The question in the headline is the subject of an article in TTELA today. They speak to two analysts about the brand issue and naturally, the two analysts have conflicting opinions.
The Googletrans
Bengt Håkansson is a branding expert and president of the Company Brand Clinic.
- I actually think this has strengthened Saab. It’s like a David and Goliath story, or one of those movies where an American football team successfully turn a 47-0-underdog to win….
….He thinks that the marketing is trying to do in the past year which emphasizes a return to roots and the Swedish Saab unit is important.
- One can not make the cars they used to, but take advantage of the values that are there.
Something he points out that GM failed……
- I had a GM director on a course I had and I asked how the typical Saab customer looked like and what values were, but his manager could not give a good answer.
- I have friends who drive Saab that refuses to test drive other cars. There really is something to seize.
That’s the positive side of the argument.
Now to Googlywoogly the negative:
- I know of no other brand that is so linked to emotional values as Saab. Audi, BMW and Mercedes have been more logical values.
But he believes that the whole situation now to be the killing shot and descriptions of a hopeless situation has damaged the brand.
- There is an uncertainty for those who want to buy the cars and we have pointed out that GM has eroded the mark.
——
So it’s the David argument vs the damaged brand.
From my own perspective, I feel as if the brand is stronger than ever. But that’s a somewhat emotional response. Like you, I’ve been right in the thick of the fight and the fact that Saab have come out alive leads to a very emotional high.
Take yourself out of the situation, though, and the negative perception of Saab being dead or damaged does have some traction – and this is what Saab are going to have to overcome.
All of my friends here in Tasmania know that I’m a Saab nut and most know that I publish this website. Most of them are not car nuts, however, so they get their initial information from the major news services.
I lost count of how many times people offered me their condolences on the death of Saab, which was a perception they got from the mainstream media. Of course, I would tell them not to believe everything that appeared in the news, that Saab still had a chance, etc. They were quite surprised because everything they saw in the news indicated that Saab was dead.
This is the mainstream perception that Saab are going to have to overturn in the short-medium term.
Even if people read/hear that Saab are still alive, what will their impression be? A strong company? A company still on the ropes? Or a vibrant company with brand new products in the offering?
——
Eggs wrote an excellent editorial yesterday, urging us to do everything we can to make sure that Saab can write its own history.
I leave you with this thought: these “nattering nabobs of negativism” were the same people that proclaimed Saab dead in June, October, December and continued to proclaim Saab dead up until this very week. What further proof do I need?
Let’s write our own history. Don’t let these curmudgeons write it for us before it’s done.
During the Saab sale, we saw a press corps that were willing to put Saab to the sword at every opportunity. They were very few outlets that reported in a positive manner based on what was actually happening (Bloomberg, TTELA and Auto Motor and Sport were the best at it and some others got better as things progressed).
Just because the Saab sale has passed the first hurdle, don’t think for a moment that they aren’t going to chase what they think is a sensational headline.
Many are most likely lining up Victor Muller right now, looking into records and trying to find an angle to stir up the peanut gallery.
The quiet investor is a classic current example. Muller has declined to identify an investor in his private company, which has bought out the Antonov shares in Spyker. If that investor’s identity is required to be disclosed by law, then I’m sure it will be. If not, then Muller was quite right when he told an interviewer, in the nicest possible way, to mind his own business.
The public may feel they have a need to know, but if he’s not required to tell, then so be it.
One thing I can assure you of is that GM, the Swedish Government and the EIB would be in a position to demand disclosure, and I’m sure they have been told. The fact that two out of those three have given Spyker the green light already is indicative (to me) of the fact that the investor is solid, acceptable, and presumably entitled to the privacy that he/she demands.
The mission during the Saab sale process was to keep Saab and GM in the spotlight so that GM couldn’t make a decision to close Saab on the quiet.
Perhaps the new mission is to keep the spotlight on Saab’s good news, on their sale, their products and their vision for the future. Perhaps we still need to make sure that we keep the press accountable.
——
I think the Saab brand has incredible potential. They have a lot of former owners who would love to come back to the brand. They have a lot of friends of former owners would have been exposed to Saabs and would be interested. They have tremendous potential to win customers from other brands.
It’s going to be a tough road, but a very exciting journey.
Thanks to PVR for the link!
0 Comments.