During the merger between Daimler and Chrysler; Juergen schremp the then head of Daimler famously proclaimed that it was a "merger among equals". However the reality was very different. The two never saw eye to eye. Daimler took a big hit in quality and Chrysler for a while thrived on new models. After a lot of hue and cry Daimler dumped Chrysler. Today Daimler is on the road to recovery. Chrysler is worse off for the experience.
During engineering phases most of the time the specs of the two companies did not always match making commonization ver difficult.
Public perseption of the merged entity hurt the premimum Daimler.
When Ford acquired premium brands such as Jaguar people joked that it was because the executives at ford did not have a good car to take home.The experiments to create a ford based baby Jag failed miserably.
Compare this to companies like Toyota, Hyundai and Honda. They believe on organic growth. They break down other products to understand and copy parts that are relevant to them and then excel in the execution.
The truth is technologies that are applicable to premium brands (niche and low volume) are not always viable in the low cost segment. Engineers of different companies do not work well together.
The mergers that are doing reasonably well are GM-Opel-Daiwoo, Nissan-Renault. These are more of mergers among equals and so there is a chance and synergy to benefit from each other.
As such I see a very little good that can come out of Tata's acquisitions. There is little synergy. The niche car brands like Jaguar and Rover depend on lots of R&D and will also be very subject to market forces. I reckon Tata would have been better off acquiring Chrysler or some chinese company like Cherry motors for instance.
Please let me know what you think?
|
