The problems experienced by the “Big Two,” General Motors (GM) and Ford (F), in North America’s car market aren’t caused by macroeconomic woes. I believe that they are the direct result of poor branding, poor product design, and poor strategic decisionmaking, and that these characteristics are so entrenched and established that they will take decades to root out. In the news last week were two fairly typical case studies: Fiat S.p.A. (OTC: FIATY) announced it was looking for partners to sell Alfa Romeo models in the U.S., and Ford (F) announced the sale of the luxury brands Jaguar and Rover to Tata Motors (TTM).

Fiat is now looking for partners to build cars for the U.S. market. The first U.S. models, probably 2009 model year, will be imported, but eventually they’ll look for plants with idle capacity in North America. Also, the first models will be more exotic (think “Spider 8C”) or retro-chic trendy (think “Fiat 500″) than the Alfa 147 5-door pictured here, but I think something like the 147 will make a lot of sense in the U.S. market. Fiat S.p.A. (OTC: FIATY) has made quite a financial turnaround since Sergio Marchionne took over 4 years ago.

Hmm, wasn’t it just three years ago that General Motors terminated its five-year marriage to Fiat? What a Fiatsco! GM sold out right at the bottom, in terms of Fiat’s Western European light vehicle market share, after throwing quite a bit of money into the Fiat recovery that was to come. Regardless of anything GM might have gained from Fiat’s perceived diesel technology edge, they tossed aside a chance at participating in Western European turnaround and possibly importing some of Fiat’s small cars in the middle of today’s “gas crisis.” Remember that the deal with Fiat was started months before Rick Wagoner was made CEO of GM, but the decision to throw more money at Fiat, and then to end the deal, was done with Rick as CEO. Strategic decisionmaking is obviously as big a problem for GM as anything in the macroeconomic realm.

Ford announced last week that they are selling their Land Rover and “Jag-You-Are” brands to Tata Motors. This, at the bargain price of about one-third what they paid to buy the brands 19 years ago! Adjusted for the CPI, that is about an 83% loss on their investment in the brands, not counting any cash flow in or out, of course.

What Ford has done to Jaguar’s brand is a crime. The “Baby XJ,” the X-Type, is a tarted-up and rebadged Ford Mondeo (think “Contour” in the U.S. market), making that the equivalent of a time-warped “Cadillac Cimarron” brand decision. Imagine the clean, crisp body shape of the 2000 Contour, on sale as a 2008 “entry-lux” level Jaguar, with a premium price! Yeah, that floats my boat, too. I can’t say that Ford did nearly as much damage to the Rover Group’s brand name, only because some of their biggest Rover mistakes, like the Freelander (2002-2005), aren’t sold anymore and thankfully aren’t remembered by much of the public. Ford is selling these brands because, in almost two decades of ownership, they haven’t figured out how to capitalize on or expand their luxury images (arguably they have degraded the image of the brands) and haven’t been able to lever the brands into substantial growth.

I know that these are only two data points, but they are recent, and are in my opinion indicative of the modern (3 decades or so) history of the branding, product design, and strategic decisionmaking that the “Big Two” have been guilty of in the U.S. markets. In both these cases, the “Big Two” made substantial partnerships or purchases for known strategic reasons, poured tons of resources into those deals, failed to get meaningful results out of those deals, and eventually sold out of those deals at a significant monetary loss.

The problems of the “Big Two” may be exacerbated by the macro trends of foreign growth and cheaper labor, but they are ultimately not helping themselves with their own incompetence.

Disclosure: no current positions in GM, F, TTM, or FIATY.