and also the very large SUVs that are built on those platforms. With fuel prices this high, sales of those vehicles are getting soft and that’s the place where they make their money. So that hurts them quite a bit” (Gordon, 2005). The high cost of fuel definitely made the consumer think twice and really feel the drain of driving an SUV. SUVs no longer seemed like roomy vehicles that could handle any road condition and that gave the driver an elevated seat. They started to feel like large, lavish, expensive, wasteful vehicles that were a drain to the consumer’s pockets. And just as they were popular in the 1990s, the pendulum shifted to the other side, and they lost favor: they seemed impractical for the changing times.
However, it wasn’t just the sheer impracticality of the SUV in the early 2000s that heard the big three automakers, as some consumers were still buying these types of cars regardless. It’s that the SUV section of the market was no longer easy money for American carmakers: they started to receive a tremendous amount of competition in this arena. “In the ’90s, the Big Three all made a huge amount of money on SUVs as the market moved in that direction and they were there first. But capitalism works. Everyone got into that SUV business. Today, even Porsche’s building SUVs and the easy money there is gone” (Gordon, 2005). The very revelatory remark in this statement is in fact that capitalism works. In the spirit of competition and offering the consumer a wide range of choices, other car manufacturers started to make SUVs, ripping this type of vehicle from something that was exclusively American, to creating Japanese and German varieties of it. American car manufacturers simply weren’t ready or able to compete in what had become an incredibly high-competition playing field. Some have accused the big three has having “no strategy” to compete in the changing marketplace and meet the needs of the new consumer. The big three had built their fortunes on making massive heavy cars, and they weren’t used to adapting their product and they weren’t used to creating anything but these types of cars. As one economist noted, when oil prices went up, none of these automakers had an alternative product ready (Hyland, 2008).
As early as the 1970s, the government had developed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which dictated that all automobile companies reach a corporate average of fuel efficiency of 18 miles per gallon by 1978 and 27.5 by 1985 (Dunbar & May, 1995). This dictation was as the result of a desire for energy conservation and a greener automobile policy, but in retrospect, one can’t help but wonder if the nation was anticipating a potential spike in gas prices in the years to come. However, the Detroit Three did little to heed this warning, still focusing on bigger cars, which at the time, their customers demanded (Dunbar & May, 1995). This was destructive to their entire business as the data indicated that subcompacts were in fact the fastest growing section of the market (Dunbar & May, 1995).
If one were to examine the table and formula proposed by Gatesman in terms of variables, much is in fact expected with little surprises as regression is the foremost issue in how foreign car makers were able to claim such a large portion of the market share (2005). Below are the results in terms of coefficients; through this table Gatesman highlights two of the variables that do not have an expected sign: price and safety (2005).
“R- Squared
.772
Variable
Coefficient
Significant
T-Statistics
Constant
-16.844
.003
-3.118
Warranty
1.009
.201
1.299
Price
.001
.032
2.226
Gas
.358
.026
2.306
Market Share Lagged .610
.000
6.273
Reliability Lagged 4
1.134
.243
1.185
Reliability Lagged 5
1.35
.159
1.434
Safety 3
-.882 .138 -1.512
Safety 4
.806
.065
1.896
Safety 5
.007
.991
.011
Produced in U.S.
1.392
.250
1.167” (Gatesman, 2005).
As Gatesman demonstrates, one of the unexpected aspects of these results was that price should not have had a negative sign (2005). While price does have a slight coefficient, it’s still a positive sign; a potential reason for this surprised result is that the price has gone up through the years because of inflation, but the market share still grows as a result of popularity (Gatesman, 2005). However, it’s important to bear in mind that as the price goes up, so does the market share, but these are not two elements which are dependent on one another (Gatesman, 2005).
Ignoring Social Trends, Supply and Demand
One could argue that the fall of the Detroit Three which the world witnessed from 2003 to 2008 was actually predetermined by the events of the late 1970s to the early 1980s. The carmakers of Detroit neither learned from these lessons, nor did they heed the clear signs of the imminent changes to come. The following table demonstrates the trends in a clear and unmistakable manner:
American Car Sales
Year
9,300,000
1978
8,162,000
1979
5,049,184
1982
If one compares this to the production of Japanese cars at the same time, one sees how American automakers failed to ignore a steady threat and infiltration of their market by a competitor that was better reacting and meeting consumer needs.
Production of Japanese Cars
Year
3,500,000
1979
6,200,000
1979
7,000,000
1980
The Japanese made up 80% of all the cars imported in the United States in 1980: “The 1980 production made the Japanese the world’s number one producers of automobiles, a position the Americans had held since 1904” (Dunbar & May, 1995, p.632). Based on this data, one could argue that the fall of the Detroit Three had started decades before the bailouts occurred in 2008, but that the decline of these companies was as a result of consistently ignoring market trends, the directions of supply and demands and the sheer tendency to ignore the needs and behaviors of consumers.
The Absence of Strategy
Aside from not having another product ready once gas prices went up, once consumer tastes changed away from large SUVs, and once consumers got savvier about the environment, a sheer absence of a long-term sales strategy was one of the overwhelming economic factors which were responsible for the big three to dig their own graves. After the tragedy of September 11th, the Detroit three began a long and misguided use of rebates and discounts in order to get sales going again. This was an extremely poor long-term strategy, as it had the following impacts: it boosted sales while stealing from future sales; it damaged resale values by devaluing the brands (Hyland, 2008). More importantly, it negatively impacted supply and demand, by training customers to wait to purchase a vehicle until they’d get a rebate worth $5,000 to $6,000. While this created some short terms sales, it did little to increase the demand for these vehicles (Hyland, 2008). On the other hand, one could argue that this poor strategy was a manifestation of classic supply and demand.
(gov.ab.ca, 2013).
Once the demand for vehicles made by the big three had plummeted, and there was no decrease in supply, automakers really had no choice but to lower their prices through these rebates, which became the new normal.
End of the Oligopoly
The Detroit Three used to sell around 80% of the nation’s vehicles with GM supplying almost half the market (McEachern, 2006). However, the industry in America quickly shifted from this form to a structure to one of monopolistic competition. Foreign carmakers were easily able to jump through the hoops of entering the American auto industry since they had product that fulfilled the characteristics that consumers wanted and demanded in a vehicle.
(Oswego.edu)
This shift was so traumatic to the big three as the increase of competitors, which essentially represented the shift from oligopoly to monopolistic competition, drove their demand down. While it might be difficult for many consumers to consider the automotive industry a form of monopolistic competition, as that label generally appeals to fields where it’s easier to buy-in, such as restaurants, coffeehouses and toothpaste brands, one could argue that the state in America was so ripe for competition, given the long-term oligopoly status, the peak in fuel prices, the disenchantment with SUVs and the limited variety of American automobiles — it was actually a market that was ripe for entry by new brands. And that proved to be correct was when new companies did enter the American market they were widely successful.
Conclusion
The decline of Detroit’s Big Three Automakers was the result of a range of intricate, inter-connected causes and events. Rising gas prices, an educated consumer opting for a greener, smaller vehicle, disenchantment with SUVs and trucks, along with the influx of a formidable foreign opponent were all things which were responsible for the fall in gas prices. However, their collapse was entirely avoidable and preventable and was not something that the nation had to live through. The Detroit Three exhibited a consistent failure to respond rapidly to market trends and the demands of their consumers. The American auto-industry also refused to engage in a sales strategy that could offer them anything than short-term sales and a general de-valuing of their products.
References
Anderson, P. (2008, November 11). Expert Examines Impact Of Big Three’s Collapse. Retrieved from Npr.org: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96875257
Dunbar, W., & May, G. (1995). Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing.
Gatesman, A. (2005). Why are Foreign Manufactured Cars Gaining Market Share in the U.S. market? . Retrieved from Iwu.edu: http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE13/gatesman.pdf
Gordon, E. (2005, May 4). The Decline of the ‘Big Three’ U.S. Auto Makers. Retrieved from npr.org: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630187
Gov.ab.ca. (2012, October 26). How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price. Retrieved from Agriculture and Rural Development: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sis972
Hyland, T. (2008, December 4). Big Three in decline. Retrieved from Upenn.edu: http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/node/3469
Khan, M. (2007). Consumer Behaviour. New York: New Age International.
McEachern, W. (2008). Contemporary Economics. Mason: Thomson Education.
Oswego.edu. (n.d.). Microeconomics. Retrieved from Oswego.edu: http://www.oswego.edu/~atri/e101monopoly.html
Rozema, B. (2010, February 10). Why Do Americans Prefer Foreign Automobiles? . Retrieved from Surveymagnet.com: http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/02/why-do-americans-prefer-foreign-automobiles/
Schoenburger, R. (2007, October 22). U.S. car makers lose ground in a hurry to foreign competition. Retrieved from Cleveland.com: http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/10/us_automakers_lose_ground_in_a.html
Vlasic, B. (2011). Once Upon a Car LP: The Fall and Resurrection of America’s Big Three Auto. New York: Haper Collins.
Safety
Reliability
America was once the leader and pioneer in the auto industry, a title that the country had for decades and a title that was so dear to America’s heart that it was unfathomable to think that title might ever be lost. It’s commonly misconstrued that America invented the automobile, when in reality that honor goes to German Karl Benz in 1885 (Rozema, 2010). “Americans did, however, industrialize the love of the automobile. America loves big, fast cars, and for many decades American car companies shared the biggest slice of the auto industry pie” (Rozema, 2010). America made having a car and the business of making cars firmly entrenched in American culture. This was a fact which kept the economy stimulated and which provided a consistent level of financial stability for the nation and the civilians within it. However the decade of the eighties marked the time when that began to serious slip away as Japan and Germany offered extremely competitively priced cars that had a high level of quality (Rozema, 2010). This marked a seriously influential reason for the beginning of the end: the decline of the big three.
The collapse of the big three car companies (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) was indeed a complex process of which many causes were responsible. In 2005, an interview with NPR put it perfectly, “Though the trio has dominated the American market for decades, its grip is slipping fast due to the perfect storm of business decisions — poor ones — raising health-care costs and strong foreign competition. The Big Three’s decline has already been felt by 130,000 workers that have been laid off since 2000. It’s only beginning to really impact the larger economy” (Gordon, 2005). While this excerpt offers several reasons for why the big three were losing so much business, one of the more compelling reasons offered was the real manifestation of formidable foreign competition.
Foreign Competition
As the narrator writes in the book Once Upon a Car, “Executives came and went at the Ford headquarters, but none of them was able to help Bill [Ford] stave off the flood of Toyotas, Hondas, and other foreign cars that were relentlessly beating Ford in the market” (Vlasic, 2011). When it came to the fierceness of foreign competition, executives at Ford, GMC, and Chrysler, had to have felt like they were paddling out water in a sinking ship. In 1997 the big three dominated the American auto market; in fact, Ford was number one in California as recently as 2005 (Schoenberger, 2007). However, once the tables turned they turned very rapidly. “An article from The Detroit Free Press (2005) stated that the combined market share of GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler was at an all time low of 60% in 2004. Currently, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are the top three foreign competitors with market shares of 13.1%, 10.8%, and 6.6% respectively (Standard and Poors 2004)” (Gatesman, 2005).
When a consumer market makes such a rapid and immediate shift in preference and behavior it’s often for a complex and multi-faceted amount of reasons, reasons which reflect the changing times. When any consumer market changes their preferences and choice of an automobile, it’s the reflection of changes in society, lifestyle changes, controllable changes and incontrollable ones.
One of the reasons why foreign cars were able to ease the market away from the big three was because they really were better quality. American cars still had a reputation for questionable levels of quality and that was something they just weren’t able to shake; this was unfortunate as cars from overseas were being introduced to the market that had levels of quality that cars made by the big three just couldn’t compete with. A Business Week article written in 2001 demonstrates that the problems facing the big three started with the engineers: “Factories make the cars the way they are supposed to be made, but that is the problem. The materials and the design of the car are poor quality. U.S. manufacturers also end up spending more in warranty costs than foreign manufacturers” (Gatesman, 2005). All of these facts point to a lower level of quality of American cars. If a car is going to be known for being a lower quality than its competitors, it should have a significantly lower price tag to match. Otherwise, there’s the danger of American car companies appearing as though they’re charging the same price for lower quality, comparable to a snake oil salesman.
However, as one scholar points out, it’s useful to determine how Lancaster’s Theory of Consumption can be applied to the car industry and the collapse of the big three.
The graph is very basic and it demonstrates the mix of traits between reliability and safety of car A versus car B. Simply put, consumers who purchase Car A, place safety as more important than reliability; consumers of car B. place reliability as superior to safety (Gatesman, 2005). The use of the theory is to help the determination of which characteristics are fundamentally important to the general purchaser of cars in America, shedding light fundamentally on how one of the reasons of the collapse of the big three was able to occur at all through the loss of market share (Gatesman, 2005). Examining the work that economist Gatesman conducted for this theory is indeed revelatory as it assumes that “a consumer obtains more utility with the higher quality car he/she buys. Since consumers are utility maximizers, they will buy the best quality car. Quality is represented by specific characteristics such as: safety, warranty, gas mileage, and reliability. Therefore, these variables will reveal what makes a ‘quality’ car and what consumers value most” (2005). It’s important to acknowledge as Gatesman points out, that some consumers will just be purchasing the car based on its price alone and so the comparison needs to reflect the price. “Market share is the dependant variable and defined by the following equation:
Market Share = (# of x cars sold / total # of cars sold in the segment) x 100
(where, x is the type of car, Camry, Impala, Sebring, etc.)” (Gatesman, 2005).
Gatesman used this formula to construct his hypothesis which was that mainly, Lancaster’s theory had to be absolute for nearly all cars: people need to prize the individual traits of the cars they purchase, and these traits were basically encapsulated by foreign cars (and completely lacking in domestic cars) at the time of the auto industry collapse (2005).
Gatesman used the empirical model revolving on the following dependent and independent variables: These variables selected for his equation are worth closer examination.
Price
The sticker price for the model — even if consumers don’t end up paying this price
Data used — the most standardized value ever.
Control variable
Country where cars are produced
At the time of Gatesman’s work, some foreign car companies had factories on U.S. soil, hiring U.S. workers.
Dummy variable
Safety
Based on National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data
Cars are crashed full frontal at 35 mph. The lowest score in each category is used for the cars: cars are only as strong as their weakest link.
Warranty
Assumption: if consumers have to pick between two similar cars they’re naturally going to pick the one with the better warranty.
Warranties are important as they lower repair costs.
Warranties are treated as a dummy variable.
Reliability
Rating taken from autos.msn.com
This rating can be seen as the “repair cost”
Dummy variable
Gas Mileage
During the collapse of the big three, gas prices were at an all-time high.
Is still a factor in some car-buyer’s decisions
Market Share Lagged
Dictates the popularity of a given car.
(Gatesman, 2005).
Ultimately, all of these factors helped him to come up with the following formula.
“% Market share = ?1 – ?2
price + ?3 safety +
4 reliability lagged + ?5 gas mileage + ?6
warranty + ?7
Market Share lagged + ?8
US”
(Gatesman, 2005).
The goal of this formula is to better illuminate what features consumers preferred the most when it came to automobiles during the early 2000s. In illuminating these preferences, it should shed light on the demise of the big three automakers, as one would assume that the characteristics preferred were ones which American cars simply did not possess. Most consumers don’t purchase cars impulsively. The purchase of a car first starts with a decision made in the mind of the consumer that a new car is needed, then the consumer weighs the advantages and disadvantages of various models (Khan, 2007). The behavior and thought processes which go into a consumer choosing one brand over the other is a complex and multi-faceted process and the consumer’s ultimate decision depends on their perceived consumer value of a given vehicle.
Consumer value= Costs of the vehicle — Total Benefits
In this formula the costs of the vehicle would include things like the price of the car, gas, maintenance, possible injury in case of accident, parking, pollution and annoyances such as traffic (Khan, 2007). The total benefits would be the fun of driving, the aesthetic value of the car, ease of transportation, the fun of owning the car, the help it might provide one’s work or family and other values (Khan, 2007). The formula for calculating the percentage of the market share that cars made by the big three vs. cars made by foreign automakers highlights where the consumers head was at during this decline of the American auto industry.
This formula created the following values for the following automobiles:
“Mean Values for Each Model:
Car Market Share Price Safety Reliability Gas Mileage
Chevy Impala 4.49 18400.70 4.23 3.60-19.80
Chrysler Sebring 1.00 18340.56 4.17 4.75-20.67
Ford Taurus 8.09 18406.00 4.40 4.70-19.22
Honda Accord 8.81 16922.10 4.00 4.44-24.30
Nissan Altima 3.29 15931.00 3.69 5.00-22.75
Toyota Camry 8.70 17651.80 4.00 4.40-22.45”
(Gatesman, 2005).
Of the table above one can see that both price and market share were taken from Ward’s Automotive; the figures for safety, reliability and gas mileage were taken from autos at msn.com (Gatesman, 2005). When examining all of these characteristics in the format of a table, such as the one above, the preferences of consumers becomes crystal clear and it’s not at all difficult to understand why foreign cars started to surge ahead in popularity. Essentially foreign cars were offering the consumer more — better gas mileage and better prices, greater reliability. The value to the consumer was exponentially higher, and no one could ignore it.
The importance of a perceived high value in an automobile is something which cannot be underestimated, particularly during the early 2000s when the big three started to decline. As one of the factors which contributed to this decline had to do with the rising cost of fuel. “The last place where the American car makers make pretty easy money is full-size pickup trucks. They don’t have a lot of competition in that area and also the very large SUVs that are built on those platforms. With fuel prices this high, sales of those vehicles are getting soft and that’s the place where they make their money. So that hurts them quite a bit” (Gordon, 2005). The high cost of fuel definitely made the consumer think twice and really feel the drain of driving an SUV. SUVs no longer seemed like roomy vehicles that could handle any road condition and that gave the driver an elevated seat. They started to feel like large, lavish, expensive, wasteful vehicles that were a drain to the consumer’s pockets. And just as they were popular in the 1990s, the pendulum shifted to the other side, and they lost favor: they seemed impractical for the changing times.
However, it wasn’t just the sheer impracticality of the SUV in the early 2000s that heard the big three automakers, as some consumers were still buying these types of cars regardless. It’s that the SUV section of the market was no longer easy money for American carmakers: they started to receive a tremendous amount of competition in this arena. “In the ’90s, the Big Three all made a huge amount of money on SUVs as the market moved in that direction and they were there first. But capitalism works. Everyone got into that SUV business. Today, even Porsche’s building SUVs and the easy money there is gone” (Gordon, 2005). The very revelatory remark in this statement is in fact that capitalism works. In the spirit of competition and offering the consumer a wide range of choices, other car manufacturers started to make SUVs, ripping this type of vehicle from something that was exclusively American, to creating Japanese and German varieties of it. American car manufacturers simply weren’t ready or able to compete in what had become an incredibly high-competition playing field. Some have accused the big three has having “no strategy” to compete in the changing marketplace and meet the needs of the new consumer. The big three had built their fortunes on making massive heavy cars, and they weren’t used to adapting their product and they weren’t used to creating anything but these types of cars. As one economist noted, when oil prices went up, none of these automakers had an alternative product ready (Hyland, 2008).
As early as the 1970s, the government had developed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which dictated that all automobile companies reach a corporate average of fuel efficiency of 18 miles per gallon by 1978 and 27.5 by 1985 (Dunbar & May, 1995). This dictation was as the result of a desire for energy conservation and a greener automobile policy, but in retrospect, one can’t help but wonder if the nation was anticipating a potential spike in gas prices in the years to come. However, the Detroit Three did little to heed this warning, still focusing on bigger cars, which at the time, their customers demanded (Dunbar & May, 1995). This was destructive to their entire business as the data indicated that subcompacts were in fact the fastest growing section of the market (Dunbar & May, 1995).
If one were to examine the table and formula proposed by Gatesman in terms of variables, much is in fact expected with little surprises as regression is the foremost issue in how foreign car makers were able to claim such a large portion of the market share (2005). Below are the results in terms of coefficients; through this table Gatesman highlights two of the variables that do not have an expected sign: price and safety (2005).
“R- Squared
.772
Variable
Coefficient
Significant
T-Statistics
Constant
-16.844
.003
-3.118
Warranty
1.009
.201
1.299
Price
.001
.032
2.226
Gas
.358
.026
2.306
Market Share Lagged .610
.000
6.273
Reliability Lagged 4
1.134
.243
1.185
Reliability Lagged 5
1.35
.159
1.434
Safety 3
-.882 .138 -1.512
Safety 4
.806
.065
1.896
Safety 5
.007
.991
.011
Produced in U.S.
1.392
.250
1.167” (Gatesman, 2005).
As Gatesman demonstrates, one of the unexpected aspects of these results was that price should not have had a negative sign (2005). While price does have a slight coefficient, it’s still a positive sign; a potential reason for this surprised result is that the price has gone up through the years because of inflation, but the market share still grows as a result of popularity (Gatesman, 2005). However, it’s important to bear in mind that as the price goes up, so does the market share, but these are not two elements which are dependent on one another (Gatesman, 2005).
Ignoring Social Trends, Supply and Demand
One could argue that the fall of the Detroit Three which the world witnessed from 2003 to 2008 was actually predetermined by the events of the late 1970s to the early 1980s. The carmakers of Detroit neither learned from these lessons, nor did they heed the clear signs of the imminent changes to come. The following table demonstrates the trends in a clear and unmistakable manner:
American Car Sales
Year
9,300,000
1978
8,162,000
1979
5,049,184
1982
If one compares this to the production of Japanese cars at the same time, one sees how American automakers failed to ignore a steady threat and infiltration of their market by a competitor that was better reacting and meeting consumer needs.
Production of Japanese Cars
Year
3,500,000
1979
6,200,000
1979
7,000,000
1980
The Japanese made up 80% of all the cars imported in the United States in 1980: “The 1980 production made the Japanese the world’s number one producers of automobiles, a position the Americans had held since 1904” (Dunbar & May, 1995, p.632). Based on this data, one could argue that the fall of the Detroit Three had started decades before the bailouts occurred in 2008, but that the decline of these companies was as a result of consistently ignoring market trends, the directions of supply and demands and the sheer tendency to ignore the needs and behaviors of consumers.
The Absence of Strategy
Aside from not having another product ready once gas prices went up, once consumer tastes changed away from large SUVs, and once consumers got savvier about the environment, a sheer absence of a long-term sales strategy was one of the overwhelming economic factors which were responsible for the big three to dig their own graves. After the tragedy of September 11th, the Detroit three began a long and misguided use of rebates and discounts in order to get sales going again. This was an extremely poor long-term strategy, as it had the following impacts: it boosted sales while stealing from future sales; it damaged resale values by devaluing the brands (Hyland, 2008). More importantly, it negatively impacted supply and demand, by training customers to wait to purchase a vehicle until they’d get a rebate worth $5,000 to $6,000. While this created some short terms sales, it did little to increase the demand for these vehicles (Hyland, 2008). On the other hand, one could argue that this poor strategy was a manifestation of classic supply and demand.
(gov.ab.ca, 2013).
Once the demand for vehicles made by the big three had plummeted, and there was no decrease in supply, automakers really had no choice but to lower their prices through these rebates, which became the new normal.
End of the Oligopoly
The Detroit Three used to sell around 80% of the nation’s vehicles with GM supplying almost half the market (McEachern, 2006). However, the industry in America quickly shifted from this form to a structure to one of monopolistic competition. Foreign carmakers were easily able to jump through the hoops of entering the American auto industry since they had product that fulfilled the characteristics that consumers wanted and demanded in a vehicle.
(Oswego.edu)
This shift was so traumatic to the big three as the increase of competitors, which essentially represented the shift from oligopoly to monopolistic competition, drove their demand down. While it might be difficult for many consumers to consider the automotive industry a form of monopolistic competition, as that label generally appeals to fields where it’s easier to buy-in, such as restaurants, coffeehouses and toothpaste brands, one could argue that the state in America was so ripe for competition, given the long-term oligopoly status, the peak in fuel prices, the disenchantment with SUVs and the limited variety of American automobiles — it was actually a market that was ripe for entry by new brands. And that proved to be correct was when new companies did enter the American market they were widely successful.
Conclusion
The decline of Detroit’s Big Three Automakers was the result of a range of intricate, inter-connected causes and events. Rising gas prices, an educated consumer opting for a greener, smaller vehicle, disenchantment with SUVs and trucks, along with the influx of a formidable foreign opponent were all things which were responsible for the fall in gas prices. However, their collapse was entirely avoidable and preventable and was not something that the nation had to live through. The Detroit Three exhibited a consistent failure to respond rapidly to market trends and the demands of their consumers. The American auto-industry also refused to engage in a sales strategy that could offer them anything than short-term sales and a general de-valuing of their products.
References
Anderson, P. (2008, November 11). Expert Examines Impact Of Big Three’s Collapse. Retrieved from Npr.org: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96875257
Dunbar, W., & May, G. (1995). Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing.
Gatesman, A. (2005). Why are Foreign Manufactured Cars Gaining Market Share in the U.S. market? . Retrieved from Iwu.edu: http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE13/gatesman.pdf
Gordon, E. (2005, May 4). The Decline of the ‘Big Three’ U.S. Auto Makers. Retrieved from npr.org: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630187
Gov.ab.ca. (2012, October 26). How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price. Retrieved from Agriculture and Rural Development: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sis972
Hyland, T. (2008, December 4). Big Three in decline. Retrieved from Upenn.edu: http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/node/3469
Khan, M. (2007). Consumer Behaviour. New York: New Age International.
McEachern, W. (2008). Contemporary Economics. Mason: Thomson Education.
Oswego.edu. (n.d.). Microeconomics. Retrieved from Oswego.edu: http://www.oswego.edu/~atri/e101monopoly.html
Rozema, B. (2010, February 10). Why Do Americans Prefer Foreign Automobiles? . Retrieved from Surveymagnet.com: http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/02/why-do-americans-prefer-foreign-automobiles/
Schoenburger, R. (2007, October 22). U.S. car makers lose ground in a hurry to foreign competition. Retrieved from Cleveland.com: http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/10/us_automakers_lose_ground_in_a.html
Vlasic, B. (2011). Once Upon a Car LP: The Fall and Resurrection of America’s Big Three Auto. New York: Haper Collins.
Safety
Reliability
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! 
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more