Remembering a "Different Kind of Car Company"

I am now driving my second Saturn automobile. In fact, since purchasing my first Saturn 4 out of the 5 members of my immediate family drove or still drive Saturns. They are good cars. Or I suppose I should say they were good cars. In 2010, alongside legacy brand Pontiac, and Hummer, Saturn was killed by parent company, GM as part of their attempt to escape bankruptcy.

So what happened?

To answer that question let's go back to 1985 when GM created the Saturn brand. Though it would be more than 5 years before the first car rolled off the line, the fledgling company did reveal a prototype, which definitely shows some styling cues seen on the S Series when it finally launched.

In many ways Saturn was an ambitious experiment. It was a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, but they had their own factory, dealer network, the "no haggle" pricing structure, and vehicles that shared little with other GM brands. According to a quote from a Saturn dealer interviewed in a 1992 TIME magazine story, "Most of our customers don't know who makes the car, so when people come into the showroom and we explain that Saturn is a separate corporation, they think of it as Saturn first and GM second." In short, Saturn was for all intents and purposes an independent auto company. And while it may not have been an overwhelming money maker for GM, Saturn did build strong customer loyalty. From the same TIME article,

Saturn has in abundance what many of GM's other products so desperately need: prestige. The upstart division's high-quality products have proved so popular that customers have to put their names on waiting lists. If Saturn can translate its popularity into profits, the formula could help save the rest of the giant company.

Apparently the popularity did not translate into profit.

Beginning with the larger L-Series in 2000, Saturn started borrowing platforms from other GM vehicles. In fact by the time of closure, there was not a single unique body style in the Saturn line up; all but one model being badge-engineered Opal cars (The Outlook crossover SUV, while not an Opal vehicle, did share a platform with many other GM vehicles.) The plant in Spring Hill Tennessee built specifically for Saturn, had been retooled to produce the Chevy Traverse. Virtually everything that made Saturn unique and exciting was gone. Saturn was no longer treated as independent of GM and had become no longer relevant.

The experiment had failed.

So when it came time for GM to divest itself of the brand, there were few companies interested in buying. The brand had been tarnished. Rather than continue to push boundaries and encourage innovation, GM instead got lazy and doomed the brand to mediocrity. Sure the cars may have been of good quality, but if you look at an Opal Astra and a Saturn Astra the ONLY differences are the logo (the grille itself is virtually the same) and perhaps the side of the car on which the driver is seated.

Am I sad that the company is no more? Yes and no. Obviously, I like the brand, and had it been sold, would continue to support it. I would actually have liked to have seen GM take Saturn in the direction of Toyota's Scion subsidiary: stylish, hip and uncompromisingly unique. However, if the best we could have hoped for was an avenue for GM's foreign marques to be sold stateside, then it is probably best that the brand was dissolved sooner than later.

I hope that people look at the history of Saturn and realize that when creating a product or a brand, it is ok--and sometimes necessary--to reinvent so as to stay fresh in the evolving marketplace. However, to remain relevant companies must not lose sight of their core competencies.