I was literally chocked this week when I read about this new acquisition. It is written everywhere that if we don't take care of our environment, we will kill our planet. I think that GM forgot about the new trend saving the environment.
.
In my opinion, they should have stopped producing it instead of selling it to the most populous nation with 1,333,460,000 citizens. I can't even imagine what will happen; they will possibly produce a cheap mass-market version of the Hummer for the local market so everybody will be able to afford one.
Moreover, for the Chinese buyers, the deal represents the first acquisition of a distressed asset from the American car industry and a calculated bet that it can revive a tainted brand (Times online). Thus, I guess that Chinese will be proud of this brand and might buy more of those polluting cars even if according to James Taylor, GM’s executive, the brand has been unfairly tagged as a symbol of the American gas guzzler.
It was said Friday, October 9th 2009, that General Motors Co. had signed a definitive deal to sell its Hummer sport-utility vehicle business to China’s Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. Tengzhong will buy the company through an investment unit in which it holds an 80% stake. The remaining 20% will be hold by Mining tycoon Suolang Duoji, a private entrepreneur. Even though the purchase price was not disclosed, GM said it estimated the value of Hummer at US$500 million, but it was said that the brand will be purchased for about US$150 million, which is less than a third of its value.
With the rising gasoline prices and growing environmental awareness, the hummer demand was at its lowest this year with only 8 193 hummers sold compared to 71 524 in 2006. I think this should be a sign, nobody wants those anymore, don’t try to convince Chinese to become adept of it to feel a little more American.
Many different papers around the world related the story about this new acquisition. Some papers were more objective when others tried to reveal the story objectively with some bias. Overall, I can say that every paper said more or less the same facts; some were more detailed when others only gave a summary of what was going on.
My favourite article is from Reuters, where the author related the story with strong words such as iconic but tarnished Hummer brand and obscure Chinese machinery maker to show that he wasn’t really in agreement with this deal. The author could have gave more details about the transaction though, because he didn’t inform the reader with all the important details about the company and the implication of the deal.
Wall Street Journal uses a different approach to reveal the news. It informs the reader with an objective view and very detailed information. They first inform us of the transaction fees and explain that the China’s central government could still balk at the acquisition because of Hummer’s reputation. It also shows all the benefits that this deal will bring to China, which makes me feel a little more comprehensive even though I don't really agree. The author also used an optimistic approach and informed the reader that under the new Chinese owners, Hummer would try to come up with more fuel-efficient models, including gasoline-electric hybrid models. Finally, the article gives us some hope that this deal might not come to an end since China has been pushing its consumers toward purchasing smaller cars to save energy.
On Saturday, The Washington Times published an article starting with a strong headline China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million, which was almost saying that China was steeling something from US. The author used quotes to show how it was weird and how important this brand was for American. I think it was obvious that this article was written by a real patriotic American. I liked it, but I felt this article was trying to convince its reader that Hummer has value in this market, which is untruth for me.
I enjoyed reading news from UK, China and US about this acquisition because all these different countries had a different approach. UK was relating the facts and showed both positive and negative sides of this acquisition. The article from Xinhuanet was really optimistic about it, even if both government didn’t yet agreed, the article gave only one quote from Taylor’s saying that when Chinese government will see Hummer’s new business plan it will be very supportive. Finally, the articles from the US I read seemed happy to save their brand but at the same time, it gave the reader a feeling that they were loosing their identity.
Sources:
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE59916D20091010
Financial Times : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0674ee6-b534-11de-8b17-00144feab49a.html
Moreover, for the Chinese buyers, the deal represents the first acquisition of a distressed asset from the American car industry and a calculated bet that it can revive a tainted brand (Times online). Thus, I guess that Chinese will be proud of this brand and might buy more of those polluting cars even if according to James Taylor, GM’s executive, the brand has been unfairly tagged as a symbol of the American gas guzzler.
It was said Friday, October 9th 2009, that General Motors Co. had signed a definitive deal to sell its Hummer sport-utility vehicle business to China’s Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. Tengzhong will buy the company through an investment unit in which it holds an 80% stake. The remaining 20% will be hold by Mining tycoon Suolang Duoji, a private entrepreneur. Even though the purchase price was not disclosed, GM said it estimated the value of Hummer at US$500 million, but it was said that the brand will be purchased for about US$150 million, which is less than a third of its value.
With the rising gasoline prices and growing environmental awareness, the hummer demand was at its lowest this year with only 8 193 hummers sold compared to 71 524 in 2006. I think this should be a sign, nobody wants those anymore, don’t try to convince Chinese to become adept of it to feel a little more American.
Many different papers around the world related the story about this new acquisition. Some papers were more objective when others tried to reveal the story objectively with some bias. Overall, I can say that every paper said more or less the same facts; some were more detailed when others only gave a summary of what was going on.
My favourite article is from Reuters, where the author related the story with strong words such as iconic but tarnished Hummer brand and obscure Chinese machinery maker to show that he wasn’t really in agreement with this deal. The author could have gave more details about the transaction though, because he didn’t inform the reader with all the important details about the company and the implication of the deal.
Wall Street Journal uses a different approach to reveal the news. It informs the reader with an objective view and very detailed information. They first inform us of the transaction fees and explain that the China’s central government could still balk at the acquisition because of Hummer’s reputation. It also shows all the benefits that this deal will bring to China, which makes me feel a little more comprehensive even though I don't really agree. The author also used an optimistic approach and informed the reader that under the new Chinese owners, Hummer would try to come up with more fuel-efficient models, including gasoline-electric hybrid models. Finally, the article gives us some hope that this deal might not come to an end since China has been pushing its consumers toward purchasing smaller cars to save energy.
On Saturday, The Washington Times published an article starting with a strong headline China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million, which was almost saying that China was steeling something from US. The author used quotes to show how it was weird and how important this brand was for American. I think it was obvious that this article was written by a real patriotic American. I liked it, but I felt this article was trying to convince its reader that Hummer has value in this market, which is untruth for me.
I enjoyed reading news from UK, China and US about this acquisition because all these different countries had a different approach. UK was relating the facts and showed both positive and negative sides of this acquisition. The article from Xinhuanet was really optimistic about it, even if both government didn’t yet agreed, the article gave only one quote from Taylor’s saying that when Chinese government will see Hummer’s new business plan it will be very supportive. Finally, the articles from the US I read seemed happy to save their brand but at the same time, it gave the reader a feeling that they were loosing their identity.
Sources:
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE59916D20091010
Financial Times : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0674ee6-b534-11de-8b17-00144feab49a.html
Times Online: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/ article6868799.eceturn operations.
Financial Post: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2087095
The Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/10/chinese-firm-closes-hummer-deal/
Well done - a very well researched blog shoing good critical analysis of the way the media covered the news and how the bias differed across different countries. I also liked your fresh opinion. 7.5/10
ReplyDelete