In the New York Times, Matthew Saltmarsh wrote, "PSA Peugeot Citroën on Thursday joined the ranks of global automobile giants gambling that a deeper alliance — in this case with Mitsubishi Motors of Japan — will offer it shelter from the uncertainties surrounding the industry."
With an anticipated merger of two relatively, by world standards, weak companies and the prospect of pooling money, manufacturing and platforms for vehicles, I can see the common benefit. One thing though, if these "weaker" companies combine, who can take the reigns and focus back on what the customer wants?
The article states how Peugeot does not enjoy the "pricing power of the German brands". Mitsubishi is also looked on as having a lower ranking in comparison to Japan's other makes. How do two underperformers merge to become better? How will these economies of scale translate into products the world auto buying market wants?
If you look at the perennial performers in the world markets, the infusion of money into their respective companies via governments has done what? Are they better off now or are the same people who made the decisions to produce vehicles without seeing the financial crisis on the horizon still running their course?
If this merger makes sense for the long term, which is how every business needs to proceed, the makers need to focus on one very important question: "Am I building what I think the consumer wants or what they truly want?"
No comments:
Post a Comment