I'm sensing that the French'esk, Intalianesk, and Americanesk consumers of Stellantis vehicles had strong affinity for their brands (company) country history.
Would an organizational structure (and the overhead it adds) yield better connection with these district consumers and their spokespersons (the kind of people here who speak good/bad will of the vehicles to their friends) that is based on a holding company model be better? What do you folks think here about a model like this and are you a stockholder, a fan, a directly vested person (employee, sales, supplier etc), or consumer; share your thoughts.
---
Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ Chrysler Corporation (pentastar logo) a publicly traded company in N.A. that is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles and is H.Q. in Michigan
+ Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, RAM targeted for North American markets and areas where these vehicles are already popular.
+ Chrysler Capital targeting the US and North American market
+ Peugeot (original company logo) a publicly traded company based out of France that is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ classic Peugeot brands that are familiar in Europe and globally
+ Fiat (original company logo) a publicly traded company in Italy based out of Italy and is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ MoPar as a subsidiary of SGV and provides autoparts to many of the above companies
+ Leap (remains what it is now)
...
I think you get the picture of how to complete the structure above. Vehicles like Alfa or Fiat or Leap could be brought to the US under a subbrand of the existing brands or treated like a Joint Venture was in the 80s where the vehicles are made for each of the brands. (e.g. the Tonale and Hornet would be as they are now, and the Gullia would end up as a reskinned Dodge and the Citroén C5 as a Chrysler and if we do need a mini car it can be brought in as a Chrysler. Jeep may need to be extended to the other brands as it is a global name but then it becomes more of a brand that is just selling under one of the other companies.
This would add some overhead, however, it would create autonomy for each of the regional players to move some needles kind-of independent of the mother, and as long as the Mother gets $$ via their ownership and the shared services (e.g. Mopar, Leasys, etc) everyone wins. Mr. Musk gets to toute brought Chrysler back, economies of scale can still happen easier, relationships are partnerships over forced integration, and each W.O.S. will be accountable to their own shareholders, consumers, and regional trends with global connections to flex when markets shift (E.V. ICE, Fuel, size, style, etc)
Would an organizational structure (and the overhead it adds) yield better connection with these district consumers and their spokespersons (the kind of people here who speak good/bad will of the vehicles to their friends) that is based on a holding company model be better? What do you folks think here about a model like this and are you a stockholder, a fan, a directly vested person (employee, sales, supplier etc), or consumer; share your thoughts.
---
Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ Chrysler Corporation (pentastar logo) a publicly traded company in N.A. that is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles and is H.Q. in Michigan
+ Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, RAM targeted for North American markets and areas where these vehicles are already popular.
+ Chrysler Capital targeting the US and North American market
+ Peugeot (original company logo) a publicly traded company based out of France that is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ classic Peugeot brands that are familiar in Europe and globally
+ Fiat (original company logo) a publicly traded company in Italy based out of Italy and is 50+% owned by Stellantis Global Vehicles
+ MoPar as a subsidiary of SGV and provides autoparts to many of the above companies
+ Leap (remains what it is now)
...
I think you get the picture of how to complete the structure above. Vehicles like Alfa or Fiat or Leap could be brought to the US under a subbrand of the existing brands or treated like a Joint Venture was in the 80s where the vehicles are made for each of the brands. (e.g. the Tonale and Hornet would be as they are now, and the Gullia would end up as a reskinned Dodge and the Citroén C5 as a Chrysler and if we do need a mini car it can be brought in as a Chrysler. Jeep may need to be extended to the other brands as it is a global name but then it becomes more of a brand that is just selling under one of the other companies.
This would add some overhead, however, it would create autonomy for each of the regional players to move some needles kind-of independent of the mother, and as long as the Mother gets $$ via their ownership and the shared services (e.g. Mopar, Leasys, etc) everyone wins. Mr. Musk gets to toute brought Chrysler back, economies of scale can still happen easier, relationships are partnerships over forced integration, and each W.O.S. will be accountable to their own shareholders, consumers, and regional trends with global connections to flex when markets shift (E.V. ICE, Fuel, size, style, etc)