This stuff goes on all the time in many industries. Even in the
motorcycle sector, the Kawaski/Suzuki arrangement is not unique.
Aprilia and Piaggio did one too, and their release noted that it was
common in the auto industry as well. Ain't no big deal. Isn't
unique to Japanese companies. Just good business.
Your reasoning about saving Japanese jobs doesn't make any sense to
me anyway. Re-badging doesn't save any manufacturing jobs. All it
does is save R&D expense. Reduces risk of new product introductions.
Randy
--- In
DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green"
wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese
> > motorcycle
> > > companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain
> > solvent
> > > could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be
>
> > Joint agreements like this aren't bizarre at all. American car
> > companies do this with foreign companies fairly regularly. When
you
>
> Not exactly. I've never seen two American auto companies enter into
a
> marketing agreement like this. I don't think it'd be possible even
if we
> were in the situation where we were in the mid 1970's, where there
were
> four American car companies (AMC, Chrysler, GM, Ford). If, say, AMC
and
> Chrysler (the two weakest car companies at the time) had entered
into a
> joint development agreement where, say, Chrysler provided their car
and
> truck products to AMC in exchange for AMC allowing them to market
Jeep
> products rebadged as Dodge products, you would have heard screaming
from
> the lawyers from the other two car companies almost immediately
about
> "anti-competitive activities" and "anti-trust" and what have you.
>
> Where American companies DO make such deals with foreign car
companies, it
> is generally in exchange for an ownership share. For example,
General
> Motors owns Volvo and owns a sizable portion of Subaru (Fuji Heavy
> Industries, rather). So they have no problem doing cross marketing
there,
> selling rebadged Subarus as Volvos, etc. General Motors sold
rebadged
> Toyota Corollas for many years as the Geo/Chevy Prizm, but that was
in
> exchange for ownership share in Toyota's Fremont auto plant (which
had
> been a GM auto plant that was being closed, but which was
essentially sold
> to Toyota for producing the Corolla) so that GM could steal Toyota's
> production technologies legally. Similarly, GM markets some Suzuki
> automotive products, but they also have a sizable ownership stake in
> Suzuki. Similarly, Chrysler in the past marketed a number of
Mitsubishi
> products, but in turn had an ownership share in Mitsubishi. (This
> relationship seems to have fallen onto hard times since the Germans
took
> over Chrysler, though... the Germans seem even more resistant to
joint
> ventures than the Americans, though Porsche and VW have had some
joint
> ventures in the past, such as the 914 being powered by a VW motor,
and of
> course the joint Porsche/VW SUV).
>
> A straight rebadging agreement like the one between Kawasaki and
Suzuki,
> without any kind of ownership share... the only similar agreement I
can
> think of in recent times is the one between Porsche and VW for
their SUV,
> and that's limited to a single product with no guarantee of any
future
> cooperation. I truly believe that, from a cultural point of view if
not
> from a legal point of view, the Kawasaki/Suzuki relationship is
uniquely
> Japanese, and could not recur anywhere else.
>
> Finally, regarding Kawasaki's other businesses: They would not have
> stopped Kawasaki from shutting down its motorcycle division if
sales had
> continued to sag, any more than Fuji Heavy Industry's other
businesses
> would have stopped them from shutting down the Subaru car business
if
> sales had continued to sag. The Japanese government set up a joint
> agreement between Subaru and Nissan whereby Subaru could dip into
the
> Nissan parts bin (the mirrors on a Subaru I owned in the late 90's
was
> made by Nissan -- said so on the bottom -- and undoubtedly other
parts
> were also), then set up the agreement with GM to gain access to the
GM
> parts bin as well as investment by GM to solve their cash flow
problems.
> Add in some quirky ads starring Paul Hogan and Martina
Navaratalova, and
> you end up with a resurgence in sales and rebadged Subarus being
sold as
> Volvos. The Japanese government is reluctant to let *any* industrial
> subsidiaries fail, no matter how small a part of the parent
company's
> business, and the Kawasaki/Suzuki deal bears all the handprints of
> Japanese governmental interference -- especially when you consider
that
> for a while Suzuki was seriously thinking about getting out of the
> motorcycle business to concentrate on cars.
>
> -E