Cadillac’s Problem of the Cars It Can’t Sell

[silvrsvt]

http://247wallst.com/autos/2016/04/29/cadillacs-problem-of-the-cars-it-cant-sell/

 

I wouldn't really lump the ELR in there...its been DOA. But its pretty obvious that splitting the CTS and ATS into separate products didn't do Caddy any favors.

 

 

[rmc523]

Just for fun:

 

[RichardJensen]

Can you do me a favor?

 

Grab the ranges from November 2012 to present and run a correlation function, and then post the number.

 

Syntax is =CORREL(range1, range2).

 

I'm guessing it's well over .5.

[rmc523]

Can you do me a favor?

 

Grab the ranges from November 2012 to present and run a correlation function, and then post the number.

 

Syntax is =CORREL(range1, range2).

 

I'm guessing it's well over .5.

 

.713493 to be precise.

 

I assume you're getting at the fact the dive of both are related to each other?

[BORG]

It's amazing how many CTS they use to sell, even my sister just bought a used one for pennies.

[RichardJensen]

 

.713493 to be precise.

 

I assume you're getting at the fact the dive of both are related to each other?

 

Not that so much as that they moved largely in lock-step with each other. .71 is a relatively high correlation coefficient.

 

Without adjusting for the artificial correlation created by seasonal factors (e.g. more cars are sold in December than January, thus producing a correlation that holds across the entire industry), what one might take away from this is that these cars sold to substantially similar customer bases.

 

Comparison, if one wanted to test it, would be a 42 month run with Fusion/Focus (similar sized vehicles under the same brand), and Lexus RX/Ford F150 (unrelated vehicles, functioning as a control). A 42 month run of 3-Series and 5-Series would be useful as well.

 

If you saw a similar correlation between the Fusion & Focus and the CTS/ATS, there's probably nothing to the correlation seen here. If you saw significantly less correlation between the Focus/Fusion and 5-Series/3-Series than the CTS/ATS, then you can make a pretty strong case, IMO, that the cars have spent their entire existence cannibalizing each others' sales. Lexus RX/Ford F150 would be your small study, not very scientific, but still suggestive control group.

[rmc523]

 

Not that so much as that they moved largely in lock-step with each other. .71 is a relatively high correlation coefficient.

 

Without adjusting for the artificial correlation created by seasonal factors (e.g. more cars are sold in December than January, thus producing a correlation that holds across the entire industry), what one might take away from this is that these cars sold to substantially similar customer bases.

 

Comparison, if one wanted to test it, would be a 42 month run with Fusion/Focus (similar sized vehicles under the same brand), and Lexus RX/Ford F150 (unrelated vehicles, functioning as a control). A 42 month run of 3-Series and 5-Series would be useful as well.

 

If you saw a similar correlation between the Fusion & Focus and the CTS/ATS, there's probably nothing to the correlation seen here. If you saw significantly less correlation between the Focus/Fusion and 5-Series/3-Series than the CTS/ATS, then you can make a pretty strong case, IMO, that the cars have spent their entire existence cannibalizing each others' sales. Lexus RX/Ford F150 would be your small study, not very scientific, but still suggestive control group.

 

Perhaps if I get adventurous, I'll look into it.....

 

I had done this combo of Lincoln and Caddy sales including all vehicles. And I was actually very surprised at how "spikey" sales were - I never realized how up and down sales are month to month, of ALL vehicles. So to be fair, it may not be as indicative as it seems.

 

[RichardJensen]

 

So to be fair, it may not be as indicative as it seems.

 

 

 

 

Just for giggles, run the same numbers for the MKZ and MKS since you already have those numbers, and you'll see a much smaller correlation coefficient.

 

When you see fairly significant swings from month to month and yet two vehicle lines have a fairly high correlation coefficient, that suggests a connection between them.

 

Of course, it's just a starting point, lest you run into some of the crazy examples of largely coincidental correlation.

Edited May 3, 2016 by RichardJensen

[rmc523]

 

Just for giggles, run the same numbers for the MKZ and MKS since you already have those numbers, and you'll see a much smaller correlation coefficient.

 

When you see fairly significant swings from month to month and yet two vehicle lines have a fairly high correlation coefficient, that suggests a connection between them.

 

Of course, it's just a starting point, lest you run into some of the crazy examples of largely coincidental correlation.

 

Ah yes, .01153, or .01.

[BORG]

Now run the correlation between MKC and MKZ and you'll probably see something similar, a great deal of MKC sales came out of MKZ sales. However, there is a net gain in sales of about 10% while Caddy saw a net loss with two sedans. Either way, both brands are prone to cannibalizing their own products at launch but total sales shouldn't go down unless those are the market conditions...which isn't the case here.

Edited May 3, 2016 by BORG

[fuzzymoomoo]

Now run the correlation between MKC and MKZ and you'll probably see something similar, a great deal of MKC sales came out of MKZ sales. However, there is a net gain in sales of about 10% while Caddy saw a net loss with two sedans. Either way, both brands are prone to cannibalizing their own products at launch but total sales shouldn't go down unless those are the market conditions...which isn't the case here.

That's a great point. I wonder how much MKZ/Continental will step on each other's toes given that they're both new models launching within 8 months of each other.

[rmc523]

Now run the correlation between MKC and MKZ and you'll probably see something similar, a great deal of MKC sales came out of MKZ sales. However, there is a net gain in sales of about 10% while Caddy saw a net loss with two sedans. Either way, both brands are prone to cannibalizing their own products at launch but total sales shouldn't go down unless those are the market conditions...which isn't the case here.

 

I went from May of 2014 when MKC sales started, and it was -.08

[akirby]

MKZ isn't new - just a new grille. Continental might steal a few Z sales but I don't think Lincoln will mind given the higher ATPs. But don't forget half of MKZ sales are hybrids and they won't be looking at a Conti.

[fuzzymoomoo]

MKZ isn't new - just a new grille. Continental might steal a few Z sales but I don't think Lincoln will mind given the higher ATPs. But don't forget half of MKZ sales are hybrids and they won't be looking at a Conti.

It's still considered a new model since it's a refresh in Ford's eyes.

 

Half of MKZ sales are hybrid? Wow I didn't know it was that high.

[rmc523]

It's still considered a new model since it's a refresh in Ford's eyes.

 

Half of MKZ sales are hybrid? Wow I didn't know it was that high.

 

I think his point is more that in theory, the all-new Conti would have more of an impact sales-wise than the "only" refreshed MKZ.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

I think his point is more that in theory, the all-new Conti would have more of an impact sales-wise than the "only" refreshed MKZ.

IMO, in this instance the main reason for that is the insane buzz around the Continental. There have been instances in the past where a refresh jumpstart sales. The Honda Civic a few years ago jumps to mind.

[rmc523]

IMO, in this instance the main reason for that is the insane buzz around the Continental. There have been instances in the past where a refresh jumpstart sales. The Honda Civic a few years ago jumps to mind.

True. Especially considering the midsize market is far more popular/larger than the full size market.

[RichardJensen]

 

I went from May of 2014 when MKC sales started, and it was -.08

 

Yeah. That and the MKZ/MKS are effectively no correlation. No relationship.

 

If the MKC was taking sales from the MKZ, you'd see a correlation tending towards -1.

 

But there are other complicating factors. The ATS and CTS are on very similar product cycles, the MKC, MKS and MKZ aren't.

 

However, I'd say that even accounting for that, the correlation between the ATS/CTS suggests that they're not well differentiated.

[RichardJensen]

Which is something that we already kind of thought anyway. So, hey, CONFIRMATION BIAS!!

[RichardJensen]

Now run the correlation between MKC and MKZ and you'll probably see something similar, a great deal of MKC sales came out of MKZ sales.

 

If a vehicle is cannibalizing sales from another, you will see a strong negative correlation. A value tending toward zero indicates no relationship.

[jpd80]

Did GM get too greedy splitting the old CTS market in two?

[silvrsvt]

Ooh this has turned into a fun with statistics thread....not a bad thing

[akirby]

Did GM get too greedy splitting the old CTS market in two?

 

Not greedy - more like envious of the Germans. We must have a 3 series fighter and a 5 series fighter.......never mind whether or not Cadillac buyers will buy them.

[Fgts]

Cadillac is down 28% mostly from XTS and SRX to XT5 switchover, Escalade is slightly down, Caddy sold 285 CT6 also.

 

Side note, Malibu outsold the Fusion, omg........

[MY93SHO]

Cadillac is down 28% mostly from XTS and SRX to XT5 switchover, Escalade is slightly down, Caddy sold 285 CT6 also.

 

Side note, Malibu outsold the Fusion, omg........

Can't help yourself can you?

 

Just gotta try to flip the conversation to something else don't you?

 

Poor baby.