You don't understand how class actions work.

When lots of people complain that their iPod is scratched, class action firms find an individual to represent the class. That individual, of course, would never sue for scratches on a $200 iPod. But when the class becomes 1000s or 100,000s of people, all with minor damage, then the damages against Apple become large. The named plaintiff pays $0 to sue. The law firm negotiates a multi million dollar verdict for the entire class; the firm -- which fronted all of the litigation costs for all those years -- gets 33% of that settlement; and each class member gets a check for $25, and the named plaintiffs get some extra.

No plaintiff needs any resources whatsoever to initiate or carry out a suit like that.

 

 

"A lawsuit for this type of thing is just nonsense. Most people don't have the means to sue a huge corporation"

I think after you said this, a couple members were just pointing out that there is a way for most people to sue large corporations.

 

I'm pretty sure someone mentioned class action. Besides the fact that the original issue mentioned above which would potentially result in litigation would naturally end up--for that exact reason.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...6/330/1687773/

 

Yeah....and that's why we're paying $1000 or more for some new pads and I-Phones that probably cost one-tenth of that or less to produce.....needless litigation and settlements. While I do agree that customers do deserve some protection, I'm a firm opponent of frivolous or trivial suits. And also why I still hold onto my old I-Phone-4 LOL, which, for my needs, works fine.

Not to get too far off-topic, but that is also a major reason why health care in the U.S. costs an arm and a leg (no pun intended).....all the settlements from frivolous and trivial malpractice suits.

 

 

Toyota, of course, has not avoided class-actions suits, either. Witness the 3.0L V6 sludge/gel issue, the so-called runaway-acceleration problem wth the accelerator pedals, and the Toyota truck frame-rust issue. I bring up the truck-frame issue because you have complained about the C-channel frames.

 

 

GM can't help themselves with this strategy across all brands. Overprice to make it seem like it competes with higher priced brands, then heavily discount and offer rebates. It seems like they never get it--but when JC Penney tried to eliminate coupons and discounts, and just use an every day low price, their sales tanked. So maybe there's method in GM's madness.

 

 

Wal-mart, though never uses sales-coupons and discounts.....they simply sell everything at a low price to start with. And they are arguably the most successful retail chain in the country.

Many of GM's customers, especially with Buick, Cadillac, and the Silverado pickup are loyal, and have been so for many years. They will gravitate to those products no matter what the sales policy is. Same, to an extent, with Lincolns and the Ford F-150.

 

The point was switching sales strategies, and the effect on customer expectations. Not that one method is better or worse.

Merely relying on prior loyal customers, rather than trying to bring in new customers to the brand, is not a good strategy. Ok--it works for the F-150, but an automaker can't put all its eggs in one basket. Isn't that why GM had to shed half its brands? No clear method of expanding its customer base? Plenty of Saab and Oldsmobile customers were loyal--look where that got them.

 

Actually, Saab didn't have many loyal customers in the U.S. It was a niche-brand at best (much different from Chevy, Buick, or Cadillac), and GM's bone-headed management screwed the brand up even more by taking the traditional Swedish-ness out of it and trying to Americanize it...it simply didn't work. Olds folded for a somewhat different reason.....they stopped selling the Delta 88s, 98s, and Cutlasses that most of its customers wanted, and replaced them with the Aurora, Achieva, and Dust-Buster minivan.


Anyhow, back to the new Traverse (don't want to get too far off-topic), I might take a test-drive next month and see how it compares to the Enclave...it shares the same 3.6L and 9-speed drivetrain. Car and Driver was very impressed with the High Country version....and, at 53K, it's basically Chevy's vision of the Avenir.