A Requiem For Saab

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that auto enthusiasts across the country are dismayed by the news that General Motors is planning to shut down Saab, the Swedish carmaker it bought two decades ago, after a deal to sell it fell apart. Even with its modest and steadily declining sales, Saab, an acronym for Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, or Swedish Airplane Company, long stood out as a powerful brand in spite of itself. 'It wasn't designed to be a fashion statement,' says Ron Pinelli, president of Autodata, which tracks industry statistics. 'It was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions.' Many Saab owners consider the brand's glory days to be the 1980s, when Americans began buying cars again after a recession and energy crisis. 'The cars were communicative,' says Pinelli. 'They didn't try to numb the experience like cars do today.' The cars had odd touches and appealed to those who appreciate the unconventional. Swedish engineers assumed drivers would be wearing gloves, so they designed big buttons for the dashboard. Though the cars were compact, with long hoods and short rear ends, there was plenty of headroom inside. Now Saab, a brand that once had one of the clearest identities in the industry, seems headed for extinction just as automakers are searching for more distinctive designs to help set them apart. 'It's a shame that Saab is a victim,' adds Pinelli."

Comments

Speaking for myself as a Swedish brick driver,

[aussersterne]

I lose any interest in the brand the moment an American company buys it, because I know that the quality of the "American version" isn't going to hold a candle to the Swedish version. Once the Americans get their grubby little hands on it and start to try to integrate it into their manufacturing and supply chain and QC practices, the car's gonna just be another Chevy.

If I wanted a Chevy, I'd buy a chevy.

I'm finally getting ready to replace my '84 with 300k miles on it. When I do, I'm buying used, and I'm buying the "last Swedish year." I'm not touching any GM Saabs or Ford Volvos.

Victim of its own success (sorta)

[digitalhermit]

SAAB was once quirky and bizarre, the choice of folks who needed some particular features. Then people started buying it, not for the suitability for cold weather or whatever, but precisely because it was quirky. Then the customers even stopped caring about the quirkiness and started buying them for the nameplate. Sure, there were a few folks who needed some strange features, but for the most part, people only cared about the name. GM, though not having the brightest business acumen, sought to capitalize. Instead of quirkiness they sold the brand on its name. Alas, in circles of people who cared about these things, GM and exclusivity are mutually - ahh - exclusive. The cars stopped selling.

There's a right way and a wrong way to capitalize on quirkiness, I think. Apple used to sell their products as the choice of the minority. Their "Think Different" campaign was not so much about suitability but about the mere fact of being different than the masses. That campaign might not have worked a few years later when nationalism and homogenized thinking was seen as patriotic, but it was perfect for the times.

So here was GM peddling SAAB as the choice of the oddball right during the time when it was gauche to be different. Then when that failed they started talking about SAAB's roots in a foreign military when US patriotism was near a peak. I suppose if they had survived, GM would have marketed it as the choice of banking executives. "Look! SAAB is the number one choice among failed banking executives!"

Re:Your argument is over 20 years out of date

[drinkypoo]

Neither of those criticisms applies to the cars that they make today.

Unfortunately for you, the quotes that I attacked were about how great Saab was back in the Eighties. My point was that it was NEVER great. So your criticism does not apply to my comment. The Saab autos of today are just like anyone else's, and they are not the leader in any class — they have always been mediocre autos at best. Why should they survive?

Horrifyingly poor management

[FranTaylor]

Back before they developed the yuppie image and the high prices, they were just a nice solid car that was unstoppable in bad weather. Certainly they were more expensive than the typical car, but not so much so that they were unaffordable.

But GM really destroyed them by pushing them into a market that they were designed for.

We New Englanders still need a nice winter car, and Saab is not there for that purpose any more because they are just too darned expensive now. I only have one because I bought it used, there's no way I'm going to pay $40K for a car.

Saab was a modest company making a modest profit on a modest sales. GM came along and doubled their production and raised the prices. In the process they made the company much more fragile because now they had to maintain sales levels to pay down the expenses of expanding.

Really the story is not all that different from the typical failed high-tech company: crash and burn while attempting to grow out of the initial successful market. The projected sales increases don't happen. This failure pattern happens over and over again so many times, you'd think managers would learn.

A lesson to be learned and yet another reason for Europeans to be annoyed at Americans.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[TarPitt]

Their union contracts have strangled their ability to compete in a fair market.

You mean the same United Auto Workers union that the very successful Ford has worked with for decades? Amazing how that union has brought down GM, but somehow the same union represents workers at the successful Ford.

Scott Adams made fun of the tendency of management to blame the least powerful individuals for management failing.. The UAW is a convenient scapegoat for right-wing talking heads, but the decision to manufacture poorly-made cars that do not meet a market need is purely management's.

Re:Horrifyingly poor management

[jmauro]

But ask your self how did these long-term retiree contracts even exist if management hadn't thought it was a good idea to offer them in lue of a 50 or a dollar an hour raise back in the 1950s? How did the become under-funded over years of management not funding them?

Did these contracts appear out of thin air? Nope each side went into the agreement with something they can accept and signed on the dotted line and expected the other side to hold up their end.

These were all management decisions that were made by GM's board and the decisions they made catasrophicly bad. They based them on assumptions that became appearent in the late 60's were not holding up, but GM kept making them over and over again. Based on their size it let them asorb the hits until the 80's, but by then it was way, way too late to make the changes.

Blaming the guy on the factory floor trying to keep a middle class life for things he cannot control is sad.

Near-Death Experience of Saab

[reporter]

In the middle of this decade, General Motors (GM) owned part of both Saab and Subaru and attempted to save some money by re-badging a Subaru as a Saab and calling the finished product "Saab 9-2X". This single act signaled the end of Saab. Though Subaru has acceptable quality, the re-badging destroys the Saab mystique. You would encounter the same problem if Ford had re-badged the Mazda RX-8 as a "Mustang".

Nonetheless, you need not cry for Saab. It will live again. According to a news report just issued by the "Wall Street Journal", Spyker has made another offer to buy Saab. This time, we have the real deal.

GM is the Computer Associates of the car industry

[TarPitt]

They take brands past their prime and run them into the ground

(damn, a computer analogy for a car story. A first for Slashdot?)

Re:numb driving experience

[mi]

But what is it with Americans preferring numb cars that totally insulate them from what the car is doing? They all seem to like very mushy suspensions where the car tips around corners, and automatic transmissions.

The simple answer is, Americans drive. A lot more, than anyone else in the world. Whereas most Europeans can comfortably live without a car at all — relying on government-run public transportation (and when those are on strike — stay home) — most Americans need a car to get anywhere. So, in Europe a much higher share of drivers are enthusiasts — people, who like to drive. In the US everybody is a driver, even if they'd rather not be — and so there is a much bigger bias towards comfort over excitement.

Even for enthusiasts, if you spend 90 minutes in your car every day (45 minutes each way to work and home), for example, you'll value certain features, that you wouldn't care for, if you drove for 90 minutes a week.