Savinelli's Big Big Misstep
- Thread starter shutterbug
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Ferrari! I'm wondering, did Fiat better their image by acquiring 80%+ of the legend? Or, is Ferrari any less a of a marque since it's acquisition by Fiat?
I do believe that there is a bit of obfuscating going on.
I am however, enjoying the entire thread. It's a hoot!
I do believe that there is a bit of obfuscating going on.
I am however, enjoying the entire thread. It's a hoot!
Gee, I sure hope the moderators don't delete this thread. I promise I didn't mean to obfuscate. Heck, I thought I was too old to be doing that anymore anyway.
Pipestud
Guys, there is no right or wrong answer to this question, and that is the point you are missing, with all due respect. Does selling e-cigs degrade the brand in my mind? The answer FOR ME is unequivocally YES. You may feel differently, and that is just as right and just as wrong. Many marketing people for many different companies are paid a great deal of money to protect brand value and think about these issues. Often companies who are worried about cheapening their brand start a whole new brand for the new endeavour to avoid this risk. Savinelli didn't, so they obviously felt there was no risk, or at least the benefit they would generate from marketing e-cigs under the Savinelli name would more than offset the detrimental impact of doing so. I'm not sure I fully understand why they went this route - I would venture to guess that 99.999999% of people who buy e-cigs wouldn't know anything about the Savinelli name or ascribe any value to it, in which case it's hard to see what benefit they envisage from using the brand for their e-cigs. I don't know who is right. I think I am, but then I always do.
Why In God's name would you assume that? The history of business enterprises is lined with the cold corpses of once-vaunted companies who made a strategic error and paid the price.
Stud: It's not illegal yet.
Peck: You are absolutely correct (Consider your opinion validated! Although I do not picture you, if I picture you at all, as seeking validation). It's purely how an individual decides to react to a situation. Still, it is an enjoyable exercise in futility. As long as no one takes it too serious.
Peck: You are absolutely correct (Consider your opinion validated! Although I do not picture you, if I picture you at all, as seeking validation). It's purely how an individual decides to react to a situation. Still, it is an enjoyable exercise in futility. As long as no one takes it too serious.
In some gentle way this comment serves to underscore the point. Note that Fiat didn't start marketing their Fiats as Ferraris? Why? Presumably because they felt that would degrade the brand they just purchased. The fact that Fiat owned Ferrari is not something in the public consciousness - the brand not the ownership chain is what most people focus on.
One example that comes to mind for me is Sony. When I was growing up, Sony was a higher end stereo brand and commanded a premium over rivals. The brand has cheapened over time as the name was used for a variety of other products and low-grade stereo equipment.
I find it really interesting that the members that think it cheapens the brand...are mostly Canadian, and the rest who believe that it doesn't are from other locales. Hmmm...
Shutterbug
Shutterbug
+1
It's very interesting that some find the idea of Savinelli's move as off putting. I think Peck made a good point about the Ferrari brand selling pick up trucks. However, if Ferrari sold upscale SUVs like Mercedes-Benz does, maybe not so much.
In this case, I guess it all depends on one's perception of e-cigs. I don't personally use them, but I don't have a negative association with them, so for me, it doesn't cheapen the brand.
If however Savinelli started selling roach clips with feathers dangling from them...
Do e-cigs have a bad rap in Canada? Or could it have something with how they are marketed or how the news covers them? So much of our perceptions are culturally based, and the media controls the culture to a fair degree.
I grabbed my Savs and sanded off the logo, smoked one right after and didnt smoke any worse so think I caught it in time. I might be the crazy one, the vaule I place in a company is directly reflected on the quality of the product they produce.
I am intersted though in this, a pipe company sells ecigs and it cheapens them. So if a straight ecig company started carving pipes, would that RAISE their company value to you guys?
I am intersted though in this, a pipe company sells ecigs and it cheapens them. So if a straight ecig company started carving pipes, would that RAISE their company value to you guys?
That's a fair question Dervis. To answer it, the first thing I have to do is determine how much value I place on the existing ecig brand/company in question. I have zero brand awareness of ecig brands. The next thing I would do would be to assess the quality of the pipes being produced. If I give my brand awarenes of the ecig company a value of 0, but then give the ecig company's pipes a value of greater than 0; then "yes", an ecig company introducing quality pipes would raise it's brand value and awareness in my own little head/world.
This is probably true. But you also just dramatically reduced any potential re-sale or trade value of this pipe on the estate market. Because buyers in the estate market place value on that little shield with an s.
Interesting questions, Six. I agree totally about cultural bias influencing perception, and likely the personal bias we apply to brand value and perception. Health Canada banned e-cigarettes containing nicotine in 2009. So I don't have much visibility to ecig marketing here in greater Toronto. I don't see them advertised in print, on television, or in traditional "outdoor" marketing spaces (billboards, transit shelters); I've also never heard an ecig ad on the radio. You can understand how this scenario can create a pretty limited view compared to the visibility, market and reach of ecigs in other places.
Using Dunhill as a case study is very interesting to me, as I smoked Dunhill King Size cigarettes for over a decade. I always enjoyed their flavour, and felt like I was smoking a premium cigarette. Why a premium cigarette? Because they were harder to find, tasted better, were branded exceedingly well, and were sold at a premium retail price versus more mainstream cigarettes. I also had NO IDEA at that point that they had such a long history in pipes. What can I say? I was a cigarette guy then. When I began smoking pipes and diving into the hobby, it was no surprise to me that Dunhill was so well regarded, given my brand experience with them in cigarettes.
This all to say, that a brand relationship is personal. It is based on cultural, media and personal bias; and while function, form and longevity all play in to the value we place on brands, expecting that value to be universally agreed upon might be a bit of a stretch.
$0.05 in the bucket.
-- Pat
Ferrari or Fiat?
Either is fine by me.
Can't we all just be happy 'lil bugeye sprites?
But seriously,
I'll take Pat's nickel to the bank,
very well said sir.
- Status