I think it’s time for another email to SaabUSA, if they still exist. The recent movement of Cadillac General Manager Jim Taylor to become CEO of the brand formerly known as Hummer was reported with Steve Shannon’s future looking like a mere footnote (ouch!).
The backstory: In April 2008, General Motors appointed Mark McNabb as the head of their Premium Brands operation in the US. Eggs n Grits raised the legitimate question back then: what does that mean for Steve Shannon?
So, if there’s a new man in town to market Saabs, does that mean that Steve Shannon has a new boss? My guess is that the leadership of the brand and the leadership of the sales channel can be seperate, however, Mr. Shannon previously said grace over the Saab dealership network, and now may not.
SaabUSA’s PR guru chimed in via comments to that post to say the following:
Steve Shannon stays on in his current role as general manager for Saab Automobile U.S.A. For us, this means business as usual, keeping our focus on the launch of the Turbo X, Cross-Wheel Drive in the 9-3 and even more exciting all-new Saab products quickly growing bigger on the horizon…
Well, as S.E. Hinton wrote when I was a kid: That was then, this is now.
The press articles about Jim Taylor’s being passed over for McNabb move to Hummer also include the following:
The three general manager positions reporting to McNabb are being eliminated, spokeswoman Joanne Krell said in an interview…..
….GM plans to appoint Hummer’s Walsh to a new job, Krell said. Steve Shannon, 50, Saab’s general manager, will become executive director of product and marketing for the premium channel, reporting to McNabb
And that’s it.
So it looks like we’re now in a position where Saab’s largest market division has a guy at the helm who’s also dealing with Cadillac (the company darling) and Hummer (find a way to sell it), so how much attention is he going to give the-little-brand-that-could (if it just had a chance)?
It also raises the larger question as to whether SaabUSA will continue to exist or whether it will be folded into a larger entity called GM Premium Brands as has been done here in Australia and in the UK.
If so, who’s at the helm? Who’s sitting in a chair in an office somewhere in the United States saying “I’m the one who gives a rat’s about Saab?”. Who’s making the decisions? Who’s having input as to what the US market needs from Saab? Who’s the go-to guy? Who’s talking with the ad people? Are there ad people?
McNabb’s been in de-facto leadership of Saab since his appointment in April. Back then we thought Steve Shannon was reporting to him. Now it looks like Shannon’s been set aside and McNabb’s the man.
So why haven’t we heard a solitary word about Saab from the man who’s supposedly been responsible for them for the last six months?
I’ll email Jan-Willem Vester at SaabUSA and invite a response, either from himself or McNabb.
And I’d like to take this opportunity to wish Steve Shannon well for what’s sure to be an interesting future. I’m not sure that he ever really “got” Saab and I’ve been critical at times (as scribes are wont to do), but he’s a good guy and I hope his personal and vocational experience has been adequately broadened by his association with Saab.
–
Wow. I’m almost at the point where I sometimes (dread) coming to this site because it seems Saab news gets worse every day.
Its like GM is slowly building Saab’s coffin, and it’s just a matter of time before the final nail is pounded in. (Sorry if I’m being a bit dramatic and pessimistic, but is anyone else with me?)
I hear ya, Joe.
I just wish someone over there was showing some leadership and sharing a plan for the future. The cars are great, but they don’t seem to support them that much. Everyone’s out here hoping that things will turn, but it seems like there’s no-one at the rudder.
I look forward to some good news, too.
Well, I think that Steve Shannon made it clear that Mr. McNabb was his boss in one form or another. It seems that now his role has simply changed, not the relationship.
Valid point on the “who’s responsible for Saab” question.
OK, now add this factor into the equation.
News from
By Brenon Daly, Tomi Kilgore and Susan Lerner, CBS MarketWatch
–6:25P GM, Chrysler merger talks picking up pace: WSJ (GM)
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Merger discussions between General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC are picking up pace as the two sides are seeing strong support from banks and other potential lenders that are eager to see a deal done, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday in its online edition. GM is aiming to get a deal done as early as the end of October, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter. Other major players pushing the deal are JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Cerberus Capital Management, according to the Journal. Cerberus owns Chrysler, while JP Morgan is one of the largest holders of Chrysler bank debt and is a key lender to GM.
I thought this deal was dead, but this was released 6 minutes ago.
Is there any room left for Saab in this picture?
Will Steve Shannon head up Jeep next?
tim
I think it’s all going to be moot once GM goes belly-up and gets the AIG treatment from the government. You can bet that everyone in a management position at that company will be run out of Detroit on a rail and replaced by people who actually know what they’re doing (and who don’t command double-digit million dollar salaries, either).
I think this might actually be good for Saab, as it may prevent too much overlapping in terms of product placement and marketing between Cadillac and Saab. We all know some of Saab’s future product line was squashed in the past because the heads at Cadillac didn’t want the Swedes encroaching too far into their territory (ie. the original 9-7x and the SRX).
On the other hand, I don’t know how this will work in NA where Cadillac is clearly the dominant one in the Premium portfolio, unlike the rest of the world where Saab is the better seller. The biggest problem with all of GM’s brands is that they never communicated enough. That was also British Leyland’s failing that contributed to its demise.
It’s really Hummer news as it’s being prepped for sale or extinction, or some way to get out from GM’s responsibility. And with Hummer out of the picture, that can only be good news for the rest of GM’s divisions.
Tim – There was a bit on Jalopnik about the merger, they said it would be like when Chrysler bought AMC from Renault in the 80′s: Everything was gone but Jeep. Now, it looks like if GM “merged” with Chrysler, everything Chrysler would be gone except Jeep and the minivans, which would be rebranded as Chevies or Pontiacs or whatever. That’s speculation, of course, but it makes a whole lot of sense.
I hope it doesn’t happen. Like I said before…bye bye Viper, goodnight Challenger :’(
Alex – That won’t happen, look at what AIG did right after the bailout: $400k spa retreat for executives. “Standard practice,” the new head says. Run out on a rail, ha.
Hey, let me hope will ya?
GM needs to realise that nobody outside of North America rates Cadillac and the sooner they do that the better it will be for Saab. Either that or sell Saab to a European company, Peugot maybe?
Steve Shannon, 50, Saab’s general manager, will become executive director of product and marketing for the premium channel, reporting to McNabbSteve Shannon, 50, Saab’s general manager, will become executive director of product and marketing for the premium channel, reporting to McNabb”
I read this as good news. He’s now in charge of product planning and marketing for Saab, Cadillac, and Hummer (until someone is stupid enough to buy it). He’s now in a position to look at the obvious overlaps (Cadillac in Europe?, non-turbo Saabs? Turbo-4 Cadillacs? “Small” Hummers?) and do something about them. This breaks down the barriers between the brand so they’re no longer competing against each other for the same market segments. This, above all else, has been GM’s endemic problem since it was founded.
So far it’s still Saturn-SAAB dealers in Canada but I wonder how long that will last. Cadillac is also not sold alone here; sometimes in a Chevy store, more often Pontiac-Buick-GMC, and not in every one. I don’t think dealers could survive without less expensive cars (to buy and operate–it’s not exactly the same auto market as in the US) to keep them going. I would bet that if GM went premium brands in all of North America it would be dual but connected showrooms with a service entry in the middle, perhaps with one reserved lane for the premium brands. Only in a handful of the most affluent markets could a premium-only dealer survive.
I have heard that my dealer in Montreal (Pontiac-Buick-GMC Cadlllac in one showroom, Saturn SAAB next door, separate entrance and service channel, same real estate) is building a new facility nearby with boutique style showrooms for each brand (or perhaps small clusters of brands); my guess is a service compound in the center–like a hub and spoke. Maybe (as I’m told) it’s because their lease is up on the present land, but I suspect GM is trying out a new configuration.
I think it would be a good thing to have SAABs widely available at more dealers. We have may TS readers who have to drive long distances (never mind Namibia!) across town to buy or service one. Cadillacs draw customer into showrooms on this continent, more than SAABs, os Steve shannon or whoever simply needs to make sure there’s a dazzling showroom SAAB or three in every one of them.
Sadly it always seems to be the blind leading the blind at GM as far as Saab is concerned. Saab desperately needs a new landlord and that can’t happen soon enough!
A month ago or so I watched a 60 minute interview of Rick Wagoner on the late night Charlie Rose Show. Wagoner spent quite a bit of time discussing the Volt and how global GM has become. He spoke of GM operations in Eastern Europe and Opel but didn’t make a single reference to the Saab or Sweden. It really makes you wonder if the brand’s in GM’s long term strategy.
GM’s ability to find positions for people in “management” positions is immense. I see this as another shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Take a look at Saab’s success in markets where they are managed by GM and you’ll see markedly sinking sales numbers ever since GM got their hands on the brand. Saab does not need closer cooperation with the NA brands from Detroit it needs separation and to be led by people that care about the brand and not their position on the corporate ladder at GM.
I count at least 3 Saab dealers in my area that have closed (NJ USA). It can said that most
people around here want a.) a minivan, b.) a honda, c.) a bmw or audi, d.) a mini in that order.
I’ve seen mini and audi opening dealerships.
Whether or not Saab makes a good product, it seems there is very poor Saab advertising here in
the U.S. I recall the October Wired Magazine. The opening cover ad is a 2 page ad for the
9-3. It mentions the benefits of turbo charging. But later in the magazine there is a split add for
the new Madza 6..which simply says that it is new, new new. The Madza ad looked pretty exciting while the Saab ad, despite being the first cover ad, did not seem very memorable, exciting,
or catching. I thought I must be the only person in world (having a Saab and a Madza) to know
that the Saab was the superior product here and the Madza would be a piece of rust in 5 years.
So I’m not sure who is charge of SaabUSA but they really need a different advertising agency.
I recall the ad inserts and mailings I sometimes get from Mini. Whether you like the car or not, you
must admit the advertisements are neat. They seem to have built a following and dealership network from scratch. Whatever new model Saab comes out with it would be a great opportunity to overhall
their advertising.
“There was a bit on Jalopnik about the merger, they said it would be like when Chrysler bought AMC from Renault in the 80’s: Everything was gone but Jeep.”
Actually, Chrysler’s mid-size cars were based on Renault designs well into the 21st century. Few people realize this, but the Chrysler 300M and its corporate sisters were great-grandchildren of the Renault 21.
There is something inherently wrong with the way GM is managing Saab: let me illustrate. The October 2008 issue of CAR magazine (a local motoring piece of opinionated hogwash declaring anything some substandard other then the German trio (Audi, BMW, Mercedes Benz and VAG) had an insert which I believe was paid for by General Motors Southern Africa on “GM – a century of motoring” which featured amongst others interviews with Maureen Kempston Darkes: president of GM Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (GM LAAM), page 28, Bob Lutz, GM’s vice-chairman of global product development, page 36 and Rick Wagoner, GM’s current CEO, page 56
On the front page of the insert of 66 pages they have the “Chevrolet Volt – charging into the future,” (how that will pan out in rural Africa heaven knows), the Cadillac CTS (adverts in most local newspapers, glossy magazines and TV) and a Hummer H3 (produced locally – i.e. South Africa and exported to right-hand drive markets earning foreign direct investment in the process and allowing customs duty rebates which allows GM to import the Caddy CTS and company). You bet: no mention of Saab apart from this at the bottom of the front cover: “GMSA – gives you six of the best: Chevrolet (read Daewoo), Opel, Isuzu, Hummer, Saab, Cadillac.” I hear you ask: where is the Aero X and all the latest concepts. Zero, nothing, nein!
There is a Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan cabriolet pictured on page 16 together with the rest of GM favorite sons, two minute pictures of the 9-3 Sportkombi and again a cabriolet on page 21, no mention of the 9-5 or its replacement (zilch), an advert on page 51 on the 9-3 and finally the Saab 9-X on page 62 when discussing concepts. That is it gentlemen. This publication is on GM’s century celebrations in Southern Africa and they do not mention one single aota of the technology they have been poaching from Saab and distributing to GM’s other orphans. Every single brand under GM’s fold is given dedicated airtime including who is responsible for what. And Saab – nothing. No wonder South Africans have got no clue what Saab is, let alone that this vehicles are manufactured in Sweden and imported to South Africa. Obviously the monthly sales figures do not lie when they move 3 or 4 vehicles per month in a country with a population of 47 million where the wellheeled are seen driving Porsche, Aston Martin and the brigade of the German trio and VAG and the ever efficient offerings from Subaru, Mazda, Toyota including Lexus and Honda.
Saab in Southern Africa – they are just about as dead or as someone else said the other day, the car which is managed by people with eyes like a fish long dead. I live in fear of being left with an archaic product where we already struggle for service support let alone new product offerings. Swade – if you want a copy – drop me a mail and can Fedex it to you.
This from LLN today:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillacs-jim-taylor-takes-over-hummer.html
“GM has eliminated the general manager positions of its three premium brands, Cadillac, Saab and Hummer.”
The other two general managers of GM’s premium brands will take other positions within Saab and Hummer – likely giving them the same level of responsibilities without the general manager tag as GM tries to streamline its management processes.”
If HUMMER is on its way out, then GM is left with only two premium brands, Cadillac and SAAB. In simple terms that would be excellent news for eliminating brand identity confusion, product overlap, in-fighting, etc. Between the two, SAAB is the only global premium brand of GM. If they still don’t get it in a few years time, then let’s hope SAAB has the right product portfolio to at least reach the magic 175,000 units/yr globally to profit.
SaabKen: Well, it seems like Steve Shannon was the GM of Saab USA less time than it took the Blackhawks to fire Denis Savard, eh. Sorry folks, just thought I’d speak Canadian to SaabKen for a moment there.
I thought Steve Shannon was the President of Saab USA? When did he become “General Manager”? Isn’t “President” higher than “Manager”? For posterity here’s a pic of Steve Shannon, Jan-Willem Vester, and I in happier times (the 2008 9-3 U.S. media debut in Northern Virginia back in August ’07 – note the silver 9-3 at the far right is a pre-production 9-3 Aero w/XWD which was imported especially for our use, then returned to Sweden. It was the first XWD system to set rubber in North America) before I lost weight and shaved my beard/mustache off.
Even if GM wanted to lavish money and attention on Saab, which it clearly doesn’t, there is no longer any money in the kitty for that sort of thing. What to do? Well, there was time when Swedish automakers proudly proclaimed their disdain for frequent design changes. Since Saab has a de-facto ten-year renewal cycle, why not turn a vice into a virtue again and make it the hallmark of the Saab brand? All of the stuff that used to be written to defend Saab & Ovlov’s approach (no $$ wasted on annual cosmetic alterations, greater value retention because older cars didn’t look old, etc. etc.) could once again be front and center.
The less than spectacular roll out of the Turbo X should confirm the fact that Saab would be better off competing against VW, Volvo, and Subaru rather than Mercedes, BMW, or Audi. It would be better off providing rock-solid utility with a lower total cost of ownership. It would be better off recognizing that most folks are driving their Saabs to work or to Ikea rather than navigating icy alpine roads at high speeds.
Saab was born on the cheap in a postwar environment where its parent company was faced with dire economic challenges after years of (presumably) fat defense contracts. It was a marvel, not for its flash, but for the way in which it mingled utility with design in an economical way. I for one would like to see that Saab back, because the alternative may be to have no Saab at all.
Troll96: “no $$ wasted on annual cosmetic alterations, greater value retention because older cars didn’t look old” made me think of this old Saab ad that I just saw today at eggsngrits’ Flickr photostream.
Another advantage of long product cycles is that by the time the car is ten years old there’s very few bugs left undiscovered. It’s “evolved”. You’ve heard, I’m sure, that you should never buy a new car in its first year. Let “early adopters” find all the bugs and have to deal with them. This was particularly evident in the 2003 9-3. While some ’03 9-3s don’t have any more problems than the average new car, some were VERY unreliable. It took until 2005 before most of the major bugs were worked out of the design. Of course, this isn’t something Saab can advertise however, as it would detriment sales of new models in their first year such as the next-gen 9-5 and 9-4X.
Another problem is with long product cycles you can’t keep the price the same or more in Year 10 as you could in Year 1. As the car ages the desirability decreases and the competitors have released two or three generations in the same time you’ve got the same design. Plus, people lease a car and even if they really like it it’s not like they want to lease the exact same model car again when their lease is up.
Your suggestion to compete against VW, Volvo and Subaru is only flawed in that the price of Saabs have to be so much higher than those other marques for the company to make any money on them. Saabs are very expensive to produce, relatively. This is why I remember going to the Saab dealership in the early 90′s, toward the end of the C900 era and being absolutely shocked at the pricetag. No wonder GM had to push Saab to compete as a “luxury” or “premium” car, if only to justify the price point! Does Saab even make any money on the cars it currently sells? They have to sell them at deep discounts and I don’t think Saab has been profitable since before GM took partial ownership back in the 1990. If you can’t sell the cars for more and take a loss on each unit sold, the company’s really going nowhere.
1985 Gripen:
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. That ad sure works for me. On the other point, Saab realistically has to make some changes over a 10-year cycle, but they needn’t be wasted on cosmetics. For example, which is more important to Saab owners: new “eyebrows” and “ice blocks” or lower costs for parts and repairs at dealerships? It may well be true (though an uncomfortable one for Saab) that folks who lease really do want lots of annual changes, and may not truly be in synch with a brand that needs to cultivate life-long buyers based on long-term reliability. Doesn’t it seem paradoxical that the folks who maintain older Saabs often buy them used, while those who are attracted to new Saabs are often leasing them? More new car buyers who keep their cars longer (and maintain them at Saab dealerships) is the ticket to reviving Saab, not a culture based on leasing and independent repair shops.
Though Saab prices in the US are cheap compared to elsewhere, GM would do better to initially offer them for less, but on a no haggle basis. That way, Saabs would depreciate less and not suffer the humiliation of having to be hawked later at USD $5500 discounts just to get rid of unsold inventory. The impact on the bottom line would be positive because the cars would offer more value for money (a Brit phrase, but one I like the sound of.) Longer term, Saab would be wise to relocate its volume car manufacturing to the US, Mexico, Brazil or eastern Europe while keeping Trollhattan as a base for making less price-sensitive higher-end models. On cars similar to the 9-3, VW and Subaru prices are now very close to Saabs actual transaction prices. Plus, it’s easier to market Saabs as the upscale value alternative to VW & Subaru.