Personally, I don't find stereotyping useful, and I KNOW the generalizations are pointless. Ford, Sony, Honda... All big companies have areas where they are strong against the competition or weak against the competition. You can look at Ford's economy sedans and scoff at them, perhaps, but then shift into pickups and watch them dominate. (Even using the same source, such as J.D. Power) All products also have subjective lists of what makes them "quality" for certain individuals--is it mechanical/electronic reliability, longevity, power? Where does service and support and consumer value (both new and in resale) fit in?
Even just looking at flawed products and recalls, how do you put THOSE into context? Number of products lines affected? Number of products total? Do you weigh repeated design flaws heavier, or ones which carry out broadly? Do you look at the time between them? Which plants they come from? Do you scale according to number of products said company releases total, or number of individual items, or value of items?
The problem with stereotypes is "truth" can form them, but how augmented the base is cannot easily be told, and stereotypes seldom die quickly, many times living well past the date of any reasonable applicability. And the problem with generalities is people seldom state--or even know--speficially what they're referring to, nor look at enough to put things in proper context. And for enormous companies like ANY of the ones stated in this thread, any individual would find that task quite daunting.
)
